The soul of hunter

[Donkeywing]

The hunter class has a fundamental flaw; the class doesn't have a foundation. This isn't exactly new, however I expected they would eventually solve that problem.

In review it's obvious that bm, mm and sv have entirely different gameplay styles. In short;

BM = Full instant ability spec
MM = Caster-like gameplay
SV = Melee spec

The general class tree provides no meaningful shared experience applicable to all specs. It's just a couple of shared abilities, half of which barely impact the gameplay of the specs.

The biggest concern is the insane differences in dps mechanics, there's essentially no similarity (I am not writing down a list of 6 pages regarding everything). Even right down to the resource management MM & BM work fundamentally differently. The resource might be called focus on the surface for both specs, but it is definitely not the same resource in practice. Infact it would be appropriate to call into question the purpose of focus for BM - it does not serve a necessary function.

The differences between the 3 specs are so enormous that they can almost be seen as individual classes rather than specs of the same class. Therefore it's logical to assume most hunter players only enjoy 1 out of the 3 specs, or at the very least they will have a major preference. A MM hunter might not consider playing a melee spec or a spec that can be considered easy. Likewise BM hunters may not want to play a casterlike spec or a melee one. SV mains probably don't have a lot of interest playing ranged.
This is all very theoretical, however the practical result of it is that plenty of hunter players regularly face a problematic decision whenever large meta shift occurs; they are forced to play a spec they don't like or recognize as an actual hunter spec for various reasons. Potentially hunters might also find it difficult to switch out of their preferred spec because the playstyle is nearly antithetical – which would partially explain high representation for bm (and to a lesser extent mm) when it's at the bottom. Another practical consequence is that you never really know what you get whenever you invite a hunter to your group.

It gets worse when you put it into perspective. You do not even have to go back to a previous version of hunter; you can compare to other classes right now. Warlocks have a clear shared foundation between specs. They are all ranged, they all have a caster gameplay style, a shared resource system (for the most part), they deal with mobility similarily, etc. Many shared elements that hunters do not have. It's not surprising many warlocks frequently switch specs without issue. There are also more important general trees. Paladin comes to mind; auras, wings, divine toll and so on are actually a crucial part of their shared class tree. For paladins this provides a decent baseline.

The lack of foundation is a plague upon the current hunter design. While I recognize the playability and functionality of the specs by themselves out of context, it's hard to appreciate the class as a whole. What exactly is the hunter class suppose to be? How would you define the class? There is no adequate answer. They lost sight of that. If the hunter class does not have a core, if the only purpose of the class is to facilitate the existence of completely different styles of gameplay and fantasy, then the class no longer has a soul.

[Bepples]

The worst part is it's intentional. Blizzard went out of their way to take a class that previously had a solid foundation and mutilate it into 3 poorly defined micro-classes. And much of the playerbase cheered them on in the name of "class fantasy" PR. We've been playing catch-up ever since.

[Fullmetal89]

Hunter was the first class I ever played and what drew me in was the idea of playing a "sniper" class fantasy. I have always felt like they should have stuck to the physical ranged class design and put far less emphasis on pets let alone melee. It's the only class in the game that focuses on physical damage at range. I still play my hunter from time to time and MM is probably the closest thing to a hunter on retail imo, but it's just not really fun for me anymore. I find my Classic Hunter far more engaging despite the dead zone, pet feeding mechanic, ammo and other issues that have been streamlined over time.

I feel like we are still stuck in the half-baked Legion version of the Hunter.

[Donkeywing]

It's the only class in the game that focuses on physical damage at range. I still play my hunter from time to time and MM is probably the closest thing to a hunter on retail imo, but it's just not really fun for me anymore.

True, the problem however is that MM basically developed into a caster spec over the years. It still does phys from ranged but it no longer has a unique ranged gameplay feel to it (associated with hunter). Your most important abilities are casted, it's cast frenzy during trueshot. Rapid fire is a serious offender in this regard; the mm variant of arcane missles.

[serow081]

Hunter was the first class I ever played and what drew me in was the idea of playing a "sniper" class fantasy. I have always felt like they should have stuck to the physical ranged class design and put far less emphasis on pets let alone melee. It's the only class in the game that focuses on physical damage at range. I still play my hunter from time to time and MM is probably the closest thing to a hunter on retail imo, but it's just not really fun for me anymore. I find my Classic Hunter far more engaging despite the dead zone, pet feeding mechanic, ammo and other issues that have been streamlined over time.

I feel like we are still stuck in the half-baked Legion version of the Hunter.

