Eagle eye basically lets you advance scout a location and plan your move ahead. Its utility is lost on most now cause they rather run blindly into the fray. One of the things i love most about the hunter class is the fact we have things that allow us to better develope a plan of attack towards a situation ahead of time.
1 Like
I hope they limit the influence of WoW classic to bringing back some lost utility such as Scare Beast, Distracting Shot, and Eyes of the Beast. I would also like to see them come to terms with the fact that itâs fine to have a few mechanics shared between specs but I would hope they look to MoP/WoD Hunter design rather than Classic where all 3 specs really were too similar (a product of the fact that you didnât really pick a âspecâ back then so much as allocate talent points preferential to one tree over others). If 9.0 is announced and Hunters are losing focus for the sake of mana, have clipping/immobile auto shot, and have forced melee and deadzone then I would dread it more than I dreaded 7.0 and would likely quit. Even ammo would be a major sticking point for me.
As for sub losses: there is partial truth to it. Sub losses first started in Cataclysm and were actually tentatively linked to the brutal difficulty of entry-level content then, but over Cata and MoP the sub losses were usually gradual with any big losses being attributed to the general decline of WoW in China due to the highly competitive MMO market there. I do recall them saying that most of the sub loss was actually a decrease in the intake of subscribers rather than an increase in people quitting. Having said that, in WoD they were clearly driving people away as their sub losses in just 6 months of WoD beat out all the net subscriber losses for Cata and MoP. I donât think itâs realistic to assume they would maintain/exceed 12 million subs in the long term but they could definitely have avoided the 5 million sub loss of WoD and however many theyâve lost since then.
Agreed.
Can get behind this as well, although I would prefer for talent design to be closer to what it is today rather than MoP/WoD.
I hated the talents(most) we had at that point.
Personally, in reference to the new designs given to each spec, sort of in WotLK but moreso later in Cata, I would prefer that over anything. Though despite the changes in Cata after WotLK, itâs not a sustainable talent design philosophy, long-term.
Hence why they moved away from it, going into MoP.
So, in short, the core design of each spec back in MoP/WoD, along with the general talent focus that we have today(with some adjustments ofc, as required). This, I would gladly take.
And yes, Iâm a bit biased as much of the above is what Iâve done in my design proposal for an updated RSV.
Very much doubt that this would be done to the class for 9.0(or ever again). Sure, never any guarantees but stillâŚ
I agree, the return of lost utility is paramount.
For sure. This was the pinnacle of the Hunter imo.
I donât agree with this. I mean, its true in Classic, but it was also true in MoP and WoD. There was very little difference between the three specs. They all had the same talents, most of the core functionality and toolkit was identical. The main thing differentiating the three Hunter specs was how they dealt damage. They had different rotations and fantasy, but pretty much every single other thing was identical. Thatâs like 4 or 5 buttons difference (out of 50-60), and all of them did damage.
I personally think that is a great thing. I like a class feeling like a class, with different fantasies to choose from. But I disagree that the differentiation changed much between Classic and WoD except the addition of a few spec specific damage abilities.
I donât mean to trivialize the impact of those damage abilities on gameplay; it certainly made the specs feel different, but they were fundamentally identical all the way up until the Legion devastation. A Hunter was a Hunter.
I agree with the rest, but I really like the transition to melee. I love how the toolkit is designed to help you get back out of melee to do your ranged damage. The whole thing feels engaging, realistic and immersive.
It is important to note, the transition to melee is NOT the same thing as the deadzone. People often conflate (or even confuse) the two, but they are completely separate entities. The deadzone is a distance of 5-8 yards where we had no active damage abilities. After Vanilla our ranged minimum was 5 yards which eliminated the deadzone forever. For many years though we still had a transition to melee within 5 yards. It wasnât until they took away the ranged slot (in an effort to, you guessed it, make balancing easier) that we lost the ability to do both and lost that engagement. Donât get me wrong, MoP/WoD was the best Hunter ever, but it wasnât the loss of this transition that made it so for me.
I know this is not your main point, but I find this reason as culpable to be HIGHLY unlikely. I think it is much more likely that sub losses were primarily due to the forcing of talent trees on us (elimination of choice and agency), and the destruction of our favorite world.
They keep thinking that we want them to remove things and dumb the game down. This is what I hope they learn from Classic. We donât want things to be easier, even if we complain that we do. The only valid complaints along these lines imo are not about difficulty, but about obviously contrived difficulty.
Human beings donât actually want a participation trophy, so stop handing them out. Our greatest successes, both as individuals and as a species come from learning from our failures. This is what Classic got right.
Eagle eye is great for taking screenshots.
1 Like
I vehemently disagree with this. The previous design for talents was that each tier was directly competitive. This was the only way to ensure a semblance of a complete spec and/or balance. While there was always a highest DPS spec, those differences were very small most of the time; yet each tier had sufficient variance that a unique and customizable gameplay was ensured. MoP/WoD were FAR superior talent wise to what we have today.
