Community Council discussion on Hunter design

Classes Hunter
811

Again, no one has made this argument.

I merely said that far more synergy is possible among effects which could thereby increase throughput in the Specialization Trees, as opposed to the Class Trees.

The Class Trees have no choice but to be fairly generic, because they’re not part of the tree that grants the vast majority of one’s throughput-related/affecting gameplay.

That’s nonsensical. We’re using talent trees now. You have therefore only two options: to balance X against others of the same category of access, or to balance X against everything.

If we did as you suggest, we’d have to balance the likes of Steel Trap against the likes of Trailblazer, Improved Tranquilizing Shot, or Camouflage.

…Do you really wish to tell me that Steel Trap is worse for being balanced against the likes of Injectors than also needing to be squished down to the power of the likes of Improved Tranquilizing Shot?

This is an irrelevant butwhatabout-ism.

You specifically claimed that the Class Tree was worse for not having more throughput talents and for throughput being limited to the capstone tier. That is what I and others here have rebutted. That has nothing to do with their ability to create more, or more interesting, talents (save in that Class Tree throughput tends to be far more creatively constrained than Class Tree utility, such that your preference would probably cause the average talent to more dull, actually).

Again, what should be in their place then? A Class Tree MUST house at least 11 competitive capstone talents applicable to each spec.

Let’s take a look at those “real” capstones of yours:

  • Dire Pack
  • Killer Cobra
  • Rylakstalker’s Piercing Fangs
  • Wild Instincts
  • Blood Frenzy
  • Wailing Arrow
  • Call of the Wild
  • Eagletalon’s True Focus
  • Volley
  • Salvo
  • Bulletstorm
  • Windrunner’s Guidance
  • Razer Fragments
  • Dead Eye
  • Wildfire Infusions
  • Fury of the Eagle
  • Spearhead
  • Coordinated Assault

Of those, how many are actually applicable across all specs? Otherwise, you’re not actually increasing the number of capstone options available here. You’re merely putting more spec points onto the class tree without increasing what all the class tree offers to a given player (as they can be in one spec at a time).

These, for instance, are talents I can imagine us seeing in our Class Tree capstones:

  • Wild Spirits
  • Flayed Shot
  • Razer Fragments
  • Deadeye
  • Chakrams (old version, not Death Chakrams)
  • Powershot (though this would mean it can’t see as many synergies in MM)
    • Renamed to, say, Power Throw on SV and reskinned to use a piercing spear throw instead of a piercing arrow, or just using Power Throw for everyone, just as everyone uses Chakrams anyways.
  • Windburst (though this would mean it can’t see as many synergies in MM)
  • A Murder of Crows (but this would mean it can’t see as many synergies in BM)
  • Burning Embers (set Tar Trap on fire, but that’d mean you have to delay Tar Trap)
  • Shatterpoint (gives the Shatter effect to enemies caught by Freezing Trap)
  • Resonating Arrow (except, I am way too tired of that sh** arrow, so no, unless it were reworked to be more interesting as per the likes of Echoing Reprimand instead)

And that’s it. That’s about all that can apply across specs, and even then, not all of them are going to feel especially powerful per use.

And that’s not just because of SV (who could use Barrage just fine if they so much as flipped a switch to remove the arbitrary restriction). Even BM and MM constrain each other heavily.

That’s not to say we couldn’t come up with new skills from scratch that could suit all three specs, but there aren’t many effects we could reasonably drag and drop to the Hunter Class Tree right now.

Such as…?

  • Death Knight class capstones are generic, rather than split into spec-specific groups.
  • Druid class capstones are generic, rather than split into spec-specific groups.
  • Evoker class capstones aren’t particularly split into spec-related groups—probably because they have two specs anyways.
  • Mage class capstone aren’t spec-specific and are lackluster to the point of being skipped in favor of stat stick talents.
  • Monk capstones are obligatory, with maybe one extra capstone being takeable for off-role utility purposes.
  • Paladin follows the same trend as Monk, but better done (more flexible, with more utility/healing vs. damage option swing).
  • Priest’s capstones somewhat do as you suggest—though as strings instead of diamonds/clusters—and are largely hated for it.
  • Rogue’s Class Tree isn’t thematically split into groups (instead, into 5 4-point paths that aesthetically surround each other) and is mostly loved for it.
  • Shaman has only ~3 throughput nodes among its capstones, none of them for damage, as is generally liked for it. You could say perhaps that there is mild grouping, but they largely overlap or cross over.
  • Warlock has only one truly active capstone per spec (Inquisitor’s Gaze is a 1-hour buff).
  • Warrior’s class capstone tier is the closest to doing what you describe, by bundling by spec just by sticking Arms-only or Fury-only 10% damage nodes into the left and right side, respectively, and is frequently hated for it.
  • …And Warrior was the last of the currently released Class Trees.

Of all the talent choices that would make sense to put in the space shared by all three specs, it would be those usable by all three specs, no?

That’s only three things:

  1. Self-sustain,
  2. Movement
  3. Crowd-Control.

Traps are one of the few contributors to those 3 things (in this case, Crowd-Control) that retain fairly even value across all three specs.

Can’t say I’d personally ever want to have a (frequently/quickly invisible to allies) ground-targeted effect again, but… could just have both.

812

Each Hunter spec can make use of 5 basic forms of utility and 5 forms of shared throughput that could reasonably be visually set to progress from left to right across the Class Tree.

