The “crusade” against self heal and absorbs was solely about Tanks. DPS still have plenty of them because they are needed for solo play. My warriors’ second wind still works great, as do their victory rush, Frost DK’s Death Strike is still more than enough to keep going, Rogues are still squishy but if they’re appropriately geared they aren’t too bad.
Even my Arcane Mage was holding her own.
My S.Priest absolutely whomps butt, she can solo 15mil elites if I use her big cooldown that I can never remember the name of.
To be fair, when specs see drastic overhauls, it’s going to aggravate people who play that spec. Every person doesn’t enjoy switching specs. I play every class in the game, but I’m far from the norm.
In this case, it’s people that are pissed because pets are a Hunter thing. Marksmanship interacted with them far less, but still used them for a long time and for specific utilities. While I personally am welcoming the Marksmanship changes, I also can understand the aggravation with something core to Hunter as a class being entirely axed from one of its specs.
Haven’t seen hunters up in arms about the overhaul itself, just the part where they’re removing our pets. Hell we’ve mostly agreed that the overhaul is largely a good thing.
Yeah, but see the thing is, to do the overhaul and make the spec actually good, you kinda have to get rid of the pets to achieve what they’re wanting to do.
My honest opinion is this is like the constant push by certain factions in Blizzard to push PvP and telling the player base to like it. Many years ago someone got a hair up their rear that they were going to eliminate pets for MM Hunters and it has nothing to do with the game’s history or playability but is purely an I’ll show them whose in charge.
The fact is they could readily resolve the problems related to playing an MM Hunter in group content for higher level players without creating a whole new class (the rework is much more than a spec change). It is just a matter of will to come up with a comprehensive design and coding it. And I don’t want to hear excuses about it being complicated. They are well payed to resolve complicated issues. I certainly was for the 40’ish years I worked in operating system architecture and design.
You can’t have a class be 100% focused on being a marksman and have a useful pet out at the same time.
Once you call the pet out, the class can’t be performing 100% or you’ll be overpowered.
It’s gotta be one or the other. And if you make the class in such a way that you have to switch between pet or no pet, well that’s basically what we have now, if you have a pet out, then you’re only half-baked but if you don’t have a pet out, then you’re going to have terrible survivability.
You really can’t have it both ways. And if you make the class to just being a hunter with pet, well that’s what BM is already.
I would actually accept that yes, I would infinitely prefer to have my pets that I tamed than the stock eagle.
We crossed this bridge before during legion when every bm hunter was forced to have hati as the second pet, eventually there was an option to aesthetically reskin hati into a pet of your choosing because having the pets we like is important to us.
I would accept that, especially if in that compromise the pet would stay out. Make it a glyph. Maybe 2 glyphs. 1 more the hunter that wants it out all the time, an the other for the one who wants to only have it appear when it would normally appear.
I suppose that could be a compromise that should work, don’t see why not. Obviously if you take the glyph to always have it out, it’d be a non-combatant while it’s not out (or when it’s not supposed to be out, I mean), but eh.
I’m kidding of course, but can you imagine?