Community Council discussion on Hunter design

Classes Hunter
1094

There are three vehicles. They all do things a little differently, in that one is a small pickup truck, one is a convertible, and the other a family sedan. They all are capable of driving down the road, and they are all able to hold varying amounts of people and objects within them. They have been this way since their inception.

One day, the ruling body of vehicles says all small pickup trucks are now sheds, and are to have their wheels removed and be stationary objects like the other sheds already in existence. There are people that enjoy driving their pickup trucks, and they voice their opinion loudly and consistently about how the primary function of their truck is transportation and, while also important, holding things isn’t the ONLY reason they purchased one.

Time goes on, and people begin to accept that all small pickup trucks are sheds and nothing is going to change. There are some people that never knew small pickup trucks as anything BUT sheds, and now argue with the people who still lament the olden days.

They say, “These trucks may have, at one point, been able to drive down the road, but now they are just as useful as storage. You’re foolish to want to drive it, it’s a great shed and you just can’t let go of the past!”

“But they are vehicles!” reply the old-timers. “They are meant to be driven the same as a sedan or a convertible!”

"They were once vehicles, true. But the thing that makes them the same is that they can hold people or objects, NOT that they can drive down the road. I love sheds and even though there are many other varieties of sheds to choose from, I don’t want to lose this style in particular because it has grown on me. " say the new users.

Sounds crazy, right? HUNTERS were intended to kite because they were supposed to be ranged. Arguing that the common thing across specs is animal themes and shot names is disingenuous, or just plain incorrect. Using a ranged weapon to deliver damage and enjoying a pet were their common traits.

“WAHH I don’t want a pet! I want to shoot things without having a pet!” Right this way to the caster section!

“WAHHH!!! I don’t like the 47 other melee specs and specifically want to play something that is less cohesive and a greater liability to my party/raid in PvE and needlessly complicated in PvP!” Let me talk to you about your life choices…

“But Jaggles, people like Bicmex and Dilly exist! Jelly does well on SV, too! It can work!” Before murdering his significant other, Oscar Pistorius was a heck of a runner with no legs. I wouldn’t suggest anyone Lt. Dan themselves because one guy was really good at being an amputee. I sometimes wonder if those outliers - WHOM ARE PROFFESSIONALS - are maybe the reason SV survivability isn’t buffed for the proletariat. They would be unstoppable.

So what’s the answer? PERSONALLY, I would like SV to be ranged - it would make balancing survivability SO MUCH EASIER if fixing one didn’t break the other. I would like the class, generally, to be an analog for Warlock - BM/Demo, MM/Chaos, SV/Aff. I think the fundemental commonality across the class should be delivering damage with a ranged weapon, preferably with a pet at your side. I think SV could be mostly elemental/nature magic and deliver that via flaming arrows, poison darts, traps, etc., with some bleeds thrown in for good measure. Nothing that would require mana, in other words.

If anyone is itching to respond to this with lame counter arguments and revisionist history, please save yourself the effort. I can tell you with certainty that you are already objectively wrong. I do enjoy MSV, btw. I just have to play it as a different class. I had to unlink years of Hunter playstyle to make it work in my brain.

5 Likes
1095

That’s a fair opinion.

Why would you preemptively expect to be flammed for expressing your opinion? If anyone here is caught flamming people, or ‘correcting’ an entirely subjective viewpoint, then they should be promptly removed and banned from the forum.

My two cents.

3 Likes
1096

Are you new to these forums? :stuck_out_tongue:

4 Likes
1097

Perfection.

It should never have been the goal to redesign Hunter specs to appeal to people who don’t like Hunters.

I mean knowing you I’d expect him to be flagged for his opinion.

1098

i’m not sure it’s a fair comparison to have the pickup trucks be made into non-vehicles. survival is still a damage-dealer specialization that makes use of pets, utility, and some ranged abilities. it just has different priorities/a different style of doing things.

i think, instead, it’s like turning the pickup trucks into, say, small cars. like a pontiac grand am. you can still get around in them but their usage while getting around is very different. you’re down closer to the road, your ability to get over terrain is more limited, etc. pickup truck users would absolutely be valid to be upset about having their trucks taken away.

at the same time, small cars fulfill the functions of a vehicle, and this company’s small cars are really well-liked by those who do use them. my preferred solution would be to bring the pickups back but keep the small cars too

2 Likes
1099

With all of this talk about the aforementioned “flagged”, may this line by any chance suggest a White Flag, in particular regard to you waving one?

1 Like
1100

I feel like you missed the point.

