Stop wasting GC's time.

Q u o t e:
what do you think GC is gonna read this and say "OMG THIS GUY IS RIGHT I NEED THERAPY NOW!"

No, I'm good. Gin in the coffee mug, my friend. Solves everything.

Q u o t e:
what's worse is spending time having to come on here to try to find valuable new information on my class.. then all I see are joke posts by gc

Dear Aurá , of the maybe dozen posts I made today, I don’t think one silly one that took almost no effort is going to waste anyone’s time too much. On the contrary, it appears a few players appreciated the attempt at humor. I’m surprised you would look at a thread with a title like this one in your quest for new information. These forums can be so serious and negative sometimes that we have no problem with the occasional light-hearted thread so long as it doesn’t get out of control.

Q u o t e:
Nice suckup. If GC ever tires of listening to us, his customers, he needs to find another job.

Forum posters vastly overestimate their ability to get under my skin. On the other hand, we do want to attract intelligent and mature players to post here. When we ask you to restrict the amount of junk you post, it’s because we don’t want to chase them away. We understand that some of our players like to resolve their differences with the equivalent of a sixth grade shouting match over who is more leet. Fortunately not many of them do.

Q u o t e:
And I like how in a GC post in the warrior forums goes on to say that "the 6% from 2h spec would not have done anything."

Really? Dropping a FLAT 6% would do nothing for fury warriors?

Really?

A curious phenomenon in our language is that if you remove words from sentences it can change their meaning.

I said that the location of 2H Spec in the tree has no bearing on whether the TG talent is overpowered. Moving 2H Spec was a strategy the community came up to attempt to barter for TG not to be nerfed. Moving 2H Spec didn’t accomplish what we wanted to accomplish. I never said it wouldn’t do anything for Fury warriors.

A strategy I have also noticed from players who don’t like design changes is to insult the developers instead of trying to present a logical counter to the design decision. The personal attacks never work in helping them get their way, but maybe it helps players blow off steam or something because they keep trying it. :)

Q u o t e:
I pay $15 a month to play this game, and if GC can't handle intelligent Input, then i think that he needs to find a different job. so long as i'm playing this game, i'm going to have input. for my part, i try to make it as constructive as possible in the rare hope that one of the Devs will decide to rip my idea and use as his own. if you don't want dissent from the customers, abolish the forums.

WoW prospered for years before I started posting here. These forums are not customer service forums where you get to tell me what you think of the job we’re doing. They are for discussions of WoW’s classes. As a general rule, almost any time you are mentioning Blizzard or the devs you are not talking about the classes themselves.

Q u o t e:
As a representative of a multi-billion dollar company interacting with its CONSUMER-BASE, you'd think he'd use a little more tact.

Hadafhang, you should chill a little imho. I’ve been doing this long enough to know that the players generally appreciate talking to someone who communicates like a gamer and not like a public relations bot.

I’m a game designer and I’m in here to solicit feedback, answer questions and ask some of my own. We ask a little more of players who participate in these role forums. I’m here to debate some complex and sometimes controversial topics. While I do attempt to remain professional in the face of players who often seem to feel as if they should not be bound by such limitations, I’m not much for coddling. If my lack of tact bothers you, there are plenty of other forums on our site into which I do not stray. But I take class design very seriously, and I am going to be present in the role forums. Buckle up. :)

Q u o t e:
I have noticed a strategy by blue posters to duck logical arguments that counter design decisions by claiming every post is 'hostile', or act as if no logical argument was made.

That's pretty demonstrably false. Players disagree with us all the time. You can't lump in criticism and insults together. They are not the same thing. We have no problem with criticism.

Q u o t e:
Fury warrior's have been harping on 2hWS so much because it would accomplish lowering Fury dps without nerfing the ever loving dps out of Fury.

Sure it would. But we don't like the change and it doesn't accomplish what we want. End of story. You can try to convince us you're wrong, but I would suggest a line of reasoning other than "Ur dumb."

Q u o t e:
How is it logical to have one nerf completely negate two other talents that every Fury build has?

It doesn't negate them. If it negated them then your dps would be lower than if you didn't have the talents at all. I always have trouble understanding this line of reasoning. I suspect the real issue is you don't like TG having a penalty at all.

Q u o t e:
How is it not logical to do what the Warrior Community has suggested, and move the offending Talent that resides in Arms our of Fury's reach, therefore accomplishing the task of lowering Fury dps by lowering its white damage and rage generation, without throwing all of Fury's dps into the toilet?

