Can we finally get the BM buff, please?

[Eapoe]

So you are arguing about a completely different point then? Or what is it then?
Because the point made is that the difference between strength/weakness isn't supposed to be 50%+.

Why do you think there are only like 10% BM logs on Artificer.
Or just 0,25% BM logs on Anduin ? When it is the one of the most played spec in this game?
The % numbers are taken from Hunter logs only. So I'm not talking about 0,25% out of all classes and specs. I'm talking about how the most played spec in the game only has 3 freaking logs out of over a 1000 hunterparses on Anduin.

It's the same for Halondrus just the other way around.
You are telling me people aren't "forced" into it by the game? You do see that encounters where the advantage isn't as *crystal* clear (that means, even though everyone knows BM is the ST-King of all the hunter specs, the gap in DPS isn't as large), that the specs played are relatively equal compared to the amount of people playing that spec overall, right?
Saying this is a "player problem" when you look at this is just ignorant of what the problem is.
So obviously something is causing this. Even if the pressure is acted out by other players, the source is still the design and encounter. That pressure however doesn't seem to appear when the differences aren't as huge.

Again, one last time, from me at least. There shouldn't be such a vast difference between the specs or classes on certain mechanics or bosses.
No one wants to play a spec that is lacking behind 50% in ST. The same applies to MT. (or insert anything else for ST and MT).

You can have significant differences between specs and classes without having one outperform the other by this high of a magnitude.

You can probably buff BMs beastcleave by another 10% and it would probably still be weaker than others in MT (significantly so) quite a huge margin of BMs AoE comes from Barbed Shot and the covenant ability.

No, you’re telling me to prove a point I never made. You want me to find an article that states a 50% difference between specs is acceptable, a claim I never made. Going thru WCL I’m not even seeing a 50% difference on any fight, and if you want to investigate further you could potentially find that the BM Hunter did more overall damage to the priority target than add AoE/Cleave.
To recap, I stated BM Hunters are viable for all content. This is proven by the simple fact that they have done all high level content; and, as pointed out and able to be proven, even beat 1, or both, specs on roughly 1/3 of the current raid on mythic difficulty.
I then stated that different specs are supposed to be better at different things, to which you opposed. I then posted an article about Blizzard’s class/spec design philosophy, which you asked me to provide, stating that different specs are going to be better at certain things than their class counterpart. The article was even from BfA, the last expansion, when you tried providing anecdotal evidence about something from Legion.
Nothing I have stated in this back and forth between us has been wrong, and has been backed by verified facts and sources. You keep trying to make up an argument I’ve never stated, and it’s an untrue topic from you as well. BM isn’t 50% behind the other 2 specs in raid (however it is close to to approx 30-40% damage lower on Pantheon due to the nature of the fight being all Cleave/AoE); but, even then it is still a viable spec on that fight. Bottom line: BM is viable in all high end content.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, as stated, the game is not forcing people to switch specs thru mechanics or design. This is once again easily proven by the fact all of these specs have cleared the highest difficulty content. Players guilds are doing that.

[KrayZ33]

Oh please, spare me about your non sense with "facts and sources" and not being wrong. You are fighting strawmen half the time, obviously you'd think that.

No, you’re telling me to prove a point I never made. You want me to find an article that states a 50% difference between specs is acceptable, a claim I never made.

Go fucking figure, lol. But this vast difference between the specs is what I am talking about and you are arguing against when you argue with me.
So how is your quote from Blizzard related then if it's not about that? Explain.

To recap, I stated BM Hunters are viable for all content. This is proven by the simple fact that they have done all high level content; and, as pointed out and able to be proven, even beat 1, or both, specs on roughly 1/3 of the current raid on mythic difficulty.

No one fucking argued against that, this has never been my point and I've said so as well.

I then stated that different specs are supposed to be better at different things, to which you opposed. I then posted an article about Blizzard’s class/spec design philosophy, which you asked me to provide, stating that different specs are going to be better at certain things than their class

No I did not. I never opposed the notion that some specs are supposed to be better at something than others.
I'm opposed to the notion that some specs are "single target" and some others are "multi target", to the point where the difference is so big, that you have (or if it wasn't clear enough: to the point where you are considered an idiot to not do it) to pick the spec over the other.