1 Like
1101

the hunter class as a whole will forever be tarnished with melee survival. once we can get it reverted back to range, then and only then may we start the healing process.

6 Likes
1102

I see bm as one with his animal companions and a close bond with nature. He is quite, but savage with a bow or rifle but relies on the pets to guide his attacks. He ambushes still at ranged, while communicating closely with his pet for the kill. The pets loyalty would cause it to sacrifice itself if needed for its hunter master. And the hunter would do his best to protect his pet allies in turn. Moves like roar of sac, and the pet using a root bite to peel for the hunter would be ideal. Removing steel trap for bm and making a talent where the pet root grabs a player would be dope in its place. Bm has a few traps but should not excel at them. He should be a more savage pet enraging ranged class with savage pet attacks, and his pet should peel for him more. Growl could do more for this spec in pvp than to only pull aggro from hunter, it should immobolize or fear for one second with a cooldown

Mm fantasy is like a long ranged dark ranger that does physical rifle shots, while things like barrage being used when mm must fight at closer ranges. They rely on stealth in the beginning for a critical strike, but then as they fire more the damage goes down over time as accuracy falls. As players get closer they must swap to a shorter ranged weapon like barrage 20 yard range making them full auto but not doing as much damage overall. The longer they stand at max range without firing the harder they hit stacking on critical strike and swapping to primary weapon. This could be like stance dancing a ranged or primary damage swapper like old cheatah and old aspect of the hawk could be added for this playstyle

Ranged/melee survival fantasy. A dark poison trapper, all shots and traps have to do with bleeds and poisons. Snake trap poisons target for X damage…pets rotting teeth in place of kill command. His pet is a rabied or poisonous version of itself and its melee bites do damage as rot over time (infected bites)…ur arrows or spear is tipped with a toxin that puts mortal wounds on a target…ur ranged arrows are black arrow, and a poison arrow disarm as it numbs the players ability to carry a weapon…main melee slow could be tip of the spear where it does X damage and slows a target for 6 seconds as you drag the poisoned tip of ur blade over ur victims leg, the poison slows their ability to get away…get rid of the bombs idea for survival just seems wierd tossing gernades in this style of game

2 Likes
1103

An actual bruh moment

You are a meme, an insufferable nobody that continues to live this mentality in spite of so many of your inconsistencies and inabilities.

One such inability is the fact that you cannot accept reality or have a real meaningful discussion without falling straight back into your incredibly tired routine.

You’re a joke bud

8 Likes
1105

Have a look at this post:

You know why it’s still up? Because I don’t go crying to moderators every thread. I think it’s hilarious when people lash out like that, and it’s better to have the complete context of a discussion available for all to see, warts and all. I’m not going to waste a moderator’s time on stuff like that. And that post is way worse than anything I’ve ever posted.

I created this thread, you came to it with nonsense revisionist takes about classic WoW Hunter, I responded to that. That’s not off topic/derailing/trolling/whatever you fill in on the flags.

In the last week I’ve been bombarded with post flags. The moderator has to go through and decide which ones to keep or not; yes, several of them have been restored so you are excessively flagging posts which means you’re deliberately wasting moderator time because you can’t handle a little disagreement on the forum.

If you come to an online forum and your first instinct when you encounter any disagreement is to abuse the moderation system to shut the posts down, you shouldn’t be going to the forum in the first place.

Maybe you should consider that I perhaps drop lines like that because I know it causes you to overreact like this.

Probably not though because I am in fact Always Correct. Scientists can’t explain it.

6 Likes
1106

This reminds me of the second forum, with upvotes and downvotes.

I remember how some people would log onto their alts just to downvote your posts over and over… you’d rack up like 200 downvotes in just 5 minutes. Talk about dedicated people.

I’m still a little surprised that people are able to get away with flagging posts so much.

(Note: I am not saying it’s Allieddeath who flagged Bepples’s posts because I don’t know who does that. I won’t be surprised if it’s a silent lurker doing this. But this does cause me to wonder what system Blizzard will try next.)

Good night, ladies and gentlemen.

2 Likes
1107

I don’t consider that because of your consistency in at least being supremely unlikeable and dedicated to derailing every SV thread / discussion, with the added bonus of you very much holding yourself personally as some kind of authority or higher power on the subject, so saying those things fits your m-o perfectly.

Its a little bit late to say that “its just a joke/I just want a bite” when its your most consistent, serious trait.

3 Likes
1108

I don’t make revisionist claims, you simply have an incomplete understanding of the Hunter Class.

