i say OP is > 90% right here. why?
1)
countering your own new design direction can only lead to shooting yourself in the food. the opening post is imo 100% accurate here. for proof of this be a sw dev, architect and designer for 20+ year, like me, or look at every single moment when blizz did this and from patch to patch moved away cause of obvious problems. if you have a rational mind and play through „when this then that, when this then that...“ scenarios, you will quickly realize that opening post of OP is a fact and ALWAYS a bad idea that never worked or ended well.
2)
if your goal is a well rounded class, experience or whatever, you need to make working things in the same direction. this is the reason, why car manufacturers do not use a driving wheel from trucks.
3)
for every sane mind it should be obviously, that hurting point 1 or 2 above only can lead to extremes. you dont want extremes in a talent row. why? because having extremes, end in a talent, that everyone have to take or no one take it. the result is a crashed talent row. Blizz works hard to steer away from that. Blizz want talents with small nuances. 3 of them in a row, offers choice. good. 1 extreme in a row, deletes choice. bad. now even your grandma should have got it.
4)
the question the op is asking here, is a obvious rational question. lets get back to the car example. if a company that built trucks for many years, decided to build a car, they redesign everything, make it smaller, try to achieve that all fits together. if someone comes up with „lets keep the big steering wheel“ engineers will tell em „ok fine, but then we also need the room for that. this leads to a bigger chasis. this leads to...“ and they came into problems. at some point someone will ask „why you try to solve this problems? i thought you wanna make a car. so fuck off your truck steer wheel and give em a car sized steer wheel and all your problems are gone“.
so why i repeat that shit here? to show a conceptual natural effect: if the question is coming from a rational logical background, the answer for that question is almost rational and therefore has good reasons. this means, when OP is even able to asking a rational question for logical reasons, this is already a proof in itself, that a rational answer cant be the opposite or an irrational answer and at the same time, when doing what answer say, the effects works out fine automatically. thats not how nature or physics work in the real world. and this is a proof, that implementing a countering mechanic talent, will not work out. by default. idk if someone understand this.