Crazy thing: I kind of liked Legion’s MM. The chance to proc Vulnerability was way too low, and the penalties for not having it up were far too harsh in the beginning (and they eventually fixed this), but the idea of marked shot procs to set off some truly epic AOE and single-target damage was nice. I wasn’t sorry to see Vulnerability go away, but I did miss the AOE.
It was fast, it was dynamic, and had a nice mix of “deadly sniper” and “MOAR DAKKA” that grew on me. The problem was, once the artifact weapon went away, so did the dakka, and all you were left with was Aimed Shot.
I didn’t say it was all about physical shots. But it has focused more on them than BM and SV. It retained Steady Shot when the nature based Cobra Shot was introduced, and it has had Aimed Shot for its entire existence. It hasn’t been exclusively physical, but it has had an emphasis on physical attacks just like SV has had an emphasis on elemental based attacks and BM an emphasis on attacking through the pet.
Eh, that’s fair. I don’t totally agree with that interpretation, but I don’t totally disagree either. I can see where you’re coming from.
It’s just my preference of a class-based design approach rather than a spec-based one.
I remember you saying that during Legion!
I never made it a secret how much I hated Legion’s MM. I don’t begrudge anyone for liking Legion MM. I get it. That rapid pace was nice.
But oh man, I really really really hated the massive pruning on top of the huge RNG (thanks a lot, Vulnerable) on top of the downtime (thanks, Sidewinders) on top of your best shot being shackled to RNG.
In the end, Legion MM just had too many things that I hated. If it was just one or two things, then I would’ve sucked it up and dealt with it. But nope, Blizzard somehow rolled all nat ones on the MM design. (Keep in mind, I’m talking about my preferences, which is an entirely subjective thing.)
By this logic all traps or stings should be SV only, clearly that was never true so.
It is what it is, we all have our views, i dont see it how you do.
I wasn’t a fan of Vulnerable and Marked Shot and I preferred the pre-7.2 version of MM (where you could choose to keep Vuln up at all times vs the 6s windows), but I loved Marked Shot and honestly do miss it.
I never said such a thing. I don’t think that all of a particular type of ability should be reserved to only one spec. I literally said such at the beginning of my comment that you quoted. I just think that if Exotic Munitions is returning, that it should be a Survival Talent if they are going to make it a Marksmanship talent. I don’t think it should exist if Survival doesn’t have access to it.
That is because if you break it down to pure numbers, pets are just another form of gear. That’s what makes this suggestion much more nuanced when measured against the benefits of LW because now you have QOL effects that actually matter.
Indeed. Pets could be super interesting, but Blizzard just doesn’t care to give them the time to make them so. I am somewhat ok with there being a ‘best pet’ in terms of DPS, just as long as their contribution isn’t, on average, significantly better than those of other DPS increasing pets. Blizzard’s attempts to resolve ‘best pets’ is what destroyed pets as a whole. By trying to painstakingly balance them they were made ultra boring in the process. They’re not even buff totems anymore.
The issue is trying to determine which pet was dismissed of your callable kit to provide the proper buff. With the buff, you’re not sacrificing your pet like a warlock but dismissing it… Which uses its own object logic. I assume that creates a massive coding issue on top of the design and balancing concerns.
Talents still seem preferential to tackle. The issue when Lone Wolf was a talent is the competing choices were never balanced to truly be competitive and consistently pulled ahead. Frankly, the competing talent choices should have been pet-focused and simply were not, which generated the negative feedback that ditching the pet shouldn’t mean sacrificing a new shot.
This has already mostly been solved and would just require a little bit of extra coding. Hunters can already have 5 pets with them stored in slots pet 1 - 5. All that would really be required is adding some back end coding. Pet 1 Type = Bear, etc. The game already keeps track of which pet you have out. We know this because if you try to summon a pet and your current pet is dead, it will tell you, your pet is dead rather than summoning a new pet.
I honestly want them to Buff LW more considering that we lose utlity. I prefer a petless MM and hate feeling that I lose out on ability’s/effects we should have baseline because of pet’s.
So if we are only talking PVE here, since that’s where DPS really matters it would seem, why does it even matter, especially if YOU don’t care about the utility? Because that’s really what you gain from having the pet?
Exactly - this just reinforces my concern. I don’t understand why people feel the compulsion to say “No!” but then go on to say the exact same thing in these forums…
The pet summon state is most likely an on-off switch. The game keeps track of what pet you have out. I highly doubt the game keeps track of what pet you don’t have out.
Lone Wolf is active when you don’t have a pet out and therefore the game likely wouldn’t track the type of pet you don’t have out to determine what type of Lone Wolf effect you should get…
I’m sure trying to change that to “last pet out” is riddled with potential bugs, just based on experience trying to use logic as a log traversal instead of a state reader… Also, my guess is that’s why even BM uses the first STABLED pet instead of the last non-active callable pet. It gets really ugly fast.
The only way around an extreme re-code to the pet back-end would be for Lone Wolf to function “sacrifice-like” that is activated only when the pet is called. Which then requires its own separate object logic to the buff (and seems very maligned with why a hunter has a pet in the first place - to bond, not to sacrifice, even if it had a more euphemistic name)…
The game very much keeps track of what pet you don’t have out. If it didn’t there wouldn’t be 5 call pet slots. When you put a pet in one of those slots, the game changes a variable to point at the specific database entry for that pet. The variable associated on your character for that pet slot stays the same until you switch that pet slot to something different.
Kabbie wasn’t even talking about what pet you used last. They were talking about buffs specific pet families would give you while you had them active to make up for the loss of LW. Having specific pet Family X would give you Buff A, etc.
As someone who does enjoy lone wolf this would be great. I would love for pet Family to matter more. I would also say that if they do this I hope they stick to it and don’t go down the road of any buff can just be selected while in lone wolf.
Thanks for the callout on Kabbie’s post - I was focused on it in the Lone Wolf context, thinking the suggestion to “roll into” the current effect when the pet is dismissed. I read something not there - that the active pet should drive the buff after it’s dismissed. That is what I was saying wouldn’t be reasonably possible in the current architecture.
Exactly to your comment, when it’s framed as the active pet (not the dismissed pet) provides the buff, that is easily achieved. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
This goes straight to my concern about how we approach each other on the forums though.
Either way, I appreciate the clarification. Thanks.
(Keep in mind, I’m talking about my preferences, which is an entirely subjective thing.)