I mastered the totality of the Hunter Class. Survival… yes, but including Marksmanship, where I dutifully followed Readiness into MM when they gutted SV to make room for your little candied dot-proc RSV–the functionality of Readiness reintroduced after its removal into Double Tap, Double Tap an innovation we Survival Hunters invented over half a decade earlier.

We original Survival Hunters were the first to reset our offensive cooldowns and dps abilities to obliterate our opponents with heavy suppressive fire.

Rapid Fire - Aimed Shot - Arcane - Multi - Readiness - Multi - Aimed/Arcane

Double Multi-Shot gave the highest DPS.

Nothing could survive this oppressive volley of instant-cast artillery. This was the first iteration of Double Tap, it’s power time-gated behind a 5-minute cooldown, the functionality of which was later reintroduced and normalized into a core 1-minute rotational element years later.

I also mastered several BM Hybrid builds but could never quite cope with the limited functionality offered by the tree. Too much of the talent tree’s power was concentrated into BW/TBW, which felt constraining and more of a hinderance in combat, but it had several key advantages when hybridized with SV.

Guilty as charged. I will add that in all of our exchanges over the last three months, I only reported 3 posts that were laced with putrid, venomous bile and erroneous self-promotion.

My first impression of you: While I was lurking here back in December, I thought that ‘Bepples’ was a bit rough around the edges, yet occasionally funny. I was actually somewhat neutral and indifferent to you.

Then I made my first post in 15 years back in January. It was about how I thought the Tar Trap–Flare interaction was brilliant, and I added a small disclaimer that I played SV in Vanilla for perspective’s sake. ‘Bepples’ immediately latched onto the post stating how “SV was ranged even in vanilla”, etc and I’m like… really? Still, I remained neutral throughout our engagements and never flagged or reported you for the harassment until recently. In total, out of hundreds of posts, I’ve flagged maybe 3 of yours.

My skin is thick, and I could honestly care less about reporting you. But honestly, the immature harassment and general petulance needs to stop.

Edit: For future reference, here’s the thread in question.

Which is the very definition of Trolling.

5 Likes
1109

Ironic given you and the person you’re quoting have a history of flagging posts for years. Nice to see the hunter forums never change.

5 Likes
1110

I do agree with much of what you’ve written in your most recent CC post Watermist. Some good points there for sure. While not all that surprising, I found it ironic when they singled out parts of the hunter class as exceptions of what was to come, talking class design philosophies. As you pointed out in the link below.

Class Fantasy vs. Spec Fantasy

You’ve also seen me talk about this before, about what I think of their justifications for some of the changes to our class, going into Legion. I know some players on these forums love to echo the same arguments. Yet, lookin back, the thematic overlaps between MM and RSV, talking both from a fantasy standpoint as well as towards mechanical overlaps, these overlaps just weren’t there.

Pre-Legion, class design was still based on the philosophy that each spec should be built on top of a common, class-wide toolkit and fantasy where many abilities, offensive or otherwise, weren’t exclusive to a single spec. This also included the talent system at the time. Essentially, by intent, the only parts of a class that were meant to further a certain identity(in depth) were the Core Specializations themselves. Again, looking back, the core specs of MM and RSV in WoD did not share any signature abilities or effects at all, only the common class-wide fantasy/theme - the use of ranged weapons as a primary focus.

If that alone was enough to justify the rework, how come the same class-wide overlaps for other classes such as Rogue, Mage, Warlock, how come it was perfectly fine for them to keep? Why could Rogues keep 3 specs focusing on using 2x 1h weapons, with combo point generators and finishing moves? Why can Mages and Warlocks both have 3 specs each focusing on using magic?

Again, I’m not saying that I think those other classes should be reworked with this in mind. I’m asking why the class-wide fantasy of hunters, of using ranged weapons as the primary focus, was an issue when said common class fantasy wasn’t an issue elsewhere?

You can also look at this even more, and talk about the philosophy changes for class design in Legion with said focus on individual identities. If you look at it, based on mechanics and abilities, you could’ve just kept the ranged version of SV while doing the same to it as you did with all other specs at the time; commiting to adding a complete set of talents to further that particular fantasy, to make it stand out even more on its own.

They didn’t do this. This tells us that their issue wasn’t actually with overlaps of individual mechanics or abilities, but rather from a broader perspective of how they found our common class fantasy of using ranged weapons to be the problem. So, the question remains the same…Why for us, if not for anyone else?

Looking at your most recent CC post again…

MM hunters go with Lone Wolf

I don’t necessarily share the concerns of some other players when it comes to Lone Wolf. I think that it’s perfectly fine to have it as an option for hunter specs where pets are not intended as a central part of their offensive toolkit.

