One of my trades is concept art, and ever since I started playing this game in Wrath, have always designed class sets for fun. (Warning in advance, this is gonna be a bit lengthy, but if you’re in this thread you likely care enough to read it already)
Although concept art isn’t my main trade anymore (only freelance), I cannot stress enough how every time I see the next wave of class sets, I just wince at how blatantly some miss the mark. I think overall, the WoW Art team are absolutely dynamite- but there needs to be a greater consistency in quality.
Take the plate sets for example;
- Warrior seems to have about a 1/10 chance of being “average” at worst. Besides that outlier, they’re either cool, pretty cool, or downright awesome.
- Death Knight & Paladin have a 3/10 chance of being average or worse.
Why is this? Why are they so consistently able to create sets that hit the bullseye or close to it every time? It’s because the class fantasy is clear, and the spec identity falls within that fantasty coherently enough.
Lemme elaborate.
IMO the other classes (namely Cloth and Leather) average about a 4 or 5/10 on the scale when it comes to likelihood of their set being a hit or miss. That’s ok, art is subjective at the end of the day. But here’s where I feel Hunter is so hard done by, fuddled and botched…
Every time there’s a new class set, the set itself first and foremost needs to hit a generic understanding of what that class is. Then, by cleverly utilizing colour variation across LFR, Normal, Heroic, Mythic, Gladiator, and Elite, you can find a means to lean further into specificity of your spec fantasy. This is usually quite easy, because the artists usually cover the “ground” of each spec through those colours.
Example: I’m a Mage player, and love my sets to be purple when in Arcane spec, Blue/White when in Frost spec, and Red/Burning when in Fire spec. Even if a mage set like the Firelands (tier 12) or BWD/BoT (tier 11) sets come out, which are both inherently fire themed, (one being Ragnaros-inspired, the other being adorned in phoenix feathers), I can still acquire a blue, purple, or red versions of them (in some cases, these come out in the form of alternative means, and sometimes delayed like Island Expeditions). But what I’m left with is the ability to still feel like my class and/or spec fantasy some way or another. (The purple Mage tier 11 set is still unobtainable, but exists in the files).
Like that example, Death Knight does the same, often sporting colour variations that elude to blood, frost, or decay, even if with subtlety, and so on. But even if they don’t, and the set only has one fixed colour scheme, it still knows exactly what class the set is made for. The designers know that they’re still make a Death Knight or Mage set. The identity of the class can be broken down to fundamentals, and then built back up with a new spin on the concept.
The dilemma with Hunter is that first and foremost, it shares an armour type with Shaman. When they need to share sets (like BfA, Shadowlands, or Trial of the Crusader), they’re caught in this crossroad between leaning into animalistic, bestial designs, and chainmail, and archery armour. The other armour types dodge this bullet because you don’t need such on the nose imagery to convey themes. The Nathria plate set for example hits the mark for all 3 plate wearers, despite being identical. It hits a shining knight, gothic knight, and castlevania vibe all at the same time with literally just… plate.
But when we take the focal lens off of Shaman entirely, and look specifically at Hunter; there is still a tug of war happening all the same. When you break down what Beast Mastery, Marksmanship, and Survival all are conceptually they could not be more different. At face value:
- Beast Mastery should be the spec adorned in fur, bone, pelts, dirt, and leaves. That spec is objectively the most “one with the animals”.
- Survival doesn’t know what the hell it even is, but based off of their gameplay I would say that survival is the most closely tied to machines. Traps, bombs, ropes, munitions of varying chemicals. The pet is almost secondary to the whole concept. This spec aesthetically demands militant gear, almost like Rambo.
- Marksmanship should be about being properly covered in mail. You want to be durable, and well reinforced like plate- but still light enough to be nimble, should your giant distance between you and the enemy be breached. Chainmail, thick leather guards, scopes, lens, sniper imagery.
So the art team is stuck with a major conundrum here. Unlike the Mage, DK, or Warrior examples, where they need to make one set for each class, with Hunter? They’re thematically screwed no matter what way they slice it. When they make a generic set to appeal to the fantasy of all 3 specs? They’ve created an ugly mish-mash that appeals to nobody. And when they decide to lean into the fantasy of one specific hunter spec? They’ve got a statistical 66% chance of “missing the mark” every single time.