UTILITY

  1. Pet utility
    • This would be more universal if we address the lack of baseline pet AoE focus spenders so that Lone Wolf is actually an option. Otherwise, its inefficiencies costs are still only momentary so long as Lone Wolf is made baseline for MM, as it should be.
  2. Mobility
  3. Self-sustain
  4. Ranged Utility (including Misdirect, Countershot, Concussive, Binding Shot, Tranq Shot)
  5. Traps

THROUGHPUT

  1. Bestial Orphan Skills (AMoC, Stampede)
  2. Generic Past Skills (Wild Spirits, etc.)
  3. Ranged Orphan Skills (Serpent Sting, Bleed on Crit)
  4. Kill Shot Augmenting skills (Dead Eye, Razor Fragments, Flayed Shot)
  5. Trap-related skills (Steel Trap, NTA, Embers, Caltrops, new traps)

Now, I do think that it’s generally better to constrain throughput to the capstone tier. However, if there were just a few throughput talents prior at highly pathable locations, by which to improve the leveling gameplay, that would be fine so long as

  • certain utility paths are made cheaper in exchange, and
  • the throughput-affecting talents have gameplay choice in themselves (i.e., they should be choice nodes opposite faintly inferior passive effects).

In this way, for instance, we might make Concussive Shot baseline and put Serpent Sting in a choice node at the center of Row 1 opposite 30% bleed damage on crit to primary target or the like.

1 Like
813

Have you guys noticed you can’t reach any capstones if you spec into Surging Shots for ST?

It’s either obvious that Surging Shots was only meant to play a role in AoE or obvious that they didn’t think of making Surging Shots play a role in ST in tandem w/ any capstones.
This also makes Surging Shots a “capstone” if you want to play it in ST scenarios.

814

I’m actually fine with Surging Shots being / acting as a “capstone” of sorts. It’s always carried that level of opportunity cost, after all.

I’m not fine with the AoE / ST split, though, as it just means that we only get two-thirds each of a talent tree based on the given form of content.

Trick Shots, for instance, should probably be where True Aim is now, and Trick Shots itself should be revised.

For instance, instead of requiring Multi-Shot to hit 3+ targets, have all instant shots inflict Target Marked to their targets, and your Aimed Shot or Rapid Fire against those targets to consume Target Marked to ricochet to the nearest enemy within 20 yds who is also afflicted by Target Marked until it can ricochet no further.

Trick Shots itself can be generated as a buff that causes your next Aimed Shot or Rapid Fire to ricochet regardless of whether its target is afflicted with Target Marked.

Voila. We no longer need all this baggage of Bombardment or the like. Tab-targeted Arcane Shots would be sufficient for two-target situations. Deathblow, Chimera, Lock and Load, Razor Fragments, etc., would likewise all have their synergies.

2 Likes
815

Exactly. On both your points.

The positioning of Rapid Fire is the cause of the split with Multi-Shot furthering this.

It seems as of right now that MM has Salvo, Trueshot, and Legacy as 3 different ways of ending/playing MM. While Surging Shot’s position and it “acting” as a capstone for ST might be/feel ok it still leaves out the potential of playing it with a deep trueshot/LotW build making the build/tree seem incomplete.

Rapid Fire, Streamline, and Surging shots should be in nodes that can at the very least be a “unique” way to play MM parallel to going a killshot build, in other words, rapid fire or deathblow builds should be mutually exclusive but be accessible to all capstones.

816

I do not think they should be mutually exclusive. I like that I can sacrifice Windrunners+2 or 1+Salvo in order to max both RF and KS talents, as per a generalist tree like below.
https://www.wowhead.com/beta/talent-calc/hunter/marksmanship/BNEJEVaQFggoJRUCBANZlYJWVREQUCAQBQ

The larger issues, I feel, are simply that the effects of Lone Wolf and True Aim aren’t baseline and, again, that the tree attempts to split itself into AoE vs. ST, which means that in any given situation, MM really only has simultaneous access to at most 8 nodes of interest: Surging, Deathblow, Razor, Volley, Double Tap, Serpentstalker’s, Dead Eye, and Eagletalon/Unerring.

The ST build is the most constrained, not because of RF’s positioning, but because Windrunner’s itself costs a unique 5 points to reach. AoE builds are less constrained, but not just because of RF, but also because they don’t lock themselves behind 2-4 dull and inefficient talents. It would take only the most minor of pathing additions to allow for MT builds not to be nearly so dependent upon RF/KS.

Ideally, I’d simply

  • make Lone Wolf baseline along with giving pets a class-wide baseline AoE focus spender (may nerf Beast Cleave to compensate),
  • move Multi-Shot to Lone Wolf’s former position,
  • remove True Aim (bake into Crack Shot) and Hunter’s Knowledge (generalize Killing Blow to affect Aimed Shot and Rapid Fire as well),
  • move Trick Shots to True Aim’s former position, now pathed only from Multi-Shot,
  • move Volley to a shared choice node with Razor, now pathed also from Trick Shots (at the former True Aim position, R5 center),
  • remove Bombardment (apply the previously mentioned changes to Trick Shots, making it unnecessary),
  • move Sharpshooter to Bombardment’s former position, pathing from Razor/Volley,
  • move Heavy Ammo/Light Ammo to Sharpshooter’s former position, and
  • move Bulletstorm (diamond left), H/L Ammo (diamond right), and Salvo (diamond bottom) each up a row, so that all three path from and form a diamond with Sharpshooter (diamond top, in the former position of Bombardment).
817

Those points missing from killing blow hurts my soul lol.

I like that build too but the real bread winner for your build is Trueshot and its talents. Your build will probably be high sustain from group to group but no huge aoe or st spikes which is perfectly fine, very fun and almost identical to a venthyr MM which is my personal favorite.