The article was even from BfA, the last expansion, when you tried providing anecdotal evidence about something from Legion.

Not sure what "anecdotal" means in your opinion. I was just using statements made by blizzard just as you did. Is your evidence anecdotal as well because it only applied to one expansion? What are you talking about. I didn't think such a statement would exist because their class/spec design doesn't show it. At least not to the point where you think it does and it's much closer to the point where I think it is (see the DPS difference between BM, SV and MM on single target)

Also, as stated, the game is not forcing people to switch specs thru mechanics or design. This is once again easily proven by the fact all of these specs have cleared the highest difficulty content. Players guilds are doing that.

What a joke.
"I'm a millionaire, everyone can do it". That's the kind of logic you have here.
The "guilds" (more like: players themselves) do it for a reason, it's because the fights are hard and difficult to clear otherwise. This means you are being forced through mechanics or design to play a specific spec. Otherwise you will have a much more difficult time to advance.

It's like saying you can mine an ore with your fists, if you just smash long enough. That's certainly "viable" as *you* would put it. But that's not how it's supposed to work. As soon as you are putting one spec over the other for certain scenarios to such a degree as it is now, and allow the players to switch, you are *telling* the player to switch.
This is so simple to see, even 6 year old kids playing minecraft do it and understand it.

I have no idea how often I have to repeat myself just so you understand the point.

You are saying that the difference in damage is fine, I'm saying it's not. They are too far apart.
You can see how "small" the differences between ST potentials for each spec are. That's also the reason why there is only *1* boss fight where BM is way above the other specs (in terms of how often players use that spec and maybe even how well it performs). Even though there are way more ST fights. And the reason why BM is used so often in that one fight doesn't even have to do with it being MT or ST.
Why isn't BM hogging all the player attention on Dausagne, Skolex or even Artificer.
Why is it that we only have like half a hand full of BM parses whenever MT is on the table, but not only a hand full of MM and SV parses whenever MT isn't? Why are the players somehow acting "different" then?

One of the reason this happens is whenever fights get too difficult otherswise, what could be another reason for this?
In your opinion there has to be one, because if the fights or the design isn't forcing the player, what else is?
What else would explain how at M+20 the most played spec in the game has only 1/5 amount parses of the, by far, least played spec.
Spec-Racism? I mean, maybe that's part of it? But do you honestly believe that's the only reason? No, obviously you don't.
You do know and understand that the spec is not being used because it's too weak, you know and understand that the other specs are vastly superior and at some points, player skill or other player's skill can't keep up and the player himself has to improve his performance.
And that's the point where the game has forced you.
In mythic-raids, that point happens. In M+15, *maybe* not (for most).. in M+20 however? It happened. As can again been seen by the amount of parses. There is no "shadowcouncil" that denies BM participation just to make them feel bad. They are being denied because the average BM isn't strong enough compared to the average SV or even MM.


Why is the DPS difference not "just as small" (or at least smaller than right now) in MT situations?

Obviously you still think BM is supposed to be the ST spec, even though the differences between them on that specific metric is rather small.
And that's exactly the point I'm standing on.
Your entire argument hings on this quote you made

Your entire 1st argument also applies to SV and MM in the reverse, but I don’t see you advocating for them, just that you want BM to be better at something it’s not built for.

Because it *doesn't* apply to SV and MM in reverse. As I said earlier. The numbers also show that, but you decided to ignore those while telling me how well you have given proof and all that bs.

[Devilyaki]

No they have to keep pushing the failed melee spec on us

[Eapoe]

Oh please, spare me about your non sense with "facts and sources" and not being wrong. You are fighting strawmen half the time, obviously you'd think that.



Go fucking figure, lol. But this vast difference between the specs is what I am talking about and you are arguing against when you argue with me.
So how is your quote from Blizzard related then if it's not about that? Explain.



No one fucking argued against that, this has never been my point and I've said so as well.



No I did not. I never opposed the notion that some specs are supposed to be better at something than others.
I'm opposed to the notion that some specs are "single target" and some others are "multi target", to the point where the difference is so big, that you have (or if it wasn't clear enough: to the point where you are considered an idiot to not do it) to pick the spec over the other.



