With near universal approval can we get a response about dual spec please

[Fasc-atiesh]

ooooOOOOOOOOOooooo

[Tiekfu-hyjal (Tiekfu)]

just remove or drastically lower the cost of a respec. that would be enough for me.

[Breadisfunny-atiesh]

tbc as it was was not designed around dual spec. it was designed as an answer to complaints on the forums to vanilla. rep taking a long time to acquire so it was made a bit easier and able to be done in dungeons and through easy siginia drops off mobs instead of the material drops that had a low % drop or required gathering professions. 40 man raids took a long time to organize so instead they shifted to 25 man and 10mans and dropped 40mans. badges were introduced to address issues with loot taking a long time to acquire. heoric dungeons now dropped epic loot pieces. attunements were made slightly less time consuming. gold was made more plentiful in the form of dailies in 2.4 sunwell dailies. leveling grind was reduced for levels 1-60. a lot of mobs had their elite status removed in bc’s old world. mount requirement was lowered from 40-30. bc is a compromise between vanilla and the casual friendly atmosphere of wrath. it is not as hardcore as vanilla was but is not as accomidating as wrath is. it still punishes you for mistakes though not as harshly. it is an expansion of compromise.

[Fasc-atiesh]

@Breadisfunny-atiesh

tbc as it was was not designed around dual spec.

Nor was WotLK or Cata.

[Kumasama-westfall]

@Zipzo-atiesh

people wanting a change doesn’t therein justify adding it

Yeah, people wanting WoW Classic or TBC Classic when Retail exists doesn’t justify adding those either, and…

…Oh, wait!

@Zipzo-atiesh

this could be used to justify literally any change

Absolutely. Like Druid Energy, for example. Or tinnitus debuff. Or Seal of the Martyr. Etc.

@Zipzo-atiesh

thus invalid as an argument for a change to a “faithful recreation”

#SomeChanges

@Zipzo-atiesh

Which has also been dismantled over, and over, and over

Has not. Same argument you use to dismantle has no merit and we’ve told you that over and over and over.

@Zipzo-atiesh

By saying the feature is optional, you are outright admitting the change in and of itself is optional.

Which was just answered by Fasc:

@Fasc-atiesh

A change to PvE content isn’t optional since it removes the previous PvE content in exchange for different new PvE content. PvE itself is only kind of optional in this game since you have to level and do a host of PvE things to even build up a character, but a change to a raid or raid boss or class balancing would not be optional like Dual Spec.

Dual Spec is more akin to buying bank slots, getting an epic mount over a normal mount, spending dumb amounts of gold on vanity pets/tabards, etc. Trying to liken Dual Spec to every other change while simultaneously arguing other changes are fine to leave in but Dual Spec is a step too far is just… asinine.

But, because you are extremely selective in reading anything, you ignore what we tell you and instead try to trap people into agreeing with your point of view instead.

@Zipzo-atiesh

the spirit of a faithful recreation.

A statement which directly contradicts your previous statement that

@Zipzo-atiesh

this could be used to justify literally any change and is thus invalid as an argument for a change to a “faithful recreation”.

You can’t have it both ways. Either this is a faithful recreation with changes or it’s not.

@Zipzo-atiesh

No other such change made has similar documentation as of yet. The justification for lack of dual spec has some of the most well documented reasoning available for why it was intentionally meant to lack it. The logic they used is easily transferrable to the now. There’s no way to say that the reasons they gave back then have no merit in the modern day.

This is a lie. Everything you say following this is also chalk full of lies. You are a liar.

@Arielba-sulfuras

yes, in wrath

Seal of the Martyr

[Catristina-westfall]

@Rotationn-illidan

Like the title says. DS is by far one the most popular features real fans of TbC want. Would love to get a blue response about how you feel about the idea.

A VERY loud minority on the forums is not universal approval.

[Kumasama-westfall]

@Catristina-westfall

A VERY loud minority on the forums is not universal approval.