But because we have new talents that compete with that build if I’m going to go omegablast danger mode for aoe I’d go with this build. Note, Crack Shot being 1 point will allow me to spec into Lock & Load.

If I want to do big st damage then I’d go with this build. Note, Crack Shots being one point will allow me to spec into the new wailing arrow choice node.

I can def understand losing out on being able to use both but it really doesn’t have to. I’m sure there are ways to design it where you can get access to both but also go deep with either aoe and st regardless of which one you choose.

Yes. I somewhat agree. I don’t mind True aim being a talent. It enhances a shot that is shared between specs. Lone wolf, for sure. To your nodes of interest point, I do think it is subjective since I like the idea of Windrunner’s and how wailing arrow now also has wind arrows and how you can put a point into making those wind arrows hit harder.

Yes. You are correct as well. It goes both ways. It’s either tight if you choose rapid fire or tight if you go Windrunner’s because you lose out on more interesting talents or builds like rapid fire and its talents lol

My point has been that ST and AoE should be straightforward, whether its your way or a way they see fit and also feel good to go down yet also add build variety by being able to excel in an RF build or a Razor-type build in addition to our capstones regardless if you go ST or AOE, or be able to use both RF and Razor but not benefit from the capstones to make a high sustain build like yours and to also balance out the sustain vs burst. This way we can have much more variance in builds than what we have now, including your build

1 Like
818

These are the same builds I use for heavier skews towards AoE or ST. My generalist build likewise would take Wailing as well given the not yet shown point-reduction on Crack Shots.

Similarly, with the changes I’d suggested above, we’d have 2 more points to work with atop that. Though, at that point, I’d be fine with Crack Shots still taking 2 points so long as Precise Shots also costs just 1 point.

I agree. I just don’t think that’s remotely the case right now, and both purest builds (heavy AoE or all ST) oblige too many dull points to get to their good stuff.

Also, Legacy of the Windrunner is, itself, quite dull. It’s literally just a 17|33|83% (per the wowhead-visible effects and its overpowered final talent, Guidance) Aimed Shot damage buff in a fancy skin that stacks multiplicatively with other AiS buffs but has Crit anti-synergy.

I would have at least liked some element of control, such as by having your damaging shots generate a Wind Bolt (2 on crit), stacking up to 6 that are then released on your next Aimed Shot.

To be fair, that’s only Multi-Shot, and that’s shared only with one other spec. Neither BM nor SV use Arcane. But my main issue was just that it doesn’t feel like Arcane should start off so damn weak in the first place. And as it’s not shared with anyone else, they could just increase baseline strength.

2 Likes
819

I like to see what they going to do about BM AoE in DF considering we lose Nightfae ability. We will even be worst at that as well. lol. I just think as it stands hunters are going to be less and less desired. No AoE ability unless play sub class you dont want too.

820

No, they don’t. Generally they don’t have to entirely replace baseline elements with something less capable. Like I said the only example of a node actually changing to a different ability (not the same effect triggering from different spec abilities) is Mage, and that’s just a case of three different flavours of the same ability. There’s no inherent loss of capability when speccing into something. Remember that SL restored the spec model of not having a spec before level 10. When I pick a spec at level 10 it should not feel like the spec is suddenly working against the foundation set by that point. I don’t feel that for any spec other than Survival, because Hunters start with ranged weapons while Survival asks you to throw it away.

Yes Blizzard thinks it’s important but as we have seen from these past few years Blizzard is often mistaken.

Survival Hunters bleat in every other thread about how calling Survival a melee spec is a “meme” and it’s “effectively a ranged spec” so spare me the talk about the melee distinction being important anymore. It’s entirely tokenistic at this stage and brings no value to the spec or the class. In fact it detracts value.

False equivalency is becoming a pattern in your posts.

All of those examples add to their class foundation. The only specs that are comparable to SV are a) Enhancement and Feral due to being melee alongside a ranged spec in the same class and b) Marksmanship due to Lone Wolf. In the case of Feral and Enhancement, both of those classes are structured to support a melee spec a lot better. Druids have shapeshifting and Shamans have a melee weapon by default. And in the case of Marksmanship the only thing that makes Lone Wolf acceptable is that sometimes dependence on a pet is literally a drawback. As for ranged weapons and Survival: ranged weapons are literally never a drawback so it makes zero sense to have a class that’s based around ranged weapons but can spec into not using them. It’s speccing into a handicap and that defies basic spec design. The only way to make it make sense is to either a) make ranged weapons sometimes a drawback again just like before MoP (i.e. minimum range) or b) make Hunters by default a melee class that can spec into being ranged with either BM or MM. Both are terrible ideas.

This is why something like a melee Hunter should be an optional subspec within an existing spec (ideally BM) rather than a separate spec.

I actually do prefer Trick Shots because Bombardment was boring and useless, but the SV one is not the same. It’s not Multi-shot: it’s a dimished melee “equivalent” (not really because it has a CD). Spreading Serpent Stings with Multi-Shot was fun and fit the spec really well, especially since Serpent Sting was highly buffed as SV including an initial tick (which they abruptly and inexplicably removed right before announcing melee SV :roll_eyes:). CDR on bombs is fine, especially since Wildfire Bomb is the only good thing to ever come from melee SV, but having such an ability which is ranged and ill-fitting of a melee spec get its CDR from a generic melee cleave is silly. Ideally we would have a spec focused entirely around that munitions aspect with explosives/poisons etc. and not tack on pointless melee elements or BM ripoffs.

