you’re information is both incorrect and dramatically out of date. the wowmeta site often uses numbers that don’t actually exist.
Watch:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRd0ukAEbVo
read: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1g5AAkCyglD9Fcs4B9UXv7QhzKd1vWXk87SDEpFkxxHg/edit#gid=0
mm is NOT the top hunter spec in the raid, even though they have the most logs.
was expecting BM to stay the top, but was hoping MM was going to be a good group spec.
Same, i just want to see MM rep closer to where it was in legion and other expacts and not what we saw in BFA.
me too. i want BM to be the better solo spec and MM to be as good as BM in groups so people have an actual choice. However BM even if it does equal damage to MM then BM is the superior spec due to no limitations on movement.
All I see is that such a few amount of logs makes it impossible to do any realistic statistic analysis. So basically all claims based on the Beta logs are invalid.
This whole thread is nonsense.
No jump to make. Marksman Hunter is the only Hunter I’ve ever played.
This:
With 8 likes, I must be missing something. ?
This wasn’t a post about MM being the next flavor of the month. This was about the fact that Representation wise MM was drastically underplayed throughout most of BFA and speculation that it might make some kind of comeback so it was represented as much as it was in at least legion.
MM’s overall representation in BFA was just slightly above SV, with BM accounting for almost 10 times the amount of players.
While I don’t expect MM to be played more than BM over night, it’d be nice if they were more even, if not numbers wise, at least representation.
Moving into Legion a lot of players moved from SV to BM and MM and going into BFA even more players moved from MM to BM. I’m just hoping in SL we can see some players who left MM in BFA make a switch back.
And neither was
It was a question about if being MM before hand counted as a yes to the OP question.
Ok, now I know what kind of comment you may have been hoping for. Back to that in a sec.
My comment, “I must be missing something.?” was directed towards Murrk’s post:
It has eight likes… why, idano… so, I must be missing something…
I think the size of the group playing any one spec is a result of how well it does the job its supposed to do. So, if MM rise while BM sink, it’ll mean either MM got better or BM got worse… or both… probably both, to see a major change.
You are missing that they said they were MM BEFORE WoW existed. They are being sarcastic and making fun of silly people that think video game longevity is a badge of honor.
Oh… It wasn’t the “MM before WoW was invented” that I missed, it was the sarcasm. Not for the first time either.
Reminds me of when I read a joke to my Mother and sister, “whats the difference between an enzyme and a hormone? The difference is you can’t hear an enzyme.” I didn’t get it, but they did! I had to piece my way through it. Can’t hear an enzyme… so, can I hear a… ohhh… sorry!
A literal view of things is mine.
I suffer the same affliction. Took me a minute to get that joke as well. It was worth the payoff though.
Pet auto-attacks definitely scale with weapon DPS, though. So that’s straight up incorrect. The entire point of swapping everything to weapon DPS was to make everything scale the same way with weapon upgrades. As far as I know, Kill Command and pet basic attacks are the only exceptions to that rule, aside from player auto-attacks (but not pet auto-attacks).
As Khallid stated, you’re basing this off of 9 BM logs, and 34 total logs. The statistical error bars on that small of a sample size are astronomical.
That said, even your own spreadsheet shows MM ahead of BM, for all the worth that has on such a tiny sample size. So your own argument isn’t supported by your own data, and your data is also terminally flawed.
It’s not even just that the error is huge. Those few logs also means they likely don’t have the same level of gear, covenants, soulbinds, etc. It’s comparing apples to oranges at that level. Most likely none of them are running optimized builds, because they don’t know what is best either.
Plus, a small sample of logs also doesn’t account for anomalies. Maybe someone had a low dps because they didn’t know the fight and did something dumb, or died. Kill times are likely all over the place too, which impacts the overall dps of everyone.
At this stage the only thing that can tell you which spec is stronger are sims. Logs only work much later. The only thing you can probably get from early logs are outliers. Specs that do too much or too little dps, but also likely to get nerfed/buffed.
Nothing against MM but the whole “no pet” thing totally turns me off.
So I am sticking with SV and doing a little BM on the side.
And even then, logs have huge caveats that many people seem to ignore. The better a player is, skill wise, the more likely they are to gravitate to that spec currently seen as the “best spec”. As a result, the average skill level for whatever is considered the “best spec” is rather solidly higher than the average for the other specs, and thus whatever gap may have existed between the specs (if any) is substantially widened by the skill difference. In addition, better players also tend to have better gear, so the average itemlevel of the specs also tends to differ rather strongly amongst the logs.
Basically, logs tend to accentuate whatever perceived differences there are between specs, becoming a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone was somehow convinced that Sub did better than Assassination in Ny’alotha, then Sub would very likely be seeing higher average logs than Assassination, simply because the more skilled and better players would be much more likely to be playing Sub.