The TBC Classic Community wants Dual Spec

Blizzard, you said you’d work with the community on the types of QoL changes they’d like to see in TBC Classic. Dual Spec is the most talked about change and the consensus is clear, the players want Dual Spec. Nethaera: Why are we allowing players to dual spec after all this time? Ghostcrawler: We really felt like this was a great way to increase the flexibility available to players and encourage them to take part in more aspects of the game. To use just one example, some players like to pa…

TBC Dual Spec

We need to bring Duel Specs into TBC. The only argument against duel specs I’ve seen is “we need a gold sink” but this is flawed. This gold sink has done nothing to address the gold issues in Classic and just stops people from respecing and massively hinders the game. With duel specs that druid who is off doing their dailies and sees a LF1M Healer Heroic Ramps will not pass up due to not wanting to respec for a run. With duel specs it wont be a painful decision each time we spec pvp to go do…

[Rotationn-illidan]

True fans of Tbc want the game to be better. Not the vocals classic zealots who want the game to die for some reason, which it is atm.

[Fasc-atiesh]

@Kumasama-westfall

Which was just answered by Fasc:

Its funny, Zipzo and others keep demanding we prove up a NECESSITY without any proof as to why such a burden falls upon us. The whole face-pulling outrage that we’re “admitting” to a change being optional only matters if somehow necessity is a required element for change.

Yet here we are, having received a large number of unnecessary changes, including the upcoming TBCC group finder which will be cleaner and smoother and allow (a new change!) group queues as well.

If they couldn’t be consistently inconsistent, they’d have little going for them.

[Zipzo-atiesh]

@Fasc-atiesh

Proponents are mostly (there are always silly people) fine with this situation because they know that asking for a change isn’t a necessity and it isn’t critical to TBCC, but they aren’t barred from doing so either and Blizzard gets the final say.

The only reason we’re in this continuous loop of arguing is because opponents, not necessarily you in this post, continuously try to elevate their opposition above mere whim and gloriously fail at it.

This is your opinion.

It’s not mere whim. We’re using Blizzard’s own design ethos cited from actual TBC. It’s the opposite of whim, we have an actual design framework that we are referencing.

“Some changes” does not invalidate those statements made during the TBC era, they are the exact same reasons we don’t want dual spec today, and the exact reasons why we are absolutely satisfied with the game in its current state, without dual spec, in regards to the accessibility of respeccing (or lack thereof).

Please stop trying to ruin my game, it’s annoying, and as long as people keep trying to ruin our game, we’ll stamp it out effortlessly while your side goes full headless-chicken with endless circular argumentation and futile justification for why it’s necessary to add it. Now that is “mere whim”.

[Catristina-westfall]

Linking other posts from people crying about wanting dual spec does not change the fact that my original point is correct. For every comment you see complaining that “we need dual spec”, there’s dozens more from people saying no. Just the simple fact that there are people here saying NO to dual spec proves that it isn’t a universal thing players want. So again,

A VERY loud minority on the forums is not universal approval.

[Kumasama-westfall]

@Zipzo-atiesh

This is your opinion.

Gawd that is so dishonest.

Given your every single interaction ever and your own attempts to justify anything you say. Hypocrisy, plain and simple.

[Kumasama-westfall]

@Catristina-westfall

my original point is correct.

Citations, please. I’ll concede to your “correct” point as soon as you show me proof. I’ve shown you mine. Now you show me yours.

[Fasc-atiesh]

@Catristina-westfall

not universal approval.

“near” universal approval, not actual.

@Zipzo-atiesh

We’re using Blizzard’s own design ethos cited from actual TBC.

Which doesn’t matter, #somechanges.

@Zipzo-atiesh

“Some changes” does not invalidate those statements made during the TBC era

They do, as they render them insubstantial whims subject to change at any time, changes that Blizzard is open to.

@Zipzo-atiesh

they are the exact same reasons we don’t want dual spec today, and the exact reasons why we are absolutely satisfied with the game in its current state, without dual spec, in regards to the accessibility of respeccing (or lack thereof).

Placing your faith in outmoded perspectives that Blizzard themselves abandoned doesn’t elevate your faith to solid footing.

