"The question used to be, why don’t we have a way to keep a spec for PvE and PvP? And to a lesser extent, wouldn’t it be great if I could swap roles with my hybrid if needed without having to hearth and make everyone wait on me?
Those are the specific reasons for why we agreed with the sentiment of those questions, and dual spec now exists in the game. It’s great (kind of) that some people have found uses for it outside of that, having two slightly variant builds of the same spec for different situations, however, it’s not our intent with multiple specs to encourage that type of gameplay, and thus it’s not our intent to offer tri or quad or quint, etc. specs.
Obviously having an array of possible specs to choose from would be convenient for any number of reasons, but it would also encourage situations where people are using it to shift their builds around for each individual encounter or task. Those are the kinds of options that quickly stop being options, and instead become a requirement. And as they become a requirement our necessity to design and balance around it changes it from a nice convenience option to a core piece of the game design puzzle."
That’s… not a problem. That’s entirely understandable.
Very terrible.
You’d have people very very disappointed that they permanently locked themselves out of playing the game and we’d see a tremendous amount of rerolling and leveling. Folks would have figured out the boosting stuff much sooner than Classic as well.
Then you’ve been arguing in bad faith. If your position is an unyielding “No-changes”, then why even try to justify the position with excuses?
Just say “No-changes” if that’s the only reason you care about. Why waste everyone’s time reading a bunch of excuses that don’t matter to you?
It’s like someone trying to argue the existence of the Easter Bunny. They give you all these reasons and once debunked they just say “I don’t care, I believe in the Easter Bunny.” It’s just a waste of everyone’s time.
Just for the record, I’m open to all sorts of alterations or compromises. I’ve already talked about the possibility of the following:
Giving Dual Spec a cooldown. 30 minutes to an hour seems like it would alleviate a lot of the “issues” people have with it.
Increasing the cost.
Locking your spec to your raid ID.
and so on. Ultimately your position is one of “I don’t care if 99.99% of people want it and it would fix all the problems with the game, #NoChanges.” Am I correct?
Using a made up 99% figure doesn’t strengthen your argument either.
Also…I’ve explained countless reasons beyond purist arguments why I don’t want dual spec, but either way, it doesn’t make the no changes position any less valid. In fact, it’s kind of an inaccurate name. The stance is more like “no more changes”.
If 99% of the playerbase wanted Dual Spec and there was some irrefutable proof that it would fix a large number of issues with the game, would you refuse to accept it on the basis of #NoChanges?
In the end reality mimics our idealistic direction in it’s current state. You’ll have to reconcile with that until they turn the heel at some point.
Since the game currently doesn’t have dual spec, I could really give two bootys what you think about our “argument”. You’re the one that has to decide whether it’s worth playing without dual spec or not, not me. Im just fine the way things are.
Prove to me that 99% of players want dual spec before you can even make this hypothetical. Your post with likes nor any of the polls you’ve shared indicate such a figure is even close to possible.
If there were 100 people in a room including myself, and I was the one single 100th person in that room against dual spec, then I’d probably just fall in line and let it slide.
However, if I was 1 of 10 people, out of that 100 who didn’t want dual spec. I’d probably continue to argue reasons why TBC shouldn’t have it.
I don’t think you’re actually reading anything I’m saying. I guess it does make it easier to pwn people when you imagine they say what you want them to.
There are multiple reasons including the proposition that TBC shouldn’t be further changed.
If you told me 3 changes were going to happen, but I could pick 3 out of a selection of like 4 different changes myself to be the ones to implement, and dual spec was one of those options, there is a high likelihood dual spec would be the odd-man-out. For reasons that have been explained ad nauseam.
Whatever you say…my reasons for not wanting dual spec are exactly the same as they’ve always been and I’ve never suggested otherwise…*
When have I ever said I don’t agree the purist line of thought? I’m pretty sure I’ve been quite clear that I believe in as little variation as possible from the original TBC. Like am I in crazy town? I’m pretty sure I’ve said that countless times.
Because the reality is we’re forced to reconcile with the fact changes have been made so far, and when we say “no changes” we get you and your ilk acting like smart asses who come in to say “oh well they already did this or that so the no changes ship sailed” as if we aren’t aware that changes have been made.
So we had to adapt the phrase to more accurately reflect what we’d like so you can’t be pedants every time we say it.
I don’t think this is difficult to process. It’s not bad faith, it’s simply tailoring the phrase to your delicate sensibilities that we don’t get the same constant non-rebuttals continuously that serve no other purpose than to be pedantic.
before you can even make this hypothetical. Your post with likes nor any of the polls you’ve shared indicate such a figure is even close to possible.
