It's a perfect analogy, because whether he means to or not, Zarko's highlighting unequivocal opinions that become party lines and then conventional wisdom through social pressure because most people don't want to be mobbed and ridiculed.
I'm not sure how that relates to the analogy. The analogy is flawed because what an automatic transmission does for a car isn't at all like what Second Wind does for a warrior. It'd work if we were comparing, say, pre-MoP warriors (ie, very little active mitigation, basically all of it passive) to pre-MoP DKs (A lot of active mitigation, with less passive). Or comparing going mastery/hit/exp gearing (To strengthen active mitigation) to dodge/parry gearing (To strengthen passive mitigation).
I mean, Blizzard finally goes the mile to offer playstyle-reflective choices in talents, and the first thing you guys do is try to scrub your posts for every trace of the subjunctive.
Why do you think that's my goal? If Second Wind was a viable choice, I'd be all for it. The problem with it isn't just the fact that it's automatic, it's that it doesn't do very much. It heals for less than a tick of Rejuv when it goes off. If it worked more like, say, Will of the Necropolis (ie, automatically procs at low health for a reasonable heal, more like 10% or something with a 30 or so second ICD), that'd be a much more viable option and we wouldn't be bagging on it so much.
As much as Blizzard's intention is clear, they're not perfect and situations will arise when there are better or worse talents. Look at, say, our first tier. Most people agree that Warbringer is an inferior talent for PvE because stuns aren't as useful. Or in the last tier, Avatar's now just about the worst choice because it does less damage on a longer cooldown than Bloodrage and the only plus for it is that it breaks snares.
To be fair, my only beef with this particular scenario is that no one has actually done the work necessary to give the advice. If someone had worked out a model and presented data, I wouldn't be so contrary in this thread. And indeed, if the rule of thumb was: 10 mans it doesn't matter, for hard content, you'll need the extra CD, I wouldn't be !@#$%ing. I mind the blanket rule not supported by close examination of the needs of the petitioner.
What are you talking about? How much work do you want? I showed examples of how much it heals and how often from my own logs, and that isn't just me talking out of my butt, I do raid exclusively 10-mans with a pretty casual and not terribly progressed guild and we do have problems with tank damage. I'm not just saying "Hey, I think it's not great for 10 mans because I say so", I'm saying "Hey, I think it's not great for 10 mans because I've used it and tried it out and I didn't like it and felt considerably more squishy." Plus, Demo's given you math to show why it's not as useful as you say it is. What more do you need?
I realise it looks like we're just bullying Second Wind because we all want to be part of the cool club (Well, I kinda realise that) but that's not the situation at all. We're bullying Second Wind because we genuinely cannot see how it's better than the other two options for prot outside soloing and we're not just saying that just because, we're saying it because we have maths and experience backing us up.
-----Combat tables, diminishing returns and you!http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2489160859