It took 6 months of the dual spec argument to finally figure this out. Congrats.
1 Like
Uhhhhhh
What?
Respeccing literally takes gold OUT of the economy.
Thats cool, but in actual fact no one wants to do that so they just sit on what gold they have, and go pvp spec once a week between raids, and log off otherwise.
1 Like
It was added in wotlk, which is fine for wotlkc.
The problem is this is tbcc. It’s supposed to resemble tbc, and dual spec was a big change in how players treated spec identity, how often they changed specs, exc. There was a lot of changes in design intention goals from tbc to wotlk, and I want tbcc to at least try to respect the clear design goals in terms of dual spec when they outright said no to it and gave their reasons of design intentions for why it was a no.
A wotlk version of dual spec goes against the design intentions of tbc. It could be modified to be more in line with tbc design goals by being more restrictive, like an instanced pvp only dual spec, but a wotlk dual spec goes directly against what tbcc is trying to be.
3 Likes
So what is the original design intent for TBC? You have zero idea. Nobody knows but the devs who worked on it. You keep spewing this nonsense because of your argumentative nature, but you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
This also isn’t original TBC, design intent is out the window and is completely irrelevant at this point.
Actually we have direct quotes.
Go look there.
Tbc design intent does matter because this game is advertised as a CLASSIC that is trying to replicate tbc experience by being a faithful recreation of tbc. Evidence of this is here
“Burning Crusade Classic is a faithful recreation of the original release of World of Warcraft®: The Burning Crusade®”
I’m not using my words to argue my case, in using blizzards own words. And it’s their game.
1 Like
There’s also evidence that ‘keeping it authentic’ point is invalid. The massive amount of changes to TBCC should show you that. Anything said prior to the first change made is now irrelevant.
Imagine eating pizza with a fork and someone tries to tell you that it wasn’t designed to be eaten that way. Who gives a crap.
1 Like
So you’re saying, one bad change justifies other bad changes?
That’s not how it works.
3 Likes
Ah, there it is. Back to your stupid #nochanges roots. You’re not just against dual spec, you’re just against anything, regardless of how it would benefit the game at all. Trolling since classic, wonder what you’ll be trolling about in wrath.
Each change made needs to be made based on its own merits.
And I am not no changes. I am against changes that go directly against the design intentions of tbc for tbcc changes.
We have a clear NO and example of tbc design intentions on dual spec.
Other changes they have made was in a gray area of design intentions, or was just a bad change. But all changes made so far were not made because “it would be more fun”
Blizzard gave reasons for previuse changes, none of them were made purely for “fun”.
i wish we had dual spec more than any other QoL change. especially for classic like druid and pally that can play all the roles.
And you will have it in wotlkc, and maybe tbcc season of mastery.
But it doesn’t belong in tbcc. There’s clear evidence it goes against the emdesign goal inte tions of tbc.
yet at the same time they said
Patrick Dawson: “No changes” being our guiding principle for WoW Classic made it very easy to make decisions on it. We just went to the reference client and went to that. But one thing we learned as we went through the release of the content in Classic is that [no changes] may not always be in the best interest of the players. Putting back in things like spell batching made the game feel a little less crisp. It was authentic, but it’s not what modern players want. The community today is so different from what the community was back in 2007 that it had us take a different philosophy with Burning Crusade, where we actually started to allow ourselves to make some changes that were in the best interests of the players that will continue to develop alongside the community.
What you think is a “faithful recreation” isn’t what blizzard thinks is a faithful recreation.
1 Like
Dual spec just won’t change the tank shortage. Why? Because at this point there’s no reason to do anything but raid. Everyone has hundreds of badges, dozens of nethers, thousands of gold, and the gear sucks in heroics.
There aren’t enough new players and alts to keep that content worth doing. Removing the attunements make them even less worthwhile.
Really, well on the topic of dual spec, they seem to agree with no dual spec over having dual spec, Co sidering we are a few weeks away from phase 3, and there’s still no dual spec.
Facts currently show no dual spec in tbcc. Facts currently show they have shown no intention of adding dual spec to tbcc. Facts show these things, but even then, you don’t want the facts to get in the way if your agenda.
1 Like
That’s what everyone told me on the multiboxing threads. That’s what some people said on the threads asking for something to change to deal with dead or dying realms. Some said blizzard will never allow free transfers because they make too much money off transfer fees. Usually blizzard never says anything until they announce the change. But I don’t care about any one’s prediction. I argue for the things I want and that I think will improve the game and don’t care at all if someone thinks it futile. That’s not an argument against dual spec. It’s an argument telling us to shut up. And since you have been proven to lie constantly and few trust you anymore your last resort is to try to get us to shut up.
Yes because blizzard never makes changes late into content, oh wait chronoboom which was a significantly bigger change than dual spec in both game impact and development as it was completely new.
Whattya mean “we” whiteman?
I for one want none of those things
1 Like
Definition of we
1 : I and the rest of a group that includes me : you and I : you and I and another or others : I and another or others not including you —used as pronoun of the first person plural
I think the definition in use in this case would be, “I and another or others not including you.” See how a dictionary can help you understand the English language?
No I understand… It was more of a “Royal We” as in… he was only speaking for himself.