Not sure what "anecdotal" means in your opinion. I was just using statements made by blizzard just as you did. Is your evidence anecdotal as well because it only applied to one expansion? What are you talking about. I didn't think such a statement would exist because their class/spec design doesn't show it. At least not to the point where you think it does and it's much closer to the point where I think it is (see the DPS difference between BM, SV and MM on single target)



What a joke.
"I'm a millionaire, everyone can do it". That's the kind of logic you have here.
The "guilds" (more like: players themselves) do it for a reason, it's because the fights are hard and difficult to clear otherwise. This means you are being forced through mechanics or design to play a specific spec. Otherwise you will have a much more difficult time to advance.

It's like saying you can mine an ore with your fists, if you just smash long enough. That's certainly "viable" as *you* would put it. But that's not how it's supposed to work. As soon as you are putting one spec over the other for certain scenarios to such a degree as it is now, and allow the players to switch, you are *telling* the player to switch.
This is so simple to see, even 6 year old kids playing minecraft do it and understand it.

I have no idea how often I have to repeat myself just so you understand the point.

You are saying that the difference in damage is fine, I'm saying it's not. They are too far apart.
You can see how "small" the differences between ST potentials for each spec are. That's also the reason why there is only *1* boss fight where BM is way above the other specs (in terms of how often players use that spec and maybe even how well it performs). Even though there are way more ST fights. And the reason why BM is used so often in that one fight doesn't even have to do with it being MT or ST.
Why isn't BM hogging all the player attention on Dausagne, Skolex or even Artificer.
Why is it that we only have like half a hand full of BM parses whenever MT is on the table, but not only a hand full of MM and SV parses whenever MT isn't? Why are the players somehow acting "different" then?

One of the reason this happens is whenever fights get too difficult otherswise, what could be another reason for this?
In your opinion there has to be one, because if the fights or the design isn't forcing the player, what else is?
What else would explain how at M+20 the most played spec in the game has only 1/5 amount parses of the, by far, least played spec.
Spec-Racism? I mean, maybe that's part of it? But do you honestly believe that's the only reason? No, obviously you don't.
You do know and understand that the spec is not being used because it's too weak, you know and understand that the other specs are vastly superior and at some points, player skill or other player's skill can't keep up and the player himself has to improve his performance.
And that's the point where the game has forced you.
In mythic-raids, that point happens. In M+15, *maybe* not (for most).. in M+20 however? It happened. As can again been seen by the amount of parses. There is no "shadowcouncil" that denies BM participation just to make them feel bad. They are being denied because the average BM isn't strong enough compared to the average SV or even MM.


Why is the DPS difference not "just as small" (or at least smaller than right now) in MT situations?

Obviously you still think BM is supposed to be the ST spec, even though the differences between them on that specific metric is rather small.
And that's exactly the point I'm standing on.
Your entire argument hings on this quote you made

Because it *doesn't* apply to SV and MM in reverse. As I said earlier. The numbers also show that, but you decided to ignore those while telling me how well you have given proof and all that bs.

Yikes. Willful ignorance much?

I have not made one single straw man argument. Any reply I made was in direct reply, with the comments being quoted, and in direct correlation to the comment I quoted.

I have never argued for your side on this topic. And there isn’t that vast of a difference between specs except on a few of the fights. I even included the biggest difference in numbers on one fight. One. Considering that BM beats one, if not both, of the other specs on 1/3 of the fights, then that discrepancy of being beaten on a fight that the spec is designed to be weak on isn’t that concerning. The quote from Blizzard specifically shows that they want certain specs to excel in certain areas. Not sure how much clearer that can get.

There are plenty of people who have stated “we don’t want BM to be the top spec, we just want it to be viable.” If you had been following since the beginning then you would know that’s why I have been posting about being viable. If you haven’t been, then you are just demonstrating that you jumped into a conversation that you are ignorant of and then got proven wrong about the topic you are attempting to discuss.

Nope. You should look the word up if you don’t know what it means. So far, you have provided no proof. Until you, or someone else does, it’s anecdotal because it’s personal knowledge. I have provided proof of what I stated, and pointed out it’s from BfA because your statement was supposedly before then, meaning yours is out of date concerning design direction.

