How to make Tactical Mastery irrelevant

Q u o t e:
Remove the stance dependence from all combat maneuvers. Allow every combat maneuver to be used in every stance.

You have indirectly explained why Tactical Mastery is very likely to remain a talent, not a trainable ability.

Rage loss from stance switching is a core element of the class. A deliberate impediment that restricts having all abilities available at all times. Tactical Mastery provides slight circumspection to this, making it easier.

So, it goes without saying that a lot of people would want this 'workaround' as standard issue. Why wouldn't you want to make the game easier by avoiding mechanics that don't favor you?

This is where most warriors and the devs will differ. Some think you should be innately given a mechanic that circumvents part of the core functionality of the class. The devs think you should choose to do so and have a cost with that choice.

Q u o t e:
TM does NOT circumvent the core functionality of the class, it merely mitigates the penalty inherent in switching stances. As you just said above "Tactical Mastery provides slight circumspection to this" SLIGHT!!

That is why it should be fine to make it trainable!! Take that to the devs!!

Yes, Ustad, I understand that. The OP was a gross exaggeration and I realize that, too. I merely chose this post because it's like an analogy. It describes an issue through comparison, but the actual details are less relevant than what you are trying to explain.

At any rate, I will bring up the point you made in a meeting we are having today. Again, it's not like I wouldn't want you to have TM trainable, but as so many folks here are willing to point out, my opinion is irrelevant.

When we get out of this meeting, you can be sure I will post here first and folks can continue to brow-beat me for not 'getting it' or what have you.

I'll leave you with this to consider for now. This also has the disclaimer as complete speculation on my part and should not be considered as anything beyond that. I also realize this contradicts my previous comment that my opinion is irrelevant, sort of. So, replys of 'we don't care what you think, Tseric' are more of a waste of your own time than anything. Ok, so...


When I first looked over the talent trees and heard the subsequent outcry from the community, one core concept struck me as being possible.

I'm sure a lot of you might agree with me if I said that the devs were trying to break 'cookie cutter' builds or finding ways to encourage variety in the talent trees. In the case of Warriors, this would probably still be the Arms/Fury build. While over the past months there has been more activity in the Fury tree, it still may not be in a place the devs are happy with.

Moving TM to the Prot tree breaks the cookie cutter of Arms/Fury. I'm pretty sure folks would agree with that, as well.

Another consideration towards this end is that many have commented on the 41-point talents being lackluster or not really offering the benefits a tooltip might suggest.

What if, and this is a big IF, the intent is to have warriors creating middle ground, cross-tree builds? Providing more incentive and value in the middle of the trees to promote three-tree builds?

41-point talents aren't necessarily "10 points better than a 31-point talent". The value of talent points has never really been a linear increase of value, but people tend to view it as such because of level increments and accessibility. The statement of "I can only get 41-point talents at 70, therefore it should have the same value as a level 70 ability/spell/item" isn't necessarily true.

What if the devs are urging you to respec to a more versatile build and leave the cookie cutter behind?

Again, just speculation and something to think about. I hope I don't regret trying to level with people and bring a crazy thread to a more reasonable field of discussion.

Q u o t e:




There are many excellent, well spoken, and elloquent posts to which you could have chosen to reply. Instead you knock down an inferior argument that almost no Warriors have given. I doubt that "Most warriors" would seriously argue for the OP's point. You have insulted our intelligence by insinuating this.

Furthermore, you have refused to respond to any of the excellent arguments that have been given in favor of a limited form of trainable tactical mastery.

Furthermore, you have refused to respond to any of the excellent arguments that have been given against moving the talent to the protection tree.

You seem like a bright and well spoken guy, Tseric. Truly, this kind of conduct is beneath you, and I am sure that you can do better. Can we please have a honest dialogue and go over some of the better posts on this subject? The frustration felt by many warriors is rooted in the fact that we have not been approached in a forthright and honest manner about these changes. We do not expect a 'blue' reply to every post. However, we would like a 'blue' reply to some of the more well-thought-out posts.

Stop knocking down strawmen in the form of weak pro-trainable-TM posts. Instead give yourself the respect you and the Warrior community deserve and try and tackle some of the better posts on this sucject. You will be better for it, and so will the community.

Morsel

The OP should have known his suggestion was off the wall. Everyone else did. However, it illustrated certain things through exaggeration. There are more reasons to reply to a post in blue than just "Yes, this is a good idea" and "No, this is a bad idea". I hope you can see that. Responding to an off-the-wall post in hopes of bringing it back down to reasonable discussion can possibly change the thinking of the OP or others who might have serious consideration for ideas like that.

There is always going to be a better post which deserves more attention in the eyes of some.

If you're trying to be insulted, then there isn't anything I can do to stop you. If you change your outlook, you might see things differently, rather than trying to take offense and not really reading what I'm putting down.

If you wanted to have an honest discussion, you should have made a contribution to the issue at hand, rather than spending that time posting about how I'm not getting your point.

Claiming insult closes the discussion conveniently for you.

Q u o t e:
Just delete your post and let moderation run its course.

Fine.