The problem with TG is that it provides too much of a dps increase for one point. What other talents you can reach or not reach is irrelevant to that point. We don't want one talent point to inflate your dps by 20% or more. That sets a really dangerous precedent, makes other talents seems like a waste, causes Fury damage to jump enormously as soon as they can reach that talent and a host of other problems.

Q u o t e:
GC, I know you like to dodge this and dismiss it off hand as being a useless suggestion because it comes from *shudder* the community, but you have yet to answer why it would not work, and why the flat 10% nerf is acceptable when it directly negates 2 other talents and turns TG from a 1 point talent into a 9.

TG would probably be a lot better as 10 point talent. The fact remains: do those other talents improve your dps? Yes. Do they improve it without TG? Yes. Do they improve it with TG? Yes. Does equipping a higher item level weapon improve your dps? Does Titan's Grip somehow negate your equipping that weapon because of its penalty? No.

Q u o t e:
Just because the community came up with the suggestion does not mean it is without validity.

Of course not. But the bar is not that the designers implement all valid suggestions.

Q u o t e:
The reason why Warrior's focus on the 2hWS and removal of TG nerf so obssessively is because, frankly, we know the Fury tree is broken, and 1h Fury is dead unless the entire tree is massively redesigned; something that is not likely to happen before another expansion, if even then.

We aren't trying to keep 1-handed Fury viable. We aren't trying to keep two-handed Enhancement viable. We aren't trying to keep staff-using warriors viable. Just because you can equip something doesn't mean you have a right to be effective with it.

Q u o t e:
You can keep dismissing the suggestion, but as long as you are flip about it instead of offering actual substance in your refutation, Warriors will continue to push it forward.

My explanations for the TG nerf have been plentiful, consistent and widely-documented. You can keep arguing the point if you want, but you probably need to bring up new issues if you want to attempt to persuade us.

Q u o t e:
If you want us to move forward then give us a reason to, otherwise, well, right now the 2hWS swap is entirely logical in that it would accomplish the goal of moving Fury warriors from horrible dps to "actually worth taking on a raid" dps, without moving Warriors to the head of the pack of hybrids for dps.

We have a different plan for improving dps, one that should also make the rotation a little cleaner. It's something that has been suggested on the forums a few times.

Q u o t e:
Posts like this one are obviously pointless, but also don't take up much of your time (although if you're clicking on this, you're clicking on too much.) They're not the problem. The ones where you do spend a lot of time constructing some regurgitated rhetoric about how hard it is to balance this game. I honestly don't understand. I don't understand why you guys choose to use your time the way that you do. GC, with the kind of posts that you provide, you need a blog, not a job as a forum moderator. Oh, and maybe there wouldn't be a complaint if blizzard would release official info through something more reliable than week/month old posts that don't get stickied.

I'm here to communicate with players. That's a two-way street. I don't need a platform like a blog to dispense our game philosophy (or I would have made one). I'm not here just to do an extended Q&A. However, if that's your thing, the CMs have specifically asked for questions in the respective class forums and you can add your own there.

In our book, an answer of "We realize this is a problem, but the solution is difficult" is perfectly acceptable. It lets players know that we are working on a solution but explaining why they haven't seen it yet.

Q u o t e:
Come on, do you really think you have excuses for the way this expansion turned out? It's a failure. You haven't achieved half of the goals you set out to achieve. Arena is not competitive. Wintergrasp doesn't work. Arena and PvE gear hasn't approached acceptable balance levels. There's no tightness in tuning. There are no classes that aren't in need of, at least, a few show stopping fixes, that have no planned release.

The expansion turned out great. You're entitled to your opinion of course, though it would be more helpful if you added more detail other than "I don't like this." The current Arena season is in a lot better shape than the previous one, which was the first one to come after so many class and item changes. Wintergrasp is so popular that we're trying to get it a little less crowded. I'm sorry you think classes have show stopping fixes. As I often say, we don't ever view the game as done, but we also don't view any of the classes as "sky is falling" broken.

Q u o t e:
I work at Starbucks, GC can come to my Starbucks any time for free coffee

Done.

Q u o t e:
As a warrior you'll have to excuse me if I don't take feed back from a Dev with anything less than a grain of salt.

Fair enough, but then I am at a bit of a loss as to what you hope to get from these forums then. Warriors have been a very dominant PvP class, high on the PvE meters and the only real tank through much of WoW's history, so I'm not sure why you feel so beaten up. If you just disagree with our direction for the class then I guess that makes sense.