There are 3 ST fights out of 11 bosses. Skolex, Halondrus, and Jailer (I believe). Every other fight has cleave and AoE. So, roughly 1/3 (slightly less) are ST oriented, and BM outdoes at least 1 of the other specs in 4/11 fights. Seems pretty proportionate.
I love how you take to extremes to try and prove your example. I’m not saying beat your fists into a wall to get ore. I’m saying it’s been proven that, in a game, where you want BM to have damage to kill a boss and not be forced to swap specs, has been proven that a spec has the damage to kill a boss and that you don’t need to swap specs.
I don’t know why you keep arguing against this. It’s been proven BMs damage profile can be used and is effective on boss fights.
Also, just for the record, I never said the AoE couldn’t use a buff, I stated it’s viable. Which it is. Which you also would have known this is my stance since the beginning if you had paid attention and taken a few seconds to a few minutes to try and comprehend instead of having all of this outrage at true statements.

One of my very first responses to you in this thread even stated Blizzard needs to bring all classes more in line with each other, not just buff 1 spec from being last to slightly less last.

- - - Updated - - -

No they have to keep pushing the failed melee spec on us

Doesn’t seem to be so failed right now since it can actually perform decently in content. Something they’ve struggled to do since making it melee.

[thunderdragon2]

The easiest specs should be the lowest performing too. I see no problem with BM being lower than MM and SV.

Why would you play something harder if the dumbest spec in the game can do as good ?

too bad surv is just as easy or is easier then bm to play id be playing it on keys but i gave up on it once i hit 3k as bm as i got sick of the game rejecting requests for a weapon for the spec and i find mm boring af

- - - Updated - - -

Well everybody can't be #1 now can they? lol.

Just because you like something doesn't automatically mean it should be the best

no1 here is saying it should be the best spec we want ti to be viable and to not to be booted out the grp on joining just for bm,

this happened last night i was farming dos 15 on my bm hunter to replace my iqd form last season i got invited into a grp then like 3 secs later i was removed leader told me its because "bm is shit" my hunter has 3008 score and 276 ilvl.......

[Eapoe]

too bad surv is just as easy or is easier then bm to play id be playing it on keys but i gave up on it once i hit 3k as bm as i got sick of the game rejecting requests for a weapon for the spec and i find mm boring af

- - - Updated - - -



no1 here is saying it should be the best spec we want ti to be viable and to not to be booted out the grp on joining just for bm,

this happened last night i was farming dos 15 on my bm hunter to replace my iqd form last season i got invited into a grp then like 3 secs later i was removed leader told me its because "bm is shit" my hunter has 3008 score and 276 ilvl.......

Never understood the argument that if something is easy to play it should be the most underperforming spec. All specs are pretty easy to play, with some being just as easy, if not easier than BM.

BM is viable. Unless I completely misunderstood the part about hitting 3k as BM you just posted; however, there are other Hunters clearing high keys as BM.
The being booted thing is community perception, not dev issues, as shown by the fact that BM hunters are clearing high keys.

[thunderdragon2]

Never understood the argument that if something is easy to play it should be the most underperforming spec. All specs are pretty easy to play, with some being just as easy, if not easier than BM.

BM is viable. Unless I completely misunderstood the part about hitting 3k as BM you just posted; however, there are other Hunters clearing high keys as BM.
The being booted thing is community perception, not dev issues, as shown by the fact that BM hunters are clearing high keys.

you didn't misunderstand i have 3k on my hunter i just added it for some context, i have never seen some1 being booted instantly for spec below 19 and hes its comunity perception but blizz can elevate that wiht buffs to our aoe for example so its nto as wet noodly but they seem to be taking the blanket buff approach

[KrayZ33]

Yikes. Willful ignorance much?

I have not made one single straw man argument. Any reply I made was in direct reply, with the comments being quoted, and in direct correlation to the comment I quoted.

I have never argued for your side on this topic. And there isn’t that vast of a difference between specs except on a few of the fights. I even included the biggest difference in numbers on one fight. One. Considering that BM beats one, if not both, of the other specs on 1/3 of the fights, then that discrepancy of being beaten on a fight that the spec is designed to be weak on isn’t that concerning. The quote from Blizzard specifically shows that they want certain specs to excel in certain areas. Not sure how much clearer that can get

I'm not going to read the whole thing again just to make the point clear once more.

