Since #nochanges is kaput, can we have Dual spec please?

[Kralljin]

But going from 2-3 sentences to a whole page is a bit too much for my attention span on mmo-c

Hey, you implied there would be no negative downsides to dual spec, i listed them.

And frankly, the time you've spent arguing about not reading the thing, could have been spent on reading it.

[ClassicPeon]

Hey, you implied there would be no negative downsides to dual spec, i listed them.

And frankly, the time you've spent arguing about not reading the thing, could have been spent on reading it.

Subjective downsides. Not really objective ones depending on implementation

[Kralljin]

Subjective downsides.

That's like saying the existence of World buffs is a "subjective downside".

[ek0zu]

I still cry remembering how much i had to farm as a holy priest to get my epic flying mount! :P

On topic, i believe that some changes is good and dual specc is one of them, i believe that it will enhance the new player's experience.

[ClassicPeon]

That's like saying the existence of World buffs is a "subjective downside".

Technically it is. My point was that without statistics its kind of a moot point

[Kralljin]

Technically it is. My point was that without statistics its kind of a moot point

Considering those statistics cannot exist before the die is cast, that's not exactly a compelling response.

Disregarding that even those statistics have gaping holes due to the massive grey area that exist and you cannot compare dual spec vs. no dual spec with each other directly because it either has to be one or the other.

[ClassicPeon]

Considering those statistics cannot exist before the die is cast, that's not exactly a compelling response.

Disregarding that even those statistics have gaping holes due to the massive grey area that exist and you cannot compare dual spec vs. no dual spec with each other directly because it either has to be one or the other.

Ofcourse they can. Its a "i want" not a "i wanted" statistic.

There is no grey area in a bool. You either want a proposed version or you dont

[Kralljin]

Ofcourse they can. Its a "i want" not a "i wanted" statistic.

Those are apples and oranges.

You can't reply to me when concerning negative predictions "well, there aren't any statistics on that!" and then suddenly make those statistics over what players what.
What players want was never part of the subject, the negative consequences of dual spec are.

Disregarding that designing games by a vote is always one serious gamble, precisely because not every person thinks through every aspect of that change.

And frankly, i've brought up these negative consequences at least twice now on this forum - not a single person that keeps repeating "i can't think of any negative side effects of dual spec" has bothered to reply.

[ClassicPeon]

Those are apples and oranges.

You can't reply to me when concerning negative predictions "well, there aren't any statistics on that!" and then suddenly make those statistics over what players what.
What players want was never part of the subject, the negative consequences of dual spec are.

Disregarding that designing games by a vote is always one serious gamble, precisely because not every person thinks through every aspect of that change.

And frankly, i've brought up these negative consequences at least twice now on this forum - not a single person that keeps repeating "i can't think of any negative side effects of dual spec" has bothered to reply.

You are misunderstanding what i'm saying.

1. You havent established grounds that there will be concequences
2. You havent established grounds that those percieved concequences will be negative

The only statistics we have to go on is streamer made surveys where the overwhelming majority wants dual spec.

[Kralljin]

1. You havent established grounds that there will be concequences
2. You havent established grounds that those percieved concequences will be negative

"What World buffs, what's that? Don't care #nochanges"

Sounds familiar?
Except the situation is now reversed.

Disregarding that people being told to save up for 2nd spec for raiding is most certainly something that will be perceived as negative, or any class that cannot AoE struggling to find a heroic group.

The only statistics we have to go on is streamer made surveys where the overwhelming majority wants dual spec.

Okay, should we look up the #nochanges polls from before Classic?
How do you think those will go?

Did any of those content creators go over any potential negative consequences other than "uhm..it wasn't in TBC!"?

[Fkiolaris]

I still cry remembering how much i had to farm as a holy priest to get my epic flying mount! :P

On topic, i believe that some changes is good and dual specc is one of them, i believe that it will enhance the new player's experience.

It will enhance every player's experience, there's no question about it mate. Hopefully, if Blizzard decides to give it a go, they do a better job than what they seem to be doing with the Leatherworking drums so far.

[ClassicPeon]

Disregarding that people being told to save up for 2nd spec for raiding is most certainly something that will be perceived as negative, or any class that cannot AoE struggling to find a heroic group.

100% pure guesswork. Like literally just taken out of the blue with absolutely nothing to back it up

Okay, should we look up the #nochanges polls from before Classic?
How do you think those will go?

Yes. Please. Please find them for me(they dont exist)

Did any of those content creators go over any potential negative consequences other than "uhm..it wasn't in TBC!"?

