Ghostcrawler: Sorry BM Hunters, our bad
by Mike Schramm 
Jan 28th 2009 at 2:00PM
Well, well, well. As a guy who currently plays a BM Hunter, I'll try not to gloat too much (to tell the truth, I agreed that BM Hunters needed a nerf before 3.0.8, though I did think we got hit a little too hard afterwards), but Ghostcrawler has something to say to all of you Beast Mastery Hunters out there: We're sorry. On the forums, he says that Blizzard has had a long talk about it, and they've determined that yes, they nerfed Beast Mastery Hunters too much. He says Marksman is in a good spot, and Survival might be a little too high, but they're still looking at all three specs.Gloat if you want (BRK is probably very happy), but Ghostcrawler specifically says that they're fessing up to this partially in the hopes that it builds the devs' credibility in the community -- when they mess up, they'll let you know. And with that attitude, we can't really blame him. He was wrong -- let's move on.
So where next? He says BM is due for buffs "before Ulduar." Steady Shot is likely staying where it is, but Kindred Spirits and Serpent's Swiftness will probably be improved a little bit. I wouldn't look for us to go back to where we were pre-3.0.8 (Volley will not be re-buffed, I can tell you that), but BM will definitely be a little stronger than it is now. Oh, and I hate to keep harping on this one, but can we get that Cower bug fixed now? Please?
Thanks, Tribadala!
Filed under: Hunter, Patches, Analysis / Opinion, Odds and ends, Blizzard, Forums
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Gnosh Jan 28th 2009 2:06PM
Best possible first comment
Alexe Jan 28th 2009 2:07PM
Nice they apologised!
Robert M Jan 28th 2009 3:11PM
An apology is always nice, and I respect the approach, but let's hope that the apology also means that they are working to prevent such issues again.
I, personally, don't expect everything to be perfect, but this patch was on the PTR a while. There weren't numbers to suggest that BM might be getting the short end of the stick?
This situation makes me think of my dad a little when I would screw up when I was a kid.
"apology accepted, now don't let it happen again"
Lemons Jan 28th 2009 8:41PM
You tell em!
Averna Jan 28th 2009 2:08PM
I've said it once, I'll say it again - I'm pretty sure that GC is a she, not a he.
nbcaffeine Jan 28th 2009 2:14PM
Despite the pictures of said dude that show up ALL THE FREAKING TIME on here?
Averna Jan 28th 2009 2:15PM
aaaand I stand corrected. I had heard that GC was in fact a chick from a couple actual credible sources, which actually turned out to not be so credible.
Sorry GC, my bad!
Averna Jan 28th 2009 2:17PM
Obviously I hadn't seen those pictures. =)
Eternauta Jan 28th 2009 3:07PM
@10
You haven't seen those pictures? How many months have you been away from wow insider?
They appear here ALL THE FREAKING TIME, usually followed by the phrase: TO THE GROUND BABY! and a Rambo costume edited with photoshop.
I know it, I'm a Pally.
Plan Jan 30th 2009 3:02AM
One of those "credible sources" was WoW Insider, which for no discernable reason was referring to GC as a "she" for months before doing a 180 when GC himself showed up at Blizzcon.
In any case, I'm glad to see more balancing of the classes, but I would much rather see some thought put into Hunters so players couldn't make a single macro and spam it continuously. I have a Hunter, a Shaman and a Warlock and the Hunter is by far the most ridiculously easy to play, itemize and DPS with. I don't really sympathize with complaints when a Hunter in blues can put out DPS on par with many other classes in full epics.
And speaking of balance, when are we going to see Blizzard's admission that Shaman PvP has been in an absolutely abysmal state for more than two years now? It seems there's no end to DK, Paladin and Hunter hotfixes, but Shamans remain the most immobile, defense-less class in the game, and Enhancement's Spirit Wolves remain bugged since they were introduced in Beta, even post 3.08 when they were supposed to be fixed.
Come on, Blizzard, you've got a lot more balancing to do.
vexis58 Jan 28th 2009 4:32PM
That goes back to the Wrath beta, when people were asking GC if he was a guy or a girl, with him never giving a straight answer. Some of the things he said caused people to conclude he was indeed female, but when he showed up at a Blizzcon panel he proved all of them wrong.
Deathgodryuk Jan 28th 2009 8:14PM
I STILL think GC is a hot chick
bdaneila Jan 28th 2009 2:08PM
Wow, just ridiculous. Talk about inefficient.
Clevins Jan 28th 2009 2:27PM
I can't believe Blizzard doesn't automate testing of this stuff. When we can hit target dummies and see changes, they must be able to automate the same thing... take every class and cookie cutter spec - have them dps against a target dummy for long enough that random crap like crit strings average out. Apply a reasonable set of 5, 10 and 25 man buffs - rinse and repeat. Do some variations on the specs... rinse and repeat. Do some variations on gear (or put people all in T7 and T7.5)... rinse and repeat. This can all be scripted and run in parallel on multiple machines - it's not like they need hundred of live bodies to do this.
It's silly that a player can hit a target dummy and see the difference yet Blizzard actually releases this and then goes... oops, our bad, we missed that.
edenxiii Jan 28th 2009 2:28PM
Its not inefficient, its a common programming problem-solving approach. If you think a number is too high, you reduce it by 50%. If the result seems too low, increase it by 50% of its new value; too high, reduce it by 50%. This approach reduces the probability space of the "right" value by half each step, and is known to be the best way to arrive at an unknown value from an arbitrary starting point.
It's known as a binary search:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_search
Mr Magoo Jan 28th 2009 3:14PM
Well I am a software architect and I can tell you that using a human-driven binary search with iterations of ??PRODUCTION RELEASES?? for this is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a while.
Wait...I am in software development. that last bit was a total lie.
Regardless. I agree with other posts on running automated tests of some sort. Hell, I think there is a program/website that does just that already?! (albeit without ALL the numbers - blizzard has the numbers)
Clevins Jan 28th 2009 3:18PM
@eden... yes... but you don't SHIP like that. You make the change and test. That's what I don't understand about this - testing should have shown that BM dps was too low with these changes... so why weren't more changes made to bring it back up?
No one's saying they should be perfect the first time, but they should iterate until they're close to the goal. If they're just going to make changes and not catch this in test or listen to PTR feedback, then... what's the point?
kunukia Jan 28th 2009 2:08PM
I am a happy BM hunter.
Sedna Jan 28th 2009 2:21PM
HUZZAH!!
All I want is for BM to remain a viable raid spec (namely: so you can take the spec you're comfortable with without feeling like you're screwing over your guild). Some tweaks to those two talents should fix us right up. My Spirit Beast and I are very happy.
Shulkman Jan 28th 2009 2:10PM
Warlocks are still waiting for their apology, as well as some frickin action on Blizzards part.