For a lot of people, this is what makes all the difference as to if they actually like a specific playstyle or not.
We can guess what the reasons(main) were. But thatâs all we can do really.
Some quit due to forced talents.
Some quit due to the increase in difficulty over WotLK on many fronts.
Some quit simply due to the increased focus on spec identities. Sure, it wasnât as apparent as it is today, but it certainly was a thing even back then.
Some quit due to Focus being a resource now, as opposed to Mana. And how the new system affected you in combat.
And so onâŚ
Think I get your point on this. Though personally, I canât think of much at all in Vanilla that was actually hard. Granted that âhardâ in context can actually be interpreted in many ways. Not just towards the difficulty in killing creatures.
Nothing I talk about here is in reference to balancing of talent choices. I speak only of the actual design and how/if it did something to further enhance the core vision of your chosen spec/playstyle.
Talent design in MoP + WoD, like you and others have stated already, was very general in itâs approach. Most talents were the same for all specs within a single class.
And for me, as someone who played SV back then. When essentially none(or only a very select few, only one of which actually affected your damaging abilities) of the talents catered towards the playstyle of SV as it was designed back then, that led me to pretty much detest the choices we had. Most were in some way designed with the BM fantasy in mind, or MM.
I make no excuse for the issues we have with talents today and how they are balanced(not). There are many specific talents that I hate within the class.
But this does not(for me) take away the fact that the philosophy of designing talents to cater towards your chosen playstyle/spec, that this is a good thing.
I strongly believe that the very Core of each spec(damaging abilities and passive effects), along with most offensive talent options should in fact focus on your chosen playstyle. And how to further build upon it.
I agree, thatâs pretty much what I was saying.
Name one thing that was more difficult in Cata vs. WotLK.
This was very few people relative to the actual sub number drop. This only affected Hunters.
I die all the time. When I die I am almost never the only person running from the GY. Sometimes there is a whole stream of dead people going out like a ghostly flower growing in all different directions. That suggests people are literally dying all the time. The game is SO MUCH HARDER. And if you do die you generally have a very long run back to your corpse, which means dying has at least some negative effect incentivising not dying.
There is nothing that even comes close to that experience in BfA.
Aside from just the gameplay being harder, mastering your class is an order (or two) of magnitude more difficult than in BfA. I just donât get where you are coming from with this statement at all.
If its mostly the spec that affects damage and all specs share the same damage talents it is SO much easier to balance both the classes and the talents. It also makes all specs feel like the same class, where the spec differences are within the spec. Itâs win-win-win.
How did MoP/WoD talents not do that? That is exactly what I am saying they did. Just because they werenât for a spec, they were absolutely catering to a desired playstyle, even if it was one that you didnât want. I am fairly certain you are an outlier if that is true. The game should not cater to outliers (though it should allow them to exist).
I would like for you to name me one Hunter talent that is a better talent now than what we had in MoP/WoD. You are not allowed to use talents that used to be baseline.
Contrarily, name me one talent tier in MoP/WoD that was worse than a single talent tier we have now across all 3 specs.
I am fairly certain you are going to use the âBM tierâ which I think is inappropriate because I felt that AMoC was NOT BM oriented, but we obviously disagree on that. To nip that in the bud, try to use a different tier/talent.
Alright then 
HC 5man dungeons, first thing that comes to mind.
Agreed. My point was that we actually have no way to tell what the main reason was for the loss in sub numbers. We can only guessâŚ
People quit for a lot of reasons. Often, you canât just pick out a single one.
Like I also wrote: âGranted that âhardâ in context can be interpreted in many waysâ
What I meant was that the term âhardâ here, can mean more than just if a creature hits for a lot compared to how fast you can kill it.
Having said that, sure, creatures having a reasonable chance to kill you you can say that it makes dealing with them harder. But thatâs just numbers really.
What makes it hard(IMO), is what things you have to deal with in order to kill an enemy. Not just the amount of damage they deal vs. the damage you deal.
Didnât you post a reply the other day where you stated that all specs were too similar going from Vanilla-WoD? Yeah, reply nr 24 in this thread/topic.
I donât agree with this. I mean, its true in Classic, but it was also true in MoP and WoD. There was very little difference between the three specs. They all had the same talents, most of the core functionality and toolkit was identical. The main thing differentiating the three Hunter specs was how they dealt damage. They had different rotations and fantasy, but pretty much every single other thing was identical. Thatâs like 4 or 5 buttons difference (out of 50-60), and all of them did damage.
Granted you also said that you thought this was a great thing as it made balancing easier. And it, in your opinion, made all specs feel more like they were part of the same class.