This was also a mistake. Not being able to deal light damage instantly felt bad. The current model is better (barring the tier set) where Aimed Shot has a cooldown with charges so Arcane Shot exists and is still relevant.

Starting off Hunters with Arcane Shot and Steady Shot and augmenting them or replacing them with better abilities is fine. What they shouldn’t be doing is replacing them with worse abilities depending on spec e.g. ranged abilities with melee ones. This still applies even with the SL model where they keep those two ranged abilities in the spellbook but make sure you’ll never use them, which is functionally the same as it was before.

All Hunters should have Arcane Shot, Steady Shot, and Multi-Shot baseline and they should add to those or replace them with better equivalents (e.g. how BM replaces Steady Shot with Barbed Shot) while also adding plenty of unique mechanics to make a distinct identity and playstyle. BM and MM are already mostly there. SV is the odd one out that still doesn’t really fit the class.

No, they just need to all use a ranged weapon. The class needs a core identity again. Look how different BM and MM are right now yet they both use ranged weapons. Don’t pretend there’s no other way to approach it. We have like 6 different varieties of physical melee in this class including an entire pure DPS class (Rogue).

They shared abilities back then because Blizzard first and foremost designed the class and then the spec on top of it, which was actually the better approach. They still do that for BM and MM. They even added Kill Shot back to all 3 specs to reinforce that. Nevertheless they did meaningfully diverge in each expansion and we did have 3 distinct options even before SV was melee. Being melee is not an absolute requirement for SV to be distinct. That’s just tokenism.

Also all classes shared talents back then so it’s a little weird to use this as a jab at Hunters. Yeah it was less variety but at least back then they kept talents balanced so there was actually choice, compared to now where they are hopeless at it and just about every spec devolves into a set cookie-cutter build.

This is just a strawman. What I’m saying is that there should be a better balance between class identity and spec identity. They can’t go all the way to class identity to the point where specs make little difference (e.g. classic WoW) but they also can’t make every spec so separate it feels like a different class with little in common (Legion). SL fares better than Legion in this regard but MoP fares better than SL. Ideally they would take the best of MoP/WoD Hunter and build on that, which is what they should have done back in 2016 instead of the nonsense failed approach they did take.

On a final note: at the end of WoD we saw borrowed power that made Black Arrow have a CDR for SV enabling us to multidot with it and funnel the extra Lock and Load procs into Explosive Shot. That was a pretty cool idea that would have been a great foundation for a future ranged SV beyond that point. Would a spec based around multidotting like that still be a Marksmanship clone in your eyes? Would it be less valuable than being able to restrict ourselves to melee in an otherwise ranged class that’s fully capable at any range?

821

Long day here. Had an IEP meeting. Dealing with a headache (I’ll be okay).

I keep noticing this one word pop up over and over, and I just can’t quite figure out what it means (remember: English is not my native language).

What on earth does “throughput” means?? I can figure out what capstones mean, that’s obvious enough. But “throughput?”

I’d appreciate it if you guys translate it for me, before I finish up my feedback on BM & SV and further criticism of the trees.

2 Likes
822

First, yes, the spec absolutely does change your entry node(s).

Second, a shorter melee interrupt is somehow “less capable” than a ranged one with a 60% longer CD?

By all means, let’s just ignore the greater portion of M+ history built largely on the greater utility over time of Melee DPS’s lower CDs. ???

Why must its “core identity” = “it must use a ranged weapon”?

No class in the game defines itself so shallowly.

Which they manage in large part by doing the exact thing you were condemning—utterly changing baseline skills.

I didn’t use it as a “jab” at Hunters.

It is simply why I do not care for your “golden age” of Hunters, let alone accept your base_class_plus_handful_of_minor_additives as objectively superior to our current spec diversity.

And that’s the point we will have to disagree on, so long as the result looks anything like it did in the past, with each spec of a given class playing far more similarly to each other and the breadth and depth of opportunities for a player to be attracted to at least one of the specs in a given class therefore significantly less.

Such would be a tremendous waste of potential, especially given the opportunities available to revamped Talent Trees.

How is that a false equivalency? If, as you just claimed, a spec (A) going from ranged to “almost ranged” and/or (B) “diverting from its core” due to even just a few abilities changing is enough to divorce a spec from its class and make it “not a specialization”, that applies to each spec on that list as well.

You keep relying on the idea that melee cannot and must not ever be compensated for their shorter range despite that such has never been the case.

  • Outside of Wind Shear, melee interrupts are ~40+% shorter.
  • Melee classes have far higher mobility.
  • Melee classes typically have far higher self-sustain.
  • Etc., etc.

Would a Warrior go ranged if it could do everything it does now? Absolutely. But that—as per your implication that going melee cannot be compensated for—is an utterly ridiculous notion.

That’s the thing. They already have those disadvantages. In recharge time. In mobility. In defensives. In self-healing.

In Survival’s case, the compensation for melee—or the relative disadvantages of remaining ranged—could be handled as simply and singularly as by throwing one simple passive, akin to Lone Wolf, onto the spec, e.g.,

Way of the Mok’Nathal
You may now equip melee weapons. While a melee weapon is equipped, most of your attacks are limited to melee range but those affected each gain certain advantages in turn, your Armor is increased by 30%, and your Versatility, Dodge, Avoidance, Movement Speed, and Leech are each increased by 8%.

That’s all it takes. You estimate the utility and uptime-based throughput value of having a ranged weapon in a typical fight around which you wish to balance, and you make that baseline. When a given fight favors melee, taking a melee weapon may be slightly superior. When a fight disfavors melee, it’ll typically be slightly inferior.

