Why is Hunter so controversial? Because it's 2 COMPLETELY different fantasies in 1 class

Hunter is a fundamentally confused class, and that confusion is first expressed through Blizzard in the class and subsequently through the passionate people who play the class. One person thinks x about Hunter, and knows it in his Heart of Hearts to be true, and another thinks y about Hunter, and knows it to be true. Since becoming active on these forums over the past few weeks, I’ve read a lot of posts and a lot of differing opinions.

It seems to me that there are two divergent camps in the Hunter world, two camps that a little akin to American political affiliations in their inability to reconcile. However, within these two camps exists even more divisions and opinions. I don’t claim to know them all, but here’s my understanding of it:

There are those who think Hunter is about literal hunting. The “Go out into the woods with your camo pants, orange blazer, duck call and shotgun” kind.

And there’s the type of Hunter who thinks that the Hunter is, and always was, all about the pets. Because, seriously, there is no other class that allows the empathetic connection between player character and beast from the wilderness. All other pet classes have extraordinarily limited pet selection compared to Hunters (And I believe this is one excuse Blizzard has conveniently used throughout the years to say to themselves "Well Hunters already get 5 million different pets to choose from so we’re just not going to give them any attention this expansion in terms of “Class fantasy.”)

These 2 fantasies are not mutually exclusive. I myself am of the “Survivalist overseer of the Forest with my lifelong companion tiger along my side” type, but combinations are pretty diverse.

The problem is that, without extreme overhaul and a serious look at the class’s design from Blizzard, these two fantasies cannot come together - because to cater to 1 is to neglect the other.

When you finally give “pet” oriented hunters a bone, then “hunting” oriented hunters freak out, saying that they don’t want pet maintenance or any of that crap. When you develop the “hunting” oriented side of things, then you just ignore the other side as well (But, hey, us pet oriented Hunters are used to it by now).

What are some solutions?

I can come up with suggestions based on 2 routes of development:

  1. Split the class even more between BM and MM/SV by developing BM even more. I’m not gonna go over some my own suggestions but if they were implemented just for BM, that’d be an excellent start. What if pet maintenance was only for BM, for instance? Just some thoughts to get the juices flowing.

  2. Add a 4th spec to Hunter, bring back old SV, and call the new one Ranger.

Or, bonus number 3. Add another class which can’t tame pets, and call it something like Ranger… or something. I don’t know.

Point is I’m just sick of this, okay? I am.

I feel like there’s oldschool hunters and there’s new hunters. I feel all the oldschool hunters appreciated all the old RPG elements of the class that were taken away over the years, and that, in reality, Blizzard didn’t really check with the community before making these sweeping barbaric cut-it-down-with-an-axe changes to the class. I mean, they just outright gutted features instead of finding creative ways of reworking them and making them exciting.

And then I feel like all the new hunters, all the hunters that came in after Cata and all of that… And, heck, even the super baby hunters who’ve only been around since Legion or something and they never even played old SV. And I feel like those hunters are protecting their pride against all the oldschoolers by fiercely claiming that, no, all of those old RPG elements of the class weren’t really appreciated and people were glad when all of those thing were gradually removed over the years.

And it’s like - is there any other class with this kind of philosophical and sociological divide? Are mages this way? Are mages starved for more class identity? Do they feel like they’ve been shorted by Blizzard’s laziness or desire to appeal to the mass market as opposed to people who actually want good RPG elements? Maybe it’s because I haven’t played mage for 16 years and thought about ways to improve the class on a near-daily basis, but I highly doubt it. I kinda feel like the whole mage fantasy has been pretty much fulfilled. You know? And yet, here I am, at least, still almost fundamentally disapointed with my favorite class in the game.

And why is it my favorite class? You gotta ask yourselves these kinds of things. It’s not because of what it is.

It’s because of what it could be.

And that’s a really crappy feeling. It would suck even for just one expansion, but instead Hunters, a vast majority of Hunters who’ve just given up on the prospect of things ever changing, are stuck feeling this way for 3, 4 expansions.

At what point does promise expire and the player just leaves? Would it be better to just migrate to a different class, a class that you may not necessarily enjoy as much, just so you can feel the relief of having a completely realized class fantasy and identity? What does contentness in your class actually feel like?

All more or less rhetorical.

Thanks for reading.

18 Likes

Because there’s people that want something that was years ago and people not caring / loving what they have.

Its a class with 3 different fantasies, all under the Hunter fantasy.

