Nathanos didn’t have a pet because he was Sylvanas’s pet.
I find the argument that marks has been petless for ten years also a bit tired. Like yes, people ran lone wolf because it was a flat damage boost, it was the best option even when blizz “tried” to make the difference less it was stil lahead so obviously people were going to pick it. If you give me a nail that gives me 5,000 dollars any time I jab myself with it or a chair that gives me cake…I’ll pick the nail doesn’t mean it’s the most enjoyable option.
1 Like
Not anymore. You want it to be one way, but it’s the other.
It is, they literally gave you a pet bird
Read the patch notes and play beta
1 Like
I’ve played beta. It’s nothing like the current pet. Barely on the screen. Doesn’t die with a portion of my damage attached to it. Don’t have to stop my attacks to summon/dismiss it.
And that is the problem, is a pet not like the current one, and we are giving feedback to change.
But that already refute your point about MM not having a pet, it does, cause it is a hunter
1 Like
I am giving feedback to the change also. It’s much better than the old way. It’s no more a pet to anyone with a brain than murder of crows. You guys are now desperately trying to cling to this weird semantic “gotcha” you think you have. It’s comical coping.
I wish you’d give feedback without making up definitions.
Just because hunters have always had a pet doesn’t mean it always needs to have a pet.
Like “I want a pet because it makes sense to me” is more logical then “I want a pet because hunters are supposed to have pets”.
One is what you want vs you creating your own class definition.
1 Like
Good thing i did not made the definition, blizzard did, by saying hunters are defined by their pet:
It does, mean that.
both of then make sense, because hunter are supposed to have pet, is part of their core fantasy
Again, confirmed by the devs.
their class definition
It isnt.
You arent.
1 Like
Stay mad. You lost.
See? you are not giving feedback, you are just clowning
1 Like
I was giving feedback until your “clown” replies.
They said “large part”, not soley defined.
And again;
In your mind. But you’ll never grasp this because of how militant and stubborn you are with this ideology.
Therefor it’s always had a pet and can’t ever change that aspect (for whatever reason).
That’s all you’ve been doing and calling others clowns who you disagree with.
Making your up definitions and twisting blue quotes to fit your narrative. Then flaming people for disagreeing.
Its wild.
2 Likes
You werent, saying Marksmanship have nothing to do with a pet is flat out lying.
I never claim it was sole defined, you are, again, making a strawman to attack
No, thats part of the hunter core fantasy, it is stated on the hunter page, it was stated by the deves
The only one being stubborn and refused to “grap” anything, is you.
Not the ones i disagree with, but the ones who lie and talk crap, especially the ones who tell people to switch specs.
Literally a definition from a blue post
Literally a definition from the hunter class in the official patch:
Class Information
Hunters battle their foes at a distance or up close, commanding their pets to attack while they nock their arrows, fire their guns, or ready their polearms.
Pets
Hunters tame the beasts of the wild, and those beasts serve in return by assaulting their enemies and shielding them from harm.
But keep cooping and playing the victim card now, people who have being in these threads know you already, someone who “doesnt rly care” about this, but its always on this subject, indeed wild.
2 Likes
You are making it the main definition. Insinuating it can’t be changed. Ever.
Its not.
Even your blue quote disproves that.
The fact your devolve conversation to calling people clowns to begin with then defend it speaks volumes honestly.
So all hunters use polearms? All use guns?
Its a description of the overall class. Not a set in stone definition or explanation of a specific spec.
Where does it say mm specifically is required to play with a pet or has to have a pet to be defined as a hunter?
Pointing out that you are toxic and instigating is not “coping” and playing the victim. Thats a sad attempt to gaslight and blame shift.
No, i said it is part of their core fantasy.
You just create a strawman to attack a point i never made, there is no insinuating, you lied about my point.
IT is
Blue post confirms it
If people become clowns as the conversation goes on, why would i call then different?
I know you are being dense on purpose, to make this dumb argument look more vallid, but even you understand they say hunters use arrows(bows/crossbows) guns or polearms.
where does it say, specifically, MM dont need a pet? where does it say, specifically, MM cant play or use one?
Again, you cant play this victim card, you are the biggest troll in the hunter feedback thread, talking crap about removing the pet and how is a good thing, you are literally the user with THE MOST comment in the thread, even saying time and time again you dont care
1 Like
Because you’re the one making clown responses. There was an actual conversation until your
Nonsense
You say that, while honking your red nose.
There wasnt, you start by saying “nothing about marskman implies a pet”, while nothing about marksman implies a LACK OF PET either.
I said there is no need to imply that in the spec, because it is already covered BY THE CLASS
Then it devolves on you coping about MM not having a pet, despite the eagle being one, and how the blue post saying it is a pet and you ignoring, so yeah, not feedback, just clowning
1 Like
How am I coping when the spec literally gives me my way lol. I made a point, you dismissed it in 4 words without countering it and then talk about clown responses. It’s not surprising this is just your disingenuous argument style.
I never claimed marksman implies lack of pet. Only that one is not required. You can cite the blue text all day and in that case technically you are getting a “pet”. Go have fun with it. Talk about copium.
“REEEEE it gives me MY WAY, you cant have YOUR WAY, its MY WAY REEEE”
Geez dude, like take it easy, no one is wanting yo “take your way”, you in the other hand, want to take “our way” away.
And was refuted
MM still have a pet, just not a regular one.
1 Like