@Zipzo-atiesh

Please stop trying to ruin my game

Not your game. You’re just a licensee.

Also the only person that can “ruin” anything is Blizzard, so not sure why you’re griping at me, especially since Blizzard often adds changes people don’t even ask for.

[Kumasama-westfall]

@Fasc-atiesh

Also the only person that can “ruin” anything is Blizzard, so not sure why you’re griping at me, especially since Blizzard often adds changes people don’t even ask for.

I actually work for Blizzard. I think? I don’t know when I was hired, but one guy was yelling at me for advising another player about how to block spam from their in-game maibox. I gave them a link to a thread explaining it. And this guy “accused” me of working for Blizzard.

[Zipzo-atiesh]

@Fasc-atiesh

They do, as they render them insubstantial whims subject to change at any time, changes that Blizzard is open to.

No, they don’t.

They aren’t going to add Death Knights because someone asked for it and it will improve their personal game play desires of TBCC. This is simply an objective reality. There are changes they will not make, so #somechanges is therefore not a valid argument to why a change can or should happen. The change needs to stand on it’s own merits. This has been beaten to death though, I think you’re smart enough to get this, you’re just haplessly ignoring it because it’s devastating to the #somechanges line of argumentation. It’s a method of arguing for dual spec that is nothing more than an easy cop-out that immediately falls apart to any rigid form of scrutiny.

Dual spec easily fits in to the category of being as impactful as adding a class.

Now, I will agree that the latter is a debate-able point, and you’re free to offer up your opinion as to why dual spec is or isn’t a significant change.

You, however, don’t get to act like we are completely unjustified in not wanting it to be added.

[Kumasama-westfall]

@Zipzo-atiesh

Dual spec easily fits in to the category of being as impactful as adding a class.

Prove this is anything other than your personal opinion.

@Zipzo-atiesh

You, however, don’t get to act like we are completely unjustified in not wanting it to be added.

I get to act however I want with or without your permission. You are completely unjustified in not wanting it to be added. However, if you can justify yourself, I’m open to hearing exactly why.

[Fasc-atiesh]

@Zipzo-atiesh

No, they don’t.

Yes, they do.

@Zipzo-atiesh

They aren’t going to add Death Knights because someone asked for it and it will improve their personal game play desires of TBCC.

When did I say they would?

@Zipzo-atiesh

There are changes they will not make, so #somechanges is therefore not a valid argument to why a change can or should happen.

This does not follow.

• You haven’t shown there is a limit to the changes they’d make, you’ve only asserted a limit exists.
• You haven’t shown what differentiation could even exist between Changes-They’ll-Make and Changes-They’ll-Not-Make, you’ve only asserted it exists.
• You haven’t shown how Dual Spec actually falls within the aforementioned undefined threshold for Changes-They’ll-Not-Make, you’ve only asserted that it does.

What you’re falling to understand is that you’ve not done the actual work of proving any of the above, and you’re just jumping to the conclusion that you prefer. You can’t even show how #somechanges is not unbounded.

@Zipzo-atiesh

It’s a method of arguing for dual spec that is nothing more than an easy cop-out that immediately falls apart to any rigid form of scrutiny.

Irony. You want us to just accept your baseless conclusion while you spout this?

@Zipzo-atiesh

why dual spec is or isn’t a significant change.

Red herring. Whether or not it is a significant change really doesn’t matter.

@Zipzo-atiesh

You, however, don’t get to act like we are completely unjustified in not wanting it to be added.

You are completely unjustified in your position other than wanting to selfishly gatekeep over arbitrarily drawn lines that go against your own stated principles (which is why you’re unjustified).

[Catristina-westfall]

It’s not even “near” universal, no where close. If it were, then there wouldn’t be so many damn posts on these forums from people crying about wanting it and people telling them no and to stop b-tching. “Near universal” would mean these posts would just be echo chambers of people agreeing with each other. The fact that there’s even a debate about it in the first place proves it’s not a universal (or NEAR universal) topic.

[Zipzo-atiesh]

Now he’s going to say that the forums don’t represent the whole community, even though they’re using the forums/internet community to justify their claim lol