Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Phookah View Post
    If you want to play petless, then hunter isn't the class for you.
    People said the same thing about Warlocks not too long ago.

    This is one of the reasons I don't like the new talent system. It took too many spec defining abilities (looking at shadowstep) and made them available to all three. It punishes pure dps classes by blending them too thoroughly and hybrids (esp tri role hybrids) by making things MORE cookie cutter.

    So no, I don't think pures should have less than three, I think we just need the spec defining abilities put back in the specs instead of being accessible to all of them via the 'talents'.

  2. #22
    Elemental Lord
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Quote Originally Posted by Phookah View Post
    If you want to play petless, then hunter isn't the class for you.
    Being honest, I think the pet is a huge constraint on the hunter class, design wise. There simply aren't that many archetypes that really suit a mail wearing ranged pet specialist, especially if you discount ranged tanking.

    I think the pet would work better as a T1 talent, allowing the class to choose the pet but also opening it up designwise for other possibilities. I would also add a Pet option as the standard baseline L10 ability for the BeastMaster, so the BM would have a pet by default, but could choose to make use of two, while the other specs would have the option of using a pet.

    OT: 3 specs are fine, they just could use a little more identity.
    The problem is that three specs doing the same job with the same tools and resource system doesn't really allow for a lot of identity.


  3. #23
    I really do think there are classes that could remove/merge specs and only gain a better identity. Of course, it would be extremely controversial since it would be seen as removing choice and picking on those classes. I personally think it would help give them a better place from which to make actually notable third specs though, as they wouldn't have to keep trying to find a role for one that they haven't been able to for years, and actually start from scratch with a new concept altogether.

    Quote Originally Posted by Therougetitan View Post
    I wouldn't say priest or warrior needs it, they are pretty defined. Absorb+smite/raw healing/dps and 2h/DW/tanking.

    Rogues and hunter need it badly. They all feel too similar
    Is two-handed versus dual-wielding really enough to distinguish a spec? Especially after Titan's Grip? I mean, it gets really silly when you consider that Arms is actually less skilled in Arms when it comes to variety than Fury, which can use two-handers and one-handers. I've talked in the past about how I think they need to step back and accentuate the flavor of the two specs.

    Arms should be a person skilled in a wide variety of weaponry, and thus probably have some formal training. I'd imagine them to be knights(grunts?) and soldiers who'd have a lot of leadership-themed buffs and maybe even a move that swaps between a bunch of different weapons (at least visually, not saying they should have to get a million weapon drops to be effective). You know, the kind of soldier/mercenary that has a sword, a bow for distance, a knife for when the fight gets close and dirty, and a pike on his back when a mounted foe comes by.

    Meanwhile fury should be your prototypical berserker. I'd like to see them wearing less armor, but that's not really practical in this game's systems at the moment. However, they should be all about overpowering their foes through sheer strength with massive swords and axes, or tearing them apart like a vicious animal with a pair of wicked swords. They should be able to ignore major blows through sheer strength of will or simple obliviousness, and they absolutely need an ability that allows them to still fight in some capacity for some time after "dying" (Obviously that wouldn't be a key ability or even a particularly powerful one since relying on getting killed would be silly, but it needs to be there to complete the iconic "Fury" theme).

    However, until such a point where they feel they can flesh out two specs in a significant way, I would not mind them merging the two into an overarching fighter/soldier spec.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phookah View Post
    If you want to play petless, then hunter isn't the class for you.
    But what's the alternative? Personally, I love archers, but I absolutely hate managing pets (and beyond some kind of non-combat falcon companion, I'm not fond of pets flavorfully either). In Lord of the Rings Online, my main was a Hunter, and I loved him. I cannot do the same thing in World of Warcraft, since no matter what I choose, there is no archer that does not rely heavily on their pet for their playstyle. And it's not like a petless archer is an obscure thing. If anything, an archer that heavily relies on a pet to do their fighting for them is what's rare. Legolas? Robin Hood? Hawkeye? No pets. Heck, even in Warcraft you can find tons of archers that don't use pets. Practically the entire Sentinel army, for instance. For specific, high-profile characters, there's all three of the Windrunner sisters. In fact, Nathanos is the only major archer I can think of that uses pets. Rexxar is not actually an archer.
    Last edited by Jokubas; 2013-08-07 at 05:17 AM.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by militaryspartan View Post
    I found myself asking "Who the hell plays BM for PvE?" but apparently people do.
    I do - it's fun. Not everyone plays as an absolute min-maxer, y'know!

  5. #25
    What I think could be done is really distinguish the specs from each other. Like, turn survival into a melee spec/some rogue spec into ranged or similar.

    But any major revamp of specs will disappoint certain spec-lovers.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Phookah View Post
    If you want to play petless, then hunter isn't the class for you.
    What a shortsighted way of viewing things. So what about people like me who like to play an archer class, but isn't fond of having pet animals? I stopped playing my hunter because I got sick of managing the retarded pet A.I. and having it get stuck in fights.

    Since Blizzard has already come out and said that they want more differentiation between the three hunter specs, it would be awesome if Marksman or Survival had the option of playing without a pet.

  7. #27
    The Lightbringer Bluesftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Right here, right now
    they did great job with warlock remake , they can pull it off with hunters and rogues, just need some basic theme for each spec and some visual fluff for signature moves

  8. #28
    Legendary! Gothicshark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Leftcoast 2 blocks from the beach, down the street from a green haze called Venice.
    Before the current talent system only Priests had a problem with defining roles. The current system made a mess of all the DPS classes. Once the three types of Hunters were clear.

    Example: Hunter who relied on the pet (Solo Play), Hunter who used tricks (PVP), Hunter who was a range DPS machine (PVE/Raid)

    Blizzard in it's infinite wisdom decided that DPS Classes shouldn't have one spec good for only one thing, so they started to blend things a bit, then they took away the talent tree all together. Now you have a Hunter with a choice of one of three powers to start, and then the same set of three choices every few levels.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts