will MM be the best spec at 110?

[krunksmash]

It is not really a point of debate, by playing below your potential you are obviously dragging your raid's performance down. It doesn't get more simple, there's almost nothing that a logical sound mind can even disagree with. It's clear as day.

" only a sith deals in absolutes "

[Azortharion]

Ouch, shouldn't have brought facts to a geek fight.

[krunksmash]

Ouch, shouldn't have brought facts to a geek fight.

lol nothing wrong with a little bit of a geek fight, but them nerds, OH BOY! when they get going run for it. :P

[Reloe]

@krunksmash , bm's target swapping should be much easier if the pet gets the charge ability using the legendary item that gives all the pet perks, but im not sure about that.

you only gain all passives from the ring not the active abilities.
So you have to choose between dash&instant ress VS charge&last stand, dps would be the same since only passives are increasing that.

KC is kinda a charge though and you can utilize that.

[Coldfire989]

" only a sith deals in absolutes "

I wouldnt see Azor as anything but a Sith and I mean that as a complement fyi.

[krunksmash]

I wouldnt see Azor as anything but a Sith and I mean that as a complement fyi.

balance in the force. if he is the sith and I'm the gray Jedi ... who is the light side jedi?

[Thormn]

"Viability" is only the level to which you are willing to let others carry you. If you play the worse of two or three specs, you are a burden.

Well, we can also discuss what "viable" really is, because many would argue that if a spec is worse, it's "unviable".

I think one of the reasons you are being pegged for this whole "viability" thing is because you are making the statement with a closed-world assumption that only one spec may have the potential to perform to what is required by whatever content is being faced.

Let's say in that sometime over the next few days, Blizzard gives Hunters a huge buff across the board. Everything does 300% more damage compared to what it does now. People are flocking to the class because it's so powerful and will likely trivialize the upcoming content. It's calculated that every Hunter spec is at least 50% ahead of the next best non-Hunter spec for DPS. It's discovered that Raptor Strike now has the potential to two-shot Legion raid bosses but Marksmapship and Beast Mastery Hunters also have the potential to pull insane, but not "two-shorting insane", numbers, still completely trivializing the content.

In this scenario, your assessment in regards to spec viability labels MM and BM as being unviable. Does that sound funky or what?

Viability is whether or not something can perform its function successfully. If something is viable, that implies that it is likely successful a large majority of the time. The opposite should be taken as truth if the stated definition of viability is taken also taken as truth; that is, something that is unviable is likely unsuccessful a majority of the time.

In the scenario above, the lesser of two specs being deemed unviable would seem to contradict the stated definition of unviability when they would, more likely than not, lead to surmounting success.

[Azortharion]

I think one of the reasons you are being pegged for this whole "viability" thing is because you are making the statement with a closed-world assumption that only one spec may have the potential to perform to what is required by whatever content is being faced.

Let's say in that sometime over the next few days, Blizzard gives Hunters a huge buff across the board. Everything does 300% more damage compared to what it does now. People are flocking to the class because it's so powerful and will likely trivialize the upcoming content. It's calculated that every Hunter spec is at least 50% ahead of the next best non-Hunter spec for DPS. It's discovered that Raptor Strike now has the potential to two-shot Legion raid bosses but Marksmapship and Beast Mastery Hunters also have the potential to pull insane, but not "two-shorting insane", numbers, still completely trivializing the content.

In this scenario, your assessment in regards to spec viability labels MM and BM as being unviable. Does that sound funky or what?

Your scenario is completely unrealistic, as you know, of course. It's hyperbolic to make a point, but it misses the target because the scenario has nothing to do with the real world of progression raiding when you're taking it so far out, which is that bosses will require wipes, and the amount of wipes and/or hours you spend on it will depend on a mix of gear, strategy, and raid performance. Most of us can only directly influence #3, our own performance. Not maximizing on this area means you are performing suboptimally, which means your raid will perform suboptimally.

Any spec can do what is "required" to kill the content eventually. Maybe even early. One spec is better at it than the others.

