Content in question
How is this different? We’re presupposing stuff on behalf of someone else or we aren’t.
1 Like
It is strange how some people are so against the idea of us keeping pets, even as a completely optional component. So it’s a valid sentiment since they seem to hate the entire idea of other MM Hunters being able to continue using pets.
4 Likes
A little bit of both.
See, when blizzard types in blue letters things like
You can assume certain design goals and intentions behind changes, because they told you what they were.
I don’t think anyone is actually against this as much as they are against you, personally, at this point. There is a difference between not freaking out and being totally 100% satisfied with something. You can be somewhere in the middle.
Like at this point I have to assume that you think I’m like 100% behind iteration 1 of these ptr changes despite the actual feedback i’ve given from the ptr on various talents and their interactions. I’m even critical of various aspects of the new pet, like not being able to use ros/mc while cc’ed like on live. Idk like at this point I’m just perpetuating the spam by interacting so bye again, I guess.
1 Like
Do I really have to say it? most know what happens when you assume. You make an ____ out of ___ and __
Also, as far as reembracing pets as part of marksmanships identity? who is to say they they would not take inspiration from those that use their pets to fetch, decoy, flush out, etc but never to attack or damage the target directly.
5 Likes
Jesus christ dude, no that sentence is not applicable because they tell you the design goals.
1 Like
I haven’t done the sims, but my own napkin math makes pet out roughly 4% less damage than with LW. I know bad player rotation, poor luck in an encounter, or just improper itemization will account for more than 4% damage difference between players. Unless someone can show that LW is accounting for more than the 5% difference it grants, I remain unconvinced.
Then don’t have the pet do it? Move the utility all onto the hunter, that’s fine with me.
As was our assertion that you could put all those abilities onto the hunter and still keep the existing pets. An option you seem to conveniently ignore still.
5 Likes
I’ve addressed this so many times it’s no longer even funny
There is no point in doing all of the changes that move ms, pet family utility, lust, etc. to the hunter if you’re going to retain the same pet that does those things for the other specs. This goes directly against the design goals written by blizzard on this thread.
2 Likes
Can we please stop using this thread to argue in circles?
The entire point of this thread was to be the main source of feedback for Blizzard to acknowledge and iterate on whatever feedback is provided for each spec. I don’t know how anyone can visit this thread and expect to find relevant information or quality feedback.
We have nearly 15x the replies of the next highest feedback thread: 2100 replies versus 137 replies. Most of these posts aren’t even feedback; they are just arguments.
Considering these feedback threads are actually read by the devs (and during beta, would actively respond to feedback in the threads), I simply cannot see how they can actually gain meaningful feedback when it’s impossible to read this thread.
Saying you don’t want pets removed is valid feedback.
Saying you want them to stay removed is valid feedback.
Please just stop arguing in circles. There are people playing these specs on the PTR and trying to provide their thoughts and concerns and their posts just get buried under arguments.
10 Likes
oh boi! they did the bare minimum for 2 spells! careful! it will blow your GPU!
It has gotten to the point that some, like me, have made other topics for ideas to be gathered, and leave this one for PTR feedback. Blizzard may or may not read those, but they are attempts to pull distracting arguments away from threads that would be better off without them.
I’m convinced there is some way a traditional pet could be maintained as an option while doing the rest of the changes, but I don’t expect to see the Eagle user friendly and more dependable utility added while keeping the tanking/keeping targets incombat pet functions, unless that is added to the Eagle.
I’d love to see everyone get the option of fully functional petless MM AND the traditional pet being summonable.
While the chance of that wish I feel is very low, our time may be better spent critiquing the rest of the changes.
Got a few weeks to get bug fixes found and corrected, ineffective talents replaced or corrected, and ability interactions made more useful. Try to lend time to testing and giving feedback on other things.
4 Likes
Especially since ironing out the rest of the changes can give the pet/no pet modes of play a path forward. Like noticing a lack of defensives, or effective kiting brings out better/more defensives for MM or additional tools to kite.
1 Like
And yet the answers don’t seem to satisfy. The only response so far has been “no”.
What I think they could do is allow a pet but it not being fully functional. Like the pet has neither family nor spec abilities, so that it doesn’t stack with the new utility. Also, it would require a damage penalty to the hunter to offset the pet damage.
Another option is to disable a lot of the toolkit when a pet is out, but I doubt they’d implement it because it would require messing with a lot of different skills/talents and that has a big potential for bugs, exploits and unexpected consequences.
I see no way for them to add pets back as they are in live.
Fair take, but some of us are taking the road of pet returned, in reduced capability, or the last bit of utility added to the eagle in some fashion.
4 Likes
Stay with me here.
Why would you go through all of the effort of moving ms, lust, ros, mc, pet family buffs, etc. off the pet if you intended to keep the same pet that already provides all of those buffs? That does not make sense.
You’re also making marks the only spec that for some reason has to spend a talent point in its spec tree to get the same basic functions out of the pet you didn’t take away. The least pet centric spec is the one that gets to pick the pet family of its raptor? Ok…
If you were going to retain the pet, it makes way more sense to just leave all of the utility that’s currently on the pet, on the pet, and just remove the lone wolf talent and retune marks damage around always having a pet out. That would have been considerably easier, and the fact that this was not the choice made is enough evidence that it’s not worth considering by blizzard, so pointless to talk about.
I think that’s what most of us are ok with, tbh. It enables the pet tank and the continuation of the existing bond between player and pet, without breaking the intent of the existing design change.
4 Likes
While making a bunch of really important stuff they’re doing in the rework pointless
Because players are unhappy with the change, and unhappy players are not paying players.
MM has to spend that talent point anyways to enable that utility without their pet as it is - Tenacious/Cunning is a mandatory pick.
Replace it with a Lone wolf that is reworked to say, “You can keep your pet’s command ability while it is not summoned, additionally when you do not have a pet - your aimed shot reduces healing by 50% for X seconds”. Same cost as it is now in the rework, same utility for people who want to run without pets, same ability to run a pet if you want. Add in some extra damage elsewhere for running without a pet (Spotting Mark, for example) and you’ve accomplished the same end goal as the rework while preserving player choice.
We’re talking about a solution that fits both desires, not prioritizing one to the exclusion of the other.
1 Like
You’re not getting it, or you’re intentionally choosing not to. There is no point in this talent existing if you’re keeping your same pet. This is three left turns around the block instead of one right turn to get next door.
This isn’t a choice. If the pet does damage, you’re playing with the pet.
It doesn’t.