Would you prefer sustained to burst?

[Chickensoup23]

Every since late BC, hunters have had a big problem (well, not really a problem) -- we have "burst", but very weak sustained. Even as marks a few seasons ago, we had a bunch of stuff to fire, would do great, and then we were reduced to "wet-noodle" steady shot spamming which would hit for 200 on plate (in WotLK) out of a 12000 health pool. In every expansion, we've had the same problem -- once "big-hitting" abilities & cooldowns are up, we are left with a huge gap ranging from 10 secs (in-between chimeras as Marks) with RNG (aimed) to a 5 minutes one (now, as BM) where we are (mostly) useless.

Now I'm not saying this is a bad thing because as of now I'm doing fairly well in arenas, but I'm wondering -- would you ever have preffered sustained damage (similar to what warriors have now) to hunter burst?

Discuss!

[Meleti]

I would, but only because high burst damage means hunters get nerfed because of PvP.

[Orangetai420]

Warriors damage is classified as sustained?

Now I've seen it all.

[ihatepeople]

We should have both IMO. We should have consistent good pressure and decent to good burst when CDs are popped/used. But if I had to clearly pick one over the other I'd want burst personally *shrugs*

[Chickensoup23]

We should have both IMO. We should have consistent good pressure and decent to good burst when CDs are popped/used. But if I had to clearly pick one over the other I'd want burst personally *shrugs*

Keep one or two big cooldowns (like Rapid Fire) but whack out the rest and give bigger damage to abilities we can frequently use instead of big spikes of damage

[Rumbie]

That question is more of a question I would ask myself for each individual fight... I would probably go with higher sustained dps because most fights with high dps requirements right now don't call for a lot of burst they call for a lot of sustained dmg.

[Sarevoc]

Sustained that allows a hunter to kill a healer in 1on1.

[Nemesis003]

The game is still mostly supported by the PvE community, while the PvP community does cry the loudest they are the smaller group. Honestly Sustained damage is what hunters should have with cooldowns there to apply some burst when needed.


The biggest problem is the PvP QQ from inept players has cause this problem, they are too lazy or stupid to see how easy stampede is to counter. I for once would like to see them ignore PvP QQ for an x-pac and let teh raiders have an x-pac where they don't suffer due to PvP cry babies.

[Fetacheese]

In TBC, hunters had (by far) the highest sustained damage, but our burst was terrible.

In WotLK, hunters were about equal on the burst/sustained front, although pre-3.0.8 and the short reign of beastcleave were pretty bursty.

In Cataclysm, hunters had virtually no burst from the limited amount of spells we could fire off with 100 focus. Our sustained was mediocre.



I'm not sure what the OP is talking about.

[Daetur]

I find a focus on high burst rather than high sustained damage is usually more useful in both PvP and PvE. I'm really sure about your claims, though.

[Puerto]

I like my burst numbers in BM

[timoseewho]

Whichever one gives us the most damage/DPS by the end of a 6+ minute fight.

[Exac]

Warriors damage is classified as sustained?

Now I've seen it all.

This is bad troll thread. I think OP should probably go look at other classes before he complains.

[Deleted]

I would prefer sustained so PVP would stop getting things nerfed.

[Goretex]

The burst is fine is fine not OP, BM has always been a burst spec. I really miss the beatial wrath we had in BC that was awesome lol.

[darkhybridx]

I prefer minor burst DPS on the fly with sustained in between over having to ramp up DPS. So, pretty much where we are now just.. more.