THe ones you personally dont like you mean? rofl

[ItsDarvaTV]

dual spec would be a blessing

[Kralljin]

100% pure guesswork. Like literally just taken out of the blue with absolutely nothing to back it up

Just like the assumption that nothing bad will happen, that goes both ways, mate.

If you want to disregard something, you should at least make an attempt to disprove it, if the best you can is "you can prove it", then i'll say:
Neither can you disprove it.

After all, you want the change, it's on you to proof that the change you want has no negative effect, not on me to proof that negative effect will occur.

Yes. Please. Please find them for me(they dont exist)

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...-w-QoL-changes
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ges-to-vanilla
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...highlight=poll

Here's also some Reddit poll from before Classic, where among other things, dual spec was polled and the majority voted against it:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F.../viewanalytics

And i still stand by my original point: Game design by vote can easily backfire, because players aren't designers.
And once those unintended side effect show their side, you can't change it back.

THe ones you personally dont like you mean? rofl

Read the post again.
Did any content creators actually bring up any negative points about dual spec, or were they just rambling on?

After all, when you put out a poll, the logical thing is to lay out some pros and cons, so that people can make an informed decision.

[ClassicPeon]

.

Just like the assumption that nothing bad will happen, that goes both ways, mate.

If you want to disregard something, you should at least make an attempt to disprove it, if the best you can is "you can prove it", then i'll say:
Neither can you disprove it.

After all, you want the change, it's on you to proof that the change you want has no negative effect, not on me to proof that negative effect will occur.

This is one giant logical fallacy mate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden...ing_a_negative

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...-w-QoL-changes

Sample size of 100

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ges-to-vanilla

Sample size of 120

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...highlight=poll

Sample size of 130

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F.../viewanalytics

This one LITERALLY has people voting for changes. Like class balance, classic + stuff, more dungeons and so on. This poll that has 30k people literally just confirms what i said .

They may not be for dual spec for classic(i wouldnt be either) but they are certainly for changes! lol. I am advocating for dual spec for tbc, not classic.

Thanks for confirming i was right ^^

[Kralljin]

This is one giant logical fallacy mate.

It's not.

You cannot dismiss criticism towards a suggestion by putting the burden of proof on the critic - especially when due to the nature of proof you desire cannot exist, let alone one that settles the matter in a conclusive form as a proper side by side comparison will never occur.

Here's a basic example:
If you go to a bank, you want a credit for your business and the bank has doubts whether your business has success, then i hope you have a better idea than telling them to give you some proof that your business won't have any success.
You want me to agree on a change, therefore you need to dispel my doubts about it, not first ask me for proof whether those doubts are warranted.

Let's not forget one thing:
You made the claim it has no negative consequences, so, perhaps you should lead by example and provide proof for that first - not polls on what people what - proof.

This one LITERALLY has people voting for changes. Like class balance, classic + stuff, more dungeons and so on. This poll that has 30k people literally just confirms what i said .

Additional class balance isn't the same as dual spec, though.

And ideas such as adding new dungeons is logically relegated to a Classic+ idea, which frankly is an entirely different debate.

Thanks for confirming i was right ^^

Considering you seem to cite class changes as your posterchild, i would also like to remind you that the very same only manages to get a marginal majority of .8% on something such as:
Would you like to see additional classes viable for tanking in 40-man raids?

Something that is quite naturally in conflict with the concept of rebalancing classes, which kinda highlights why polls are sometimes a poor guideline for making changes.

By the way, in OSRS you need a 2/3 majority in order to get a change through, which is done for a reason as slim majorities are a fickle beast.

[ClassicPeon]

It's not.

You cannot dismiss criticism towards a suggestion by putting the burden of proof on the critic - especially when due to the nature of proof you desire cannot exist, let alone one that settles the matter in a conclusive form as a proper side by side comparison will never occur.

Here's a basic example:
If you go to a bank, you want a credit for your business and the bank has doubts whether your business has success, then i hope you have a better idea than telling them to give you some proof that your business won't have any success.
You want me to agree on a change, therefore you need to dispel my doubts about it, not first ask me for proof whether those doubts are warranted.

Let's not forget one thing:
You made the claim it has no negative consequences, so, perhaps you should lead by example and provide proof for that first - not polls on what people what - proof.

The burden of proof in this case IS on you.

People stated: We would like dual spec

The only statistics we have show: People want dual spec(for tbc)

you said it would bring negative concequences and then ask me to specify how it would NOT bring negative concequences. Thats called argument from ignorance or proving a negative and is a logical fallacy.

You cannot provide proof when there is no proof to provide. We have no proof that dual spec did anything negative to the game, ever.

We havent had dual spec in TBC before

From those two pieces of info we cannot provide proof if it will have negative or positive concequences.