I hear you. And for me, what drew me to Hunter was the mixed melee+ranged style of in-out-in-out fighting with a variety of utility "spells", somewhat akin to a D&D Ranger in concept. I think one major problem is not Blizzard not deciding what a Hunter should be, but rather that the Hunter/Ranger archetype is so ridiculously versatile and broad. Everything from Archer to Nature's Warrior and something in-between can be squeezed out just from that one class name.

[Myradin]

All 3 specs kind of being the same is mostly a 'pure' dps thing and even then blizz has tried to chip away at that.

Hybrids have long had pretty different specs from eachother. Hunter isnt really unique.

[Donkeywing]

I think one major problem is not Blizzard not deciding what a Hunter should be, but rather that the Hunter/Ranger archetype is so ridiculously versatile and broad. Everything from Archer to Nature's Warrior and something in-between can be squeezed out just from that one class name.

I do sort of agree with this. Considering that point you can't be overly harsh when it comes to fantasy or thematic choices.

However this doesn't apply to the gameplay experience. The other two specs essentially have opposite gameplay styles (point of view doesn't matter). Entirely different experiences. That's the real problem, and it's not just theoretical or completely opinionated. You can endlessly rationalize it, and the practical indications are as obvious as they can possibly be.

[conkrete]

Yo I love SV and MM. What you on about?

Numbers are just low.

Finally, Demo shares no similarities with Destro either, or Sub with Outlaw. They are completely diff specs.

[Julmara]

SV didnt have a soul since it went melee

[Donkeywing]

Yo I love SV and MM. What you on about? [..] Finally, Demo shares no similarities with Destro either, or Sub with Outlaw. They are completely diff specs.

''No similarities either''

They are both ranged specs. Both casting. Both specs are summoning demons. Etc. Just because there are differences in specs doesn't mean they are fundamentally different, those specs have major similarities in a way hunter doesn't.

Not acknowledging the basics or engaging with the arguments/examples I presented indicates that not just the hunter class lacks a foundation but your opinion aswell. There is no 280 char limit on mmoc.

[conkrete]

''No similarities either''

They are both ranged specs. Both casting. Both specs are summoning demons. Etc. Just because there are differences in specs doesn't mean they are fundamentally different, those specs have major similarities in a way hunter doesn't.

Not acknowledging the basics or engaging with the arguments/examples I presented indicates that not just the hunter class lacks a foundation but your opinion as well. There is no 280 char limit on mmoc.

What? Destro summons a demon before the dungeon starts... It's also ranged, sure. That's where the similarities end.

Not sure what kind of argument you're forming here. I enjoy the diversity in playstyles between specs and like mentioned before it happens across classes, not just hunter. Outlaw is completely different than Sub, for example. So is fire from arcane, Balance from feral, etc.

[Donkeywing]

What? Demo summons a demon before the dungeon starts... It's also ranged, sure. That's where the similarities end. [...] Outlaw is completely different than Sub, for example. So is fire from arcane, Balance from feral, etc.

That's extremely cringe to read, you clearly don't know warlock basic mechanics. Then you start including half the class roster without explaining anything - it would be extensive to put all that into the proper context. However it's rather obvious your opinions aren't substantiated by anything more than five words. You're just pretending to understand how the specs function. Dismissing the warlock demon summons argument like that is insanely degenerate and detached.

[Gestopft]

In review it's obvious that bm, mm and sv have entirely different gameplay styles. In short;

BM = Full instant ability spec
MM = Caster-like gameplay
SV = Melee spec

The general class tree provides no meaningful shared experience applicable to all specs. It's just a couple of shared abilities, half of which barely impact the gameplay of the specs.

You could also say this about Druids too. Do they not have a foundation?

Warlocks have a clear shared foundation between specs. They are all ranged, they all have a caster gameplay style

Also, I think "they are casters" is far too broad of a category to really qualify it as a decent comparative of Warlock specs. Casters can be very different from each other.

(Warlocks have)...a shared resource system (for the most part)

I would posit that Hunters are tied together by focus about as well as Warlocks are by soul shards. Do Hunter specs have differing relationships to focus? Sure. Particularly BM, but like the other Hunter specs, they still actively manage focus through ability usage. And keep in mind that Lock specs also have differing relationships to Soul Shards. Demo and Affliction generate whole shards, while Destro generates in fragments. Demo and Destro generate actively with frequent rotational abilities, whereas Affliction gains shards at random as long as at least one Agony is applied. Demo and Destro also have ways to spend multiple shards at once, whereas Affliction only ever spends one at a time- all three specs have different Soul Shard economies just like all three hunter specs have different focus economies. I think soul shards do a perfectly fine job as one of the things linking the specs of the Warlock class together; my point here is that specs can still be linked by a shared resource system even if functionally they play around it in quite different ways. I think it applies to hunters as well as warlocks. And mages don't even have a shared resource.

