Yeah, they should revert that and NOT damage TBC Classic’s authenticity even more with needless changes such as Dual spec.
At least arguing #nochanges is an honest opinion, albeit an invalid one at this point.
Unlike the people making up blatant lies about dual spec.
1 Like
Oof, when you put that much effort in to a steel-man and not only miss the mark but then spend a vast majority of the latter portion of it it trying to invalidate the points you made up…that whole post is a disaster.
I don’t even know what this even means, and if I don’t even understand what it means, it probably isn’t part of my argument.
Well, it’s more that I think TBCC should be treated like TBC. It’s not relegated specifically to character-issues.
I…do not think this at all. The changes absolutely do have a bearing on investment. For example, changing Drums made it so LW wasn’t as nearly universally appropriate as a profession choice. Utterly the opposite of what I think, and it’s not related to how I feel about dual spec either. Wow, you missed the mark on this one big time.
It violates what TBC should be, again as a correction to your latter claim similar to your mischaracterization in point #3.
Your point 6 is pretty much the only point that had to be drawn from subjective observation of my arguments that you actually got right. You’re 3 for 7, with 2 of the correct ones being inferences based on claims based off an objective quote from Blizzard. If we remove those obvious ones from your tally, you’re 1-7. Hardly a claim to victory for you.
Personally, if you can’t even properly restate someone’s argument, probably shouldn’t act like you’ve asserted any dominance on the topic.
To be fair the position is #nomorechanges. That is not an invalid position. You can easily justify not supporting further changes on the basis that you believe the games identity is worth preserving.
All you need to do is argue that the game still has a distinct identity and that it is worth preserving.
The position that the existence of changes invalidates a case for preventing further changes is fairly baseless imo.
That was a long winded way of explaining that I think you’ve fallen for the sunk cost fallacy.
1 Like
This is a good point. People have been putting forward that they simply didn’t prioritise it - assumption being that it was a low priority item.
That argument is a big stretch imo. It was a massively popular feature requested for years. It was so popular that they even gave it a bit of fanfare when they finally did release it. Add to this that we have documented history of discussions about respec costs and such which show that the devs believed that it was fair - in TBC. Discussions that even itemised why they wanted changing spec to be a little inconvenient in TBC.
It is possible but highly implausible IMO that they waited until a couple of months after WoTLK to release Dual spec because they just didn’t get around to it. It seems more plausible to me that they thought it was an impactful change and they wanted to gauge how well the previous class rebalancing performed live first.
If you think a change has balance implications it is important to establish a baseline. That baseline had not been established as the classes were completely rejigged at WoTLK launch. They waited a few months to see how it played in the first tier of raiding and Arena. Then they had a baseline to release the other big change - dual spec. They could then assess balance impacts without the white noise of untested in live class changes. That is the kind of rationale I think would have happened. That to me is plausible.
The assertion that Dual spec was a small insignificant simple qol with no balance impact concern seems highly dubious given the comments Blizzard themselves were making about respecialisation and dual spec at the time. It’s also incredibly convenient for those who support dual spec to push the line that it is a simple qol change with no possible balance implications. It is unknown what the balance implications are in TBC - it’s untested. But talents are not an inconsequential small qol competent of the game and wotlk is not a good testing ground for TBC changes.
“They didn’t get around to it” sounds like the simplest explanation on the face of it when taken in isolation - unless you follow the discussions around the issue at the time - then in light of that evidence it becomes implausible. That’s why the historical quotes are important, they provide important context for the justifications around the feature and respeccing at the time, a long with establishing that the feature didn’t pop up in a vacuum, it was a highly discussed and polarising issue of the time.
1 Like
Why would they do that when they stated their policy was #SomeChanges.
Holly Longdale who is the Lead Producer for TBC Classic stated this was the way they were going moving forward. They are not going to backtrack on any of this.
This is TBC Classic.
This is the way.
Furthermore why anything Ghostcrawler says or doesn’t say about the game today is irrelevant. Blizzard is not beholden to Greg Street.
In a way, they are beholden to the players considering that’s who is paying for their games. And not just one player but most of them.
Delimicus’s poll thread would indicate that Dual Spec is something that would add more value to the game and keep more subscribers locked in while potentially drawing in re-subscribers and even new subscribers.
Technically, name calling is considered “inappropriate” rather than trolling.
This phrasing is almost guaranteed disingenuous.
The timeline of acknowledging dual spec desire (June 2008) and actual implementation of Dual Spec (April of 2009) doesn’t line up with the amount of work it would have been to implement the solution they came up with. GC’s exact phrasing is “We are working on a plan” with no specifics on what that is which roughly translates to “We’re talking about it, but we don’t know how we’re going to do this”
It may be interesting to ask GC sometime if he remembers what the rough process was for dual spec creation/implementation, but I’d eat my tier helm if they actually had a concrete dual spec design in 2008 and then it took them almost a year to implement it on a technical level. More than likely there was a ton of debate about what the system should actually look like rather than actual implementation of it.
Regardless clearly this wasn’t a hot button issue for them if it took them that long to put it in the game. If it actually was truly that pressing of an issue they would have rolled it out sooner.
1 Like
Meanwhile boosts and bots.
On principle, I never call anyone a troll…
I usually just use this picture: 
It doesn’t matter, dude. Greg Street no longer works for them. We are in a #SomeChanges state of the game right now. Which means all bets are off. Blizzard gonna do what Blizzard gonna do.
Acknowledging is a little different than flat out stating we are working on something 
you know what they actually said.
Hey word is “said.” Past tense.
Fasc is right, what they “said” is no longer relevant.
We are working on a plan is a little different than acknowledging.
Ziryus, who is your main? Why don’t you ever post on him?
Just curious because you seem fairly passionate, but it’d be nice to see your TBC character who’d benefit from this.
I kept the initial point brief in explaining the timeline and then, in the exact same paragraph, expanded on what that interaction was.
Let me know if you need me to walk you through anything else.
Ironically my alts would benefit more at this point.
1 Like
Nice beard!