I strongly disagree with the above here. But I also want to note that this all comes down to individual preferences. Thatâs all it is reallyâŚ
Now, why do I disagree with your statement/opinion?
When I look at WoW as a game and a world, I can see a sizeable amount of variations to different hunterâesque characters and fantasies.
We have everything from:
Beastmasters
Marksmen
Survivalists
Dead-shots
Rangers(not Dark Rangers)
Gunmen
Wilderness Stalkers
and moreâŚ
I believe that the playable Hunter class should cater to as many of those fantasies as possible, while still staying true to what the core fantasy of Hunters are in Warcraft.
Does that mean that all Hunter(playable) specs should be mostly about the same core toolkit with only a few damaging abilities that makes up for the differences/identities?
No.
You can play as a Beastmaster with A LOT of focus on empowering beasts or even calling in a multitude of beasts to fight for you, and still feel like a Hunter.
You can be more like a Wilderness Stalker that fights in melee with axes or even a polearm(yes, I do think MSV should be able to use 1h weapons too), and you will still be a type of hunter(in reference to the general fantasy of the game).
Etc.
My bad. I shouldâve specifically pointed out that I want talents to further enhance your fighting style(available via your chosen specialization).
This is just you guessing really. Although you probably based this on thinking that I meant something other than âenhancing/building on the fantasy of your chosen specializationâ.
There is no point whatsoever for me to do this as we donât like the same things. We have different preferences.
Example:
I know of several players out there who love Barrage(talent). Mostly due to the practicality it can sometimes bring to the table, depending on what you do.
Whereas I personally, HATE that talent/ability. Sure, it can be useful sometimes if you want to quickly pull an entire camp of mobs when questing or so. But the design itself is horrendous.
It does not fit with Warcraft as a game at all. It does not fit with the type of weapons we use at all. In short, it does not make sense to have such an ability available too us.
Like above, you mention âbetterâ or âworseâ. These two can mean so many different things to so many different people. There is no point in doing this.
Like Iâve said in another earlier reply, how would an ability that when used, makes you call out several wild animals(birds) to attack an enemy, how would this not cater towards the BM fantasy?
Are you saying that a Beastmaster is only a definition of someone who has a strong bond with his/her main âpet/companionâ? Because objectively, this is not true. A Beastmaster can be so much more than just that.
But why is this a point at all? Obviously without data there can be only supposition. Guessing is implicit in every post without such data and even many with it.
I remember the situation quite well because it had a big impact on me. There was a ton of outcry for the destruction of the world and the removal of agency in building our characters. I donât remember a single thing about âCata was difficultâ being even a discussion, much less a reason to leave. As for the hunter thing, I have no doubt that people left for that, but again, I was there and mained a Hunter. The vast majority felt it was a great change after trying it out, so Iâm guessing there werenât that many that left because of that either.
You pointing out that âall we can do is guessâ in response to my statements is a form of attempting to diminish my argument without actually supplying a reasonable counter argument. Your action serves zero purpose otherwise.
This entire game, and every single game in this genre, is about numbers. I mean, thereâs puzzles, but thatâs not what anyone means here. If some boss has an AoE, it depends on the numbers on how you need to deal with it. Iâm sorry, there is nothing but numbers.
There was nothing really more difficult in Cata than WotLK. Maybe Heroic Dungeons were harder in Cata (maybe), but I guarantee there was not a substantial sub loss over such a thing, even if true. Iâm really not sure why you are arguing this at all. You donât seem to have no point, you seem to only wish to be contrary.
Wow, talk about losing context. You then try to put it back in context, but only after grossly mis-quoting me (contextually). Poor form.
More specifically, you used the phrase âtoo similarâ to describe my meaning. Iâm fairly certain you understand perfectly that was the exact opposite of what I meant. We simply do not need many core differences to accomplish a substantial feeling of difference in gameplay and fantasy. This has been proven through the 12 years (pre-Legion) of the most popular game in the genre, with people loving their specs. SV/BM/MM felt very different in the past, yet they all felt like the same class. That does not feel true to me anymore. You may want more difference between the specs, thatâs fine, but I am fairly certain that goes against consensus. It is certainly not a popular opinion on these boards or reddit; the only two places having a real conversation about the subject that I am aware of.
Why do you feel it necessary to point this out all the time? It is obviously true, and every one knows it. It is implicit. Again, your doing this is just a means of attempting to diminish the argument without addressing it. It is an appeal to ethos, rather than logos. Iâm not a fan of appeals to ethos. Its logos or gtfo imo; maybe some pathos because we all have feelings, but only for emphasis, not as the basis of an argument.
You say this sh*t all the time. It is NOT about individual preferences, it is about consensus and an attempt at reaching it. Please give your arguments, they are valid and usually well presented, but do not continue to spread this nonsense. It only attempts to place your opinion on an equal footing with all others, which is simply not true. The consensus opinion is the only one that matters or should have influence on the PTB. That opinion can only be known with conversation. I personally would like a lot more of your posts if you would stop trying to tell everyone âits just your opinionâ all the time (in both directions).