In case you don't understand the situation here. I asked you if you can't see the difference in AoE damage and tell that BM aoe is bad (broken).

You said

"It’s not garbage in MT, it’s just not anywhere near as strong because it’s not a MT spec. Even stated by Blizzard’s design philosophy.".

First thing first, your "proof" to this statement is nothing but anecdotal evidence because it just happens to be the case in *this* patch.
And secondly, Blizzard never said BM is a single target spec (at least, you haven't shown me that, maybe they did?), that too is just how you are currently seeing it.
It's not how it was last expansion or even before this patch.
All that Blizzard said in that statement is that some specs are supposed to be stronger than others at something. Not to what degree or which spec is supposed to do what.

So much for you just showing "proof" and nothing else.

secondly.
You are still arguing about how BM beats SV and MM on some ST fights, yet no one denied that.
What seems to be impossible to get into your brain, is that my point was about how SV and MM has similar ST potential to BM, but BM doesn't have the same potential on MT scenarios.
You somehow assume it's *supposed* to be that way even though there is no proof that this is the case. In fact, SV and MM show that it's not supposed to be that way because both specs are respectable in ST while dealing high amounts of AoE damage.

Why is BM supposed to be any different?

Why? Explain this or don't bother answering.
Tyvm.
I'm not sure if you are confusing me with another poster or whatever, but that has been, for 2 pages now, my standpoint and nothing else.

I didn't "jump" into the conversation, I started a new one with you about a very specific question. So don't blame me for not grasping it properly and assuming a lot of shit.

Your *stupid* answer to this question:

And you don't see how the differences between these... "fights designed for BM" are not even remotely compareable to the difference in DPS that occurs whenever a fight is "not designed for BM"

was "BM is not a MT spec". AS IF THAT EVEN EXPLAINS ANYTHING.
I'm saying "well, SV and MM in ST are still comparable to BM when it can shine, but BM just can't keep at all whenever the other two specs can shine" and your answer is "BM is not supposed to do AoE damage"
Give me a break. Seriously....
And now I have to write 2 fucking essays just to explain to you that BMs MT situation is so abysmally bad that it's flat out *not being played* whenever it comes up. I don't know how the fuck you can say it's "viable" when this is the case. Saying it's viable even then just because there is a single log or two is just denying reality. The word has absolutely zero meaning if you really defend BM because it has been played once or twice in a fight.
And in comparison, even if ST is what is being asked from the classes, SV and MM find slots or players who play it. More than just 2 players on the whole world, that is.

So the only real argument you can make here is when you say that SV and MM is overtuned. But let me tell you it's seriously more likely that BM MT potential is just horribly undertuned.

[Eapoe]

I'm not going to read the whole thing again just to make the point clear once more.

In case you don't understand the situation here. I asked you if you can't see the difference in AoE damage and tell that BM aoe is bad (broken).

You said

First thing first, your "proof" to this statement is nothing but anecdotal evidence because it just happens to be the case in *this* patch.
And secondly, Blizzard never said BM is a single target spec (at least, you haven't shown me that, maybe they did?), that too is just how you are currently seeing it.
It's not how it was last expansion or even before this patch.
All that Blizzard said in that statement is that some specs are supposed to be stronger than others at something. Not to what degree or which spec is supposed to do what.

So much for you just showing "proof" and nothing else.

secondly.
You are still arguing about how BM beats SV and MM on some ST fights, yet no one denied that.
What seems to be impossible to get into your brain, is that my point was about how SV and MM has similar ST potential to BM, but BM doesn't have the same potential on MT scenarios.
You somehow assume it's *supposed* to be that way even though there is no proof that this is the case. In fact, SV and MM show that it's not supposed to be that way because both specs are respectable in ST while dealing high amounts of AoE damage.

Why is BM supposed to be any different?

Why? Explain this or don't bother answering.
Tyvm.
I'm not sure if you are confusing me with another poster or whatever, but that has been, for 2 pages now, my standpoint and nothing else.

I didn't "jump" into the conversation, I started a new one with you about a very specific question.

