Yeah, i’m referring the vanilla hunter. I’m sadly aware.
1 Like
It was not the case in actual Vanilla either after patch 1.9…
Yeah man, for sure. What about the rest? Like before 1.9?
… one would think that involving the pet in your gameplay would be a good way to reinforce the identity of a pet class… just a little bit ridiculous that you think this is a bad thing that somehow makes us less of a pet class.
Also I don’t believe for a second that any player worth their salt was getting ganked by your pet alone unless you vastly out-levelled them.
We’re on the same page. I didn’t used to be so agressive towards things I perceive to be bad things because they didn’t used to be threatening to me. Melee Hunters? What a silly idea! Hardly anyone supports that and the class has been forever moving AWAY from melee, so why waste energy campaigning against it on the forums?.. yeah, didn’t work out that way. I still feel the silence of people like me back then enabled a lot of the really bad class design you see today and I don’t intend to make that mistake again.
We’ve been over this. Don’t deliberately ignore points you don’t like. They are not cosmetic. Plus, there are other useful exotics such as Devilsaurs. Just because you have an extremely narrow view of BFA Hunters and clearly don’t fully understand the current state of pets doesn’t mean the problems you invent are real.
Also, BM Hunter pets have always had the same abilities as pets of other specs, including in classic. In fact, one would think that having exotic pets, multiple gameplay elements based on the pet, and a huge passive damage bonus to pets would cement BM as the distinct pet spec moreso than Classic.
No, what makes the class is the unique ranged weapon + pet identity defined in our core toolkit and gameplay. We don’t need to camp rare pets to appreciate that, and we certainly don’t need pet happiness either.
It’s unreal how you rail against BFA for having the Spirit Beast being the go-to pet yet here you are championing classic WoW when every Hunter was encouraged to take the same damn rare pet. Unbelievable hypocrite.
It’s not my fault other people are so wrong all the time.
It is an argument.
I’ve written thousands of words in this thread so don’t even try to pretend I only have ad hominem arguments. I’ve explained exactly why your ideals for the Hunter class are bad for the game.
I also linked a grand total of ONE youtube video, purely to demonstrate how much more involved BFA boss fights are than Vanilla boss fights, including the design of the class.
Neither of those things would be good for the game.
Pet happiness adds nothing but a penalty for playing the class, period.
Having certain pets be unquestionably better than others just completely removes all choice and decision making from the pet system.
For example, in BFA I go with a Tenacity pet however if my group needs Bloodlust or if I’m solo grinding and I need the leech buff I go with Ferocity, or if a boss fight involves a lot of movement and spread target switching I go with a Cunning pet which is a lot faster and has Master’s Call. You wanted skill caps in the class? How about using Master’s Call to position your pet much faster on spread-out fights?
However, before BFA Ferocity pets flat out did more damage by default. This means you HAD to use a Ferocity pet in raids, end of discussion. Kind of like how in Classic you are going to be using a cat pet all the time, and in PvP that better be one of the fast ones (preferrably Broken Tooth). It removes the interesting part of choosing a pet and funnels people into single “correct” choices.
It was a less refined and more unfinished version of the game so I do not care.
I never said you dont contribute good arguments. I said youre toxic. Because you are. Half your arguments are dashed with insults to people, and what they like. Its why no one takes your arguments serious.
I get It man, you hate the classic, and vanilla Hunter. Cool. A lot of people dont.
lmao 
1 Like
You really should read all of his posts. He tends to use a lot of words to hide poor arguments.
The wall of text mixed with his ego is unbearable. Youre stronger than me.
1 Like
The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.
Long rambling walls of text, coupled with enough ego to think ‘using the most words makes me right’ when in reality, it’s just that nobody wants to waste the time to respond to novel number 9185 about why his opinion is better than yours. And, if you don’t respond to every single point, he’s pulled out the ‘way to ignore most of what I said and nitpick on one single minor point’ (a standard gallop defense) before.
Dude’s been a pseudo-intellectual joke for 4 years now.
4 Likes
yea sadly true. LW is basically a group only mechanic. i tried to do some WQ as LW MM the other day and it was laughable.
Yep but sadly this classic patch does not have him. That was a pet in Real Vanilla.
1 Like
Anyone who defends retail class design should go play bejeweled like a true casual.
2 Likes
I’m not going to pretend I respect the suggestions and stances of others when I don’t.
I know it’s meant to be a virtue, but as far as I’m concerned and from what I’ve seen from this game in the past few years (and sadly often in real life) is that acting all kind and non-confrontational just makes you easier to ignore and screw over. Sadly people see compromise as a weakness so I find myself becoming less compromising as the years go on. Sorry if that offends you but I’m done being walked on.
Already been over this. I post as much elaboration as I think is necessary.
For example: in a post I made earlier on some other thread I said later iterations of Hunter had things such as Disengage that Classic didn’t have. Obviously it DID have a spell called “Disengage” but it was pretty worthless before WotLK so I didn’t think at the time that it needed elaboration, so I left it at that. Yet the reply I got used this as a “gotcha” moment. So I guess whenever I mention Disengage in the future in these sorts of discussions I have to include a disclaimer, and that’s just one more line that makes the post longer. Stuff like that is why my posts are long.
