Because I could be like him in some ways, I am on hte spectrum and might see signs of it in such, Those of us that deal with Austism Spectrum disorder don’t think the same way as others, and or social skills are, as is likely evedent, not always the best.
This is why I care less abotu the journey or path one takes to reach the end conclusion, as long as the conclusion matches what we have now.
It’s not about social skills. It’s about presenting a coherent argument based on facts.
His argument was “MMs who like pets should have complained 10 years ago.” We did. His argument falls flat right out the gate.
His justification for that argument was “it was baked in before it was a talent, it wasn’t always optional.” That’s incorrect, on both counts. His justification also falls flat right out the gate.
Stop carrying water for people who are dismissive of your statements and directly opposed to your stated goals.
I don’t recall him ever being such, but again, ASD, so you might see it but I do not. Just as I did not see you as being wrong yourself. Maybe the issue here is we both read somethign different in what he said, and now you are tryign to get me to see it as you do.
Please re-read the first part of his statement:
This is incredibly dismissive. This is invalidating the feedback of people who want to keep a pet, based on false assertions about the history of the ability and the way previous player feedback shaped that history. “You should have complained earlier” is never going to lead to a productive discussion.
Sure there is. Lone Wolf. It works just fine. When you want to use a pet, use a pet. When you don’t, put it away and spec Lone Wolf.
However, after this change, there is nothing for the Ironforge Rifleman fantasy. I don’t want a forced not-a-pet pet.
EDIT: And can we talk about how many forced-arrow graphics are on hunter abilities? Why even have guns in the game…
Correct, but it does not have to come from a position of being so intentionally or malice… I said it before, and I’ll say it again:
To me, you are attributing all he said to malice, while I was attributing it to things like:
ignorance
stubbornness
not being around during that time for whatever reason
In short, I think is is an idiot that happened to have ONE speck of truth/correct thought in what he said, but he did so in a way that painted him in a lot of negative ways. I just happened to choose the least negative of them all and tried to steer the conversation in that direction.
I will admit I could be wrong, and he is doing these things maliciously, but until I see evidence of such, I’ll take the lesser attributes.
No.
I’m attributing the dismissive “You should have complained 10 years ago” to malice. Because it is. If malice is too strong, maybe malicious indifference would fit better.
The rest of his statement is better explained by stupidity and/or ignorance (which are essentially the same in the given context).
fair enough
There’s no point in keeping a facet of the game intact if the broader majority of the playerbase isn’t actively engaging with it. It would be more interesting, instead, to reshape that class rather than preserving it for the sake of… well, preservation. Truthfully, I’m not certain how clearer I can make that to you lol
Hoo boy, this is how what you say comes across: “there is no point in keeping something for open world/solo content because the majority of the player base isn’t actively engaging in open world/solo content”
It is this open world/solo content that ones like me want the option for a pet in. This is content where we should be able to play sub optimally, where we should be able to mess around, where we should be able to do things we don’t do in group content.
You’re making a whole slew of assumptions about what I said lol
Nobody said you can’t play sub-optimally, but if MM hunters on average are trending away from pets regardless of what content they’re engaging in, then it doesn’t make sense for Blizzard to keep pets intact as part of that fantasy.
I’m not even talking about what’s optimal and sub-optimal. I’m talking about a design decision that doesn’t fit within the broader framework of what MM is trying to achieve, and why Blizzard is making the decision to pivot away from it.
Can you cite a source that shows the broader majority of MM players isn’t actively engaging with pets?
I’m aware you can cite sources that show the broader majority of MM Hunters take Lone Wolf in M+ and raid, and that the broader majority of MM Hunters omit Lone Wolf in rated PvP.
As far as I have been able to find, there isn’t a reliable source available for aggregated data outside these narrowly-defined contexts. Nothing on leveling players, and nothing on level 80 casuals other than “This is what they were specced into when they logged out”.
The thing is, that data you brought up, who is to say it is not coming from the raids and M+, but they lack data for open world, or more likely, it is so varied they can’t focus on a particular aspect…
Then why are they shoving a spotting eagle into the spec? That action alone means they do want pets part of the spec.
Didn’t frost mage already lose their water elemental? I don’t play frost, but I do remember hearing about that.
We still have like 40 glyphs to change the shade of blue of the water elemental though…
They cant, you said yourself, they have access to endless amounts of data.
You cant cherrypick which decision is right and wrong based on the ones you think are right or wrong. you take your cake and eat it
We already went trough this, not once, twice, we already waited and saw, it is a wrong decision to remove MM pets, period.
You are joking right?
you are not talking seriously.
The MM fantasy is not and was never, about having a spotter eagle, so you not making a true statement here, they are literally making this up now.
“This” is false.
It might be true on M+ and raids, but it does serves purpose in other content.
Except that from what little I’ve seen, it’s going to be about as much of a “pet” as the Sentinel owl that’s summoned by those hero talents.
And its bad all the same
I am aware,and even that is too much, IMO.
What does that have to do with anything?
Let me put it this way: If 80% of MM hunters aren’t using the pet, open world or not, then it doesn’t make sense for Blizzard to preserve a part of that fantasy for the other 20%.
You know what I meant when I said “pet.” Please don’t play dumb and argue semantics now lol
That’s not what that means lol
You haven’t seen anything. The updates aren’t live yet, so we don’t know how this is going to play out or feel lmao
The MM fantasy was never about having a pet, either. The core fantasy of MM has always been ranger-adjacent. The pet was incidental to that experience because it just so happened that MM was under the hunter family tree.
If a dedicated ranger class actually existed, then hunters would have never had MM to begin with. It was put there because hunters are the bow-wielding class for WoW lol