Bm hunter viable at pve?

[Azortharion]

What is "wrong" with BM has been reiterated dozens of times. Don't be surprised when a big contributor gets fucking sick of saying the same shit, doesn't help that it's actually a medium-long explanation.

[Deleted]

Sorry, not until the math says so, regardless of how much butthurt there is.

actually, you sound exactly like someone who is butt-hurt. and you still did not answer his question. this passive aggressive nonsense of yours is getting realy annoying and does not attribute anything useful to the discussion. none of the specs in legion "feels and plays" like a hunter, because math doesnt say so -_-

[Mirishka]

Don't be surprised when a big contributor gets fucking sick of saying the same shit, doesn't help that it's actually a medium-long explanation.

Especially when said contributors are as quick to act like rude douchenozzles are they are to contribute.

[Tehterokkar]

Instead of saying stuff like that, just give some information on what's wrong about it. I'm just sharing my thoughts.

Your "thoughts" are what's wrong about it. Don't say bullshit if you don't have the math to back it up.

Stat priorities/weights are not the result of Feelycrafting, they are the result of math.

[Tharkkun]

BM is viable just not optimal. You can find people to raid with that don't care about what is the most optimal comp out there.

There's only a couple fights where MM really dominates BM in this tier. Until the top players actually go BM with 26 points it's going to be slanted towards MM. Who wants to jump off the bandwagon and risk falling behind leveling your 4th golden trait?

[Deleted]

27 actually, and no, not really. Well, it's kind of difficult to make an accurate *personal* estimate. We need to rely on simcraft and percentile logs. Different gear, different levels of skill, short fights in M+ or long ones in raids and things are unbalanced.

I have my 27 ranks in BM and I'm currently at 858. I raid with a group whose ilevels are kinda ish around mine or lower and I'm usually around the top three in damage. I don't think BM beats MM because I do that in that particular raiding group.

I was doing a mythic with a MM around my level and I could see how he was just mowing everything when a boss called adds. I would ignore them because they are inconsequential and just the tank has enough has cleave that takes care of them, but the dude was simply hitting the boss and those two and three extra adds were being added to his damage. So do I stop doing single target and faff around with AoE for inconsequential adds or carry on hitting the boss? I carry on, but he's adding those three extra adds to his count.

That happens in all fights, and is the reason why BM does not keep up.

We need an Ursoc. We need the same gear. We need equal skilled players. *Then* we can compare that mythical 'BM has all three gold traits' VS a MM.

[Gereorth666]

Your "thoughts" are what's wrong about it. Don't say bullshit if you don't have the math to back it up.

Stat priorities/weights are not the result of Feelycrafting, they are the result of math.

It's something I had from personal experience.

[Geran]

sometimes I think a dictionary definition of 'viable' ought to be stickied at the top of this forum

Here it is:



Source: Viable

[Hafemid]

No you don't, lol.

I like this guy

[Azortharion]

Sure you do. You need crits from your autoshots to proc a Dire Beast. More Dire Beasts means you'll be using more Bestial Wrath.

No you don't. Crit is a mediocre stat for Beast Mastery. Stop talking out of your ass, stick to the facts.

[Queen of Hamsters]

I always found the rivalry between Hunters based on which spec they play to be beyond retarded.

I also find it hilarious how people truly believe that their feelings for a certain spec can somehow bend reality... or in this case, virtual reality.

[silverstarzs]

MM Hunter, with its wide angle/long range cleave, is undeniably strong on several Emerald fights - notably Il'gynoth and dragons.

However, I think we can all agree that Cenarius is the cock-block fight of this raid. And the following data is thus interesting:



Bottomline - neither hunter spec all that strong on crux boss, and MM most certainly not miles ahead of BM (may even be behind as shown in the chart but the sample size is smallish to draw to strong a conclusion)

However none of this is super relevant to the OP, who just wants to get in a 'decent' guild, which I strongly suspect means a good Hc one, and not top 1000. In which case if he likes BM and plays it well he will certainly be able to find a good home.

[Dracodraco]

MM Hunter, with its wide angle/long range cleave, is undeniably strong on several Emerald fights - notably Il'gynoth and dragons.

However, I think we can all agree that Cenarius is the cock-block fight of this raid. And the following data is thus interesting:



However none of this is super relevant to the OP, who just wants to get in a 'decent' guild, which I strongly suspect means a good Hc one, and not top 1000. In which case if he likes BM and plays it well he will certainly be able to find a good home.

Yea. The 20 BM hunters isn't being skewed by the 350 MM hunters at all.

By your logic, every lock should play affliction because the two parses available puts them at a higher average rank than any other lock spec. Seems legit.

Here's the thing; You look up the BM hunters to see their damage. You'll notice that *the best ranking BM hunter* on the boss doesn't just get beat by MM hunters overall; He gets beat by MM hunters *in his own raid*.

