Yup, people are being 1 of 3 things when objecting to the changes: purposely disingenuous, having honest discourse or they don’t understand the concept.
2 Likes
I keep seeing “sniper” and “archer” as examples of what MM’s spec fantasy should be. But those kinda don’t really work if you’re running solo without a pet.
Sure, you can pretend to be Legolas or Green Arrow while in a group, but if you’re solo, that fantasy starts resembling Brave Sir Robin as you try not to get beaten to death.
They also said this:
So it’ll exist “outside the game space”, but they also want to make it more of a true pet later on. So don’t blame us for being confused since Blizzard themselves don’t seem to know which direction they want to go with this thing.
5 Likes
Not gonna go around in circles with ya. Agree to disagree about the changes and personal fantasy desires.
1 Like
You know they don’t mean how pets function currently but to iterate and further expand in the direction of the new changes.
1 Like
The spec fantasy that people want only really works in a group. That’s where this whole thing falls apart. Why design a spec that can only truly reach it’s full fantasy appeal while in a group? They’re ignoring a large chunk of players who don’t do much, if any, group content.
2 Likes
Yes, the initial plan is “outside the game space”, but that’s not their end game plan for the eagle. That’s just their starting point.
2 Likes
I think the MM changes are great, and i’m looking forward to trying them out once ptr goes up.
4 Likes
That’s on you for being confused. They are pretty clear on what their intentions are for the changes and the eagle. Yes, it’s their starting point, meaning they will expand on the functionality of how you interact with the eagle, not revert it back to a traditional pet later on. If you’re getting that from what they’re saying here then I can’t help you any further. Good luck to you.
No, that’s on Blizz for being confusing. It’s pretty clear they just chucked this out before running away for Christmas break.
6 Likes
And I, among others, do not want to interact with the eagle, at all. Ever. We’re happy with the status quo.
7 Likes
If only MM Hunters can tame a Gnome. Then they wouldn’t be a pet, but rather a dogsbody. Fetch, boy!
1 Like
Awful, awful decision about MM losing access to pets.
“Just play BM.”
No. They are different playstyles and there’s zero reason why MM should be cut off from a class function that has been in place for two decades. Talk about tone deaf.
Bloodlust problem can be solved with something we already have: Command Pet. Make Command Pet pull the pet ability from your Call Pet 1 slot. Boom, instant fix to MM not having access to Bloodlust. You’re welcome, where should I send my resume?
Please, please stop screwing up hunters. The problems the MM spec has could be addressed with much smaller changes. This overhaul is unwanted and unnecessary.
9 Likes
The issue here is that no pet caused an increase in DPS that was higher than with a pet. It doesn’t even make sense that a hunter without a pet somehow does more damage than a hunter with a pet. Simply removing Lone Wolf (or never implementing it in the first place) would have put an end to that, and using a pet would have become a boost to DPS once again. You noted that hunters are defined by their pets after all.
Why? We jumped from “Lone Wolf was an issue” to “MM hunters are losing access to their pets” with no explanation as to why. Once again, hunters are defined by their pets. It’s at the core of being a hunter. Lone Wolf and messing with DPS/utility while having a pet out vs. not was the issue.
That’s not a hunter pet. That sounds like a minion similar to what some other classes have, or even just a spell effect like the sentinel owl. The whole allure of playing hunter and having pets is going out and picking your companion and actually going through the taming process. It can be challenging and sometimes time consuming depending on the beast, but rewarding. Most of the time, especially with basic pets, it is more simple, but collecting them and customizing is also a reward. The personalization and variety is how players get attached to them.
This is a downgrade compared to the pets we have collected and enjoyed through the years. Baking a bunch of pet utility into some random tool that is as charming and cool sounding as a brick feels like a giant letdown, but that is my opinion. Objectively, trading customizable pets with insane amount of variety for something that is just a convoluted way to destroy the pet system we have now is bunk. What player that enjoys pets would actively choose this over the pet they selected and went out there to collect?
It won’t ever be a true pet because the pets we are losing access to ARE actual pets. As it is described right now, it once again sounds like a minion or just an ability effect.
As for the “appearances”, I can only imagine that you’ll introduce “skins” since that has become the go-to for things like mounts since last expansion. This is once again ripping away the soul of hunter pets. I loathe the idea. Pets aren’t like adding a pair of earrings or changing a character’s hair color. They are a whole lot more meaningful than that.
My ideas on how I think this could be handled better:
Remove Lone Wolf and go back to the way MM hunter functioned before it was a thing, but allow all pets to provide the same level of utility through letting the player choose the pet’s specialization. Based on how the post was written, Lone Wolf is the issue anyway, not the pets.
Or ditch the Eagle AND remove Lone Wolf, bake pet utility into the hunter instead of the pets, and let the hunter decide if they want to utilize a pet by calling it or leaving it dismissed. MM hunters gain streamlined access to the pet utility so that eliminates that source of frustration that was mentioned, but the pet still has access to its ability bar with things growl and dash as well as whatever damage it puts out these days. Then work the Eagle talents that go beyond pet utility into the talent tree without the Eagle itself, and simply rename them. It’s no different than swapping from “wish I could use a pet, but since Lone Wolf is better DPS I shouldn’t use it” to “wish I didn’t have to use a pet, but it does 2% increased DPS so I should use it”. At least with the latter it’s fairly trivial in comparison.
Other thoughts: I really don’t want to lose access to my stable. I’ve really enjoyed using my pet while doing things like world quests and delves. It’s heartbreaking to think about being completely locked out of using a beloved companion and shame on you guys for not even acknowledging it. I don’t want to play anything beyond MM hunter really, so there are no acceptable alternatives for me. I’d love it if I could go back to using my pets in group content as well.
I think it would be great to make a fourth spec for hunter or rogue or whatever class you guys want that is just purely about ranged weapons.
12 Likes
I’m glad you agree that pets don’t matter, because they don’t, since the changes to the MM tree will give us pet abilities making pets invalid. If only more people would realize this like you have, there would be less whining in this post.
3 Likes
Don’t remove pets from MM, in fact remove LONE WOLF from MM, thank you. :3 If people want to play without a pet they can choose a petless class.
6 Likes
I have done all of my delves as MM without a pet, it’s not an issue. I still can’t beat the last boss of an 11 but it’s a gear or player issue not a pet issue because I’ve tried both with and without a pet.
2 Likes
I’ve done a T11 with a pet easily, just takes longer. This is with Brann on healing duty.
2 Likes
Yes, this.
There’s no reason to ruin the “no pet” side and the “I like my pet side” by taking away choice and forcing a pet into the spec anyways.
6 Likes
Which class is a petless archer?
1 Like