Therefore, you are a burden by picking the suboptimal spec. It really is not that difficult to grasp. It's not about being able to kill the bosses in the first place (2773 guilds killed M Archimonde this tier. Over the course of a tier, it went from being a 10-11 minute fight, to a 4-5 minute fight with lows of 3 minutes), it's about doing it as quickly as possible, as efficiently as possible, as well as possible. "Is Beast Mastery viable?" depends on how you define "viable". Since trying to define it exactly is stupid (as everyone's interpretation is different), nothing really covers it better than to say that "Viability is the level to which you are willing to let others carry you, because you are being a burden by picking the suboptimal spec".

I don't know how to explain it better. Even if your goal in the game is just to kill bosses eventually, it doesn't change that by playing suboptimally you're relying on others to carry you to boss kills because you're choosing to play below your potential. How viable something is therefore becomes a personal choice; "how little shame do I have that I'll drag down my raid's performance and slow down their dragon killing game by playing a suboptimal spec".

[Thormn]

Your scenario is completely unrealistic, as you know, of course. It's hyperbolic to make a point, but it misses the target because the scenario has nothing to do with the real world of progression raiding when you're taking it so far out, which is that bosses will require wipes, and the amount of wipes and/or hours you spend on it will depend on a mix of gear, strategy, and raid performance. Most of us can only directly influence #3, our own performance. Not maximizing on this area means you are performing suboptimally, which means your raid will perform suboptimally.

Any spec can do what is "required" to kill the content eventually. Maybe even early. One spec is better at it than the others.

Therefore, you are a burden by picking the suboptimal spec. It really is not that difficult to grasp. It's not about being able to kill the bosses in the first place (2773 guilds killed M Archimonde this tier. Over the course of a tier, it went from being a 10-11 minute fight, to a 4-5 minute fight with lows of 3 minutes), it's about doing it as quickly as possible, as efficiently as possible, as well as possible. "Is Beast Mastery viable?" depends on how you define "viable". Since trying to define it exactly is stupid (as everyone's interpretation is different), nothing really covers it better than to say that "Viability is the level to which you are willing to let others carry you, because you are being a burden by picking the suboptimal spec".

I don't know how to explain it better. Even if your goal in the game is just to kill bosses eventually, it doesn't change that by playing suboptimally you're relying on others to carry you to boss kills because you're choosing to play below your potential. How viable something is therefore becomes a personal choice; "how little shame do I have that I'll drag down my raid's performance and slow down their dragon killing game by playing a suboptimal spec".

Sorry, I meant to include the quotes you made prior to actually submitting the post and it looks like you may not have seen that I was replying to those trains of thought.

Anyway, I agree with what you're saying except the very last line. I don't think it's appropriate to make a definition encapsulate a very specific context (i.e. hardcore raid progression); rather, make the formal definition and mold it through conditions:

"In the field of surgery, viability is whether a person has the potential to live naturally" rather than "viability is whether a person has the potential to live naturally".

It is not really a point of debate, by playing below your potential you are obviously dragging your raid's performance down. It doesn't get more simple, there's almost nothing that a logical sound mind can even disagree with. It's clear as day.

With regards to the above quote, in addition to the beginning portion of the first paragraph of the previous quote:

You mention logic but do not follow the structures set forth for logical arguments. In order to form an argument properly, you construct a set of truths that you can either suppose to be true or be taken as universally true ("1 + 1 = 2"). Through conjectures you can form an argument and if ends meet and they don't contradict, a conclusion can be drawn.

In order for this to happen, however, whatever scenario is drawn out must be examined within its own realm. Modifying its parameters will often change its outcome. Dismissing my scenario on the basis of it being completely unrealistic eludes the point I was trying to make. You suggesting a more realistic scenario shifted the target further away and, like I mentioned, changed the outcome.

Anyway, I see exactly what you mean with regards to suboptimal play. I'm with you on that.

[Deleted]

Pick MM if you believe yourself a good player.
Pick BM if you believe yourself an ok player.