Here's the log: https://www.warcraftlogs.com/reports...pe=damage-done

Notice how one MM hunter only has a Prydaz legendary, and the other has Ullr's (which didn't afford him an extra use of Trueshot over the fight; They both got 3x off, which means they're just statsticks in this case). The BM hunter has *two* heavy DPS BM legendaries, and is still getting left behind.
Now check their damage breakdown - "Maybe the BM hunter got brought because he does good priority dps?".

Sisters: https://www.warcraftlogs.com/reports...one&target=187 hm... Nope, beat by one MM hunter with trueshot and equal to the one without it.

Wisps then?: https://www.warcraftlogs.com/reports...one&target=180
Oh. Nope. Getting absolutely shrekked by the MM hunters again.

What about 2 target cleave while the ancient is up? He HAS to be good there right?: https://www.warcraftlogs.com/reports...97&end=7058553

Huh. Guess not.

In the end, the only thing the BM hunter does better than the MM hunters, is singletarget boss damage - probably the LEAST important part of the fight on progression (And lets be honest; If the MM hunters were doing as little to other targets as the BM hunter, you'd find that damage difference on the boss instead). Is it viable and can they afford to take a BM hunter? Sure they can. They even seem to be boosting on that kill (the 864 hunter is very out-of-place, but he may just be a new recruit or reroll) and still pushing before the 4x drake spawn - their DPS is *wild*. They can afford to carry some questionable choices if the player is worth it. But don't for a second make it seem like BM is the better choice for cenarius. That's wildly retarded. The only reason BM hunter shows higher is because you're going for 75th percentile rather than 99th/max, which you SHOULD look at if you want to see the max potential of a class, and because there's so few BM hunter logs.

[Azortharion]

Never loved you as much Draco nohomo

[silverstarzs]

Yea. The 20 BM hunters isn't being skewed by the 350 MM hunters at all. . . . . . .

The only reason BM hunter shows higher is because you're going for 75th percentile rather than 99th/max, which you SHOULD look at if you want to see the max potential of a class, and because there's so few BM hunter logs.

Yet again, more foaming at the mouth, most of which is irrelevant or wrong.

You are ignoring the very very simple FACT that BM is not being blown away by MM on the crux fight of the raid.

And no, I NEVER said that implied that all hunters should switch to BM - have never said anything remotely like that.

And as I am sure you are aware, Boss damage is in fact important in this fight.

And 75% percentile is what decent players can actually achieve - that is the important metric (remember this is the 75% of players who have already killed the toughest boss - so extremely good players). The theoretical max potential of a spec is mostly irrelevant to this discussion. Because the OP is certainly not a top 1% player, and for an extreme example you could easily design a spec with HUGE potential, which no human could ever achieve, and thus its max potential would be ENTIRELY irrelevant.

And yes the sample size of BM's is smallish - I even mentioned that explicitly in the post you are responding to, but it IS big enough to conclude with statistical confidence that BM is not being blown away. (and trying to look at 99% would reduce the sample to insignificance).

[Dracodraco]

Yet again, more foaming at the mouth, most of which is irrelevant or wrong.

You are ignoring the very very simple FACT that BM is not being blown away by MM on the crux fight of the raid.

How is this foaming at the mouth? I just literally provided you with evidence of BM being blown away by MM on the crux fight of the raid. Did you even read the post? I literally took random hunters from his raid (fun fact; Those two hunters are ranked #12 and #37 for MM. I'm comparing the BEST BM HUNTER PARSE AVAILABLE to his own peers, instead of to the BEST MM HUNTER PARSE, which happens to be *70K DPS* higher. Here's the log:
https://www.warcraftlogs.com/reports...pe=damage-done

You have to stop using the whole "Foaming at the mouth to prove something that isn't true!" scheme you're trying to pull; I'm using accurate numbers from the current raid, giving you every single chance of being right by comparing the BEST CASE BM scenario to random MM scenario's that are far from best case, and it's still clear as day; BM brings nothing MM doesn't do far better.

Again; Is it VIABLE? Of course. It does good damage.
Is it OPTIMAL? FUCK NO. You might as well roll an elemental shaman if you want to tunnel the boss and do "decent" singletarget DPS; Atleast as ele, you'd bring a 15 sec CD interrupt, raid-movement speed and more accurate add control. BM is inferior in every aspect to MM apart from movement - something that really isn't an issue this tier.

And no, I NEVER said that implied that all hunters should switch to BM - have never said anything remotely like that.

You implied it quite heavily by *implying* that BM was superior to MM on cenarius because of your inability to read data properly. Don't bullshit me. I've been doing this far longer than you.

And as I am sure you are aware, Boss damage is in fact important in this fight.