I dont need to change your mind. You are free to believe whatever you want. There is always going to be people for or against things, you cant change everyones minds.

Additional class balance isn't the same as dual spec, though.

And ideas such as adding new dungeons is logically relegated to a Classic+ idea, which frankly is an entirely different debate.

Okay, should we look up the #nochanges polls from before Classic?
How do you think those will go?

This is what you where asked to provide proof of, and you did the exact opposite. You provided proof that the nochanged crowd is indeed a minority even in classic. We wherent talking about dual spec in classic wow, only in tbc.

Considering you seem to cite class changes as your posterchild, i would also like to remind you that the very same only manages to get a marginal majority of .8% on something such as:
Would you like to see additional classes viable for tanking in 40-man raids?

Something that is quite naturally in conflict with the concept of rebalancing classes, which kinda highlights why polls are sometimes a poor guideline for making changes.

By the way, in OSRS you need a 2/3 majority in order to get a change through, which is done for a reason as slim majorities are a fickle beast.

You seem to forget that this is a poll about classic and not tbc. I'd agree with nochanges in classic.

Even before knowing what classic would be like i would have advocated for changes in tbc, and not in classic. Now that we know what classic was like, i'd advocate for even more changes for the good of the game, instead of trying to recreate something that cant be recreated anyway.

The only thing you have done so far is prove me right

[Kralljin]

The burden of proof in this case IS on you.

No, you failed to address any negative consequences of dual spec.

People stated: We would like dual spec

I didn't question that, first and foremost.
I'm pointing out that
1.Dual has potential negative consequences.
2.Simply because a majority among the playerbase exists for something, doesn't mean it's good for the game.

We havent had dual spec in TBC before

Yes and thus it's frankly naive to assume that this doesn't have any unforseen consequences.

I dont need to change your mind. You are free to believe whatever you want. There is always going to be people for or against things, you cant change everyones minds.

I think a fundamental concept of a discussion is to provide reasons to make the other side recognize some points or at the very least, shed another light on some points.

You provided proof that the nochanged crowd is indeed a minority even in classic. We wherent talking about dual spec in classic wow, only in tbc.

Taking into account that said poll also shot down the idea of a plethora of changes and also seemed to go off into questions regarding Classic+, i feel you're taking a very convenient read of this thing.

The only thing you have done so far is prove me right

And the only thing you're doing is moving the goalposts.

Because outside of dancing around "not having the time to read a long post" and writing quite a list of negative consequences off as "subjective downsides", you've provided little counterarguement.
And considering you now want to badly dance around "No, the burden of proof is on you!" it seems to me that you just want to avoid addressing any of these points entirely.

Like seriously, the amount of effort you're putting into not addressing these points is absolutely staggering.

[ClassicPeon]

No, you failed to address any negative consequences of dual spec.

What negative concequences? You havent provided proof there is any? Are you unsure on how the burden of proof works?

If you make a claim: The burden of proof is on you.

You where the first to talk about negative concequences. Its not like we said: "Hey we would like dual spec and by the way, it wont have negative concequences."

You have the onus.

Yes and thus it's frankly naive to assume that this doesn't have any unforseen consequences.

Care to elaborate how and why?

I think a fundamental concept of a discussion is to provide reasons to make the other side recognize some points or at the very least, shed another light on some points.

Plenty of reasons has been provided.

Taking into account that said poll also shot down the idea of a plethora of changes and also seemed to go off into questions regarding Classic+, i feel you're taking a very convenient read of this thing.

It doesnt really matter what you feel. And you are reading the statistic wrong if you think a plathora of changes where "shot down".

The simply fact here is that peopel are obviously not overwhelmingly agreeing on nochanges as is what you stated.

And the only thing you're doing is moving the goalposts.

This coming from the:

You: "Let met link you some statistics showing that the nochanges crowd is the real majority! Oh. Whoops. They wherent. Well they didnt want dual spec for classic!"

Because outside of dancing around "not having the time to read a long post" and writing quite a list of negative consequences off as "subjective downsides", you've provided little counterarguement.

Your negative concequences had nothing to back them up. I can make a personal list of 20 negative concequences without dual spec with nothing to back it up aswell.

Wooptiefuckingdoo

Back at square one

And considering you now want to badly dance around "No, the burden of proof is on you!" it seems to me that you just want to avoid addressing any of these points entirely.

I'm not dancing around it. I've linked proof that its a logical fallacy. You cant prove a negative. The onus is clearly on the claimee - you.

Like seriously, the amount of effort you're putting into not addressing these points is absolutely staggering.

Doesnt take much to stagger you, does it? oO

[MiiiMiii]

No I think it's a good gold sink. Why do you need it exactly? What scenario is it that attractive?