I clearly stated that BM is viable. You then replied based off of that post. A post I made to a person stating they don’t want BM to be a top spec, but that they just want it to be viable.
First: YOU then tried to make the argument about their AOE being bad. You made that argument, not me, which means you are the one strawmanning.
Second: I pointed out that BM is not meant to be an AOE strong spec, and it is highlighted at being more ST focused. I then provided proof to Blizzard’s game design philosophy about making specs like this.

Now, how can you state my evidence is anecdotal when I provided a specific link proving what I stated and straight from the devs own words? Do you even know what anecdotal means? Again, I would suggest looking it up.
You keep trying to argue degrees and amounts, and you state 50% less. You also made this as a blanket statement which insinuates all situations. I pointed out the biggest discrepancy in raid is one fight and is closer to 30-40% difference, and pointed out this fight is entirely Cleave/AoE focused, which BM is weak at.
Any guide you read will show that BM is weak AOE dps, showing the design is meant to not be strong in that area.

You absolutely jumped into the conversation. Person A posted “we don’t want to be top, we want to be viable.” I responded they are, and you jumped in trying some weird ‘gotcha’ moment by asking me how far behind is acceptable. Which is very hilarious when I pointed out in one of my first posts to you, which I believe is on the very first page, is that all specs from every class should be brought more in line.
Now, if I’m stating all classes should be brought more in line, why in the hell would I argue anything with you about what percentage is an acceptable amount when you jumped into a post about a spec being viable or not? Why would I let you straw man me into an argument I’ve never made about acceptable differences, especially when I’ve already addressed said topic in a previous post, when that WAS the topic and i stated my stance about it?
I have maintained my stance the entire time, that the spec is viable. I’ve pointed out Blizzard’s design philosophy about specs with a direct link to prove it. Anything you asked for in some lame attempt to prove me wrong has been supplied, and I have maintained my stance the entire time. The only thing I have not done is engage you in your BS straw man argument about acceptable differences in dps.

[Stormxraven]

I don't get the mentality of people who claim bm shouldn't be good bcos its easy? Thats no argument since you choose a spec you think is harder to play, a player should be able to play what spec they want instead of having to change to keep up. But and more importantly why do people argue aginst bm being good since surely if everyone performs well everyone benefits, by arguing that bm should be good your actually saying 'no i want the game to be a bit harder'

[Eapoe]

I don't get the mentality of people who claim bm shouldn't be good bcos its easy? Thats no argument since you choose a spec you think is harder to play, a player should be able to play what spec they want instead of having to change to keep up. But and more importantly why do people argue aginst bm being good since surely if everyone performs well everyone benefits, by arguing that bm should be good your actually saying 'no i want the game to be a bit harder'

The mentality does not make sense. As I pointed out a few posts ago, most specs in this game are easy to play.

[Stormxraven]

The mentality does not make sense. As I pointed out a few posts ago, most specs in this game are easy to play.

Kind of my point, people argue against bm getting buffed bcos its easy to play when in fact no class is hard to play. Saying bm shouldnt be high dmg because its view as easy then choosing to play a spec or class that a you think is harder -where is the sense

[Asrialol]

Kind of my point, people argue against bm getting buffed bcos its easy to play when in fact no class is hard to play. Saying bm shouldnt be high dmg because its view as easy then choosing to play a spec or class that a you think is harder -where is the sense

As far as I have seen, people usually don't mean BM is easier than other specs, just that they have no 'penalty' for moving.

Not saying that logic is any better, mind you. Because it isn't.

[Stormxraven]

As far as I have seen, people usually don't mean BM is easier than other specs, just that they have no 'penalty' for moving.

Not saying that logic is any better, mind you. Because it isn't.

For pve it just makes zero sense to argue aginst bm getting a buff.

[kucerakov]

Eapoe is comparing checkers to chess because they both have squares on the board. Stop trying to pretend BM isn't fucked. I have to beg people in my guild to do keys when I can because pugging is simply impossible. BM? BM sucks. It absolutely is garbage in MT, and a spec should not be considered "fine" because they can do one thing slightly better on SOME fights, and everything else way worse on most fights. Eapoe, regarding willful ignorance. The pot and the kettle called, said you were talking shit.