The purpose of each node and the overall design of the Survival tree, then, would go unchanged between having a melee weapon or ranged weapon—simply swapping out certain names and icons where thematically necessary. The tree would offer more than enough mobility for ranged, which melee would likely more highly prioritize, and more than enough general survivability for raids than melee would need, which ranged would likely more highly prioritize.

We literally started this conversation with my having said the same, except in that I think melee should be an option available to all but MM (the ranged spec), just as I think Lone Wolf should be an option available to all but BM (the pet spec), and, say, going basically trap-less should be an option to all but SV (the tools spec).

Which is an issue of choice and framing.

Survival ought to offer the situationally advantageous option of taking on a melee weapon and all compensatory advantages that typically come with that while the melee weapon is equipped / while in melee range. It should not force it.

We have different ideas of fun, then. It was… fine… when adds were rolling out frequently, but in a majority of situations it just became a passive source of %AP per target per second nature damage that nuked our available direct damage in AoE and deemphasized our uptime choices.

…See, this is what I don’t get.

BM literally removes the functionality of Steady Shot (or, puts Arcane Shot out to pasture; frame Cobra as you will). More of the baseline actions are retained on SV than on BM.

If one avoids choosing a spec, they will have a free cast, an instant ST spender, and an instant AoE spender. BM removes a third of those options by consolidating the first and second, and then halves the damage and doubles the Focus cost of the third. SV, on the other hand, retains the free cast, the instant ST spender, and the instant AoE spender. Its rotational depth and APL end up closer to MM than to BM.

More than “Oh, no! My AoE is melee and on a CD now—and (despite being notoriously undertuned) hits for double the damage and at lower Focus cost—and is therefore dead to me,” I would think literally removing that part of one’s playflow would be the larger diversion, no?

Granted, I don’t think that removal is an issue. I like that BM can play more differently from MM specifically because it utterly ditched Steady Shot. I like that MS was allowed to better suit BM by being hugely weaker in its own right on BM. Until such time as we get some manner of Sphere Grid or Talent Circle in place of discrete Talent Trees, we will only ever play specializations, not classes.

Even in Vanilla, we didn’t just play “Warrior” or “Druid” or “Priest”. We played Arms, Fury, Protection, Feral, Resto, Balance, Shadow, Holy, Disc.

I agree that every hunter spec should be usable from range, but failing that alone is not going to be the cause by which a spec fails to be a cohesive addition to a class.

That’s no strawman. What you’ve been repeatedly promoting is literally that, a shallower range of thematic and gameplay possibilities, where each spec had less depth and fewer meaningful options and was itself less of a meaningful choice such that the class had fewer meaningful options. You’ve reiterated the very same points from which that conclusion is drawn across this whole post, too.

The simple fact of matter is that we have very different ideas as to what a good “balance” between class identity and spec identity looks like.

A balance is itself a contest of power. The more “balanced” identity is towards the base class, the less identity and attractors are available to that class, because you’ve now taken the sum of what was possible across n specs and merged it into a single bank of features.

Consider: If 3 specs each currently hold 80% of their gameplay as unique to themselves, then you’ve got 2.4 specs/classes/jobs/professions/what-have-you worth of available attractors. If you insist that the contribution should be more balanced, and thus 50% of each spec’s gameplay should come from the class, now you’re to 1.5.

Ultimately, the individual number of attractors will matter more than the ratios but the more you constrain a specs’ gameplay to a shared base, the less that class will, in sum, have. That much is absolutely unavoidable.

For my part, specs need merely feel like they have a common vibe (excepting those consequent merely to shallow or complex play or this or that APM) and thematic space. To me, the Hunter specs still do that. Specific design problems aside (the spinning plates meta build feeling more like certain iterations of Feral than its own thing), even Legion SV did.

To me, not every Shaman needs to use casted Lightning, nor even Earth spells. Not every DK needs to make rotational use of obviously Frost, Blood, and Unholy magic. Not every Hunter needs to be a ranged pet-user nor to make use of ArS, MS, and StS.

So long as they still feel like {X Class} out and about, then I’m happy to let their specs be expansive, which often requires not arbitrarily fettering them to a shared base if/when it doesn’t serve them well.

I like breadth and depth of options. It’s as simple as that.

Anything that would make Damage and/or your primary role’s numbers (Healing or Mitigation) numbers go up on Details, mostly non-situationally—i.e, even in a 100% uptime, zero-complexity fight. This can also include off-role numbers if their contributing actions are obligatory (such as per the free healing from a Feral’s free Regrowth procs).

If the value is situational, such as a mobility tool allowing you further uptime that indirectly results in numbers going up, or if the numbers we tend to consider that more as “utility”. That’s especially the case if you tend to think of the given tool as more than just a way to increase your numbers. This term also often envelops off-role numbers if their actions are used only situationally.

3 Likes
823

Right.

Neither the MM nor BM/SV situation is passable. MM just takes literally every throughput capstone not pet-related, while BM/SV could only get 3 active capstones.

Reducing the Alpha/Instincts path from 5 to 3 would at least allow for 4 active capstones, allowing for a bit more fun and depth to BM/SV as well, but really there should also be at least one more choice available to MM as well so its choice aren’t solely between sides of the choice nodes.

And, of course, at least just allow SV to Barrage (dual-wielding hand-crossbows over the channel).