Q u o t e:
It would be awesome if I could live in the past, but I don't, I live in the now Classic servers don't exist, and the now kind of sucks for Warriors in PvE. Outside of the small resurgence we got in PvP via Juggernaut for Arms while Fury is once again forgotten. I don't see how being good in the past is any consolation prize, or why I should feel less beaten up because of how good I USED to be. =/

I'm not asking you to live in the past. The comment was essentially that the developers are unreliable when it comes to warrior balance. Yet warriors have always been strong and were strong in the previous tier of content for PvE. They are strong in PvP now yet a little low in PvE, but we've already said we have upcoming plans to buff them. This is why the howls of neglect seem to ring a little hollow in our opinion.

Q u o t e:
And as such, I would like to see the class given SOME kind of acknowledgement. Landsoul posted a very thorough topic supported with YOUR math. It received NO response from YOU until the last page, because it "was only getting bumped." No answer from you or any Blue. Nothing.

You should never post anything with the expectation of getting a blue post. We physically can't and socially aren't interested in responding to every post, even the good ones. Landsoul is a smart guy and we respect his opinion a lot. But the thread was out of control and we feared warriors who said "Oh wow a long thread," would read it and form the conclusion "Man, these forums suck. Nothing in here but bumping."

Q u o t e:
Now all of a sudden Arms and Fury is getting SLIGHT buffs? NOW??? Using YOUR MATH Landsoul, whom you KNOW of, and others showed that Fury was gonna drop like a rock. Everything that is applied to a Fury warrior is effectively reduced by 10%. 10% is 10% any way you look at it. And the nerf was TOO steep.

Fury didn't drop like a rock. You can only make those conclusions if you are comparing warriors to previous patches where they could challenge rogues for top melee dps. They are a little low now, but only a little low in our opinion, and we're bringing them up.

Q u o t e:
Your words. But you posted in TWO threads that were intended to illicit a response from you. Even though there is a STICKY at the top of the page saying NOT to "fish" for responses and people get REPORTED for it.

Part of the reason we ask for players not to make "GC post here" threads is because sometimes they are very good threads, and then we feel obligated to ignore them because they broke the rules. Just avoid doing it and everything will work out better.

Q u o t e:
You want to know why I'm salty? Stupid idiotic posts get some kind of attention from you while one of the FEW good posts gets locked with nothing more than "Thanks for posting"?????

It wasn't a good thread though. It had a very insightful first post with like a dozen pages of warriors saying "Bump for blue response." I read all of it and that is 20 minutes or whatever of my life that I could have spent on other threads. The same goes true for everyone who reads these forums. How many players do you think we have already conditioned to think "There's never anything good beyond the first page of a thread"? That's sad. :(

We reserve the right to judge what is a "stupid idiotic" post or not. The community will never agree and will typically only insist that "buff my class" threads are the deserving ones. Again, this system will just work out better if you don't try and steer us -- don't beat us up for posting in threads you don't like or on topics that don't interest you and don't beat us up when we don't post in good threads. Often the good threads get ruined by the attention that a blue post brings, and I certainly hope you're not saying that a thread without a blue response can never be a blue thread.

Q u o t e:
What I cannot understand is this. Since WotLK beta, warriors have told YOU the problems with TG. 1st the haste reduction. Didn't pan out did it? Same thing with the hit reduction. That got dropped didn't it? And now we have the -10% damage. How'd that work out?

We're happy with the damage reduction. The haste and hit reductions had other problems. Since TG adds too much damage, taking some away seems like the right choice. It's an unusual talent; it's unfortunate but not too surprising that it has taken some time to get right. Warriors were doing too much damage in Naxx (and not just on gimmick fights and not just when fully geared). Some warriors are used to doing rogue damage, but that's not our design any longer.

Q u o t e:
I am angry because warrior "figure heads" have shown you time and again when something won't work or will not get the desired effect. They are largely ignored and whatever YOUR agenda is, is pushed forward. And when it is proven to show that it will not work OR will not get the desired effect, a change is made that was SUGGESTED before you decided to go forward with your original design.

Of course we have our own agenda for how classes should work out. It's our game and we have a vision for it. We listen to smart warriors like we listen to smart players of all classes. Sometimes we agree with them and sometimes we don't. I hope you don't get frustrated just because we don't implement all of the suggestions that come our way. Some are honestly bad suggestions. Some are too hard to implement. Some are good suggestions but go against our vision for the game.

