If they were going to implement it in TBCC I don’t think it would really fit in any particular phase patch. It’s either worth adding or not, in which case if they came to that decision I’m sure they’d just plug it in.
I personally see it as significant that they haven’t added it yet, because it indicates they haven’t yet seen a good enough argument to add it.
Not wanting dual-spec seems like an elitist/purist variant of gatekeeping.
Sure, but the issue here is you aren’t the end-all-be-all for what constitutes bad reasoning, so pointing out reasoning as bad is arbitrary, because to me or others, a certain reason is not bad. You can basically use this as an argument to justify invalidating any other persons’ arguments. You’re basically saying here “your argument is wrong, and mine is right”, which is…yeah. Pointless.
Sure.
It is my opinion that lack of dual spec is an inherent trait to the TBC experience no less inherent than TK/SSC being our T5 raids.
Do you think there’s a likelihood that they could give us mythic T5? Maybe some affixes to make raiding more fun? How about adding new loot drops for better itemization?
I would argue that the chances of this are quite slim to none. This is where dual spec falls for me. It is a feature that runs the extreme of being similar to a complete identity change for the expansion we’re all here to play.
I don’t --think-- that Blizzard plans to completely warp the identity of the expansion to the point of unrecognizability, whether dual spec truly is significant or not as a change.
Ughhhhh… bad reasoning means you are using bad logic, as in you’re violating fundamental rules of reasoning. You’re making non sequitur claims and other formal fallacies. A lot of things that are RHETORICALLY appealing are completely and utterly BAD REASONING.
…that is how debates work. If you try to argue the position that 2+2 = 5 and I argue the position that 2+2 = 4, you are wrong, and I am right.
You do realize that you’ve tried to point things out as:
And you’re now arguing that opinions and reasoning can’t be falsified?
/boggle
Either you don’t understand what any of this means or you’re deliberately being a hypocrite and engaging in special pleading (which is another formal fallacy).
No, that would require not only a Heroic T5, complete with updated tuning and reward, but a Mythic T5 with its own updated tuning and reward, which is even more extensive than Heroic. Heroic Hydross would be likely just more health and more damage, possibly quicker timers. Mythic Hydross would have the adds leave puddles behind after death that persist the entire fight, necessitating very finely tuned movements when swapping between Pure and Poison, along with increased health/damage, as just a possible example.
That’s a tremendous amount of in-game tuning and balancing that has knock-on effects for all of the remaining content. Normal Hyjal would need to be boosted a bit more in ilvl lest it be overwhelmed by Heroic SSC loot, and Hyjal and BT both would need their own staggered tiers of difficulty, new tuning, new mechanics, and new loot. Oh and then there is the Mythic-only stuff that Blizzard often likes putting in place, which would be appropriate in either T5 or T6 raids.
So no, highly unlikely.
That you liken Dual Spec, a feature that offers no combat power and requires no tuning considerations whatsoever, to adding MYTHIC changes to a game that has yet to see Heroic raiding tells me you have a fundamental inability to make honest comparisons.
This is where your opinion falls under the “wrong” category. You’re engaging in special pleading by treating very unlike things as alike to come to an absurd conclusion.
Lmao, so your argument is basically:
“Your opinion and all the reasons you have it are objectively wrong because I disagree”
So there’s no point to debating anything with you, since it’s literally impossible for someone having a non-you opinion to be correct.
One day you might find the humility within to realize how flawed your perspective is but, it’s not really my business.
Nobody is arguing 2+2 = 5. There’s no mathematical reference to objective wrongness present here. You simply think it’s wrong because it’s your opinion that it is, but newsflash, you opinion isn’t any more special than anyone else’s opinion.
Now you’re plain getting in to bad quotation habits like another certain Druid.
It is empirically proven that, during TBC, they intentionally didn’t want dual spec.
You can make the argument that how they felt then is irrelevant to how they should or do feel now, 100% that’s your prerogative, and fair enough.
However, the quote is verifiable, completely objective proof of the stated purpose of the topic which is this:
Reminder: Blizzard was explicitly against dual spec being in TBC
The blue reference, is a 100% objective evidence as to why the literal topic title is not falsifiable, and is instead, just fact.
