Dec 4th 2007 6:23PM I suppose that a "cat" could be someone who has a DPS set and hasn't collected a sufficient tanking set to do both roles well.
Of course a "cat" could also be someone who doesn't know how to play their class.
Nov 29th 2007 6:38PM The price of a shield + main hand is the same as the price of the Hunter's ranged weapon (which does require a rating) though. The point is that hunter's use their melee weapon solely for stats, and all the other classes get to get their stat items without rating. Why should hunters need a rating, and to pay more for something other classes don't have to?
Also keep in mind that Blizzard is trying to increase the viability of hunters in arena, and this is probably part of the solution.
Nov 29th 2007 6:33PM @Josh:
If you are worried about 2K, then stay out of the hunter's face. You aren't going to see any but the stupidest of hunters trying to get in melee range.
Nov 29th 2007 6:30PM You get your all your bonuses from your shield and main hand. Hunters don't get much in the way of stat increases from their ranged weapon.
Nov 29th 2007 6:27PM TotalBiscuit:
But have you looked at the stats on Hunter's ranged weapons? They aren't really all that impressive. We get our +DPS stuff from our two handers. Our bows/guns/crossbows have the limited stats you are referring to. That said, the bows/guns/crossbows still have more affect on our overall DPS based on raw white damage and weapon speed.
Nov 29th 2007 5:57PM @10:
I was unaware of the rating requirement on a shield... Are you sure? I guess it would be more correct to compare it to a libram, relic, etc.
Nov 29th 2007 5:44PM Lol. You all should be so lucky if hunters were actually stupid enough to look at the stats on this and decide to start doing some melee. It is like a wand in that you would only use it for direct damage as a last resort, and when you did it would be nearly worthless.
This is a stat boost item and nothing more. If hunters should need an 1850 rating to buy this, then a healer should need that sort of rating to buy a shield.
Nov 29th 2007 1:28PM Obviously some classes are better suited to defense/offense depending on the BG in question.
I've found that since 2.3 my hunter is way OP in BGs. All of the arena buffs are huge in BGs. My new strat for almost every BG is to slaughter healers. With the 50% reduction to their self healing, even druids go down quick. Pallies are still tricky with their bubbles though.
The point is, that this has little to do with offense or defense as it has a noticeable impact in both cases. Healers make the difference in BGs. Killing them wins games.
As far as defending goes, I prefer it in AV. Slaughtering horde before they can cross the bridge is so satisfying. The terrain there makes it easy to take out a larger force.
A few days ago, myself and several others turned it into a turtle when the offense couldn't progress, and were going to win by attrition (we were out killing them 3 to 1). Then the whiny losers who couldn't make any progress on offense decided to throw the game. They started killing themselves by jumping to their deaths so we could "get it over with." Things like that make it tough to want to mount a defense.
I'm tired of having idiots screaming in all caps that we shouldn't be wasting our time on D. If you don't want to defend, at least don't actively sabotage your team by killing yourself. I'd rather have you AFK.
Nov 27th 2007 3:28PM To all of the people who whine about how their faction always loses in the BGs... Please stop going to the BGs. Did it ever occur to you that your personal contribution to victory may be what is lacking? Maybe if you weren't there your faction would win.