So every time I see a new hunter set, and see Hunter players (my alt is a Hunter) complain, I sympathize. But I also sympathize with the art team who are burdened with a near-impossible task that the design team have created for them. What results are sets that I see and simply think “they made this in a confused panic”. Those sets usually end up being the ones that just look like a generic and lifeless blot of dead animal parts, a plank of wood or patch of fur, and then a little bit of chain thrown into it all.
The solution? Pretty simple actually, and one they’ve done in the past during WoD.
For those who remember, WoD 6.0 debuted with a unique concept we’ve not seen since;
For each class, all of their sets across Raid and PvP shared the same boots, pants, gloves, belt, chest, and cape, and all of which sported different colours depending on the source of acquisition (just like how it is currently). The noteworthy part though, was how the Shoulders and Helmets were unique to every source (and sometimes belt too). When coupled with a different colour scheme entirely, this allowed for an almost completely new-set feel. Most people don’t even notice at first glance that all of those sets do in fact share 75% of the same model assets.
(If you still have doubts/were unaware of this entirely, I’ve whipped up a comparison to illustrate my point: [ https ://imgur. com/lZdYj1e ] (remove the spaces))
See how they’re all using the same assets, albeit recoloured, but with unique shoulders and helms? It completely sells a different idea. What I’m proposing, is that same concept, but applied to specs instead of PvP/PvE. On paper, that’s a metric f ton of unique shoulders and helms to make for every set, but when you consider this game’s dev team size, it really isn’t that drastic of an idea.
I honestly think that the only solution to the “why do hunter sets always look like trash” dilemma, is either rebuilding Hunter as a class from the ground up so that all 3 specs share a uniform vision, or doing a change like this that allows specificity for the artists to bullseye what makes each spec unique and visually appealing.
So before I wrap this up, let’s, for fun, Imagine a Hunter set, and just like usual, laden with chain, fur, animal bone or wood for all parts but the head/shoulders. The belt has a small map rolled up, a vial or two, and a small mechanism on the side. The gloves, boots, and chest look like they are wearing reinforced leather, with small fur noticeable in the cracks of the leather wrappings. All 3 specs would share this.
-
For Beast Mastery? The helmet and shoulders are made of thick fur tufts, tightly wound by vine and rope, and trimmed with the points of antler and claw. The head piece is a giant pelt that envelops around the neck, and doubles as both something warm for the winter, but also something that makes the hunter look large and intimidating. Their face is marked with paint, mud, and they wear the skull of a former pet that died in combat, in their memory. At a distance, the hunter’s shoulders resemble giant bestial claws, and their headpiece makes them look like a fearsome drust creature almost.
-
For Marksmanship. Chains woven and linked together so that nothing can pierce them. One shoulder is strapped with numerous arrows, all coated differently. The other shoulder has a quiver strapped to the back, as well as a map at the front. Their helmet, also adorned with chain, fully coats their neck and collar, covered by a thick helmet that has a scope built in to one eye, but leaves the rest of the face revealed. Leather straps firmly tighten it all together, and leave the hunter looking heavily reinforced, but still able to move loosely.
-
For Survival (taking liberties here since this spec identity is so clouded honestly), both shoulders are firmly reinforced with plate & chain. One shoulder has a bomb storage case bolted on, and a compartment for gunpowder. The other shoulder is smaller, and more akin to a supply pack strapped to the arm. Tied to the wearer’s arm with bandage & rope, alongside a hunting knife. Their helmet is a face guard similar to engineering goggles, but also covers the nose, and hair. On the side of the helmet is an ear piece similarly to Mechagnome speaker-ears, and on the other side is a collection of gears slightly exposed. The helmet has “hair”, that is actually leaf and net, and drapes down along the back of the wearer’s head, and behind their shoulders, so that if spotted from behind while hiding in a bush, the back of their head would conceal them. Between it all is a “garnish” of rope and chain.
Now whether or not you think my ideas suck is totally up to you, but that offers a vastly higher chance of the Hunter liking their set for once, as it has a far higher chance of leaning into what they want to see from a Hunter set in the first place. Design theory! Fun!
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
of course 1-h melee weapons are going to have more options than ranged weapons as 1-h weapons are used by Monks, Rogues, Shaman, Warriors, Death Knights, Demon Hunters—even Warlocks have 1-h options lol