The argument we need to have is whether or not Blizzard cares or not about what the intentions were then. I think ultimately that is where the bread is.
You think it doesn’t matter.
I think it does.
*shrug
This is has been his MO from the get-go. Reminds me of everything I hate about mainstream journalism.
State an opinion as objective. When challenged, redefine “objective” as other opinions and say everyone is entitled to them. When challenged further, implicitly attack the person. When person fights back, play the victim.
Are you stating that as an objective truth or is that just your opinion?
So your saying he is a lier for providing a source that showed the blizzard devs of tbc did not want dual spec?
Giving citation of evidence is now a lie…wow…
Yeah I’m lost here Red-man. How do you rationalize with the irrational?
lol
There you go lying again.
This isn’t my argument. I said it very plainly too, so the fact that you just created this out of thin air is just sad, especially since you could just as easily quote me saying this if I was so blatant.
You are a very dishonest person.
You’re missing the point, by a mile, which is reinforcing my earlier point that you don’t read what is there, but what you want to argue against.
You claimed this:
This is a claim that says that reasoning is merely a matter of perspective, subjective, and not beholden to anything objective.
In this thread you’ve relied upon something you called:
For anything to be empirical, it needs to have a grounding in objective fact and be capable of testing. This is objective, rigid, and not subject to whim or subjectivity.
So you’ve now created an incompatible set of claims:
You are simultaneously arguing that YOUR reasoning cannot be falsified or proven wrong because it is a matter of arbitrary subjectivity, while also stating that YOUR reasoning is supported by objective empirical facts.
You either do not know what any of this means or you are deliberately engaging in special pleading, which is a fallacy, just to attempt to win an argument. This makes you either incompetent or perverse. Pick.
This is why you are actually toxic to these forums. You cannot actually make a cogent argument because you slip between truth being objective or subjective on a whim. Rules you apply to us, you don’t apply to yourself. Others can be contradicted, but you cannot be.
You are fundamentally dishonest.
Accurate summary.
https://preview.redd.it/uon4smwpqbf01.jpg?auto=webp&s=9332d2d72ece276e6fb01be6de07375836dcb800
Nobody buys for a second you’re in any way being respectful to anyone you talk with. At all.
It is amusing that they have the reflex of cry-bullying down pat.
I can’t wait to see what my statements get warped into on the next reply. They never actually quote when something is wrong, they summarize without citation/quotation…
Telling. And funny, especially with all the grief they gave you for quoting a piece and acting utterly wounded.
[Posts longwinded diatribe probably consisting of lessons on debate theory he doesn’t even properly apply to himself, that can mostly be classified as simply off-topic or at the very least a gigantic distraction from the actual point: we don’t have dual spec, and it’s probably not likely we will get it at this point]
[Posts completely inane nonsense that doesn’t contribute to the topic, focuses entire identity on trying to demean or discredit the actual poster without actually addressing the points, done usually by isolating words in quotes and retro-fitting the context to suit his narrative]
Alright kids, I think I’m good. You can lead a horse to water but…can’t make ya drink.
Bwahahahahahaha
“Ur just WRONG and if you keep this up imma tell TEACHER”
Don’t self-own so handily next time.
The topic is:
This statement is wrong. Faulty reasoning leads to terrible conclusions and while it has been discussed why this reasoning is faulty, Zipzo would rather claim victim and lie about anyone that contradicts.
The topic itself is a troll.
Nice, so I see a complaint about “main stream journalism” and now a meme with Jordan Peterson as the voice of reason.
I think I know why this discussion has no ability to go anywhere. Lol, but that certainly is an off-topic place to go.
No one said he was a voice of reason… holy crap do you know how memes work?!?
/headdesk
No wonder you’re confused… the internet is too much for you.
Don’t even lie, you love Jordan Peterson. He’s probably your idol. Haha, it all makes sense now.
Which he does in the very next comment! 
We have enough of a post history from you to plainly show without any certain doubt that your opinions exist very much to be ignored…
Pretty disgusting trail you’ve left there, pal…
That’s pretty circular.