[Magnagarde]

I think that this is a strenght, not a weak point of the class. The specs feel and play completely differently because they rely on different tpyes of approaches and, in regards to spec design, player abilities.

[Gestopft]

the Hunter/Ranger archetype is so ridiculously versatile and broad.

I think this is an important point that shouldn't really be overlooked.

[conkrete]

Dismissing the warlock demon summons argument like that is insanely degenerate and detached.

I obviously meant destruction. Considering the comments above, looks like my opinion isn't as wild as you may think.

[Donkeywing]

You could also say this about Druids too. Do they not have a foundation?

Spare me, we all know druids have overlapping class mechanics way beyond anything hunter has, shapeshifting being one of them - a fundamental aspect of all druid specs to which hunters have no equivalent. I won't engage in every class comparison possible just because ppl think they found a point.

I would posit that Hunters are tied together by focus about as well as Warlocks are by soul shards. Do Hunter specs have differing relationships to focus? Sure. Particularly BM, but like the other Hunter specs, they still actively manage focus through ability usage. And keep in mind that Lock specs also have differing relationships to Soul Shards. Demo and Affliction generate whole shards, while Destro generates in fragments. Demo and Destro generate actively with frequent rotational abilities, whereas Affliction gains shards at random as long as at least one Agony is applied. Demo and Destro also have ways to spend multiple shards at once, whereas Affliction only ever spends one at a time- all three specs have different Soul Shard economies just like all three hunter specs have different focus economies. I think soul shards do a perfectly fine job as one of the things linking the specs of the Warlock class together; my point here is that specs can still be linked by a shared resource system even if functionally they play around it in quite different ways. I think it applies to hunters as well as warlocks. And mages don't even have a shared resource.

Providing nuance to how soul shards work is a fair point. I don't consider focus and shards equal resources. You can delete focus from BM tommorow and the spec plays out in pretty much the same way. Litteraly. In fact, it might even be an improvement if you actually consider it. That's a fundamental difference. You can't say the same thing for the warlock specs. Yeah, the way resources are generated differs internally, but the way in which they differ is, in my opinion, rather fundamental.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I think "they are casters" is far too broad of a category to really qualify it as a decent comparative of Warlock specs. Casters can be very different from each other.

I am using that term in the context of bm vs mm. My use of the term is therefore relevant. I don't instantly disagree that it can be seen as vague or broad, but that's not the case in the given context.

- - - Updated - - -

I obviously meant destruction. Considering the comments above, looks like my opinion isn't as wild as you may think.

Rather big mistake. Regardless, aside from their pet they summon 50 infernals in a dungeon with blasphemy and they also have a summon infernal as their main cd. It's not just their pet. Those infernals are no fucking joke either.

[Gestopft]

Spare me, we all know druids have overlapping class mechanics way beyond anything hunter has, shapeshifting being one of them - a fundamental aspect of all druid specs to which hunters have no equivalent. I won't engage in every class comparison possible just because ppl think they found a point.

I did find a point: you immediately conceded that a class doesn't need its specs to have similar play styles in order to feel cohesive, so long as there are other elements tying it together.

I don't consider focus and shards equal resources. You can delete focus from BM tommorow and the spec plays out in pretty much the same way. Litteraly. In fact, it might even be an improvement if you actually consider it. That's a fundamental difference.

I consider this a design flaw with BM rather than an indictment of the entire Hunter class, though. You could make one tweak to BM in order to make focus matter, and then you wouldn't really have a point here. (If you made one of those simple tweaks, you'd also exacerbate the design flaw of having the focus management tool tied to such an important buff as well)

[Donkeywing]

I did find a point: you immediately conceded that a class doesn't need its specs to have similar play styles in order to feel cohesive, so long as there are other elements tying it together.

Not sure that's a concession to anything. This entirely depends on the context of the subject. You picked the most hybrid class in the existence of the game to make your point - the only class with four specs in three roles. Comparing that to the hunter class (in terms of spec similarity) is extremist and quite annoying if you were just trying to make a different point. In general, the playstyles are a major indication for cohesion or foundation which is obviously why I made it the main focus of my original post - especially for a pure dps rather than hybrid. Not crucially essential for the class to exist, but when the playstyles are the literal definition of antithetical, then that's a massive factor of consideration for the class foundation of a pure class.

In regards to your point; best of luck trying to find these significant elements tying the entire hunter class together. There aren't, not really, which is something I already remarked multiple times. There is no equivalent to shapeshifting. All the recognizable elements of hunter are excluded in at least one spec. That's the fundamental flaw breaking the core of the class.

[gd8]

SV didnt have a soul since it went melee

It has more of an identity now than it ever did before