I’m probably defining utility too specifically. To me, a HUGE damage CD isn’t utility, it’s damage. Abilities that keep others alive, resurrect them, increase movespeed, etc., are things that feel more like utility, especially because you’re sacrificing potential damage to do them. No matter how you slice it, Lust is straight throughput and, to my knowledge, the reason MM brings a pet 99.9% of the time.
It’s weird to me that you (Tanais) are arguing so vehemently for pets here when you have made this argument to me elsewhere:
And this:
So pets ARE iconic to Hunters but not ranged weapons? I don’t know that you’ve specifically made this claim word for word, but the way you’re arguing here certainly implies it.
My contention is this: If we’re going to render the two most HISTORICALLY ICONIC features of the Hunter CLASS moot, go all the way down that rabbit hole. Commit to petless MM, COMPLETE Melee SV (everything melee minus WFB and traps, no more pocket crossbow, and better mitigation), and a more heavily pet-oriented BM. I’d rather have fully fleshed-out spec identities than this mess we have now - trying to accommodate everything by making everything sort of meh isn’t really a good approach, IMHO.
ON THE OTHER HAND, if the intention is to make pet abilities interesting and pet family choices actually meaningful (hasn’t been a whole lot of communication on this) absolutely let MM choose LW or pet, and balance around that choice. Hunter design possibility is a whole lot of if/then statements right now.