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

we sure will, i dont even think youll get it before wrath prepatch at the EARLIEST.

but yes, thats fine, as i have said previously, i want to play through TBC and im done. 5 months after the final phase is released, go ham, idc. its not like anyone is left on vanilla Classic servers, there won’t be anybody left on TBC Classic servers either.

Yeah and dual spec can remain for all time in TBC at that point too.

1 Like

Where is “near universal” coming from?

Cause that’s not even close to what the forums have seen.

Because it fit with their design imperative of people bringing players to raid rather than classes “bring the player not the class”. Respect is just about cost. Bliz wanted players to do various functions conveniently under the new design model.

GC stated this as much.

“It would be nice if the person swapping in and out were the same person (via dual spec).”

It came after release so they could test and evaluate the impact of the class changes first.

But as stated TBC didn’t have that design ethos. WoTLK is the application of the design goals you are seeking. Dual spec doesn’t achieve that on its own, Blizzard actually waited until other WoTLK features were in place first.

TBC is not the right home for this feature. TBC class design is not based around flexibility but rather around niches - it is the opposite design approach.

4 Likes

That quote clearly shows they consider dual spec a superior option than swapping in alts/bench players which is what currently happens.

1 Like

Dragon Soul, yes, such feature that near universal approval.

Also:

Cringe calling out “blues”.
Stop talking on behalf of the community. You are nothing, no one, nobody.

hey, you’ll hear no counter arguments from me. increase it to 100g. or even higher.

Once TBC has gone through its cycle, I don’t care what they do to the game. I wanted to be able to play through the game as it was; not how it could have been.

Because it fit with their design imperative of people bringing players to raid rather than classes “bring the player not the class”. Respec is just about cost. Bliz wanted players to do various functions conveniently under the new design model. GC stated this as much.

But it was a completely different design philosophy to TBC. The Lead Designer of TBC said he wanted choices to be impactful. Both games had different design imperatives.

There seems to be this almost dogmatic idea that one design methodology is “good” and the other “bad” they both have pros and cons - they’re different. But it isn’t right or consistent to simply take the design approach of one expansion and superimpose its values and goals onto another - especially where it’s a design approach that was largely an answer to the one you’re trying to superimpose it on. It’s a bit like doing a historical re-enactment where you Romanise pre Roman Europe simply because you prefer the way the Romans did it. Fine but this isn’t the right place for it. Wait.

There are supporters and detractors of both approaches. There’s no right and wrong, they’re just different values. But don’t force your design values on those who chose this game. Wait for the game that best represents your idea of great game design to come out.

Blizzard didn’t have one consistent list of design goals through all of wow, TBC had a different design team than WoTLK had and thus a different approach and different priorities and design values. A classic version should attempt to be consistent with those and not impose design values set in later expansions.

4 Likes

Except that TBC also did do a lot to make the game more inclusive. So yeah I don’t see how dual spec is out of line with that.

oh, it actually prevents the game client from starting on their computers? that sounds like a serious bug

1 Like

It did a lot to make niches more accentuated too.

Personally I see it as two very different approaches to making players socialise.

The TBC approach was to create a greater sense of attachment with your role, you as a player are needed by your team to fill a certain role. You’re the “interrupter role” for example.

This approach fostered longer term involvements as raid leaders would form composition around players identified roles and expect the same people in the same roles to attend every week.

WoTLK took the opposite approach, unlock roles, let players have more choice in what they want to do from raid to raid so that you could more easily group up, making adhoc groups was more encouraged (TBC has disincentives for adhoc grouping and incentivises guild and longer term planned meets by comparison).

Many of those of us playing classic like the old school way of doing it - planned longer term relationships and identification with a role or function.

Many of the newer gamers prefer the more modern approach introduced by WoTLK and expanded on in later expansions. That of facilitating more personal flexibility and greater adhoc grouping flexibility. This led to easier group formation but also shallower ties between people in groups.

Both approaches are valid but one is almost the antithesis of the other. Applying the Wrath approach to TBC is almost a hostile takeover ;p

2 Likes

I had to look this up because I don’t remember it.

Probably because I stopped playing Cataclysm around when Firelands patch was added.

That’s “universal appeal” for ya, I guess?

If anything it did the opposite. We got 3 viable main tanks, locks got seed to compete with mages for aoe. Hyrbid dps specs were brought up to be much more on par. LoL the only really unique role was mages being the best CC for 5 mans.

What’s much more important and has always been is competent players who will show up, not just having a theoretical on paper perfect comp with toxic players and flaky attendance. And dual spec helps with that.

1 Like

i’d take dual spec over boosted any day.

1 Like

That dual spec should or shouldn’t be added isn’t contingent on how in-step with design philosophy it is, you keep making this strange assertion that dual spec somehow qualifies to be added simply because it “fits the design”.

I’m sure given some time and a round table, I could think of an entire list of features that would be “in line” with TBC-ish design, and I’d pitch that list for a Classic+ server no doubt.

This isn’t your mother’s potluck, though, where we get to just add any and everything that feels “TBC-ey”.

The whole idea is to succeed (or fail) at the game under the restrictions and guidelines placed on players during retail TBC, in an effort to mimic the experience.

Dual spec, whether it fits conceptually in to TBC design or not, adds a level of flexibility that was non-existent in retail-TBC. Adding it would decidedly allow for emergent styles of gameplay in terms of managing your characters build that simply never existed back then. Good or bad, it simply wasn’t available yet.

It will be soon though. WOTLKC is all but guaranteed.

1 Like

Actually this does exactly what I claim, give more niches. One of the complaints against Vanilla that the design team of TBC were addressing was that so many classes were "forced’ to heal as their niche. They had no reason to be in groups except to pad out healer numbers. I recall (but can’t for the life of me find a link to it) that the lead designer at the time wanted to focus on more specialisation and roles and allow players more meaningful customisation.

This falls into that category. Pally’s for instance now had more choice but had to lock themselves in - changes were actually made to discourage hydrid specs and push you to take the max talent. You had more choice but the choice was more impactful. It’s a very different approach and dual spec runs counter intuitive to it.

1 Like

90 percent of the responses are actually inbred takes. No changes does not exist anymore…please take your inbred takes somewhere else. ty

well guess which one ya got???

2 Likes

And which one we didn’t and won’t :wink:

3 Likes