-The Beast master, using tamed beast to do their work
-The Marksman, the classic Hunter of our time. Fighting at long range.
-The Survival, the old time clever hunter. Using the old methods to hunt while applying modern knowledge to it.

All 3 spec have the role of hunting. Tracking a target with different tools.


But that is a class mechanic… not a class identity. A hunter is a hunter.

Why is there even a confusion over this ? Or is there even a confusion ?

The problem is not a problem. There’s a hunter simple as that. Then you have players all having a different fantasy on it, more on RP servers. You’ve just said so yourself, with that druidist / hermit / hunter fantasy of yours.

I think you are creating yourself a problem that doesnt need to be a problem at all.

5 Likes

It’d be nice if they expanded each of the specs to fit more with their respective fantasy like they did with demonology warlocks summoning lots of demons, but yeah like it’s already been stated I don’t really see an issue with the class fantasy itself.

2 Likes

I’m going to bed.

There is no confusion, but just saying “A hunter is a hunter” is reductionist.

And you just listed the 3 different specs. The whole point of this post, I guess, was to show that despite the 3 specs, they don’t really cater to the 2 fundamental hunter fantasies (atleast, I don’t think so).

5 Likes

I don’t think they were disagreeing with you, just disagreeing with your approach here.

But thats what it is…

All 3 spec fulfill the class fantasy of a Hunter.

Then any other fantasy can be added…
Like the 2nd one you’ve mentioned, a pet class… which can be applied when playing BM.

When I play MM, my class fantasy can be that of a Bounty Hunter. An Archer… it goes on.

But at the base, they all have the same fantasy of being a hunter when developed by the Game designers.

2 Likes

I disagree, thats why we actually have 3 specs not two.

Its really rather simple:
MM = weapon based archer/sniper (IMO it should be petless at all times with added weapon damage to compensate).
BM = the ranged pet centric spec.
SV = the melee options, with added utility and enhanced traps/stings.

All specs should have access to all traps and stings with BM being the, well i guess youd call it baseline, with MM having buffed weaspons and SV buffed in the utility area.

2 Likes

Just ignore that guy. He comes on the hunter forums trolling every post with troll opinions on a class he won’t even post on. He literally refuses to see the problem with hunters identity and class design.

5 Likes

I’ve said essentially the same thing. They are trying to cram 5 specs into 1 class. Wouldn’t it be nice to log in on patch day and get a prompt, “Do you want to migrate your Character to the Ranger class or the Hunter Class?” They could fix so many things if they did that. Can you imagine what two Melee/Hybrid SV specs would look like (ie. Tank, Melee, Hybrid)? It’s not hard to see how cool that could be, plus I could finally get my class back again.

The split you’re talking about occurred when they introduced “Spec Identity.” They have admitted that “Spec Identity” was a mistake, but they seem unwilling to fix their mistake when it comes to Hunters.

6 Likes

This I 100% agree with. I HATE needing a pet with MM, I want to be an archer and I feel like the pet really holds the spec back. Without the pet they could justify adding more to the spec baseline. As is the MM utility feels lacking and pushed me into different classes in BFA/Legion.

What do you mean by pet maintenance, like it was in classic? I’m fine with that and find it fun but I think it would make plenty of people unhappy.

I do want them to remove pets (other than for leveling, maybe just remove the utlity from pet’s.) from MM and focus more on the spec as a real Marksman. I don’t feel like a pet really fits with that style of hunter at all.

MM without the pet is how nearly every NPC in the game that is a Hunter/Archer operates. That’s the spec fantasy I want and love from MM.

I feel too many people are trying to cram their pet fantasy into MM and making it the ‘baseline Hunter spec’ I feel like that has been BM for a long time now. You get the pet focused game play while also having plenty of ranged stuff with no real downside.

Even more pet stuff wih BM would also be great, I hope they add more to it.

1 Like

Then join the train to get them to introduce a new petless physical ranged class. Split the archer/sniper fantasy off the hunter and make it it’s own thing.

10 Likes

MM is already it’s own thing and does not need to be changed, pet’s already have nothing to do with the spec outside of just being there, all they bring to the spec is a minor buff and a single utility ability.

I think your opinion on this makes no sense at all, it would make far more sense to make a new ranged spec that actually interacts with the pet like BM currently does rather than ruining the MM fantasy and needing to completely rework the whole thing so pet’s matter. The current MM was designed to be petless and that was only changed because some people where vocal about it. As is the spec still feels like it should be petless and is held back a little because of the pet (or bad design).