Irrelevant. You canât because there are none. Our current talents are absolutely terrible across the board. All they do is allow the spec to function (barely). That is why there is only one choice in almost all the tiers. itâs not about balance, its about a terrible core, with talents trying to shore it up. That is why your way canât work imo. The core MUST be functional on its own. If the talent tiers add essential functionality, unless all three talents are of the same type (Tier 100 WoD e.g.), they canât be balanced no matter the numbers.
There just doesnât need to be 5000 differences between the specs to flesh out sufficient differences in Fantasy. Again, we have 12 years of loved specs to prove it.
Because its a Hunter thing, and Hunterâs use animals in WoW lore. But it is not pet centric, which is fundamental to BM lore.
I use it to look inside the AHâs in Stormwind City, to see whoâs flagged without having to touch down there.
All I did was saying that we have no good way to tell exactly why so many players quit during a select period of the gameâs history.
I had no intention of âdiminishingâ your argument. Sorry if thatâs what you took from this.
To be specific, you stated that âit is much more likely that sub losses were primarily to the forcing of talent trees on us(elimination of choice and agency), and the destruction of our favorite worldâ.
And, re-reading that, I guess I should apologize as you did not flat out say that it WAS the main reason. Only that you thought that it was.
I guess I would move on to question why you claim for this to be the main reason.
As for the point about Cata difficulty, no, I did not see topics on forums that brought this up as an issue. I have seen several complaints about it in-game though(not in modern day but back when Cata was still new).
Anyway, I never claimed that increased difficulty of specific parts of the game would ever be the main reason for why a lot of players quit. As for how many that actually did? No idea.
Agreed, I would not say that a majority of players disliked those specific changes. Many(maybe even most) players seemed to like it/them. Me included.
But like the above, I have seen several complaints in the past were people reference for example the change from mana to focus as a resource as one of the bigger problems.
Before moving on, just want to add that anyone(not talking to you directly Mas) who makes statements towards something with the basis being what they have read on forums and nothing else, I would argue is not in the right here.
For example, claims that a certain aspect of the game is horrible or that âeveryone hates it so it should just be reverted/changed/removedâ simply because a sizeable portion of forum topics bring it up, that does not make those claims right.
Most players that play this game either donât even visit these forums or at the very least, they donât comment or âvoteâ in any way. Now, you shouldnât as a result flat out dismiss whatâs being brought up on the forums. But you cannot âmake your caseâ based entirely on whatâs actually being posted/written on the forums.
Again, not directing this specifically towards you @Mas. Just writing in general.
Much of it is yes.
Though, take Mechatorque in BoDA as an example. That fight on higher difficulties(even on lower ones), some mechanics of that fight has less to do with numbers and incoming damage as opposed to the difficulty level being determined by coordination and communication within the raid.
Also the sheer amount of mechanics that has to be dealt with for example in raids but also in 5-mans etc. Is much higher compared to the past.
Depending on which part of the game you look at, itâs harder to beat today compared to in the past.
I agree though that for example open world content in general is extremely easy nowadays(even dungeons while leveling). Despite the fact that we have seen an increase in the number of âmechanicsâ that a lot of creatures in the open world has for you to deal with, most of them are trivial and you pay no real attention to them anyway. They, for the most part, cannot kill you or even deal any damage worth noting.
However, does this actually make the old world harder? Yes and no.
Mass pulling while leveling back then wasnât a thing for a lot of specs/classes.
Today, most who level up can pull X amount of mobs at once without too much trouble.
Solution for the past days? Pull less at the time and make sure you eat/drink between kills if needed.
This depends on what part(s) of the game you focus on.
For example, compare PvE(raids) with PvP and your toolkit differences will stand out more or less depending on which type content you engage in.
In raids, for the most part, what type of gap closers or kiting capabilities you have. Or how many dispels you have or ways to CC an enemy.
These things arenât insignificant in raids, but they do not matter as much as your core damaging abilities and passive effects along with what your offensive talents do for you.
If you design talents/talent compilations to essentially be the same for all specs within the class, then it will have a bigger impact on uniqueness and identities in PvE over PvP. Simply because the frequency at which you make use of your entire toolkit in PvE is much less than in PvP.
I often tend to point this out as a result of for example, reading these forums for some time.
Everyone does NOT know this. That itâs implicit. I guess I shouldâve clarified that I wasnât just typing it as a response directed to you specifically. Sorry.
That specific sentence you quoted, wasnât actually directed to you with the purpose of diminishing your argument at all. I added the opinion-part purely to highlight that I was not agreeing with you there when saying that the design was great.