(Or --pipedream warning-- rework SV to allow an equally deep RSV build. RSV, if anything, may be the more deserving/sensible default and MSV the further option / situational feature, though it'd need to still retain its current complexity and rotational playflow, or expand upon/beyond it in ways available to both range and melee. Technically, I'd say the same for BM, as nothing about "Pet spec" demands ranged weapons.)

Again, to me the ideal would just put Alpha/Instincts into the BM and SV trees in place of one of their core paths’ dull talents, ideally early on, and swap out it and its path’s passives to be useful to all specs.

Further, in order not to oblige certain paths over their which have their capstone early and which have them late (for maximum key nodes per point spent), swap the places of Steel Trap and NTA and the replacements for Alpha/Instincts and Improved Kill Command. That’s going by the versions currently visible on Wowhead, though.

  1. Now that it’s Tar Trap, Glyph of Black Ice doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. A more fitting effect could also be more effective: While in Tar Trap, you resist draw-in and knockback effects.
  2. Sure. That said, even a single point could be awfully expensive in relative terms and may be difficult to path reasonably. Moreover, this isn’t always going to be a benefit. In certain fights, a longer Disengage would be a death sentence, forcing you then to forgo Disengage completely.
    • You can fix this by making it snap based on pathing, perhaps upgrading Disengage to vault back more quickly and making it a draw-in towards a point behind you instead of a knockback the velocity bonus from which would be cancelled immediately upon touching the ground.
  3. Mightn’t this better deserve to simply be bundled with another like effect? That being said, do we really want to introduce that use conflict between mobility and self-healing into Disengage?
  4. This seems more fit to be a PvP talent than something on the Tree itself, imo.

I’d dig this as a PvE option, though maybe in place of some of the existing healing capacity (bonuses), with PvP then getting other options.

In general, I’d like a baseline or Class Tree self-heal with a lower CD, greater max heal, and far greater available healing over time, but greater offensive opportunity cost in turn (such as per a long channel), even if that means sacrificing, say, Rejuvenating Winds or some of Exhileration’s baseline burst healing. Given that compensatory nerf, though, what self-sustain Bangages offered, in practice, to PvP (especially, without relying on Camo) should then be returned to PvP talents in a new form.

824

No, no, no.

You completely and utterly misinterpreted my statement. Right now your thinking i said that we need normal shots as capstones. That is quite opposite of what i said, which was normal shots are NOT what should be capstones. Capstones should be generic, yes, in the sense that they fit all 3 specs. However, they must be POWERFUL, they must be game changing. They should be the apex of the tree.
You ask what i would put in there and frankly if you looked at my generic tree i created you would see how i expanded the use of WS, how i modified nesingwary’s to be more rotational friendly, while also adding meaningful mm and bm talents. Not only that, but i focused on SS being available and synergistic throughout the tree while also making KS fun without costing the rest of the tree valuable nodes. But you didnt look at it, did you?

Its interesting to note that you complain about WS but you praise traps. In all reality right now, i would not put it past you that if it was up to you, there would be zero throughput talents in the generic tree. Thats garbo man.
We learned in s1 and s2 with surv’s st rotation using nesingwary’s that rotational trap play is clunky, a mess, a headache, and just pure torture. Who in their right mind thinks its fun to ground target traps every 20 seconds? God certainly not me.
I get what your sayin, though. There really isnt anything in the hunter’s toolkit that would fit as capstones. Thats kind of why i was hoping for new stuff since we already knew blizz hadnt implemented anything powerful in a long time.
What i was hoping for was new, powerful pet capstone. Its been awhile since they did anything cool with pets. Im sorry, but 15% increase to KC is NOT capstone worthy, even with the trail of talents. I figured traps would be in the tree, but more off to the side in the middle since they are not game changing and definitely not popular. I expected WS, despite the grumbles about it. Dont hate the spell bc blizz cant do their job right. Plus it has soo much growth potential for fun things. Look at my generic tree, i barely tapped into its possibilities. I wholeheartedly disagree completely with having SS as a capstone. First off, its not damage worthy, two its the cornerstone of play for 2, well for some builds all 3 specs. Three, it needs to be better accessible. Four, when you put a common shot like SS as a capstone, your saying “ok, you have a choice between a shot that is mandatory for your spec bc there are numerous talents that work with it in the spec trees or a talent that does more damage with no synergy.” Thats just bad tree structure. SS should have taken concussion shots place and there should have been talents up through the tree for it.
The capstones are really the number 1 issue with the generic tree. They are weak, boring, and what you would expect to receive much sooner in the tree or in the spec trees. It is also why the tree rates so bad against other trees. I mean, what did they expect when they chose the bottom of the barrel covenant spell, an unpopular trap leggo, a 15% KC dmg bonus, and a SS shot thats absolutely mandatory but players are forced to spend points on it instead of gaining something better.

825

I’ve not misinterpretted your statement, though you seem to have misread mine.

Tell me, how are any of the examples I listed as the nearest to what I thought you meant by “real” capstones from among existing effects…

…“normal shots”?

I’ve never “praised” traps as anything other than inherently unlikely to need to be handled by the spec trees, as all but Steel Trap only grant CC.

I merely said that I’m tired of persisting, long CD ground effects invisible to allies.

Right, because that’s the tendency of notes like “Serpent Sting could be moved even to a Row 1 choice node, opposite Master Marksman (or its rename).” ???

I mentioned that a sparse number (e.g. 2-4), highly pathable throughput talents could be made central within the upper and middle tier, but that, yes, it otherwise makes sense for throughput to compete only with throughput and utility with utility, which is only possible if the capstone tier is entirely throughput.

