No need to develop what has been. Just pull old Ranged Surv. whith it’s old kit.
The way I see it MM would be petless archer sniper. A 4th spec would be the OLd Ranged Surv. Kinda like a scout using stuff like EotB for surveillance. Traps Camo Bl Arrow, LnL. , Black Ice, Mirrored Blades, aoe CC frost traps. Serpent Spread…
A Scout/ranged Medic would be err… nvm. But having a Sylvana style Dk Ranger or a Legolas is so cheesy cringey.
I wonder how many MM want the change just for statistic reasons like they’re hoping the new MM will get them to stronger, more MEta friendly spec? Or at least closer to meTa?
Because I pulled those quotes from the current class descriptions and the character creation screen about five minutes before I made the post?
1> I don’t think it’s changed in 23 years. The fact you grabbed in 5 minutes, or 5 seconds ago, doesn’t change the fact it was orignally written 20+ years ago.
2> Let’s just assume it has: it doesn’t change the fact that it’s just flavor text. It doesn’t mean anything. Not in this game.
What matters is how it works. Not what’s written … about how it works.
One look at the Warrior description proves the copy has nothing to do with the function.
Imagine quoting a month old post, about an issue that was already solved, just to be smug
Sure they cant keep their canon straight, but the flavour text isnt that old, it was updated to include survival being melee by example, either way the point would still stand unless the text was removed
This, why they’re refusing to add in tinkers and rangers is beyond me. Instead, they’re trying to make hunters a one size fits all and it isn’t working. The class from the ground up was coded for pets. You try to change that and you’ll break it.
5 Likes
If it’s still accurate, the timing of the post doesn’t matter.
Imagine not grasping such a basic concept, simply because you refuse to admit you’re wrong.
A journey of a thousand miles …
Congratulations on your first step. Although I’m sure you’ll disregard it.
Give rogues a sniper class and bring back the hunter classic dead zone, with wing clip.
Just like the flavour text is accurate, regardless if its 20 years or not?
quite ironic isnt? 
rly weird projecting here, since you are the one refusing to admit you are wrong, cause the flavour text from the hunter page isnt 20 years old, but you do you with your delusion
The age of the text isn’t the point. No surprise it’s what you keep focusing on.
lol gg
Yet, is the only argument you made, despite being wrong about it.
I guess you want to say since blizz dont care about their lore we can use their lore at all to explain/talk about stuff, but its just a fallacy not rly a clever point to make
That isn’t the argument I made. No wonder you don’t understand. Or rather, you’re just posting whatever … but, that should be obvious. lol
The argument I made is that flavor text doesn’t matter when it comes to gameplay elements. It’s just meant to sound cool and edgy.
The game plays… how the game plays. If there is overlap… hooray kid. That’s great. But gameplay isn’t built upon flavor text.
What you’re trying to say is that machines in factories make items based on what it says in the catalog. As if the person in an office writing copy has anything to do with the manufacturing process. It’s difficult to laugh hard enough at such a disconnect from how things ACTUALLY WORK.
lol?? Again, you’re so lost.
WE … can’t use their lore … FOR ANYTHING. Because it’s not our game.
THEY … CAN use the lore … FOR ANYTHING. Because IT IS their game. And they can do whatever they want.
Again-- if the flavor text has anything at all to do with how the game plays… good? But if it doesn’t (and it very often doesn’t), then THEY DON’T CARE.
Look at the people that have mastered the gameplay elements of WoW. The Liquids and the Methods. You think they read the FLAVOR TEXT to better understand how to play??? Or do they just log in and start playing?
hahaahahah hahh haahahahahaha hahaahahahaha Here’s a pamphlet, bub. Don’t forget to subscribe to the newsletter! hahaahahahahahaa
1 Like
It is what you used to talk, you own your words, if you are unhappy about how people read then, write better
I find rather funny to say someone don’t understand arguments, when you yourself didn’t understood the OP
Flavour text is to show/describe the “lore” of a class, its functionality and its, wait for it, gameplay elements.
Thats cute, but not always, gameplay is often build upon flavour text, is often build upon lore and characters.
I mean, if you didnt notice, the entire Pack leader spec was build based on Rexxar, and his “flavour text” and his beasts.
Legion was an expansion based entirely on focusing on “spec fantasy” aka, building and changing based on key figures in the lore.
What OP put here was a remind to blizzard that they, themselves, mention how pet is a core part of the hunter gameplay, and it is a pet class, regardless of the spec and it was a mistake to remove for one spec, pretending isnt, just because some pve instanced content.
I can use their lore, for anything i want though? who gonna stop be?
I can use their lore to build my characters, i can use their lore to discuss the game story, hell, i can even snatch to use in other games lol.
But they end up caring, and putting the pet back anyway 
1 Like
For all your use of quoting, it’s telling you didn’t quote this part.
Because that’s not what I said. clown
Are you an alt of @Sesamee? You’re not even the person I was talking to. Why did you elect yourself to stand up and start showing off your lack of reading comprehension?
-
Someone (doesn’t matter) said the flavor text doesn’t match the gameplay.
-
I commented that it’s absurd to think that 20+ year old flavor text would match the gameplay.
-
Someone (doesn’t matter who) tried to then change the argument to “it’s only 5 years old.” Which could just as easily be “it’s only 5 minutes old.” It doesn’t change the fact it’s the same, WRONG argument that, regardless of timeframe, flavor text has nothing to do with gameplay.
-
Someone (doesn’t matter who) starts then moving goal posts and creating new arguments (all of which dumber than the previous ones) that have nothing to do with what I said originally, and which STILL STANDS:
Flavor text has nothing to do with gameplay.
g g
This is what you said clown, you use the “24+ year text” as argument to make your little strawman. Its both wrong since its not a 24+ year text and the OP didnt use it to make an “absolute” definition of the class, you made up this yourself.
OP only use the text as a remind that Hunter is a pet class, and removing from one spec for no reason goes against their own class fantasy
Because when i see someone talking crap looking smug in a thread i was accompanying before i feel the need to, especially when the issue was already fixed, proving OP wrong.
The argument is that, it currently, does match, but it would no longer, with the new patch, the thread is a remind that it shoud keep that way, why it should not?
And you already got corrected that isnt a 20 year old text, right
Except the fact that flavour text explains and justify gameplay and more than often gameplay is tailored in favour of the flavour text, aka lore/fantasy
As it is stand right now, the text will continue to be relevant since MM will keep their pet.
I’ve proven this wrong four times now.
And yet you still keep going.
lol
I still can’t get over the destruction of the survival spec. Why did they have to introduce a melee hunter? There is a demon hunter for melee. Bring back the survival hunter as it was in wrath.
2 Likes
I’m not a pro enough gamer to have an opinion on the mechanics of all this, but I love my two MM hunters. They’re really fun to play. Look at my Dark Ranger transmog (Finally!). That’s like peak cool factor as far as I’m concerned!