It's not. Have you even *done* the boss? Boss damage is literally the last thing you need. It goes:
Wisp damage (make sure they all die before the next wave of adds spawns) > Sisters damage > Boss damage. Boss damage is so easy to come by that when we finally had a single pull without any lagging out, we had the boss at 38% when the two sisters died, having about 30 seconds to push 3% damage to skip the 2x drake wave. Oh yea. Boss damage surely is important as fuck.

And 75% percentile is what decent players can actually achieve - that is the important metric (remember this is the 75% of players who have already killed the toughest boss - so extremely good players). The theoretical max potential of a spec is mostly irrelevant to this discussion. Because the OP is certainly not a top 1% player, and for an extreme example you could easily design a spec with HUGE potential, which no human could ever achieve, and thus its max potential would be ENTIRELY irrelevant.

And yes the sample size of BM's is smallish - I even mentioned that explicitly in the post you are responding to, but it IS big enough to conclude with statistical confidence that BM is not being blown away. (and trying to look at 99% would reduce the sample to insignificance).

And this is where you're wrong. We have to start from the bottom to get through, so:

1: The sample size of BM is *too small*. You can't say that it "IS big enough to conclude with statistical confidence that BM is not being blown away", because it's not big enough. 20 vs 350 isn't remotely enough of a sample size. 150 probably still isn't enough. Your "top dog" BM hunter is #40 overall for hunters. But to put it into perspective;
Because your sample size is so small that it is not statistically relevant, the spread between the HIGHEST BM hunter, Dono, at 363K, and the LOWEST BM hunter, Khez, at 278K, is less than 100K.

Because of the sheer amount of MM parses compared to BM, you're looking at a MM spread of 433K to 188K. That's ALMOST 250K difference from the top to the bottom. Now, performing at 0th percentile for BM (278K) would put you at almost 25th percentile for MM (23, as far as I can tell). Are you going to tell me with a straight face that the WORST BM hunters perform better than 25% of the MM hunters on the boss, despite the BEST BM hunter barely making it into top 50 with the MM hunters? That's probably not right. It's probably more likely that because MM has had a ton more parses, there's a ton of MM hunters that have messed up (died early, bad pulls etc). Same as the MM hunters having a much higher ceiling because of more parses; Nothing however indicates that BM should ever get anywhere close to MM.

Of fucking course not. Your sample size is too small. Add another 300 parses and you'll see far more BM hunters also dying early and dragging the percentiles down. Right now, the difference between 100th percentile and 75th percentile BM is a mere 15K dps. That's right - 100th percentile is 363K, 75th percentile is 348K. Wonder what the MM difference is? 433K versus 340K. There's almost 100K dps variance.

Repeat after me: "20 parses versus 350 is too few to draw any accurate conclusions because the variance between parses is too small".

So to recap: 75th percentile is rank #5 for BM hunters. 75th percentile doesn't mean "this is what 75% of the playerbase has achieved". It means "You are doing better than 75% of the remaining people who have killed the boss". In this case, 15 people. For MM, that's a few houndred people.


As for the theoretical max potential of a spec being irrelevant, fucking lol'd. If the MAX potential of a spec is far superior, it means that the MEDIAN potential of the spec is also far superior. Case and point; The best BM hunter is on par with MM hunter #39 and #41. I don't know what you're trying to convey with your "could design a spec with huge potential that nobody could play"-line, but this isn't make believe. This isn't a theoretical scenario. These are actual players, playing the game, doing actual damage. You started looking into the numbers, and that's great - the first step to understanding something is studying it. But you're simply not reading the data correct, and you're putting too much weight on an insignificant data source to be as confident as you are.

[Savagemaw]

Beast Mastery is poopy, and pets are dumb.

But it's totally viable. Have fun in your new hunter.

[GoKs]

Here's the log:
https://www.warcraftlogs.com/reports...pe=damage-done

WoW, is Shadow priests really that insane? Ouch, dust off your priest Draco =P

[Jin]

It is viable, it just is not the best and it might take a bit more effort into learning your pets behaviour.

[silverstarzs]

Again; Is it VIABLE? Of course. It does good damage.

Awesome. Take a look at the thread title and actually read my prior post (I copy the summary comment below). And you will find, despite your long foaming posts, that we now agree completely!

It is not 'best' but it is most certainly 'viable', and obviously at least one somewhat decent guild (lol) 'accepted' a BM

so, we can answer the OP at this point - Yes it is viable, and Yes, (if you play well) you will find a decent guild to take you. . . .just as I said way way up thread.

And you should give up on your mind reading attempts and just exercise your reading comprehension - because I never implied all hunters should switch to BM, and in fact explicitly said (as quoted just above) it was not 'best'.

I'm not going to argue with you about statistical analysis because it is irrelevant to continuing this discussion where we agree and it is difficult for uneducated people to grasp, but I might note I have a math PhD and my first job was as an insurance actuary, so I am rather comfortable with the subject and your harping on "20 parses versus 350" would suggest you are perhaps not as informed about statistical significance and confidence testing.