They should let MM hunters 'sacrifice' their pets.

[khalamo]

One thing people seem to forget. Pets give buffs. If MM wouldn't have pet I already can see all the drama in 10man raid groups as they are often part of the core team since they can provide any buff. Even if the 'sacrifice' was optional and lets say no dps gain people would feel forced to use them in 10mans.

I would rather have option for pet to stay on follow, passively buffing hunter or something.

[Deleted]

I think, rather than having some way to 'sacrifice' the pet like Warlocks do, Hunters should get a 4th spec (along with all other classes but druids) -or get one of their 3 specs reworked from the ground up - that is a petless spec. Hunter isn't synonymous with "pet class" for me. Pets are one of their foci, they'd still have 3 specs with pets, but offer the option to play an entire spec around the hunter-theme, lone hunter in the woods, without a pet/companion. Hell, it could even be a 'ranger' spec in the flavor of Strider/Aragorn - melee. He was pure melee, very rarely ranged combat.

[Kuniku]

+1 to petless hunter spec! LIke the OP I went back to my lock when they annoinced the sac pet option, and dislike the talk of changing it to a temp buff rather than a permanent choice.

but then I've never played hunter at max level, but generally pets annoy me =p

[Deleted]

I played a Hunter at max level in Cataclysm, as an alt, and I switched to Warlock from my Mage recently. And I don't like the pet. It's cumbersome, it's stupid and other than the few opportunities you can use its special ability it just doesn't feel good, it doesn't add to my enjoyment. Hunter pets are a bit better in that regard because you have more choices which one to use and they grant buffs. And you have fun pet-related stuff like Rampage.

I wish Sacrifice was as competitive as it was for a while, at least currently Supremacy is the better DPS option. Then again, I stopped raiding progress (my guild is currently top 1100something), among other things because I just *really* didn't enjoy the Mage anymore. So now I only raid once per week, somewhat casually, and I guess I could just use Sacrifice because top performance isn't as important in this setting ...

I like the Warlock because it's more interesting than the Mage and the pet, heals etc. just offer tons more options in terms of soloing content than the Mage ever had or will have. But I'd like to have the viable option to play without the pet.

Hunter is my favorite class after Mage and Warlock and probably the next one I'll finally get to 90 and play a bit more, and I'd really like a pet-less option there as well.

A 4th spec for all classes would be a great opportunity to do something great, interesting. We've had those 3 specs for years and years. A 4th spec should be something truly new and interesting. That could be a pet-less spec for Hunters. A pet-less and/or tank spec for Warlocks. A Heal spec for Mages. And so on. I hope *if* they do a 4th spec they don't just deliver more of the same. They recently admitted that Hunters and Rogues don't have enough difference spec-wise (I'd say the same is true for Mages, but that's beside the point here) so a 4th spec that's too similar really wouldn't serve their purpose. Something truly different is needed.

[melodramocracy]

Here, kitty kitty... TWISTYANECKFORDPS! Nah, doesn't sound like a hunter.

OK, I laughed far harder at this than I should have.

---------- Post added 2013-05-17 at 02:24 PM ----------

Why not some sort of aura that MM has baseline, triggered whenever he doesn't have a pet present? That way players would have a choice whether they want / need a pet for a specific fight.

[Faroth]

I remember back in Classic the suggestion was:

Beast Mastery: Ranged Hunter that does modest damage with a greater % of overall DPS from pet and pet abilities triggered by the hunter
Marksman: Minimal pet DPS, primarily all hunter DPS. Alternative suggestion was the Marksman spec does not have a pet and is a pure ranged physical DPS class
Survival: Ranger theme, pet and hunter do about even DPS and hunter has melee options rather than being pure ranged. I've also seen suggestion of survival being a melee DPS with pet

There have been a lot of support for Marksman to become more of an archer and less of a hunter. I doubt it will ever happen though.

---------- Post added 2013-05-17 at 06:30 PM ----------

Just give us ranged pets.

Spitting cobras?

[darkwarrior42]

Legolas has Gimly my good sir! how dare you forget his pet dwarf:P

I do admit I was wondering if anyone would call me on that... :-P

The point about pets being part of the hunter class lore-wise is a possible counter (at least, if you think the lore has any meaning at all since Cataclysm's cacophony of deus ex machina and nonsense, which I don't)... it just frustrates me that there's literally no way to play an archer in this game. There's a bunch of niche classes that aren't represented in WoW, but archer is the only big archetype that I can think of that isn't represented in any meaningful way...