[Eapoe]

Eapoe is comparing checkers to chess because they both have squares on the board. Stop trying to pretend BM isn't fucked. I have to beg people in my guild to do keys when I can because pugging is simply impossible. BM? BM sucks. It absolutely is garbage in MT, and a spec should not be considered "fine" because they can do one thing slightly better on SOME fights, and everything else way worse on most fights. Eapoe, regarding willful ignorance. The pot and the kettle called, said you were talking shit.

Can’t even @ me or provide a direct quote for a notification? Shame on you.
That stated, as I’ve provided previously, on the very first page of this entire thread, I made a response to someone at the very beginning that shows I think ALL specs need to be brought closer together. Anyone with even 1/2 a brain would know that this shows BM could use a buff/change to their spec, as well as other specs being nerfed/buffed to be more in line as well. Because, as the OP suggested, moving from last to slightly less last would solve nothing due to how big of a disparity there is. So therefore, to reiterate, all classes should be nerfed/buffed to be brought more in line.
Later on, I made a reply to someone. That person stated they don’t want BM to be buffed to the point of being the best spec, but they just want it to be viable. The obvious answer, which has been proven multiple times, is that they ARE viable in all content. This is easily verified on WCL as BM Hunters have cleared all content, and in 1/3 of the encounters beats 1, if not both, of the other Hunter specs. Others have pointed out that BM has cleared m20 keys. Krayz33 then decided to jump in and ask me a question to an argument that I never made. This then started branching into other areas about design philosophy that some specs are supposed to function in areas better than others, to which I provided proof to that statement.
You have basically made the same blunder as Krayz33 did earlier and jumped into a conversation that you took no time to actually research and just showed that you’re ignorant to what previously happened or has been discussed. Next time, try to look into what’s been discussed so you don’t make a completely false claim about what happened.

As to your statement that you can’t get into keys because you play BM, this is again, a community problem. Not a dev one. BM is viable for what you want to do. There’s also an obvious solution that you can make your own groups from your own key.

[cparle87]

For pve it just makes zero sense to argue aginst bm getting a buff.

People will ask themselves why play a harder spec when an easier one gives equally good numbers?

[Eapoe]

People will ask themselves why play a harder spec when an easier one gives equally good numbers?

The obvious counter argument is then: why doesn’t everyone already play the same class/spec?
Sure, there are people that fit your criteria, but there are probably just as many, if not more, that play what they find fun.
High end players will play what performs best, usually regardless of ease of play, and what their guild needs. Low end players (not meant as an insult) will play what they find fun, regardless of difficulty of spec or performance. People in between are a mixed bag of the far ends of the spectrum.
The bottom line is that most players will pick what they enjoy or what performs better. So, if BM performs better, prog minded players will play it. If MM performs better, prog minded players will play it. This is shown to be the case anytime something performs better.
If all things were exactly equal, some players will pick to play the easier spec, yet others will pick the spec they find fun. Some players will pick the harder spec simply because they enjoy that it’s a little more difficult.

[cparle87]

The obvious counter argument is then: why doesn’t everyone already play the same class/spec?
Sure, there are people that fit your criteria, but there are probably just as many, if not more, that play what they find fun.
High end players will play what performs best, usually regardless of ease of play, and what their guild needs. Low end players (not meant as an insult) will play what they find fun, regardless of difficulty of spec or performance. People in between are a mixed bag of the far ends of the spectrum.
The bottom line is that most players will pick what they enjoy or what performs better. So, if BM performs better, prog minded players will play it. If MM performs better, prog minded players will play it. This is shown to be the case anytime something performs better.
If all things were exactly equal, some players will pick to play the easier spec, yet others will pick the spec they find fun. Some players will pick the harder spec simply because they enjoy that it’s a little more difficult.

Thing is performs better can mean many things. Some would use the example you do as in meaning dps numbers. Others would consider performing well to be ease of use, qualify of life, or even utility.

As for your original question, people do do that. There are always people who will chase the meta and play something difficult or even something they hate to get the most progression.

[Eapoe]

Thing is performs better can mean many things. Some would use the example you do as in meaning dps numbers. Others would consider performing well to be ease of use, qualify of life, or even utility.

As for your original question, people do do that. There are always people who will chase the meta and play something difficult or even something they hate to get the most progression.

Exactly. This goes hand in hand with my point. Just because something is easy doesn’t mean people will play it, just like something being meta doesn’t mean everyone will play it.