As for my counter argument(s) on that, you can find them in that same section where I talk about how I view the game and itâs fantasy. And how it affects my line of thinking towards what Hunter class design should be about. Both in general, and on specific elements.
In short, the amount of fantasies/characters you can find that are connected to Hunters in Warcraft, are quite a few.
Many players(me included) prefer to focus on specific fantasies and fighting styles that can be found both in WoW, but also from other sources(not just games).
This is also why I think itâs better if the class(es) contain a broader amount of specific playstyles and identities for people to choose from. Rather than, like in the old days of Vanilla, where you had that class of choice, and âspecsâ back then werenât about catering towards general fantasies as much as they were about enhancing specific parts of your classâ overall toolkit.
Not saying that anyone has to agree with me on this. Just saying that this is how I look at it.
Fair enough. But again, I disagree here.
When I play BM, I very much feel like a type of Hunter with a fantasy that has a basis in Warcraft as a world/universe.
The same goes for MM.
And for MSV/SV.
Iâm definitely not saying that either of the specs are perfectly designed the way they are. For example, I have zero interest in playing the current SV. Purely because itâs a melee-spec.
But nothing of the above takes away the fact that all three specs are still in their own ways, catering towards the general Hunter fantasy in Warcraft.
This depends on what you mean by âbetterâ or âworseâ.
Functionality/practicality, identity, appeal to fantasy, and so on.
A bit harsh. But I get your point. Many talents you can argue are either, due to balancing or to their design, required to make a specialization feelâŚworth playing. Or I should say, they are to a lot of people.
I think you missed my point that Iâm not actually talking about specific talents. Iâm talking about the general design philosophy of making talents focus on/cater to your chosen specialization. Iâm just saying that I think itâs the better approach to design.
Again, I agree that many specific talents we have are forâŚvarying reasonsâŚnot worth keeping as accessible options for you to play with.
Agreed.
As an example, Iâm not a big fan of a core that is essentially very empty and has little interaction in between itâs various abilities and effects, etc.
Talents should not be about adding in major core functionality that you feel should be baseline elements of the specâs design.
Perfect balance in this game is impossible. Besides, that level of balance is really only necessary for those who play at a competitive level. And speaking of minorities, that is one.
Most people who play this game, have no need for abilities or talents to be perfectly balanced. They will still be able to play the game as they do.
Many players might get hung up on balancing but very few actually play the game in such a way where you can say that it becomes more important.
Designing optional elements(like talents) so that perfect balance is achievable, would with a guarantee make everything feel too bland and too similar to everything else.
You do this type of thing all the time. There is zero purpose in stating what is both implicit and obvious in someone elseâs argument except, in this case, to diminish the argument. I am fairly certain you are doing that purposefully, even if it is unconsciously. I ask you to self-assess.
That is a much better response, and a perfectly valid question.
I believe so because both the destruction of the world and the elimination of choice in the trees were very common complaints at the time. These complaints persisted for a pretty long time, especially the elimination of choice in the trees. None of the other reasons reached the same level of commonality. I donât remember a single complaint about Cata being difficult e.g⌠The Hunter focus issue did raise more than a few concerns, but by and large those concerns were gone by the first week as far as I remember. More people seemed to enjoy the new resource than didnât, once they got used to it.
Nope, but someone else did, and it was this that I responded to that got your rebuttal of: âYou canât possibly know,â and âYeah, well, that just like, your opinion man.â
Look, I get that this is a pet peeve of yours. I get it, but when there is a very large number of posts in agreement, it is ridiculous to not look there to assess consensus first. Of course that isnât âproof,â but itâs a really good place to start. When you try to tell people âthatâs not proof,â well of course it isnât, but: A) thatâs obvious to anyone who matters and B) you are also attempting to diminish the fact that it is the strongest evidence we have to go on.
Nope, but it holds a whole lot more sway than âwhat you want,â which is mostly what you post about. You donât really give counter-arguments, your posts are mostly as I have outlined above + what you personally desire. You post the diminishing of the likely consensus first because that gives your desires a more equal footing, even when they are far from what is most likely the consensus.
If you want to make a case other than what appears to be consensus, then make a logical argument about why your way is better. You do that sometimes, but I suggest you do it without all the extra stuff. Iâm not suggesting it is never a good idea to call someone out on their bias, but it seems to be in every post of yours where the opportunity presents itself.
Itâs just a different type of difficulty. I personally think that some TBC heroics were among the most difficult things in the game. Some pulls were designed to be nearly impossible due to adds, pats, how hard things hit, the fact that AoE tanking wasnât really possible, etc. By difficult I do not mean that you have to figure more out. Thatâs a one time thing. Once it is figured out the difficulty is done. What I mean is it remains difficult each and every time. The current game is all about figuring it out the first time. That to me is just not that fun, because once you get it, the challenge is removed. Note I am not talking about outgearing something, thatâs a separate issue.
