Tact Mastery: you did it for mages/druids....

#0 - Dec. 9, 2006, 10:45 a.m.

So mages were bringing up how no matter what spec you wanted, it was almost imperative that you go into arcane tree to get evocation: thus, limiting the spec varieties.

Druids also brought up that they were almost being forced to go heal spec in order to raid for innervate.

What did Blizzard do? Gave it to them as a regular spell. Great, it's very understandable, congrats.

Why won't they do that for warriors with tactical mastery? Make stance mastery give us the 25 rage while switching stances.

You didn't give mages and druids some gimped evocation/innervate and then make them put further points into it in a completely different tree.

Of all the things that are screwed up with warriors right now, I think this would be a step in the right direction to fixing what needs mended.

Tseric

#17 - Dec. 9, 2006, 10:10 p.m.

Q u o t e:
Honestly...go to the talent calculators and make your best build without tactical mastery.

That's why. With those three extra points, we'd have access to so much more than we honestly should. With it being trainable, every warrior would be pat after their first level, having both MS and deathwish. And as they said numerous times before the patch was announced, the trees were built as to avoid cookie-cutter builds. If you were PvP spec, you were (most likely) 31/20. if you were MS/offtank, you were 31/5/15...so on and so forth. Blizzard wanted to cut back on this, so they moved around the trees. They even threw us a bone and made two of those points trainable.

I'm not saying I like having to build around this...But that's why blizzard did it.

Thank you. This is very accurate. It is about limiting talent options in part and also, as a core mechanic, being able to retain rage at larger costs allows more frequent usage of abilities, which increases damage in the long run. Limiting rage retention does curb damage output.

If you aren't willing to accept compromise after so many have fought to simply have some rage retainable with a trained ability, then you will continually be disappointed with more than simply class balance issues. Heck, as much as I hated all the single-minded focus about the topic at the time, I still recognized it as something the community wanted and something I thought would be good as a compromise. To ask for more based on your reasoning sort of discredits a lot of reasonable warriors out there who simply wanted some sort of middle ground.

And, it is not a good reason to want something because somebody else got something that seemed sort of similar. As has been said many times before, it is a case by case basis for each class. They are treated seperately, so comparing the two is not going to sway the devs in the slightest.

Tseric

#55 - Dec. 10, 2006, 12:22 a.m.

Q u o t e:

isn't limiting talent options the same as cookie cutter?

No, it is about preventing strong talents from being coupled together. Remember when Warriors could have Deathwish and Mortal strike at the same time? That's what I'm talking about.

It is related to getting out of cookie cutter builds, but it isn't the same thing. Or at least, the two ideas are not in opposition of each other.

Tseric

#79 - Dec. 10, 2006, 2:37 a.m.

Q u o t e:

Is it just me, or did bliz deny the TM move being intended to restrict talent choices when they first announced the new trees? Now Tseric comes in and says that moving TM to prevent warriors from specing MS and deathwish is exactly the what they were doing. Is anybody else getting tired of the lies and doubletalk?

It's just you. Well, you and the guy who agreed with you, needing no proof whatsoever.

This is what I hate about forums...groupthink.