On 2nd thought pick BM if you believe yourself a good player and play in the top 75-200. PvE wise.

Azortharion says if you pick the worse spec (bm) and raid you will drag your raid down. While in theory that is true, its not like all guilds have players what will pick the best spec and will still drag their guild progress down, cuz they simply suck and would overall perform better with the easier spec.

tl;dr you will only drag down your guild if you could play both specs equally good and then choose to play the worse one, unless MM is vastly superior to BM that it doesn't matter. However there is no proof of it. (currently)

[Azortharion]

Truth 1) There will always be a best spec.

Truth 2) Not playing the best spec will make an encounter more difficult to defeat than if you had played the best spec.

Conclusion: By choosing to not play the best spec, you are also choosing to make the encounters you face more difficult to defeat for you and your guild, regardless of competitive level.

Moving on:

Truth 1) Raiding guilds exist primarily to kill bosses.

Truth 2) Raiding guilds, second to killing bosses in the first place, also exist to kill bosses as quickly as possible, before other guilds, hereby securing a world ranking. This competitive pursuit drives everything the guild does, with the only exception to this rule being completely social raiding guilds with a few friends that get together and mostly just use raiding as a vehicle for social interaction and having fun. In other words, the minority.

Conclusion: Playing an inferior spec is directly detrimental to the pursuit of most raiding guilds, to kill bosses as early as possible, ideally with the least possible work.

In not so scientific terms, dragging down the performance of your team is considered a "not cool" thing to do. In WoW terms, being the weakest link in a chain of players trying to accomplish a goal is usually called being "carried".

To quantify how "viable" something is in this context, is simply to ask yourself this question: "How much do I care about my raid's performance? // How willing am I to drag down its performance?".

Only once you've answered this question can you get an answer to the original question.

If the answer was "I don't really care about the overall performance of my raid", then any spec is basically viable. You'll kill bosses, but you'll always be a detriment to your group. This might work in some guilds, too. Personally, though, regardless of what guild I am in, I'd feel like shit for being the weakest player on the team/the one everyone has to deal with carrying/the one everyone looks down at when they see another Hunter/whatever in my guild playing the right spec and outperforming me.

If the answer was "I am not willing to sacrifice my raid's performance at all if it can possibly be avoided" or something along those lines, then only the best spec is viable at all.

You can always get into how much worse a spec is compared to the other. In this particular instance, Beast Mastery is a significantly worse raiding spec than Marksmanship for Mythic Progression. And no, world first or world 1000 doesn't really make a difference.

All of this rolls into the "line":

Viability is the level to which you are willing to let others carry you.
Viability is the level to which you are willing to drag down your raid's overall performance.

[Thormn]

Food for thought:

If there will always be a "best spec", might there always be a worst player" given the same sort of objective comparisons?

With your definition of the weakest link being a person who is being carried, that would imply that there will always be a person who is being carried.

With that I ask: Can I too be carried or must I cough up a couple WoW tokens just so I can get my moose?

[Azortharion]

There will always be a weakest link and thus there will always be a person who is being carried (since everyone else is better). Most guilds actively recruit to replace these people, raising the quality of the weakest link and thus the quality of the guild itself. My guild, for example, actively recruits for all spots at all times for any reason, and no one is immune to being replaced if someone better comes along. All of this is done without negatively affecting the raiding environment/atmosphere, which is important for a constructive raiding experience as well. How my guild master does that I will never fully understand, but it works.

[Pengalor]

Truth 2) Raiding guilds, second to killing bosses in the first place, also exist to kill bosses as quickly as possible, before other guilds, hereby securing a world ranking. This competitive pursuit drives everything the guild does, with the only exception to this rule being completely social raiding guilds with a few friends that get together and mostly just use raiding as a vehicle for social interaction and having fun. In other words, the minority.