Sometimes this was not possible. That is one of the things that makes it more difficult. There is simply nothing like this that exists in the current game. I suggest you play some Classic so you can find out for yourself.
Let me put it simply. The differences between MM/SV/BM from Classic to end of WoD were a few damage dealing buttons only (for the most part). NO ONE said the classes were not unique enough in any area of the game. Why canât we go back to that model? You are trying to make an argument that history has proven false.
I donât care. Please just make your case. Stop telling people they are doing it all wrong (especially when they arenât).
I appreciate your arguments, but itâs difficult to address then when I am annoyed. Be less patronizing (you are, even if you donât mean to be) and I will be much more willing to analyze them.
You canât get that in a game where balance is desired. You will only get what you get. The change they made from 12 to 36 classes required the removal of a ton of things from the specs. It can be no other way. They canât even balance classes, much less 36, therefore it is terrible design. I am not saying that is not ideal, I am saying it is completely unrealistic and for pragmatic reasons needs to be dropped. It canât happen so letâs go back to what worked best. Especially because consensus liked things that way.
Itâs not harsh in the slightest. I have done extensive mathematical analysis on the spec. The statement was one of math, not opinion (speaking of MM wrt the analysis, but it applies well to several other specs also).
Itâs impossible to balance. Let me repeat that; itâs IMPOSSIBLE to balance. Maybe some AI would be able to do it some day, but that AI will have us all in little pods feeding it electricity, so I wouldnât hold your breath on that one. This is why I believe you should let it go.
Iâm not talking about âperfect balance,â Iâm actually just talking about not broken. The specs and their talents are currently broken. They need someone who understands mathematical modeling working on their class design team, cause this sh*t wonât fly.
They were common complaints yes.
Though we still have the problem of the old talent trees/the design approach not being sustainable in the long run. They kept it/them for as long as they could but eventually, they had to make changes towards a design that would actually be sustainable over a longer period(several expansions more).
Having said that, I actually think that the design approach we had in Cata was the best(read: most fun), because it combined the more focused spec designs(core identities) with more freedom of choice within talent options. And by the time you had âfilledâ out the tree tied to your chosen spec you could add in additional points into other trees, of your choice.
But as with the prior expansions, those talent tree designs werenât going to hold up for too long. Which is why they changed it again going into MoP. Only keeping the select few talent rows with what they thought were talents with overall a greater impact on your playstyle.
As for what I personally think was a mistake going into MoP/WoD, was the new philosophy of having most talent options being shared between all the specs. Sure, it made things easier to balance. But at the same time, it did take away a lot of previously added flavor in terms of design, and it to a degree prevented players from further building towards their preferred fantasies(again, in RPGs, this is not something that should be dismissed).
Much of it went away yes. Though I have seen forum topics on the subject as late as inâŚthink it was shortly after BfA was announced.
But again, no, it wasnât by any means a major concern of players in general. Iâm sure some did actually quit because of it.
But hey, we have Classic back soâŚif you(anyone) want Mana, itâs there.
Fair enough, I take it back then.
Iâm sorry, what?
Agreed.
But it also comes down to what the topic of said post is/are about. You can nowadays find a fair number of posts/replies on the hunter forum among others, where players flat out DEMAND that current MSV should be reverted back to ranged.
The actual number of people posting that they want this to happen, is bigger than the number of players who bothers to respond and say that it shouldnât.
Does this mean that MSV should be reverted? I want to say no here.
Why? Because most people who like something or even dislike something, wonât bother to make a post/comment about it.
And like Iâve said before, I am of the opinion that changes to classes on the level of removing entire playstyles, especially in favor of adding in completely new ones in place of the old, should never be made a reality.
(Like what they did with the old SV going into Legion). Now, MSV is already here and some players are enjoying it. Reverting it back to the old ranged spec wouldnât do much good. It would only serve to switch the sides we all are on.
All that would happen is that us who liked RSV, would now be happy while those who liked MSV would not be. And they would start to make posts about it instead of us.
If the consensus would be made into reality, and would actually be harmful towards a sizeable portion of the playerbase then yes, I would speak against it(again, depends on what the topic is about).
You say that consensus in forum posts are the âstrongest evidence we have to go onâ. But that does not actually(always) make it a good ground to stand on. Simply because we still have no way to actually tell how much of the playerbase as a whole agree that does with it.
It might actually turn out that reverting certain parts of class design back towards an earlier stage of the game, would do even more harm than good.
Agreed.
This is also why I keep saying that people are different.
This applies to individual strengths/weaknesses as well.
For some, having a fight where you have to deal with a large amount of mechanics will always be harder compared to a fight where you have to figure out the best way to survive incoming damage longer than it takes for you(r group) to defeat the enemy.