My biggest gripe with the talent is…well, how they’ve once again made it into a talent. In short, it shouldn’t be a talent based option, but be baseline for specs where it’s relevant. It should also be designed to have no impact on AoE/Cleave damage since, if you take MM pets as an example, your pet does not contribute to AoE/Cleave damage in any way.

On the topic of utility, I think that they should take another look at what can be done for hunters that choose to opt out of using pets. Since the original implementation of Lone Wolf, they’ve reworked hunter pets several times. The utility provided through pets/pet specs nowadays is now more impactful for your gameplay compared to in the older days. This should be reflected in the design of Lone Wolf.

For BM/MM hunters

Agreed.

For SV hunters

I would argue that, if they insist on keeping pets as a core part of melee hunter gameplay, they should simply do something akin to what you said in the BM section, adding a melee option within BM, and then remove those parts from SV itself.

  • The melee-specific attacks could replace ranged equivalents within the BM spec/tree.
  • Talents like Wildfire Bomb, Guerilla Tactics, and more could be moved to the class tree for anyone who wants to keep them. All three of those talents would fit perfectly as their own capstone path/branch in the class tree.

Edit

For anyone who wants to, here is a quick mock-up for TalentTreeManager(TTM), showing what the above could look like. Note: I took the liberty to make some adjustments to pathing and other talents in the BM tree as well. Animal Companion is shown, but is not intended to be a part of the spec tree, but to instead be a baseline spec option with no impact on damage.

→ Code to import into TTM

With this in mind, they could proceed to further develop the core concept/theme of pre-Legion SV, of a munitions expert and trapper, with ranged weapons in mind.

2 Likes
1111

To be fair…

Given that CP generators/spenders are just one general mechanic, it doesn’t homogenize the specs any more than having Focus, any element of RNG, or multiple charges on certain CDs, etc., would. Moreover, daggers and non-dagger one-handers used to function rather differently. Combat originally used a non-dagger MH, dagger OH, while Sub used a dagger MH, non-dagger OH, and Assassination would (especially upon gaining Mutilate) use dual-dagger, each with substantial gameplay implications. A non-dagger meant harder non-positional specials and potentially RNG double-strikes or stuns, iirc, while daggers unlocked access to still-harder-hitting positional specials.

Consider also such builds as SD Daggers on Warrior, or Arms being able to deal ridiculous Revenge damage off sword-and-boarding, or it having different bonus effects available to it per weapon type.

Now, compare that to Guns, Bows, and Crossbows. Where do those weapons carry any differences from each other? It’s not as if we’ve ever had mid-range blunderbusses with a long shared ICD on all attacks in exchange for stupidly high AoE even on their filler shots. We’ve never had enhanced range on longbows or snipers in exchange for longer auto-attack intervals. The only point of interest has been attack speed, but it’s had no consistent correlation to weapon type, so of course melee weapons on specs for which those weapon types mattered are going to be okay with using melee weapons on each spec.

On the larger topic:

I don’t think RSV should have been removed to create MSV. However, RSV was rather narrow and able to be created from as little as 4 nodes (ES, BA, LnL, SrSp); as such, it no more requires an entire spec unto itself than a level 20 MM would.

As such, so long as RSV’s gameplay element was to be reactive / low-agency, its visual element was anything and everything non-physical, and its sub-role was non-caster ranged (i.e., hypermobile). However, all that is still something one can easily include within any spec into which other non-physical damage elements can fit (and indeed, already have fit before).

MM hasn’t always had an immobile Aimed Shot, or even a Casted one. There is no reason it couldn’t have offer more reactive elements as well, some of them in mutual exclusion with more preemptive/preparatory ones. There’s no reason Chimaera Shot, Arcane Shot, and Stings would have to be the only non-physical damage on offer in MM. The final result: once can choose what to do with their marksmanship, between enhancing their aim or enhancing their ammo; between better setting up their shots or better taking advantage of opened opportunities; between enhancing total damage over longer periods (“sustain”) or enhancing burst; between leveraging mobility or leveraging opportunities to set up from a more stationary position for a time. In short, you’d not only have both MM and RSV, but a more customizable version each of both.

