Stupid exaggeration, no class ever did 0 damage.
You compare from the top down in %, not bottom up.
Doing 100% more damage than another spec is the same as other spec doing 50% less damage.
Why is that convention any more correct than the other convention?
None is better than the other but you’re using the opposite one to the comment you’re responding too.
I like BM for my hunter but the niche “single target spec” of hunters is gone. Tier makes both MM and SV better at everything compared to BM. Personally I went SV and am loving it. For season 4 Raid+ it will depend on the raid what I spec into. No way I’m doing melee in CN again.
Given that we’re dealing with an approximation of an approximation, It’s vague enough which one was used at any given time.
I disagree, in context it’s clear at least to me that he’s comparing from the S tier spec perspective looking down.
It’s a ranged class with a very low skill ceiling. It’s the most mobile ranged damage dealer in the game. There’s no reason for it to be even near the middle of the road.
What about PvP?
Less than three, oh ehm gee, love computer fantasy, meet me here on eye are see, el oh el oh el.
That the most popular hunter spec took a nose dive and the least popular got buffed to the moon is kind of troubling.
It looks like they are intentionally designing specs to be out of balance to meet arbitrary internal population goals. Same thing with rogues.
They need tighter tolerances when it comes to balance. Specs that are 30% off compared to others are going to end up with 5-10k differences in DPS. And if most player have a favorite spec and every spec has to go through this merry go round of extreme balance shifting, most players are eventually going to have a bad tier.
If balance design is a tool for goals other than balance, there’s a real problem.
2 Likes
If you think a difficult spec exists in WoW, you prolly should be playing Hello Kitty Adventure Island instead.
1 Like