It is yes. Especially today where the power scaling(of characters) isâŚhas become more of a problem compared to in the past.
The thing about TBC heroics was that they werenât really tuned all that well for people that were just starting to raid. Things in there hit so hard that it was(could be) a problem even for decently geared groups.
In todays WoW, we have M+ when it comes to 5-mans. You can basically keep going for as long as you want/are capable of. Which also means that the HC versions of modern dungeons does not need to be as difficult as HC dungeons of old.
Even if TBC heroics got easier with time and more gear, they were definitely outliers in terms of comparing difficulty over the games history.
Because certain parts of the old designs that we had werenât sustainable. Past talent design being an example. Devs have said this themselves.
I personally agree that classes should have a larger base toolkit compared to what they have today. Both you and myself have mentioned several abilities we have had in the past that should return.
But, the philosophy of every single expansion adding in multiple abilities and effects(like they did in the past) is, like with the past talent design, not a sustainable solution in the long run.
You might not. And you might not think it needs further clarification.
But go ahead, check out some other threads(both in the hunter forum as well as other forums) and you will find players who very much do not grasp that some others post things intended as their own personal opinions.
You basically have to flat out tell them that what youâre posting is your own opinion or theyâll go into a rage over how you dare claim that something you post is a fact(even when you havenât specifically said that it should be taken that way).
Iâm sorry if some of my posts appear to be me picking on someone for not clarifying that what they write is their own opinion. Most of the time, I donât actually post it in direct response to them, but more toâŚtry to make sure that noone misunderstands it.
As an example(not specifically related to the above no). I posted my suggested design for the returned version of RSV on another forum, where I also included in the first section that I intended for it to be in the form of a 4th spec option.
Among the first 15 or so replies that I got, a sizeable amount of those replies, were just people raging over how I dared suggest that MSV should be removed.
Even though I specifically wrote that it was not my intent.
You tell me Mas, how much clarification is needed?
Feel free to give me some examples, because I appear to not get this myself.
I certainly do not intend for that to be the case.
(Is this about me and my âopinionâ related comments?)
Honestly, I have yet to see any serious attempts at this for the hunter class in BfA.
Sure, they have done some minor things but so far, it does not seem as if they have actually tried since the launch.
Most talents have gotten nothing since the launch of BfA.
I get what youâre after. But at the same time, how much of that would you say applies to someone who does some casual leveling or even some e.g. content?
You can pick any hunter talent you want, from any spec that we have, and you can get through most content that the game has to offer.
Again, not saying that things are fine as they are. But âbrokenâ implies that a certain choice you can make, results in you not being capable of doing/engaging in a certain substantial part of the game.
What you quoted had nothing to do with balancing? Sorry, did I miss your point again?
I can agree that the current Animal Companion is an example of a broken talent. For one it does not really add to your output potential. Itâs also fairly bugged as that second pet is extremely unreliable. Sometimes, it just doesnât spawn.
But apart from that, what else do we have that currently is on that level?
Unbalance does not equal being broken. Sure, it might not be favorable to pick certain talents if you want to perform at the top/compete against others.
But feel free to add some examples.
Eagle eye is my favorite ability besides tracking. I use it constantly in pvp to scout enemies. When Iâm looking for people to kill in a pvp zone I can turn track humanoid on and begin casting eagle eye 10-15 times to see where everyone is in the zone, while never revealing where I am. The humanoids show up on the minimap wherever you choose to eagle eye, allowing you to cover huge areas quickly. Huge advantage.
I also use it to scout areas that Iâve already chosen to engage in but donât want to expose myself in. Meaning I can eagle eye to see where the enemies are in that area then I can use eyes of the beast to pick people off while hiding, greatly minimizing my risk of dying.
And in questing I use it sometimes to see into areas I donât want to clear. For example I just used it during a quest to get a better look if the quest item was in one of the spawn points that was surrounded by 6 or 7 enemies. That way I knew ahead of time if Iâd need to clear that encampment or go straight to the next one.
Just like when you are hunting for Ghost Saber in Auberdine. You are looking for figurines which is surrounded by Nagas. I dont want to clear and kill all the Nagas there. I just use Eagle Eye on various points to locate the figurines from a safe distance. I only clear/kill Nagas if there is a figurine near them.
I use it to scout for Horde to gank out in the open worldâŚ
I disagree with that assessment. They didnât need to change the talent trees away from the old model, all the needed to do was not put âspec definingâ (damage rotation) talents at the end of the trees. They especially didnât need to eliminate player choice in the trees. That was completely unnecessary. The talent squish (reduction to one talent point every other level) was not the biggest problem with Cata trees, it was the elimination of choice, i.e. you were forced to go to the end of the tree.
I think it is great to have talents that give the option of focusing on a spec. But why take away choice? Why force your vision of fantasy on the player.
