Hunter Tank

Classes Hunter
1

So I would love to see a mail user be a tank. I would hope that it either be Shaman or hunter. IF it was a hunter I would love it to be a BM or Survival style of tank.

Now let me get this clear I am not saying to change either one of the specs to a tank. Just that its the same style I would like to see where you and your pet are the tank.

Personally I would prefer a bm style where you have like 3-4 pets and they tank. But that is just me

2 Likes
2

yeah, itā€™d be really cool. lots of cool flanking debuffs

3

Shaman would be the easiest choice for tank spec as it was once able to. Hunters are not designed for sustainable damage migration. Major redesigns would be needed, and the gameplay change would mean loosing another spec to a very small group who want it.

4

I dont think you read his post he said add a spec.

5

Blizzard not making a 4th spec for an idea that few would be playing. Huge waste of time to invest in an idea that would have no player base.

6

Having pets tank would be dismal for all sorts of gameplay reasons.

7

They pretty much do this on the norm for us so why not make it for a group. Every hunter has at least 1 tank pet for when you need it.

8

Because mob positioning is one of the tankā€™s most important roles. Yā€™all really want groups to be dependent on how well the hunter is micromanaging the gameā€™s pet movement commandsā€¦?

9

You realize it takes more time to completely rehaul a spec than to make a 4th, right? (Which is the only part of your response relevant to what youā€™re quoting.)

That saidā€¦

This. And thatā€™s coming from someone whoā€™d micro to growl-LoS ranged mobs to my tank, growl cleaves off the tank and out of the group to take almost no damage from it with tank taunting back immediately after, etc., and would 4-BM+healer Cata heroics for fun back in the day.

Pet controls would need significant (beneficial) rehauling for tanking via pet to be (even potentially) an enjoyable experience for most players.

2 Likes
10

You also realize that they would be using time that could be used on others specs to create a unpopular idea? Thereā€™s more than just the time that goes into a spec, you have to code, work on improving abilities or adding, and then testing.

Itā€™s a waste of energy on a spec that would require more work than the the few who want it.

11

You mean like monks and evokers?

12

arent rogues and arms warriors played very rarely too? sounds like we should just remove anyhting not popular

1 Like
13

Yeah cause the five people who asked for this would be a great use of Blizzardā€™s designers.

[quote=ā€œAsthelon-area-52, post:12, topic:2218754, full:trueā€]

arent rogues and arms warriors played very rarely too? sounds like we should just remove anyhting not popular

[/quote]

You ment Survival is rarely played.

14

As long as the spec is strong people will play it. Thatā€™s the same reason why people donā€™t play survival. It sucks. S3 Shadowlands, checkmate.

15

So youā€™re suggesting that inorder to get players into this tank hunter spec is to make it the strongest choice?

16

Lol nice bait

17

huh? no I said arms and rogue. survival has low play rate, yes, but so do those specs more often than not lol. right now there are less than 2k parses for affliction, outlaw, arms, and survival. whatā€™s your point?

just last expansion sv had more players than mm too so likeā€¦

18

It takes time to make every spec, and Iā€™m not sure any among the last class (Evoker) would have had seen any more purchase on their descriptions (simplified red-and-green lizard-mage, buff-rotation-lizard-mage, brown-and-green-healer-lizard-mage) than ā€œHunter tankā€ would have.

1 Like
19

Exactly this. If you put any of the decisions Blizzard makes in a forum post with someone saying ā€œI want thisā€, theyā€™d get relentlessly ridiculed and laughed off the forums. People acting like there is some grand complex reason for why things they donā€™t like shouldnā€™t or couldnā€™t exist.

Folks should realize its okay to just say ā€œI donā€™t like that ideaā€ and not feel the need to conjure up fake technical and logistical reason for why the idea couldnā€™t be accomplished. Blizzard just tried to shoehorn in a new race with a new class with a new spec fulfilling an entirely new role. You trying to tell me that they have the resources to do a new everything that nobody asked for but donā€™t have the resources to do a new one thing that some people ask for?

1 Like
20

Simply this.

ā€œI donā€™t have any desire for it, and Iā€™d actively not want it if itā€™d slow the creation of a Shaman tank (by nature competing for design excuse by nature of being Mail-Armor tanks).ā€ Etc. Done.

Unrelated, but just as to not make a separate post over itā€¦

A few things thatā€™d pop into mind surrounding the idea of a Hunter Tank:

  • Both BM and SV kind of equally lend themselves to a tank (beastly self-buffs, coordination with pet, mob-manipulation and versatile kit via tools or summons, etc.).
  • I therefore wouldnā€™t mind a name shuffle of Survival ā†’ Pursuit while this would take the Survival name. (No, that would not rehaul Survival. Its kit would still be as before save for perhaps a bit more mobility and on-demand ranged capacity.)
  • Actual pet use would require considerable improvements to pet ā€˜micro-AIā€™ and command scheme options and should probably be built around (e.g., if an command were added to have your pet keep [the target] spread a certain distance from you [e.g., the distance at time of command] but otherwise mirror your movement, you and your pet might then also have a command to swap places or, say, cleave or (if you had another to mirror angularly as well, to tie up enemies between you, etc.).
  • Since itā€™d be its own spec, though, one could also likely choose between no pet (far more tool use), mild pet use (some tool use), and extensive pet use (little tool use) as they please.