Q u o t e:
But please do not try to make it as though OUR input has any meaningful impact on it.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but players who have been on these boards for very long know it's not true. We very much liked one of Landsoul's suggestions. It happens.

Q u o t e:
So initially you claimed that Blizzard was "fine" with how strong TG was for one point, yet YOU did post this and now suddenly you don't like how much power a single point might give. And yet it's perfectly acceptable for Rogues to have a talent that offers just as much power for one point?

Double-standards much, or did you leave out the word "Warrior" when describing talent value?

This is a line of reasoning we have all been down before. If Titan's Grip is something you're interested in, then I'm surprised you aren't familiar with it.

It's not acceptable for rogues or anyone to have so much power in one talent point. We have said pretty consistently that we don't want Hunger for Blood to remain in its current incarnation long term, however it solves the problem for now of keeping Assassination viable in PvE without it being overpowered in PvP. Other fixes would involve major changes to the rogue tree that would likely cause other issues we'd then have to solve. It's too big a risk when what we have works... for now. We have a long list of things we want to improve in the game. HfB is just one of them.

Q u o t e:
Just the other day you made some glib remark about "skipping over the QQ", which in your job is a pretty big slap in the face to people taking the time and effort to post constructive criticism of game mechanics that don't often make sense.

I don't skip over constructive criticism. I skip over QQ, which I generally define as posts whose contribution is stuff like "We're terrible, Blizzard hates us, we're neglected, I don't like being nerfed," and so on. Most players can tell the difference. Re-read before you post. Ask yourself if other players will learn anything or stop to think about what you said. If not, then it may be your comments aren't really contributing to the conversation.

Q u o t e:
Does this mean you're going to remove Crusader Strike, Divine Storm, Explosive Shot, Mutilate...

Obviously not. Is the perceived problem because TG is passive?

That is part of it, yes. All of the active abilities have some kind of cost, even if it's just a GCD. If you weren't spending rage on Mortal Strike or mana on Crusader Strike, you'd be spending it somewhere else. A passive talent that improves dps in almost all situations and requires almost no action or decision on the part of the player is incredibly risky.

Really though, I don't think any of these discussions are new. Maybe I just spend more time reading forums that many of the players, but these have all been issues that we have discussed over and over. Some players just want Titan's Grip to not have a penalty and some want warriors to be balanced as if they were pure dps classes. I'm not sure any amount of explanation on our part is going to solve the problem that if you were designing the class you'd want to do it differently. But we'll keep trying. :)

Q u o t e:
GC you may have thought of this but I gotta say it anyway, did you ever think about buffing Deep Wounds by a couple percent weapon damage to increase the PvE damage of both Arms and Fury? Seems like a bandaid fix and does nothing for the faceroll boring'ness of Fury but would be relatively painless , quick and easy I'd assume.

Deep Wounds isn't passive but it's very close. You don't go out of your way really to get Deep Wounds up on a player or mob. You don't change your strategy. Good warriors don't max out their Deep Wounds much more than other players.

Q u o t e:
Or, if you still really feel that TG is such a problem, why not make it a 5 point talent again and swap it with Unending Fury, making it a one point talent? Or add some sacrifice to TG, like the ability to go into any other stance but Zerker (lol).

The problem with TG as a five-point talent is that it doesn't divide evenly by five. You can't say "Makes you 20% able to wield two two-handers" at rank one. That means inevitably one rank of the talent is worth a lot more than the others and we've had trouble any time talents are structured that way.

Q u o t e:
There just seems like there are many other options than just saying OK lets give them this cool talent but then nerf it to the ground and make fury warriors feel pretty crappy with junk utility and less-than-optimal DPS compared to a pure class that you might as well bring because your utility is already overwritten by the paladin and feral druids.

TG isn't nerfed into the ground though. Players occasionally try to show how it's a dps loss, but they have failed every attempt I have seen. If the talent improves your dps by 25% and then the 10% penalty lowers than benefit by 15% (including rage loss) then it's still giving you a 10% dps boost, which is about ten times higher than we shoot for with one talent point.

Q u o t e:
I tend to agree with the poster far above about how our utility is rather.... not very... useful? And that warriors dont bring anything that isnt overwritten AND done better by another class. Kinda like hunter pets giving 10% AP for a short duration on a long cooldown. Tacked on and only useful if there's absolutely no one else around to give it.