There were a couple yes, because BfA hunter was so bad, people were grasping at straws. Those posts were shut down (philosophically) immediately. Mana was most certainly not desired by consensus. A post existing on a topic does not give that topic any weight. A random persons voice does not count in the context of these boards. It is the weight of the community response that matters. This board (or this board if it was actually read by the devs) matters only within the scope of consensus and the number and quality of responses (and maybe âLikesâ because it suggests consensus if there are enough of them).
I donât think that is true. GIve me a count if you want to prove it. I am fairly certain that this is the opposite of the truth. In addition, those âforâ are usually one liners without substance, and those âagainstâ are usually thoughtful responses. Not every vote counts equally. There is no âfairnessâ in debate about world building. Thank god, or our Constitution would have sucked.
I agree completely. Such an idea is a non-starter. It is also born purely out of anger, which is one reason why such a vote has less meaning than one that is thoughtful.
Consensus, within the context that I mean it, doesnât happen without debate. I am not talking about a voter majority PRIOR to extensive debate when I speak of consensus. The context of the boards on current vs. past class design for example has an overwhelming majority saying that current is bad, and past is good (which past varies a little bit, especially by spec). This large majority also has a ton of thoughtful, non-countered posts on the topic. That is what I mean by consensus. Those doing the thinking are debating it, and coming to a consensus.
Those doing the debating should be the most important thing to consider when making decisions. However, I agree it should not be the only consideration. I think a public vote should be taken, via Blizzard run polls. Of course how the questions are worded, and whether or not you can capture the essence of the debate and ask the right questions in those polls is of paramount importance for a public vote (a pubic which is largely ignorant, or doesnât play in the same content, etc.). In such a poll a âI donât do that muchâ or even âI donât careâ should be allowed answers. Pure âYesâ and âNoâ polls rarely give valid information on the true consensus unless the questions are very well worded and/or very specific with sufficient context.
They were also the most fun times I have ever had in dungeons (maybe some few of the more difficult vanilla dungeon crawls were comparable). I really wish they had made M+ that way. Where the dungeon purely got harder, where you could select the difficulty, without a timer, allowing you to think your way through the dungeon and overcome with persistence and thought instead of just being Superspeedy McQuick. Such a model would allow a lot more classes to be competitive, and I dare say, it would be a lot more fun and challenging.
There was nothing âunsustainableâ about it. Assuming you are talking about the talent trees again, both the devs and you are incorrect, and there is no evidence to support the statement. What was wrong was putting spec defining rotational talents at the end of trees. What was wrong was forcing 10 levels on us every expansion. Leveling past 60 never felt good to me. All it did was make old content completely obsolete. Of course its going to become obsolete eventually, but the entire world was effectively eliminated as content immediately instead of gradually and organically.
Is it ever necessary to make such a point in a debate? Sure, Iâve done it, but you donât need to do it every time, and yet you feel the need to do so in virtually every single post I read of yours. That is why I call it a âpet peeve,â because by all appearances that is what it is.
Exactly. Itâs like your on a quest jousting this particular windmill. Get off of it. Go have some food and a nice bed at an inn. Maybe pick up basket weaving. Please.
Largely yes. This IS patronizing, especially when it is constant, and you are very patronizing in your style when you do it. You Lecture on this topic all the time.
I am fairly certain there has been little to no balancing because they realize that they canât. They have given up entirely, and are moving on to completely different class design in 9.0. We shall see if that turns out to be true and/or if they only make the problems worse, or create worse problems.
You CANâT engage in most of the content the game has to offer with most of the talents. You canât win a single Arena, or RBG without the exact right talents/traits/etc., with very little variation. You canât complete the weekly M+ cap without the same. You canât do any raiding except LFR without the same.
So sure, you can play the game and choose any customizations you want, but you canât engage in any of the meaningful and social content because you will be so bad, no one will want you on their team. Of note; LFR, normal/heroic dungeons, random BGs, world quests are not social nor meaningful in context because you donât have to talk or meaningfully engage with anyone else, and you can be absolutely awful and still be successful, for most of it relying on others to carry you.
When taking a talent results in you doing less DPS than not taking any talent at all, I call that broken, e.g. Piercing Shot. When taking a talent has virtually no effect because it almost never comes into play, I call that broken, e.g. Steady Focus. When taking a talent breaks the ability to do your normal rotation because it takes up so much focus and globals, I call that broken, e.g. Serpent Sting. I can go on. The degrees of brokenness vary. The spec is already broken at itâs core though and requires specific talents to make it rotationally functional, which is largely why these talents break the spec so easily.
Wow, I thought this was a totally different thread. How did this debate happen in an Eagle Eye topic thread? That may have been my fault. If so, I apologize. I will attempt to cease.
I blame the notifications I get that someone responded to me. With so many of them and the titles being truncated, itâs easy to get confused.