The conclusion is easy and we all know it: there's a system in place and we know how it operates; its weakness and strengths. There's a proposed change that could solve many minor issues that can also be solved in many other ways. If and when there's reason enough to change it, they'll consider it. If you pay some minor attention you know what are the reasons in favor and opposed to such a change (and you could do that by simply exploring the history of any wow forum).
The kicker is: one side has the upper hand -those that like the current system-. Mainly because the system is already in place, has worked since like forever and we don't have any need to defend it (at best we decide to share why we enjoy it). The discussion can keep going as long as you keep that side entertained. So we can choose one of:
1- Introduce yawn-inducing arguments (there are some posters actively doing this). So the side that doesn't care migrates and leaves the pro-change side agreeing with themselves. Propagating the false idea that a majority want change
2- Make a collective effort in showing why we all like/enjoy some systems and have a nice conversation about it; perhaps figuring new ways to enjoy this or another mechanic/framework/system/whatever
3- Fully bringing it back to the basics. Which is pointless, for the discussion is fully resolved: one side wants change, the other doesn't care. At this point I rather lock the thread.
4- Fully bring it to the OP topic. Which is understanding 'why don't people want combo points on the player?'. And to do so, we need to take the approach nº2.
Of those, there's only one way forward: ignore the topic and chat about tangential stuff. Because that's the only merit of this debate: that the system is close enough to the root and core design of the class and the understanding that different people have on it. If you actually want to discuss the basic topic, you're the one leading it full circle. But let me quote again GC:
We can try and pick it apart and decide whatever it means, like people do with everything the poor guy says. But there's a clear distinction when he chooses to use 'design'. That implies more than a binary choice: it encompasses more systems and frameworks that we need to figure out before deciding on which of the two options is better. The discussion is worth it. Because it tends to spawn new unexplored territory for many people. It's time we can take and learn a bit about designing a game instead of equaling our most immediate desires to good game design. Framing it as a pro-change/against-change approaches zero worth as the page count approaches infinity.Yeah. I think at the high level, it's worth asking if keeping them on the target is the right design.