Exactly so instead of making me have a generic eagle let me keep my loyal hunting dog/pet that I trained.
4 Likes
Well, then I’ve got some good news for you. Beast master sounds exactly like what you’re looking for!
2 Likes
Oh so true. Saying that as a priest and a hunter. You want to do any damage as disc, better learn to love shadow cause we’re having issues working the talents using holy damage.
Same crap excuse as for hunter. Maybe I didn’t say it before, but I am now. They have a reason, I just think it’s a crappy one.
You’ve been corrected on that like half a dozen times now, haven’t you? Why would you keep posting it like nobody hasn’t explained your misconceptions to you? Aren’t you ashamed that everyone else seems to have such an easy time shooting you down but you can’t seem to muster a real response?
4 Likes
It very well might and I have an alt that is a Beast master so not the issue. I like to play the marksman and I want the ability to chose the companion I hunt with not have Blizzard force one on me.
3 Likes
If you want pets as a hunter, you have both Beastmaster and Survival.
Marksmanship haven’t had an identity tied to pets for roughly a decade since Warlords of Draenor. Furthermore, what folks near universally have described Marksmanship as the only hunter specialization that doesn’t rely on pet AI. In other words, part of Marksmanship’s identity is the lack of a pet.
The change makes sense, and that’s all there is to it.
2 Likes
I really want Enhancement to have a Sword/Shield option but im not getting that either.
2 Likes
MM does have an identity of that we have seen used throughout the years of Warcraft itself. The hunter with his trusty pet, the dwarves scouting with their pet, the frostwolves with their bond with their families.
Those are MM hunters lol. They don’t have a bunch of pets… they aren’t beastmasters. They have a bond with one.
Blizz created their own problem and this is how they are simplifying it. They want to make long wolf more powerful so people use it… SO OBVIOUSLY that’s how players like to play their character? Right? 
2 Likes
There FTFY
Here I was just getting back into Hunter and considering making it my main (I’ve always been a MM fan ever since they ripped out RSurvival). If this goes through, guess I’ll pass on maining Hunter yet again.
replies talk about 11.1 and no second pet but…
is not the second pet there because you place a pet in that final slot in your stable?
I always thought that if you dont want a second pet out then you just leave that slot empty.
Literally why else would they decide to change this after 20 years?
I imagine data collecting and talent balance streamlining.
Neither of these things considering long time mm players and the running class fantasy of it. Lol
Okay that was the past and your statement is true. Marksman could either use a companion or go it alone. Either route was fine.
In the next patch they are removing the ability to use a companion but then turning around and giving you an eagle as some yet to be determined support system. My question is why can’t I use my existing companion in whatever role they have the eagle. Basically I want the eagle to be customizable.
1 Like
Customizable would be good.
Except no, it wasn’t. What you said here is true, until you said “either route was fine” when it wasn’t.
Every guide, every conversation, every single time there was ever a point of conversation between Marksmanship, Beastmaster, and Survival a central point was “Do you want to play with pets or not?” Marksmanship has been the de facto in practice petless class hunters have had access to since Warlords of Draenor. It wasn’t that they were “fine either way” but rather “You play Marksmanship if you want to play as a ranged physical class without pets.”
Literally all they are doing is focusing on what Marksmanship’s actual identity is and focusing in on it. By removing something that was irrelevant and disliked by Marksmanship hunters (judging by both the general sentiment and prevalence of people choosing MM because of Lone Wolf over the years), and replacing it with something which people have been asking for since a very long time.
Hell, if you want to bring out more reasons for this change … ever seen folks ask for a “ranger” specialization? Congratulations, Marksmanship just opened up to that role as well (even though it is definitely going to be themed more to be a sniper class than a ranger specialization).
Go and ask Blizzard. I have no idea how they’ll handle this portion, but judging by how many classes have had stuff added to the barbershop as of late…
I’d be surprised if it wasn’t, but again, that’s something you’ll have to ask Blizzard for more information about.
1 Like
They don’t care about the time you’ve invested in it. To office bound devs who are out of touch with the game, those pets are just a number on a spreadsheet.
1 Like
Pretty much every complaint or critique I have seen so far is solved very heavily by them letting you choose your pet visual instead of forcing you into an eagle. Having one pet visual really feels like its going backwards 3 or 4 expansions in personalization. Same reason I think packmaster forcing you into boars, bears, and wyverns is stupid alliance has never even used wyverns to my knowledge.
Well as someone who has a marksman and uses the companion because I don’t go the lone wolf route I stand by statement.
I get that it might not be the norm and the way that the majority play the marksman but I don’t care. I liked having the one companion I did have and personally would have liked the option to continue. It however is not to be and I will just have to adjust.
As to my question about the eagle being customizable that was geared toward Blizzard sorry if that was confusing.
Replacing the pet with an eagle. I can’t wait to try it.
“Play BM” is kind of a dismissive, arrogant, and a-holish response from people who made it clear they are not actually reading people’s concerns. Not surprised.
10 Likes