Tell that to Blizzard:
8 Likes
I don’t need to tell blizzard anything because the output of the code they wrote is in line with the words that you quoted
Their words is that pets are the unifying aspect of the class, regardless of things like, “Mail armor. Freezing trap. Aspect of the turtle. Camo.”
You can’t claim that their not, when Blizz’s own design goals say otherwise.
8 Likes
This little nugget has gone completely unnoticed. I really dig Survival, and I was aghast when I saw they think the rotation is “too complex” so they removed a gap closer. (Because Butchery is the obvious choice.)
2 Likes
Yeah just ignore this part I guess even though you quoted it lol 
What do you think this even means?
Marks is now defined by the fact that it’s pseudo pet actually makes sense.
3 Likes
Mail armor. Shamans have mail armor. Evokers have mail armor.
Freezing trap? Aspect of the Turtle? Camo? That’s like saying the class defining part of Mages is polymorph. They aren’t nearly as class defining as having a pet.
6 Likes
I didn’t ignore it, let me put it forward, again: reembraced pets as a part of Marksmanship’s identity
A pet is vital to being a hunter, hence the dumb eagle. To claim that pets are not the intended unifying fantasy of the Hunter class (as you did), goes against their stated design goal.
So which is it, then? You disagreeing that pets are part of being a hunter, or thinking they should be? You’ve argued both sides.
8 Likes
Literally exactly between having no pet and having a traditional hunter pet. You kinda have one and you kinda don’t. Nuance is hard.
So, you don’t disagree with Rankin when they stated “pets are the unifying fantasy of the Hunter class”, even though you said, and I quote:
7 Likes
Nuance is hard. You have a pseudo pet that makes more sense for your spec. You don’t have the same pets that make more sense for the other specs.
1 Like
Having the same pets made sense for 20 years. Having some random bird swoop in every now and then is just lame.
10 Likes
It literally has not made sense from bfa on.
1 Like
Having a pet has been mostly optional, but it still made sense for the pet class to have a pet for every spec.
6 Likes
Which is even more the case now since marks has its own unique pseudo pet that actually does marks hunter stuff
1 Like
There is no nuance in this point of the discussion. You said pets are not a unifying aspect of the hunter, and now are saying that pets are. Which is it?
We can argue to what degree pets are, or should be, part of theme of hunters - however your statement both in affirmation of the new MM pet and against pets being part of being Hunter’s identity is in direct conflict. Pick one.
5 Likes
It doesn’t qualify as a pet any more than the Sentinel owl is a pet. It can’t be targeted. It can’t be misdirected to. It can’t hold threat. It’s a glorified spell effect that Blizzard is trying to call a pet.
8 Likes
The nuance is that you kinda have a pet and you kinda don’t. It’s not binary. It is more unifying to have a pseudo pet that actually interacts with your spec. At the same time, you don’t have the traditional pet that the other specs have that interacts with their specs. Needing to use a pet that doesn’t really do anything other than provide passives for you and holding aggro in meaningless content makes less sense than the thing specifically designed to fit with the spec. Lone wolf created problems for a long time in content that actually matters. This is better.
I did.
I’m so glad we have people like you telling us what content matters or not.
6 Likes
Try listening and maybe you’ll feel better
Try not being condescending. Saying stuff like only group content matters and that solo players are doing “meaningless content” is not a good argument. It’s pathetic and hateful for no reason. So how about you try listening for once instead of preaching from on high.
8 Likes