Edit: Ranged pets would solve the problem of having to micro-manage pets that do stupid things in melee, but wouldn't fix my conceptual problem. Keep in mind I do like the hunter class, I just don't consider it an archer, and whenever possible I play beast mastery (since as far as I'm concerned, that's the only spec that's actually appropriate to the Hunter... the original Survival tree was, but its current form of "poison caster" is only sorta appropriate... again, my opinion only.)

[Radio]

Marskman Passive:

Ranger

The hunter's pet becomes his companion instead of his ally, choosing to stand by the hunters side and increasing their ranged combat abilities.

All damage done increased by X%.

Certain pet abilities will still be cast by the pet or applied through the hunters ranged attacks on the original cooldown.

Done!

[SodiumChloride]

I do admit I was wondering if anyone would call me on that... :-P

The point about pets being part of the hunter class lore-wise is a possible counter (at least, if you think the lore has any meaning at all since Cataclysm's cacophony of deus ex machina and nonsense, which I don't)... it just frustrates me that there's literally no way to play an archer in this game. There's a bunch of niche classes that aren't represented in WoW, but archer is the only big archetype that I can think of that isn't represented in any meaningful way...

Edit: Ranged pets would solve the problem of having to micro-manage pets that do stupid things in melee, but wouldn't fix my conceptual problem. Keep in mind I do like the hunter class, I just don't consider it an archer, and whenever possible I play beast mastery (since as far as I'm concerned, that's the only spec that's actually appropriate to the Hunter... the original Survival tree was, but its current form of "poison caster" is only sorta appropriate... again, my opinion only.)

No offence, but IMHO physical range damage shouldn't even be in this game.

Mechanics wise they are a special snowflake - and there is only one class that does physical range damage as their main form of DPS. Melee is vulnerable to kiting. Caster range is vulnerable to spell school locks and silences (both plentiful in game). Physical range? Only disarms. Disarms are few and far between in the game and most are melee ranged - except monks.

[Radio]

No offence, but IMHO physical range damage shouldn't even be in this game.

Mechanics wise they are a special snowflake - and there is only one class that does physical range damage as their main form of DPS. Melee is vulnerable to kiting. Caster range is vulnerable to spell school locks and silences (both plentiful in game). Physical range? Only disarms. Disarms are few and far between in the game and most are melee ranged - except monks.

That used to be what the deadzone was for, but it caused too many problems around the game (PVE as an example with large bosses). I wouldn't mind having the deadzone back as long as they handle it properly in PVE too, I actually liked using the Razor Strike 20% damage reduction feature on certain fights.

Something like only disabling ranged attacks against player controlled units when in melee range, so that the re-implementation of deadzone abilities would still be able to be used against NPCs without having to worry about hunters not being able to stack without gutting their DPS on stack n heal fights.

[The Firestar]

I haven't read through the entire thread, and so I don't know if this logic has been used yet, but I'm going to go ahead and put it forth anyway.

I think giving hunters the option to stable a pet in exchange for a dps increase via a talent would be a good thing for several reasons. 1) This would free up a talent choice, giving hunters less buttons to manage (which is a plus in my eyes - getting 5 extra buttons to manage in MoP was not enjoyable). 2) It would allow us to not lose dps in fights where pets are out of range (Examples include Atramedes from BWD during the air phase, Warmaster Blackhorn while you're killing Goriona in DS, and so on). 3) it would also allow players who take the talent to not have to worry about micro-managing their pet, making sure it doesn't attack the wrong target or stand in the fire, etc.

For those who might point to the logic behind why a hunter would get a buff for not having a pet - surely controlling a pet and making sure it doesn't get killed or is attacking the correct target takes some concentration of the hunter. Not having to manage that should allow him/her to focus more on their attacks. And to those who would point to beast master hunters and say "They would never take it, so it shouldn't be allowed" - look to the warlocks. They have the sacrifice option even for the demonology spec, which is comparable to the stabling option for a BM hunter. Again, this should be an OPTIONAL talent, meaning that if you want your pet, you can have it.

[Deleted]

We're not warlocks.

