Aug 2nd 2008 7:26AM I was not attempting to provide a counter argument, I was holding up a mirror, writing the same irrational nonsense you were feeding us. I agree the argument I provided was nonsense, but then that was actually the point.
...another warrior class defining ability...
That's you opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I don't see how Execute is an ability that defines the warrior class. In fact, I don't subscribe to the idea that classes are defined by any individual abilities in the first place.
...if you cannot see...you must be blind.
No, people who do not agree with you are not automatically blind, stupid, et cetera. These kinds of personal attacks are exactly what constitutes trolling. Leave them out if you want a mature conversation.
1. Aimed shot gets given the mortal strike debuff
2. Arcane Shot gets given the Shield slam dispel buff effect
Do you realize that buffing any hunter abilities would often mean borrowing ideas from other classes? If they would have chosen -for example- to give Arcane Shot an amplification effect, we would have had mages in your position. Just because a similar idea is used for another class, does not mean one class loses its value. There is no logic in that conclusion.
3. hunter pets going to be given a plethora of warrior abilities
Hunters have deserved pets that actually matter since day one. The BM build is the only one that had instance viable pets so far, and even theirs are too fragile in various raid encounters. If you're afraid this means pets will be able to do what actual warrior players are doing, you are seriously overestimating the strength of these pets (not to mention selling warrior players short, because tanking is a lot more than just standing in a spot, repeatedly being hit by hostiles).
4. and now killshot a ranged version ripoff of execute
Yeah, as I've pointed out at 1 and 2, it is highly likely that some other class will recognize similarities when some new ability is introduced. The ideas will often be borrowed from someplace, but that doesn't mean they are automatically flawed or bad, just because they appeared in another form on another class before. There are multiple builds for tanking, healing, magical dps and physical dps scattered over various classes in the game. Overlap is inevitable.
I'm afraid the real problem with the hunter class and Blizzard's development team lies even deeper. If you know that a talent tree called "Beast Mastery" exists, while the class is called "Hunter", it should make some alarm bells go off. They've treated this class as a ranger for most of the game's history, and I believe that is why you see them borrowing abilities mostly from warriors. Given that warriors are about melee physical damage, and rangers about ranged physical damage, it's not strange to see hunter shots often looking like ranged versions of warrior abilities. It's not so much laziness, as it is misinterpretation of what the hunter class was probably really meant to be (in my opinion, that is).
...atleast make this one melee range only...
Melee abilities on a predominantly ranged class make as much sense as my Heroic Strike example did on melee classes like warriors. If we are to receive Kill Shot, it should be ranged.
Aug 1st 2008 7:46AM It's outrageous that warriors have Heroic Strike. Put a 1 yard range on Steady Shot, and we have deal. Otherwise, Heroic Strike should require a ranged weapon and the warrior to be at least 5 yards from his target.
Do you see what I did there?
Jul 25th 2008 6:12PM There is a link in the article to a post by an *official* Blizzard employee stating that you do *not* need 20 points to reach tier 5, so not only BM hunters have access to top pet talents. That has been confirmed.
Jul 24th 2008 11:08PM Aren't there some five-man dungeons missing? I recall Blizzard stating that Wrath would have one less dungeon compared to TBC, before the appearance of Magister's Terrace. That means 15 - 1 (Hellfire Citadel 3x, Coilfang Reservoir 3x, Auchindoun 4x, Tempest Keep 3x, and CoT 2x). However, the list shows Utgarde (2x), The Nexus (2x), Azjol Nerub (2x), Drak'Tharon Keep, Gun'Drak, Violet Hold, Ulduar (2x) and CoT Stratholme, which is a total of 12 instances. Does anyone know if Blizzard decided to cut back on five-man dungeons further, or are the 2 missing ones in Icecrown Glacier (a supposedly untested zone so far)?
Jul 24th 2008 8:47AM I can only find some claims that it was mentioned at the panel, but I can't seem to find any verified references.
At any rate, just because Blizzard makes a decision doesn't mean that it is a correct decision. If the developers do something irrational, then it is still a flawed design.
While it is true that BM hunters lose more when their pet goes down, it is equally true that their pets are far harder to take down in the first place. If you add extra dps on top of this advantage, you create a situation where a) non BM hunters are at a fixed disadvantage while BM pets are active, and b) BM pets will be active longer as they can take much more punishment. In other words, BM outputs more damage and is also guaranteed to keep higher dps for a longer period, as the other hunters lose their pets earlier in the fight. That's literally giving 2 bonuses to one build.
The major flaw in this design, is that the hunter is a dps class (Blizzard's own words), so if one build is necessarily superior to another under equal circumstances, the weaker build has no right to exist in the first place. This approach turns the MM tree into mere [i]filler[/i].
Jul 24th 2008 6:43AM I sincerely hope either you or the panel was not serious about this, because I'm afraid it does not make sense at all. The notion that a risk you describe must lead to a near permanent, improved reward is irrational.
First of all, BM pets are not the most at risk. They are undeniably stronger than MM and SV pets, enjoying more hit points, more armor, temporary power boosts that put them even more ahead, and now also extra abilities. Logic and mathematics prove that it is the MM and SV pets that are most easily killed. While a lesser amount of dps depends on their pets, MM and SV most definately lose a noticable portion of dps when their pet goes down. This in no way validates any decision that allows BM hunters to output more dps than MM hunters.
Secondly, the idea that having to rely on your pet more than other builds being an excuse for allowing greater combined dps output is equally flawed. Only by willingly ignoring the tactical advantage of outnumbering your enemy can you accept that idea. For example, in PvP, while it is quite viable to practically ignore MM and SV pets in combat, doing so with BM pets is effectively hoisting the white flag. When up against a BM hunter, you have 2 worthy targets, not 1. Anyone who has played RTS games either understands this advantage, or recognizes it from experience. The risk of dividing power over 2 units already has its reward in forcing the enemy to divide their attention over multiple targets. To further reward it by increasing dps is the very definition of imbalance.
So, at the end, logic proves beyond doubt that the dps output of BM hunters should never be greater than the dps output of MM hunters under equal conditions (gear, level, skill, consumables, party and zone bonusses).