Now, imagine that followed through into the other specs as well: Instead of having just a few core builds of BM that offer no breadth in sub-themes, you could actually have that variety:

  • Beastlord - Summon all the things, mounting ever larger power like some manner of Green MtG deck.
  • Strategist - Enhance the unique qualities of your pet and be able to cycle them out to create branching strategies wherein your Salamander saturates your enemies to then have your Wind Serpent electrify them to then have your Phoenix burn away the water into an obscuring mist that your Panther then uses to chain stealth bonuses for a chain stun. Etc., etc.
  • Wildling - Your pet actions each proc unique actions or effects for you. May, but would not have to take pet-cycling talents.
  • Supporter - You open up opportunities for your pet, rotating to maintain capped-duration/effect buffs while maximizing the buff potential of uncapped duration/effect fillers.
  • Synergist - Half Wildling, half Supporter.
  • Etc., etc.

Then, finally, you have your third spec, with just as much diversity possible, in whatever direction that may be taken.

Now, depending on how deep and broad you want Munitions or Guerilla Combat or such themes to go and whether they should seem thematic property you want to purposely withhold from BM and MM, perhaps such should be a spec on its own. As Ghorak’s pointed out above, the theme of a Hunter who’s more beast-like in themselves (via the likes of ramping Mongoose Fury, Bloodseeker, etc) might be decently well offered with BM, while Munitions and Marksmanship might each offer similarly breadth of attractors without being paired together.

But, such decisions should never be made with the intent of simply reducing what’s available to Hunter (“We can’t have munitions on MM because MM should only ever be centered around Aimed Shot and Aimed Shot alone!”).

“Thematic purity” is too often used as a euphemism for “Spec X should only have available to it the choices that I want, because otherwise a <2% imbalance might force me towards something else and I was here first!!!” We should be looking instead to have as great a breadth of options as we can nonetheless cohesively support within the specs and classes in which they’d be housed.

3 Likes
1113

It’s a mental issue for sure. But hey to each his own.

4 Likes
1114

When you drop extraneous one-liners with the intent to inflame and derail a thread’s ongoing discourse, as you’ve specified multiple times now, why would you be surprised that you get the occasional flag?

That’s… precisely what the “Trolling” flag is meant for.

4 Likes
1115

My point with what I said there was more to the fact of how Rogues, how their class fantasy is about a stealthy character who relies on using multiple light 1h weapons, with strategic build-up stages that end in an attempt at finishing off the target with a calculated attack. The bit about combo point-generators and finishing moves(…and yes, you could make a point to argue about the individual generators/moves, how well they adhere to that theme/fantasy. That, however, isn’t really vital to making the main point).

In comparison, the common class fantasy of hunters, prior to the Legion reworks, was that of a weapon-based strategic ranged combatant who favored relying on their companion(pet) when fighting, but also a resourceful opportunist, with a versatile toolkit which they utilized to keep their distance to enemies(among other things, talking traps as well as ranged non-damage based utility, etc.).

I know I’m not comparing specific abilities or mechanics here. That’s the point.

The above description of the Rogue class fantasy was true for them prior to Legion, and is still true to this day, each of their specs still adhere to that common fantasy. Meanwhile, is the description for the Hunter class fantasy still accurate? Is our common class fantasy still reflected in each of our specs; Weapon-based ranged combatant who relies on their pet and versatile toolkit?

I would argue not.

Why are you drawing a conclusion from a comparison between a concept of a fantasy that was designed based on philosophies from a past era, to that of a low level version of a spec designed with modern philosophies in mind?

What you mentioned, that’s not all that there was to RSV, but either way, it’s also an unjust comparison since RSV wasn’t designed based on design philosophies of current days. Obviously, what RSV was back then wouldn’t be enough on its own, for present day specializations. Which is why I said:

I don’t think anyone has ever said that MM is, and should be solely about Aimed Shot.

However, if you consider Marksmanship as a theme/concept, it lends itself to promote the idea of a sharpshooter and skilled archer. Whether that involves more stationary sniper-inspired mechanics, or more agile, less restricted combat based actions, it could certainly be about both.

Having said that, “Marksmanship” does NOT promote the idea of a munitions expert who primarily focuses on augmented shots and enhanced traps. Could you include such elements? Sure. Again, though…considering the thematic implications, wouldn’t it be better to keep that spec focusing on the theme of being that sharpshooter/skilled archer?

And, at the same time, you would have a separate spec dedicated to explore more in-depth the concept of augmented shots and traps, as its primary focus.

Following your logic for an argument, looking at what themes would blend better together than others, wouldn’t you agree that it makes more sense then to merge the two that both have substantial overlaps in themes, and in mechanics as well(BM+MSV)? If anything, Beast Mastery sure could support both ranged and melee-based combat, since the primary focus is based around pets and temporary summons anyway.
(I here refer to my previous post, and the mock-up concept, as an example).

4 Likes