[nightfalls]

For those who might point to the logic behind why a hunter would get a buff for not having a pet - surely controlling a pet and making sure it doesn't get killed or is attacking the correct target takes some concentration of the hunter. Not having to manage that should allow him/her to focus more on their attacks. And to those who would point to beast master hunters and say "They would never take it, so it shouldn't be allowed" - look to the warlocks. They have the sacrifice option even for the demonology spec, which is comparable to the stabling option for a BM hunter. Again, this should be an OPTIONAL talent, meaning that if you want your pet, you can have it.

Like I said: Lone Ranger = DPS buff for no pet.

And it's not like you've abandoned your pet completely, you still can call your pet (for utility for instance) at a minor DPS loss in the spec, and you still would use Stampede as a cooldown. You've just chosen to go "lone ranger" instead of the more pet-oriented combat tracks.

[Aleksej89]

How do you even notice your pet as MM or SV?

I have all needed spells on auto cast or macroed, he attacks whatever i macro him to attack and he requires no healing what so ever.

Aside from a pet being useful during soloing, i never notice him in any form of 5man or raid.

[Hyde]

The only reason I've never made a hunter (and the reason I never made a warlock until MoP)

So we have to change MM spec and change hunter lore into someone who sacrifice his pets to please you and so just that you would play it? The whole point of variety of classes is to play the one you like most. ITT spoiled brat wants to ruin other's fun so that he could selfishly play something he likes.

---------- Post added 2013-05-20 at 01:03 PM ----------

I played a Hunter at max level in Cataclysm, as an alt, and I switched to Warlock from my Mage recently. And I don't like the pet. It's cumbersome, it's stupid and other than the few opportunities you can use its special ability it just doesn't feel good, it doesn't add to my enjoyment. Hunter pets are a bit better in that regard because you have more choices which one to use and they grant buffs. And you have fun pet-related stuff like Rampage.

I wish Sacrifice was as competitive as it was for a while, at least currently Supremacy is the better DPS option. Then again, I stopped raiding progress (my guild is currently top 1100something), among other things because I just *really* didn't enjoy the Mage anymore. So now I only raid once per week, somewhat casually, and I guess I could just use Sacrifice because top performance isn't as important in this setting ...

I like the Warlock because it's more interesting than the Mage and the pet, heals etc. just offer tons more options in terms of soloing content than the Mage ever had or will have. But I'd like to have the viable option to play without the pet.

Hunter is my favorite class after Mage and Warlock and probably the next one I'll finally get to 90 and play a bit more, and I'd really like a pet-less option there as well.

A 4th spec for all classes would be a great opportunity to do something great, interesting. We've had those 3 specs for years and years. A 4th spec should be something truly new and interesting. That could be a pet-less spec for Hunters. A pet-less and/or tank spec for Warlocks. A Heal spec for Mages. And so on. I hope *if* they do a 4th spec they don't just deliver more of the same. They recently admitted that Hunters and Rogues don't have enough difference spec-wise (I'd say the same is true for Mages, but that's beside the point here) so a 4th spec that's too similar really wouldn't serve their purpose. Something truly different is needed.

If you do not know how to play using your pet, then hunter is not the class for you.

[Wheezing]

We're not warlocks.

Best reply 2013.

I don't understand why so many people are getting upset about a petless spec. Also all the people who are saying "how can sacrificing your pet make you do more damage it doesn't make sense" how about forgetting about the whole sacrifice thing and think that there was never a pet in the first place and you just do more damage from being more skilled in ranged moves than taming beasts?

[Deleted]

Marskman Passive:



Done!

I like it. Make it happen.

[ComputerNerd]

Grimoire of Sacrifice for warlocks is only present due to pet mechanics killing their viability on some fights.
It is not a mechanism we really wanted, but one that so far has been out of necessity.
I would much prefer a solution which kept the pet.

[Lushious]

So we have to change MM spec and change hunter lore into someone who sacrifice his pets to please you and so just that you would play it? The whole point of variety of classes is to play the one you like most. ITT spoiled brat wants to ruin other's fun so that he could selfishly play something he likes.

Wow, better pull that bow out from where it's stuck. It's just adding a talent like Radio's suggestion. GoSac is not that much of a DPS gain/loss as some people in this thread make it out to be

Grimoire of Sacrifice for warlocks is only present due to pet mechanics killing their viability on some fights.
It is not a mechanism we really wanted, but one that so far has been out of necessity.
I would much prefer a solution which kept the pet.

You do not speak for the whole Warlock community.

[Hyde]

Marskman Passive:



Done!

In othe rword, putting the pet on passive?

It's already in game.