If I may ask, why do you want MM to be another pet focused spec when BM is already around and a pretty good spec?

Blizzard deleted an entire archer spec from the game because apparently they couldn’t come up with anything for it, and you think they are capable of making an entire 2nd class?

11 Likes

They made an uninspiring talent baseline because every hunter took it. That’s not being it’s own thing, that’s forcing a talent choice on everyone in the spec because dps. If MM was it’s own separate thing they wouldn’t have pets anymore, but they do. You can sacrifice a few % in dps for your pet as MM if you want. It’s useful in a few situations, like soloing Rei Lun.

How does making a petless ranged physical class “ruin the MM fantasy”? Having a Ranger/Archer class decouples the MM from the pet completely and allows it to be 100% it’s own thing and it’s own fantasy because that’s what it is. Archers, rangers, and snipers while capable of hunting are not hunters by fantasy.

If it was designed to be petless it wouldn’t have the option to use a pet. And no it wasn’t made this way because people were vocal. It was made this way because Blizz added Lone Wolf as a talent because people wanted it and then because everyone took it, Blizz took that as “well clearly everyone wants this” and forced it into being baseline. Taking a talent that everyone takes because it’s far and way the best dps option and making it baseline doesn’t make MM it’s own thing.

I don’t. I want MM to be it’s own thing because the archer fantasy is not the same thing as the beast master fantasy which at it’s core is what the hunter fantasy is and always was.

4 Likes

I think you misunderstand, in Legion the spec was remade and pet’s where removed from it initially. The spec has no synergy with pets then or now. All pet’s are useful for is a buff and a utility that should be baseline for MM.

In WoD nearly every single Hunter I knew LOVED LW and not having their DPS tied to a pet. You might call it uninspiring but plenty of people like it.

Because that IS the MM fantasy right now. Again, pet’s don’t work with MM there is no synergy between the pet and your ability’s as is it makes no sense to have one outside of tanking for you when questing. MM is already the Ranger/Archer class, the only downside is that you can choose to use a pet and a utility ability and minor buff is tied to the pet rather than baseline.

It’s pointless to make a new petless Hunter spec/ Archer class when we already have that. They would NEED to rework MM completely too if they added a new one. It would make far more sense and be less work to create a new spec that fits the fantasy you are trying to chase even though that seems to be BM Hunter.

I think we both agree we want it to be a proper Marksman? I just think creating a new spec/class makes little sense when we already have that and at most they would need to tweak a few things.

Most of the pet MM people already have what they want in BM and I think they are just mad that Ranged Survival was removed.

1 Like

I know the spec was remade in legion. I hated MM in Legion, but pets were never removed from it. Lone wolf was moved the last row to the 1st if I remember correctly, it’s been awhile.

Also if I remember correctly Lone Wolf also gave the ability to choose one of the pet buffs as well, making Lone Wolf actually useful. That was removed in Legion with the removal of pet buffs. And Don’t get me wrong, I liked Lone Wolf in WoD too, but I also knew hunters who hated it.

This has always been the case for MM. MM has always focused on improving your damage and neglecting your pet. Lone Wolf basically now is nothing but a choice between survivability and damage. In most cases the increased survivability is not needed. Outside of soloing rares such as Rei Lun, the damage is always the better choice, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a choice.

It’s not. At it’s core the hunter fantasy is a beast master. Just look at the abilities and talents of MM. Sure most of the active abilities are focused on shooting by name and design. Let’s look at some others shall we?

Aspect of the Cheetah. This is a BM inspired ability at least in it’s name.
Aspect of the Turtle. See above.
Freezing Trap. This isn’t an MM talent. Traps are more survivalist and to a lesser extent beast master then MM.
Tar Trap. See above.
Serpent Sting. Sure you could make an argument it’s something MM could do, but this is more something an assassin or BM would use. A true MM would just be taking opponents down rather than trying to poison them.
A Murder of Crows, there is no argument that this could ever be considered MM.
Trailblazer, I suppose you could make the argument that an MM could be a trailblazer but the icon for it tells me it was more BM inspired.
Born to Be Wild, more BM focus.
Pvp Talents… Viper Sting, Scorpid Sting, Spider Sting. See Serpent Sting.
Roar of Sacrifice. When was the last time you thought of roaring when you thought MM?