This is a totally different topic on a thread that has already gone pretty off topic. I'll just say that lots of classes feel that they don't bring something special enough, and in most cases, this is by design. We don't want anyone to get brought along because their bonus is so indespensible. On the other hand, we are looking at those situations where another class just totally trumps the benefits you do bring and we are getting those adjusted over time.

Q u o t e:
The reason I don't like this statement is because it seems to be okay for other classes, but not warriors. What kind've damage increase is the shaman Dual Wield talent? Or the priest Shadowform talent?

Shadowform works because it carries a pretty amazing penalty with it. It would be hard to say what the dps increase of the shaman DW talent is since so much of the rest of their tree supports that play style. (It can be done, just with more effort than I'm able to spend at the moment.)

Q u o t e:
The reason Titan's Grip is brought up so much is because you have not actually discussed anything about it. You've simply repeated the "It's too much for one talent point" mantra ad nauseum as well as claiming "if Warrior DPS is too low we'll fix it". Which none of us really believe. You were shown all through the PTR how abysmal it was and as par for the course you also harped "our internal numbers and feelings...". You pretty much disregarded all of the data in front of you and now you're slowly coming around to all but admitting that Blizzard was wrong...again. You apparently did not have the time to thoroughly research your committee dice rolling number and it shows, and thought -10% looked like a good enough of a "fix" in the same way +15% for Rogues was perfectly fine "for now" (aka: the next six to nine months).

I feel like we've discussed it plently. I think the real issue is you just don't like our explanations. But if you have specific issues you want to bring up, feel free. I'm not going to go into another explanation of why we don't always accept the community's data as perfect. We balance the game, not the community.

Q u o t e:
You've also retracted the statement about pures and hybrids actually being competitive in specific situations with one another. You obviously don't care about that anymore and are satisfied with the hierarchy of Rogue <> Death Knight >>> Warlocks, Mages, Hunters, Druids, Shamans, Priests, Paladins > Warriors. You know the proof is in the pudding, but who honestly expects any upcoming Warrior, Death Knight or Paladin changes to actually be noticeable?

Our stance hasn't changed since Lich King. Originally (pre-LK) we tried to keep hybrid specs at 40% or more behind the pure damage-dealers, but then we also treated warriors as pure damage-dealers. If you really know your class, and I mean really know it, and if you have good gear, the right buffs, and a group that backs you up, then you are fully capable of topping the damage meters on certain fights. Overall we do want to make sure the pure dps classes are slightly higher when all things are equal, otherwise there is no point to those entire classes existing. Do warriors beat mages on some fights? Absolutely. What's the issue?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with that last part. Ret paladins were not a serious raiding option for many players pre-LK. Now they certainly are.

Q u o t e:
Lol, you were told all through the beta how to make it divisible by five, especially when it had the old haste penalty attatched. Is it truly that hard to understadnd -40% speed, -30% speed, -20% speed, -10% speed, no speed penalty? Damn, looks like a five point talent to me that still makes using two two-handed weapons completely workable with it's initial point.

You can lol about how clever your solution is, but I suspect plenty of players will disagree with you. For starters, getting a single point in the talent is worth infinitely more than the subsequent talents that follow it.

Q u o t e:
What if you make it a five point talent, keep the penalty for the first point and then reduce by 1% or such for each respective point until the last point is between a 0 and 1% dmg reduction? Seems like it could work to me.

If you were around through beta, we tried that. Not many players liked it. May took a single point in TG and then spent other points elsewhere.

Q u o t e:
The SD nerf wasn't tested and made arms damage terrible, although it was never amazing. The fury nerf didn't seem to take into account rage lost and so it put our damage too low. You can deny that but testing of Naxx25 BiS warriors was way below other classes (other than ret pallies), rets got buffed and warriors got ignored. You can say you don't balance around full BiS, but Naxx BIS is the sort of stats you should have halfway through Ulduar to progress.

I guess I'll give up on this argument. We have convered all of these points before and most warriors who have been on these forums for long know that. When you make up facts it just takes too much effort for me to go line by line and counter them all.

Q u o t e:
The SD nerf wasn't tested and made arms damage terrible, although it was never amazing.

Sudden Death was too RNG in its previous incarnation. Many Arms warrirors didn't even like it.

Q u o t e:
The fury nerf didn't seem to take into account rage lost and so it put our damage too low.

The TG nerf took lost rage into account. This was a myth started by warriors who didn't like the change.

