There was probably a lot of discussion around the compatibility of the feature with the game at the time in terms of design objectives as well, whether they even wanted to implement the feature was likely hotly debated. The timing could well have been impacted by things other than development too.
If we take the view some have put forward, then dual spec took almost as long to develop as the whole WoTLK expansion - seems a stretch.
I think the comments from the devs and community managers at the time are informative though - and should be influential in this discussion as the arguments around whether TBC should or shouldn’t have a dual spec feature are roughly the same now as they were then.
But then … hubris is something that only affects old people hahaha… ha … ughh
You’re right, in a discussion based on trying to identify intentions for a thing that literally nobody knows for certain, making inferences or educated guesses should be BANNED.
Well, if we should get dual spec because some changes have already happened, by that logic we should get artifact weapons in tbc to help us fight the burning legion. And garrisons because we are in outlands.
Let’s also add death knights, monks, and demon hunters, because why not?
But ya, it’s funny that they think having a different opinion is a lie, lol.
I’m drunk right now. I read it, but it still doesn’t make sense to me. I’m an English Major, so even while drunk, my judgement is still keen. So going to assume this is just more nonsense.
You’re in T4, Zipzo. I would raid with you since you seem to know what you’re doing.
But you’re schizophrenic. I probably wouldn’t wanna converse with you in real life for too long.
I don’t. I think #somechanges should extend to fixing toxic behavior or at best implementing solutions that were technically limited to at the time. The whole point of releasing classic from the beginning was to have an old version of the game. That has certainly shifted over the course of Classic, but that core theme shouldn’t be ignored because we’ve tossed the idea of no changes out the door.
WBuffs is a good example of solving toxic behavior that didn’t exist in Vanilla. There was also a fix they made for TBC (I can’t remember what) because they literally didn’t have the technical ability back then, but wanted to do it. Demand for dual spec boils down to people playing an old version of the game and not liking how the old version of the game works. It doesn’t have the toxic problems WBuffs had and it wasn’t a technical limitation of the game.
#somechanges isn’t something that should just be thrown around because we don’t like the way the game works. It should be used sparingly to fix real issues that if left alone will create harmful/toxic gameplay. Dual Spec doesn’t fit that bill, if you’re going to start making changes to the game solely because you don’t like the way the game was designed then it’s really not some changes anymore, it’s whatever changes I want.
Yep I think that people are conflating the argument that:
The existence of #somechanges means that this change is open to discussion.
With:
The existence of #somechanges means that this change should happen.
It is open to discussion. But it is far from clear that it is a change that “should” happen.
I have personally put forward the model I think would be appropriate for defining appropriate scope for changes such that we can have sensible discussion as to whether this change meets that criteria.
That model is - does the change fix a bug, or address and unintended consequence of a feature, or address an issue that is prevalent now but wasn’t originally?
I think I have been able to demonstrate that Dual spec does not meet any of those criteria.
I accept that those for dual spec may reject my criteria - so I challenge them to come up with a better model.
Currently all I have from the pro dual spec side as a criteria for change is this:
Must improve the game.
Must be popular.
Both of these are very vague criteria - not sufficient to create a workable model to discuss which changes are acceptable and which are not.
I brought my tbcc main on a few times from requests, but when people instantly dismissed it anyway I no longer see the point of doing so.
Just know I have a lvl 70 hunter that cleared naxx before prepatch and I have cleared all current content as well.
Haven’t finished all the quests yet because I have been fighting my computer though.
Screen keeps losing signal when gaming and makes me restart computer…
I’ve changed monitors, cables, reinstalled all drivers, did a full reinstall… I am going to try replacing the graphics card soon when I can get my old one out in, but it shouldn’t be the issue seeing as the graphics card hasn’t even been in use for 6 months and the hardest thing it’s ran is wow tbc when it can handle today’s new high graphics games just fine lol.
Define popular? How many likes is popular vs unpopular?
Define an improvement to the game such that it is universally accepted as an improvement and such that its’ expected results can be demonstrated?
They are subjective, yes, but also vague undefined concepts.
For instance, I don’t accept that making individuals more self sufficient by allowing multiple specs improves the game. It removes some reliance from others making it less MMO like. That to me is not an improvement.
I don’t accept that the feature is popular enough as there hasn’t been proper metrics defined and tested about what players think of the suggested change and whether they prefer alternatives.
I also don’t think the criteria of popularity and “improvement” sufficiently account for the maintenance of TBC classics identity as a recreation of TBC.
As for improvement, for example dual spec would allow me to tank/heal in dungeons and raids then do some pvp or open world in a more fun spec without spending excessive amounts of time farming for those is not vague. It is very specific and well defined as to exactly how it improves their game play.
You view not having to farm at all as a good thing.
I view it as making the world less populated because you won’t be doing any dailies, removing a content grind when the expansion is already seeing people leave because they are out of content, and moving away from the origional design goals set be tbc devs.
Of course if dual spec was added there would be nothing stopping you from farming if you love it so much.
And how it worked out in the real world is people just played less, because for some reason farming longer than you would spend in some other spec is a waste of time for most people.
This is why “does it improve the game” is, in my view, a poor criteria. Because it is not at all clear wether something does actually improve the game or detract from it.
Most people here - including dual spec advocates - think TBC classic is better than retail in most regards (gauging from the comments). However, retail is Blizzards attempt to created the best version of WoW ever to date. It is the result of many attempts to “improve the game” over many years. It’s very clear that not everyone thinks the game is an improvement.
I personally want more from a change criteria for TBC classic than “it’ll improve the game”.
Blizzard could always go the route of polling like OSR went where they needed something like 75% majority for a change to be implemented, but the point of Classic was never about making a better version of the game. It was “Retail sucks, I want classic”
If we want to go down that route I’d rather the game go through an iteration of Classic before just doing whatever we want.
I agree. To my thinking, maintaining (as much as reasonably possible) the identity of TBC should be a core criteria. Retail is Blizzards attempt to make the best wow possible.