I think removing the pet and BM aspects of MM from MM would be a mistake as there are hunters who play MM who still enjoy the pet aspect of MM. Adding a 4th spec for a petless version of a spec to me doesn’t make much sense. Making it it’s own class does. A Ranger class allows for a petless MM, a melee class, and maybe a hybrid of the two without diluting them or tacking on ways to not interact with your pet.

3 Likes

See, this is exactly what I was talking about in my post - you don’t believe MM should even be allowed to use pets, while MM is my preferred spec (same as you) but I hate that Blizzard is trying to make it a petless spec with things like Lone Wolf. See my other post about it, lol.

I am an MM Hunter who does not want to be punished for using a pet - which is how it is now.

Look, there is something eerily wrong with how I described my personal Hunter fantasy and it really points out the kernel of divide within the Hunter class. I said:

“I myself am of the “Survivalist overseer of the Forest with my lifelong companion tiger along my side” type”

And yet nowhere in that did I ever mention that I am an MM Hunter at heart. Because I’m not a SV Hunter, and I’m not a BM Hunter. So that should tell you a lot about how unhappy I am about my class, because my old vision of what I used to believe Hunter was is now completely gone. I used to be able to be SV just fine, I enjoyed it, but now it’s dead, it’s melee now.

Pet maintenance is things like needing to feed your pet, keeping him happy and loyal and all of that jazz. As it stands now, there is, even for BM, there is literally zero necessary interaction with your pets. It’s completely ridiculous how dumbed down it’s all become. Like, this is what I was talking about, because if you bring back any of that, then other hunters will scream their heads off, while all the old hunters who remember it rejoice.

And even just… dude… 80% of the Hunters I see, when I’m playing my alts, do not even have their pets named. It’s just “cat” or “raptor” or “bird of prey.” Okay? That should tell you how extraordinarly unimportant pets have become to the Hunter class - and it’s not because of the players, it’s because Blizzard has made them unimportant and the players react to that in kind by being so oblivious to them that they don’t even name them! Why are you even playing Hunter if you’re not even going to bond with your pets at all and name them anything? I mean, fricken’ honestly, it’s nuts. It could be Jim, alright? You could name your raptor Jim and it’d be better than nothing because atleast then you’d be giving form to power and then you’d have the opportunity to begin building a relationship with that animal - even if it’s just in your head.

Infact I’m actually surprised Blizzard hasn’t just outright removed the ability to name our pets. It wouldn’t surprise, me really, considering everything else they’ve removed. They’d be all like “Well nobody was naming their pets anyways so we just took out the ability to, get over it, dweebs.”

6 Likes

Hunter is not 2 completely different fantasies in 1 class. It is one fantasy: the fantasy that was established by the two core staples of the class that defined the class for everyone who played it for years. Ranged weapon, pet. You got those two things? Cool, you’re a Hunter. The name ‘Hunter’ is just the term that refers to the collection of mechanics and abilities that make up the Hunter class. So what happens when you have one spec that removes the pet, and one spec that removes the ranged weapon? Well, now you only have one Hunter spec. If you want a spec that uses melee but has a pet, ask for a new spec or class. If you want a spec that uses a ranged weapon but has no pet, ask for a new spec or class. Don’t demand that Hunter be diluted to fit new fantasies that betray the core staples of the Hunter class. The reason Hunter is so controversial is because Blizzard keeps making changes that make the Hunter class less Hunter.

You see, the problem here is that the MM class wasn’t like this before. Before it didn’t have nor need Lone Wolf, it did have more interactions with the pet, and the pet did bring more than just being a glorified DoT. But then it was changed from what it was. Then it was changed to what it currently is. Marksmanship was already its own thing and didn’t need to be changed. Yet they changed it for no reason other than to dilute the class/spec further, and they butchered pets in the process.

This ‘new ranged spec’ you are referring to already existed as Marksmanship before it was changed to being what it is now. MM should not be petless because MM is a Hunter spec and Hunters should not be petless.

8 Likes

Fairly certain hunters had melee weapons equipped in vanilla, meaning you’re wrong. But that’s pretty much par for the course with you.

Hunters also had a dead zone in Vanilla, and ammunition in Vanilla, and mana in Vanilla, and stutter stepping in Vanilla. But those things weren’t core staples of the Hunter class. The core staples, the things that defined the Hunter class as a whole, were the ranged weapon and the pet. Just because we had something in the past doesn’t mean that it was a ‘core staple’ of the class.

So unless you’re going to argue that Hunters should also return to using mana then your point is completely moot and, yes, wrong.

10 Likes