Do you have anything whatsoever to back that up? Considering it's that single assertion that's caused this whole 'viability' debate in the first place, it would seem prudent that you have some sort of hard evidence to back up this claim you are presenting as truth. Granted, I don't have any data either way, but I'm also not presenting anything as a truth. That said, in my anecdotal experience, every guild I've been in up to and including partial-Mythic guilds have always put the social aspect ahead (at least slightly). Since the people who clear Mythic are a small portion of the raiding community it would seem to me that most raiding guilds probably tend to put the social aspect ahead of any competitive aspect.

[Coldfire989]

balance in the force. if he is the sith and I'm the gray Jedi ... who is the light side jedi?

Effing of course and I expect a light saber duel between them as well.

[Azortharion]

It reads to me like a 1+1=2 kind of truth. While it's true that guilds tend to put the social aspect above the competitive one, that does not mean the goal of the guild is not to kill bosses as early as possible in the best way possible, which means actively recruiting new, good players. Not all guilds are willing to drop just anyone for performance reasons, especially if they've been in the guild for a long time, but that does not really detract from the basic point that raiding guilds exist to compete at some level.

[Pengalor]

It reads to me like a 1+1=2 kind of truth. While it's true that guilds tend to put the social aspect above the competitive one, that does not mean the goal of the guild is not to kill bosses as early as possible in the best way possible, which means actively recruiting new, good players. Not all guilds are willing to drop just anyone for performance reasons, especially if they've been in the guild for a long time, but that does not really detract from the basic point that raiding guilds exist to compete at some level.

I get that and don't necessarily disagree that raiding guilds are there to kill bosses, that does seem to be the case most of the time. I'm more saying that what I typically see is they'll look at the player and ask "Is this person really holding us back?" In those cases as long as they are good with mechanics and instructions and aren't doing bottom-of-the-barrel (read: not playing their spec properly) DPS then they call it fine. I think that's where a lot of people are coming from when they ask about viability: they basically want to know if their RL will look at the meters and wonder if they've ever played a video game before. That's obviously a far cry from the top of the top who might look at a spec that's underperforming by 5% with mechanical issues and consider it unthinkable to play. I just think it's important to point out that massive chasm between what an average raider is going to consider viable and what a min/maxer will consider viable.

Of course, I won't argue that the people playing those other specs will generally be underperforming. Hell, I'm one of the people who will play a spec I hate simply because it's better on paper, even if I'm not hitting that potential. However, when you consider what an average raider (or raid leader) might see as viable then you can also see how they differ in the definition of a 'carry'. I've seen people play pretty terrible specs but they still weren't really being carried because the problems that consumed the group came down to execution of mechanics or people who weren't great at their class regardless of spec. Sure, the other players playing optimally will help but that isn't generally as much of a concern as the people not executing the strats properly (but, of course those people are allowed to stay because they are friends, I didn't stay in those groups very long because I am the competitive type).

[Deleted]

azortharion

The mistake you make is, that your only arguing with DPS.

For example, lets say there is an encounter where you need someone to move like 75 % of the time to do some kind of job. If you have a BM hunter great, if you dont you maybe have to use a class that looses like 20 % - 30 % dmg doing this job, thats more than the difference between BM and MM and therefore you would be a burden for playing MM to your raid, because MM is the suboptimal specc for this encounter, since you playing BM would lead to more raid DPS overall.

[Scroff]

It's implicit in his Truth 1 that best spec may depend on the encounter

If you'll excuse an example from when I mained a lock in SoO, destro was the best spec for Immerseus for the snap AOE and affliction was the best spec for Fallen Protectors for soul swapping snapshotted dots

[Makro]

azortharion

The mistake you make is, that your only arguing with DPS.

For example, lets say there is an encounter where you need someone to move like 75 % of the time to do some kind of job. If you have a BM hunter great, if you dont you maybe have to use a class that looses like 20 % - 30 % dmg doing this job, thats more than the difference between BM and MM and therefore you would be a burden for playing MM to your raid, because MM is the suboptimal specc for this encounter, since you playing BM would lead to more raid DPS overall.

Obviously, if such an extreme job exists and you are assigned to it, you are going to pick BM.
Are you going to invest all your AP on the BM artifact just in case this situation happens?
I don't think so.