Q u o t e:
You can deny that but testing of Naxx25 BiS warriors was way below other classes

Naxx warrior damage was too high. If it is slightly low now (which we think it is), that doesn't make the former untrue.

Q u o t e:
You can say you don't balance around full BiS, but Naxx BIS is the sort of stats you should have halfway through Ulduar to progress.

We don't balance just around best in slot because so few players will ever be at that point, and by the time they are, the content is usually on farm for them. You don't need best in slot to make progress in Ulduar and by the time you are halfway through Ulduar you probably have added a lot of Ulduar gear.

If warriors want to bring up some new thoughts or insights into the tree or even Titan's Grip, I'll entertain those. But we are just spending too much time in this thread reiterating points we've made many times before and which you'll apparently never believe anyway. I could spend my time talking to other classes about their issues.

Q u o t e:
Sorry, I was not here for beta, I am also relatively new to the forums and don't know much of the goings on here. But (and this might be what you said you were going to buff later on) what if we get some other talent like an improved Titans Grip with the same effect somewhere else in the tree that does something similar. While players might still put points elsewhere, IMO if other talents are good enough to make them want those other than TG with no penalty, I think those other talents need to be looked at instead.

Edit: I am not a warrior nor do I have much experience playing one, so my feedback my not be as "researched"as others, I am just throwing ideas out there.

That's cool and I don't mean to imply you need to be a long-time poster to contribute here.

I was reacting mostly against this notion that we didn't explore obvious alternatives before arriving at the current implementation. Your post didn't specifically say that, but a lot of this thread has been of the form "GC hates us because he [hasn't answered questions that I've answered] or [didn't consider alternatives that we'd considered] or [doesn't spend time answering issues which I've answered before]."

Bottom line: if everyone lost the antagonistic bent and the occasional sense of entitlement, these forums would be a lot more pleasant for everyone. :)

Q u o t e:
You say TG was too powerful for 1 talent. However in another post you contradict the point here saying "we dont intend on 1h fury to be viable". I find those 2 really confusing. Reason to not have a talent be too powerful is to keep some balance and CHOICE. Obviously if a talent is too powerful it becomes a must-have, and not a talent anymore. Thats clear enough. However in the 2nd part you basically say - "We intend to FORCE every fury warrior into picking TG". If so, then how does it matter what dps increase TG provides? If fury tree design is BASED on the RULE "If you take more then 20 points in fury , you WILL take TG", then whether the talent gives 5 or 500% damage increase becomes irrelevant right?

No, it doesn't become irrelevant, at least in our minds. Here are a few of the problems you run into when some talents are enormously more powerful than others:

1) The talents that "only" provide a 1 or 5% dps increase are viewed as garbage. Players might skip them. They might make the rest of the tree feel lame, which risks players not finding the tree very fun. Think about it this way: if your breastplate had 500 strength on it and your bracers had 10 strength on them, would you even care about the bracers? Would you campaign to get them buffed? Would you make "Lol nobody cares about bracers" posts.

2) Other classes wonder why their 51 point talent can't provide such an enormous benefit. They think warriors are overly favored or that developers didn't spend much attention on their trees. Now, we ignore QQ as much as we can, but also ideally players are excited about their classes, and ignoring even a hint of favoritism can go a long way. Despite our best intentions, talents still have grown more and more powerful over time. Compare an old talent like Improved Heroic Strike to a new one like Fire and Brimstone. We want to keep the inflation under control while possible, or +10% becomes the new standard by which talents are measured.

3) Power increase isn't constant. When you can suddenly get your 51 point talent, your dps shoots up enormously. A level 60 warrior could do much, much higher dps than a level 59 warrior.

4) Here is the most important one. We thing the game works better when talents don't make up too large of a player's power allocation. It makes gear drop feel cruddy when so much of your power comes from talent allocation. It makes enchants, tradeskills, buffs and other parts of the game feel paltry by comparison because you are so powerful just by a passive increase to your talents. It means picking the "wrong" spec is brutal instead of just sub-optimal.

Now there are other considerations of course. In the case for Hunger for Blood, we think having an overpowered talent is preferable to the alternative. There are talents like Ruin that provide an enormous dps increase and we live with that. (And to be fair, Titan's Grip is still overpowered even with the 10% penalty but it's less overpowered than without the penalty.) If we could find no other way to improve Fury dps, then I'm sure we'd look at TG. But there's a lot of the tree we can imrpove.