Except it won’t be dead. As we’ve already established: nobody is quitting over lack of dual spec.
Since nothing changes either way, it’s irrelevant how you feel about the “health” of having it. It simply wasn’t a thing in TBC.
5 Likes
not having duel spec and other later added features is not a bug
5 Likes
We established that Blizzard tends to makes changes based on the feedback from the questionnaire when people unsubscribe. When enough people are unsubscribing for the same reason, Blizzard will “probably” make a change to the game.
But there have literally been millions of people who have unsubscribed for probably dozens or hundreds of different reasons. Blizzard isn’t going to make a change for every whiner who unsubscribes.
So no, we didn’t establish that “nobody is quitting over lack of dual spec”… In fact, if you have millions of people who have unsubscribed, it is like rule 34 when it comes to their reasons, if you can think of it, someone has already unsubscribed for that reason.
The health of a game is independent of whether I think it should be healthy. Either the game is healthy, or it isn’t.
The game is not healthy right now, and everyone knows it.
You said people wanted the game “imperfections and all”. No, no one wanted bugs, and no one wanted imperfections either.
People accepted imperfections because no one could agree on what was “imperfect”, and no one trusted Blizzard. But some of the imperfections became so obnoxious that virtually everyone demanded a change.
This thread seems to serve as reasonable evidence that it isn’t.
The forums aren’t exactly a representative sample of the playerbase. It is all trolls, nolifes, and people mad about something.
They’re as representative a sample as we have. Some people have cited followers of someone’s twitter account as a sample.
Ad hominem doesn’t serve as evidence.
3 Likes
It wasn’t an ad hominem, it was an observation. Do you disagree with it?
I mean, you might want to look it up before you claim it wasn’t.
Well, since you seem to value things that are meaningless, how about deferring to authority, and realizing that my thousands upon thousands of posts more than you shows that I have much more experience with these forums.
Would you like another meaningless flex that proves nothing, and also avoids contributing to the actual topic, but does focus on character?
Post a link. Since you have more than 1000 posts, you must be trust level 3 by now, right? Unless you’ve been banned for something.
1 Like
You are making some pretty bold universal statements based on anecdotal evidence and possibly the forums which you then claim:
Where did you collect this information if not the forums for statements like “no one wanted imperfections” or “virtually everyone demanded a change” or “no one trusted Blizzard?”
Or are you just drawing upon a source as evidence for your conclusions and then dismissing it as soon as it contradicts your premises?
4 Likes
Ad Hominem - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining… in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining… in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.
1 Like
Glad you were able to find a reference (even if you weren’t able to link it).
Care to double down on this not being ad hominem?
1 Like
My quote was not a personal attack, nor was it about a person rather than about the position they were taking.
You claimed that this thread is a representative sample of the playerbase. I said it wasn’t representative because the forums are all trolls, nolifes, and people mad about something.
It was not an ad hominem, and it wasn’t directed at anyone.
What percentage of the playerbase wants a buggy game? What percentage of the playerbase wanted to play Classic because it was buggy?
This forum doesn’t have to be a rigorous sample to disprove or negate an absurd universal statement based on conjecture like “with near universal approval.”
All you would need are a few counter-examples, and this forum and thread specifically have proven that there are many such counter-examples.
Yeah, I mean, kinda reminds me of a certain portion of people who are mad about something not being in the game even though it never was and shouldn’t ever be…lol
1 Like
Way to double down.
“Troll” is not a personal attack?
“nolife” is not a personal attack?
“people mad about something” is not a personal attack?
It is definitely ad hominem. When you become a bit better acquainted with ideas, and the words that describe them, you might start to realize that while a dictionary’s aim to to attempt to provide definitions of words as they are used in common parlance at the time that dictionary’s definition is published, they do not dictate the meanings in usage.
“Ad hominem” is used to avoid the topic, and rather shift the attention to character. Something similar with what I am doing when I am pointing out that you not only have several thousands of posts less than me, and obviously much less of a valid opinion on the forums, but also that you do not have trust level 3, which you probably should considering that you are not new here, and have over a thousand posts.
Do you honestly believe that this is an accurate statement? I feel like either your reading comprehension could use some work, or you’re purposely trolling.
This is the actual wording that I used (and you don’t have to scroll up very far to see it):
That’s an interesting opinion, after having cited a definition. 
There’s no real excuse at this point.
1 Like
I’m not the OP and I never claimed any of that. I did claim that “no one” wants to play buggy games. Which is somehow a controversial statement.
As someone else has already mentioned, not having QOL features from future expansions isn’t “buggy” or “a bug.”
Also I am highly skeptical of statements like:
since the WoW playerbase have never all virtually agreed on anything in over 17 years.
1 Like
If you claim McDonalds is representative of the average American. And I say everyone at McDonalds is poor and fat. That is not an ad hominem.
Go to Reddit and link our conversation and ask them. I’m not going to argue with you all day about it.