I have no idea why you’re sticking these ideas together, but:

  1. I’ve said absolutely nothing to imply that I’m a fan of NTA. I’m not, which is a large part of why I want Alpha’s pathing addressed so that the 2 points lead inadvertently spent towards it doesn’t oblige us into it.
  2. You realize NTA is throughput, right? I can’t simultaneously be a Nessingwary’s shill forcing it upon you and want to strip the class tree down to 0 points of throughput.

There are fitting capstones. They’re just very few because they have to work for all specs.

I just listed out a bunch of them in the last post:

Those are all quite powerful. They’re current Legendaries, Covenant skills, and past high-level talents.

Also, you’ll note, they’re not “normal shots”.

But why wouldn’t that be in BM, where it can actually be synergetic?

You yourself already noted that the 15% KC damage bonus is not the point of Alpha Predator. That second charge on KC is more vital, even, than a second charge of WFB, which you claimed to be so inherently powerful that no one could ever reasonably avoid taking Guerrilla Tactics.

“Even with the trail of talents”? What do you mean? The 4 points leading up to it are the only bad part of that talent choice for BM/SV, outside of the mere fact that it’s not on the BM and SV trees themselves. They aren’t lifting Alpha Predator up; they’re holding it back.

Which spell are you talking about? You just jumped from Alpha to traps, which you’d only just said you dislike, to… what now?

…/sigh

First, it is objectively damage-worthy.

Second and third, not sorting through my older posts to you for it again, but here (more recently):

That’s not a capstone issue. That’s an issue from putting it in the Class Tree at all.

Also, there are only 3 talents/effects in the whole game that synergize with Serpent Sting. 2 out of the 3 are in the node directly below Serpent Sting, where it is now. The other is Wildfire Infusions, available only to Survival, who has its own means, also, of applying Serpent Sting forced on it in pathing to Wildfire Infusions.

No one’s disagreeing with this. But you’re not going to get better capstones by, as you suggested earlier, forcing them to be balanced against utility in the capstone tier by pushing utility down into the capstone tier or against all three tiers’ utility by interspersing (their) throughput throughout the whole tree.

1 Like
826

For hunters as DPS specs it’s anything that gives you more damage. It could be something like Explosive Shot which is raw damage or Cobra Senses (in the BM tree, it adds an additional second CD reduction to Kill Command when Cobra Shot is cast).

It is anything that gives you more damage, or healing for healing specs. Technically speaking, Improved Traps is a throughput talent since it now also reduces the CD of Steel Trap.

827

My apologies, i must have misread some of your comments.

  1. Normal = something you wouldnt hold in a boss fight, 2 min or less cds, shots. So basically everything you listed are “normal shots.”
  2. I dont blame you, but its also bc people complaining about too much effects bc their potatoes cant handle it. Which is another reason why blizz is years behind other games in the visual effects department.
  3. I agreed with you in a previous post that SS should be put in row one, however not as a choice node. I would also have surv start with SS and have raptor as their generator. Makes sooo much more sense and you dont get multiple spec effects from buffs/nerfs.
  4. I get it. However, i dont see nesingwary’s as throughput, really. Its focus oriented, so more indirect. Plus, it takes utility away from hunters for focus which is bad. I dont get, however, who decided a trap, steel, was worthy of a capstone. Its not. It doesnt do amazing damage, you still have to target it, it does have cc capabilities but that means nothing in a raiding context.
  5. WS, yes
    FS, no… bc its already been dismantled
    Razor fragments, trying to remember which one this is,
    Deadeye: no. Too weak
    Chakrums, no. I dont get why people are liking it. Ita just a tiny bit of cleave. Its not all that interestong or fun, nor does it affect rotation. Its push button and forget. Also it has the potential to breaks ccs and hit targets you dont want it to
    Powershot: yes. I mean, idk why this isnt a thing. I would rework it a bit for synergy reasond but yes. Also, it would be decent for surv as well.
    Windburst: no idea where you found this. Im guessing its off one of the leggo weapons. I dont see it as being strong, more of something you would tack onto powershot for a secondary effect.
    MoC: no. I thought about adding something similiar to fury od the eagle in my tree, but blizz wouldnt implement it right. I see it more as an aoe spell, which would be cool.
    Burning embers/shatterpoint = no. For the same reason as nesingwary’s. Your taking utility and pushing it into throughput. Plus its trap targeting. Ugh.
    What comes to mind:
    pvp sniper shot. Feels thematically accurate and for surv you would switch it to decapitate. Pretty fun idea.
    I am at work or else id look through more things. I would say that i may get on board with traps if they made damage dealing ones (a prime example is on my generic tree) target oriented meaning you dont need to target the ground it goes straight to the target.
  6. It would be synergic in BM, but why not for surv as well? Surv has already turned into bm melee, why not give it thr cd as well?
  7. I think when you trail talents out like that your just making things worse, especially when they are dead talents. You can build on a theme thread throughout a tree without them being negative on the capstone, apparently blizz hasnt learned this yet.
  8. Ok? I stand by this one. I know what you said, im just clarifying that a singular dot does not equate a capstone. I think we both agree on that. I think SS is an untapped spell that should have much more synergy. I mean, as surv, how the f are you not a master of toxins, stings, and venoms?
  9. Partially agree. I think of choice as having the ability to chose between throughput, heals, utility. Each level of the tree should provide that choice. We know raiders will take throuput md healing. We know pvp will take utility and healinh. M+ is throughput and utility depending on the week. While i agree that the more you spread the weaker things are, i also disagree with it. Whether its bc blizz has done a piss poor job allotting damage, or whatever it is. But the way i see it, if you took the normal shots out of the capstone area and spread them throughout the tree then bring in legit capstones, then balance accordingly, blizz would have a much better tree. A tree people can get excited about for the new capstones but also providing all the choice one needs. Right now, their is neither.
828

I think delivery is the point. Rogue and DH - no 2H here, and not even weapon variation. Casters, while not weapon specific, all apply their juju in the same way. It would be weird to start off as a Mage, get to level 10, and then Arcane was melee all of the sudden. Or you’re stabbity stabbin with a Rogue for the first part of the game, but OPE, now you have a bow. For that matter, do you think there’s enough variation between 3 specs of Mage that changing one to a completely different archetype isn’t warranted? Rogue, too? Or Warlock? There’s nothing especially different about the damage application, just the type.

