I'm not going to repeat the analyses posted by Bretin or any other person on the subject of Marauder (partly because I can't find them in Search) but the consensus of everyone except you and a few others is that Marauder is already an extremely powerful class in T4 and is the last class that would need any help. If me asking "Marauder needs buffs"? isn't a fair comment in light of that... oh wait. It is a perfectly fair comment, just like when I make it about KotBS when people bring up buffing their stagger or any other underperforming aspect they have.Euan wrote:Alright I'll do quoting on one of the examples.
Azarael wrote:
Frankly, I'd love to see a Pounce mirror. How about turning GTTC into a rolling Pounce?
Euan wrote:
How about on the Marauder? You could throw it on monstrosity spec so its more viable.
Azarael wrote: Marauder needs buffs?
This not only shows your order bias once again, but it's something I would write and be considered **** post. The same argument could be made against the Warrior Priest you buffed that you didn't want mirrored on the DoK because it would be considered too broken and apparently that reflects on WP. Pounce on Monstro Marauder wouldn't make Marauder stronger, it would be a lesser build to Sav/Brut just like Melee WP is lesser build to Healing WP.
Additionally, it's not Order bias, because I suggested giving a version of Pounce to Choppa. I didn't block the idea of Destruction having a version of it completely, I questioned your proposal (which was personally motivated) to give it to Marauder.
Since you brought up melee WP - you and I both know that healing WP and melee WP are so distinct in playstyle that they might as well be separate classes. The topics around melee WP have mentioned many times that any changes must have no effect on the Salvation build. I don't find that in any way comparable to the risks that would be inherent in giving Marauders a version of Pounce. As for DoK, melee DoK is already viable. Perhaps you should look past your Destruction bias some time.
If you'd like to address any aspect of the post I made in reply to you, now would be the time, because as I told you in the last thread, in accepting my invitation to make this thread, you were supposed to provide a true smoking gun - something very destructive to the staff, which would cause us to have to adapt immediately, and which would justify the continued attitude you've displayed even after our transparency initiative began. If all you've got is nitpicking over forum posts that only you see a problem with, then you've failed that test. This topic is not an excuse to start railing off on what you think is Order bias, because with you, we'll be here all night.