I future-proof my posts against arguments I know are going to come after what I say. So yes if someone ignores my post and puts forward an argument I’ve already refuted I’m going to call them out on it.
Plus, you misunderstand Gish galloping. Gish galloping is using as many arguments as possible, yes. To do that you don’t elaborate on each individual argument; you just outline it as succinctly as possible and move onto the next one in rapid succession. That’s not what I’m doing because I’m elaborating each one of my arguments. I’m actually not dumping a lot of different points at once into a thread. It’s a small handful of well-elaborated points, which is NOT Gish galloping. Generally they are longer than the posts of people I’m responding to because it’s very easy to dump something like “ranged SV was just the same as MM” into a thread but there are a lot of reasons why that is wrong that need to be elaborated.
Also my posts are long usually because I’m responding to multiple people at once.
So check yourself before calling others pseudo-intellectuals.
1.12 was real Vanilla. Don’t be such a purist.
You’ve literally done no PVE content of note. You’re the casual here.
You really should do this then because I’ve already been over this, your posts are not as worthwhile as you want to pretend to be. If you need to write a paragraph to make a one sentence statement you are wasting time, yours and the readers. To go further, when you are repeating yourself, you are wasting even more. And then we get into the poor arguments, usually these are made because you are using second hand information, or you are way too subjective on the subject. You cannot think outside a box is the impression that you are giving.
It’s not a gotcha moment, that looks more like paranoia.
Really? I’ve had the EXACT opposite experience in real life and game life. If you’re rude to people, and treat them horribly they’re much less likely to take you serious, or even treat you fairly.
You can treat the PERSON with respect, while not agreeing with the opinion man. It doesn’t offend me, it just makes take you LESS serious. You’re attempting to present your opinon but you pepper it with insults. You come across as child throwing a tantrum instead of someone with serious input.
You give no ground, on any opinion. Yours is the only one that matters, you know the BEST thing that can happen to the future of the hunter.
I truly believe Blizzard will take some things from classic and implement them, as well as previous hunter iterations going forward. They’re going to focus on retaining as much of the 230% increase of subs as possible. In my opinion that’s the best bet for them as company is to learn from previous expansions.
4 Likes
Im not sure which is a more potent sleep aid, Xanax or modern PvE content. Its nice and easy though just like bejewelled.
Also I like that you didn’t even try to defend my statement about class design, since bfa classes are about as interesting as a blank piece of paper.
I was thinking more in a political context where compromise is just too often seen as a weakness rather than a strength. It shouldn’t be seen that way but that’s how it is.
In WoW I’m more concerned about the Survival situation. I’ve read many old threads on the issue. I think people who didn’t like melee Hunters and didn’t want to see the class go in that direction were far too passive and cordial in their disagreement whenever the idea came up. Also, in terms of other issues people have had to raise hell on the forums in order to get Blizzard to change their minds on anything.
You sure are putting a lot of stock into an unverified figure that lacks context.
They are going to focus on retaining subs by maintaining both classic and modern WoW, simple as that. Why would they force modern WoW to be more like classic WoW when classic WoW exists and the people who like that sort of game are already subbed to that? We do not need 2x Classic WoW.
You could argue about monetisation but in my experience the people who like Classic are vehemently against those things and wouldn’t use the monetised services.
If it’s so easy why have you not managed to do any of it? You can sure talk the talk but you can’t walk the walk.
I’m not obligated to put any effort into my replies to yours when you are posting low-effort one-liners. I’m already being called a Gish galloper and a pseudointellectual for the posts in which I do put a lot of effort. For the record, I think BfA class design is a step down from MoP-era classes but I would still prefer to play those classes than the classes of Classic.
It’s pretty simple as to WHY they would want classic wow players to convert to retail. I’ve explained it, but i’ll do it again.
Currently Classic wow has the a large player base with hardly any additional revenue streams right? No server transfers, no actual store to purchase mounts or any other goods and services.
If they can get a fraction of the player base to play both, and start purchasing the other services they provide, they earn more revenue.
This is where my opinion comes in here is disclaimer for you. I myself have no desire to try retail in it’s current state. If they want to convert me personally they would have to implement changes from past iterations of the game to entice me to play. I FEEL i’m not alone in this.
" Argumentum ad tl;dr
A related distraction technique involves swamping an opponent in long-winded screeds of text to artificially inflate the appearance of depth and quality of information presented. In an argumentum ad tl;dr, the actual content of several paragraphs can be summed up in a sentence or two. While the Gish Gallop floods an opponent with many, but relatively short points, argumentum ad tl;dr flings text walls so massive and impenetrable that even Victor Hugo Marcel Proust would blush. Both tactics, however, have exactly the same purpose: to bury and obfuscate the core points that need to be discussed under a quantity of superfluous information. A user might well think that these techniques show that they know what they’re talking about, but in the end they act simply as distractions. Note that both are different (but not mutually exclusive) from argumentum ad nauseam, which bolsters the apparent credibility of the argument simply by repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again."
You mix and match all three on a regular basis. You are the Patron Saint of Prolixity, and it isn’t exactly working for you.
4 Likes
Stopped reading here because I directly addressed this point in my post already. Learn to read.