Ranger+Pet is the archetype Blizzard established at the game’s inception, and then perpetuated for, what, a decade after? It’s weird when the fantasy of the world that has been established suddenly no longer follows that fantasy. So imagine you’re doing a quest, and at some point in the chain the quest giver says, “Great job, hero! Now we need to deliver this package to Hugh G. Dingus in Fartwhistle. Just take my Saab and drive it down there, but please refill the tank before you bring it back. Keys are by the door.” And then, from that point on, personal automobiles and a fueling network to support vehicles with internal combustion engines were a thing in WoW. That’s what the change to SV felt like to me and many others - something so wildly out place it made no sense. The deviation from what we AS HUNTERS were accustomed to playing was too great. [not interested in arguing about Rexxar - he was a DW Beastmaster]

Excluding Hunter, because our baked-in mitigation IS KITING. SV doesn’t get any additional compensatory survivability (ironic) abilities. You get all the same stuff and a number of ranged abiities, because as I have said before, Blizzard acknowledges that we’re supposed to be at range to survive, but insists that SV’s biggest burst potential be carried out at great risk to the Hunter in melee range. Imagine if Arms Warrior got a debuff when they started dumping too much rage that made them take 10% more damage. Or if Mages cooked themselves during combustion. Or a number of other examples. It’s a weird conditional risk that only SV deals with.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this. There’s a champ in Smite named Ullr that is hands down my favorite to play. You switch between a bow and DW axes. Abilities change depending on what you have equipped, and you get passive bonuses depending on your weapons. One of his skins is even called “The Survivor”; a badass woodsman. I’m not exactly sure how it would translate to WoW, but if they could figure it out, I’d be in like Flynn.

It’s that it was a forced change that was unneccessary and felt like a copout when given the history of the Hunter. I’m only trying to articulate my point of view, and that of like minded Hunters, not argue here. Blizzard could have had a long think about how to keep SV at range, but it SEEMS like they just went “meh, this is more differenter and less thinky” BLOOP MSV was born. To your point more specifically, imagine you’re hunting a bear. You are given the choice between a sawed-off shotgun (VERY powerful at short range, depending on load) or a medium caliber rifle that shoots 1 MOA @ 100 yards, but is less devestating. You’d choose the shotgun because it does more damage, right? BUT, I do agree that, if the situation warranted it, the close-range weapon would be the better choice.

True, but I’d argue that constrained base gameplay is largely immaterial when you start factoring in human preference. We are, by default, creatures of habit. Remaining in our comfort zone is often a very important criteria.

At some point, somebody started making whitesauce pizzas. I personally think they are delicious, but I’d still rather have a slice of classic pepperoni, sausage and mushroom, or veggie supreme - all with red sauce. I wouldn’t lose sleep if white pizza ceased to exist tomorrow. HOWEVER, I’d be annoyed and spiteful if I was ordering three pizzas and one of them HAD to be white by mandate, and that decision was being made for me.

Different doesn’t mean better, or even good for that matter. Variation only for the sake of variation isn’t a hallmark of good design in ANY field, especially if there’s no innovation to go along with it. It’s very hard to argue there was ANY innovation for MSV with however many melee specs floating around already. For that matter, how did the devs go “Gee dangit, we just can’t think of anything for this third variation of ranged weapon damage delivery, but OH, another melee spec? This is going to be fresh and original!” I would have loved to be a fly on that wall, let me tell you.

1 Like
829

I want hydras bite to work from vipers venom in SL

830

I never said it was, only that I’m unwilling to sacrifice spec quality just to have each spec make use of the same baseline skills.

Such would also, btw, be the exception, not the norm. Mage starts off with a melee AoE but then directs to ranged for Frost and Fire, and replaces most baseline attacks. This was true even when it nonetheless had access to everything, just due to sheer differences in efficiency. Warriors drop Slam and/or Whirlwind and each spec has entirely different ways of interacting with the class resource. DK specs share no attacks outside of their self-heal. Enhance shamans play nothing like Elemental or Resto and not just because their melee, but rather because their priority system goes from a spammable/fillable base to one primarily concerned with downtime minimization because it has no filler.

That innovation is precisely what would be held back by insisting that each spec instead owe more/half of its gameplay just to the class baseline. While you can beef up the baseline gameplay, too, there is literally less that the class as a whole could allow for if you cut in half what it can accomplish across its sum of specs (and, inadvertantly, each spec individually).

Again, I’d be fine with a Talent Sphere or the like that’d allow for more mixing and matching to the point of having so many shades of Hunter that our descriptions for what we play would just fall back to “Hunter”—not MM, BM, or SV—but that isn’t happening, has never happened, and is unlikely ever to happen. And so long as it isn’t, I’d rather not hold specs back from providing as much enjoyable depth and breadth they can to the class.

1 Like