#86 - Aug. 31, 2006, 9:41 p.m.
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.