Re: Doubts, Hati, double pet and more.
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:39 pm
Likewise. I am also personally hoping we continue to use two pets, but solely on the condition that they fix the issues with the second pet.
A fun place to chat about hunter pets in the World of Warcraft.
https://forums.wow-petopia.com/
"Hati is very closely tied to Titanstrike, unlikely to be carried forward forever. It is odd to require a new player to go back to Legion content to get Hati. There is something cool about having multiple pets as a BM Hunter, so that is something they could expand on."Qraljar wrote:Meh, pretty disappointed with the lack of consideration given to Hati during the Q&A.
Of all the proposals I've seen/read thus far for the continuation of Hati in some capacity, by far I think this is my favorite.Kayro wrote: I also think that, instead of Hati being actually there, they could be pups of Hati, or different wolves completely and do just share the look.
Agreed. Ion's statement really didn't make much sense to me. I mean, doesn't everyone go back to previous expansions to get older looks and previous pets? It only then occurred to me that I don't think he understood what we were asking at all. His statement only makes sense if he thinks we're asking for future BM hunters to have to run Legion content to get a second pet. As if we want Hati to remain integral to the second pet mechanic. I suspect that he, or whichever assistant put together his responses, didn't spend much time understanding our request at all.Xota wrote:"Hati is very closely tied to Titanstrike, unlikely to be carried forward forever. It is odd to require a new player to go back to Legion content to get Hati. There is something cool about having multiple pets as a BM Hunter, so that is something they could expand on."
....
It sounds like Ion hasn't given it *any* consideration, other than "oh, it must be about having multiple pets."
To be frank, I think it might be better to ask Jeremy this question. He's very on top of hunter pets and other smaller flavor stuff, so he probably has more of an understanding there. I can't blame Ion, though. He has his own stuff to worry about, so his mindset is a lot different when it comes to development.Wain wrote:Agreed. Ion's statement really didn't make much sense to me. I mean, doesn't everyone go back to previous expansions to get older looks and previous pets? It only then occurred to me that I don't think he understood what we were asking at all. His statement only makes sense if he thinks we're asking for future BM hunters to have to run Legion content to get a second pet. As if we want Hati to remain integral to the second pet mechanic. I suspect that he, or whichever assistant put together his responses, didn't spend much time understanding our request at all.Xota wrote:"Hati is very closely tied to Titanstrike, unlikely to be carried forward forever. It is odd to require a new player to go back to Legion content to get Hati. There is something cool about having multiple pets as a BM Hunter, so that is something they could expand on."
....
It sounds like Ion hasn't given it *any* consideration, other than "oh, it must be about having multiple pets."
Of all the WoW communications we've had over the years, Ion's are the first that I find I'm frequently dissatisfied with. I'm not sure if it's him, or a policy change in Blizzard communications that he's following. It's not that he announces decisions that I disagree with, I fully understand (expect) that Blizzard will often disagree with what we want - that might be frustrating, but unlike many people it doesn't grate on me, they have decisions to make and a game to balance even at the times I think their decisions are wrong. But rather my reaction is that his responses somehow feel more crafted and corporate jargon-laden to me. Less heartfelt or sincere than his predecessors, and more appropriate for a management meeting. Even when he admits they could have done better, it feels like a calculated mea culpa to maximise public response. But maybe I'm just extra cynical to that kind of thing and being unfair. I just rarely come away from Q&As now feeling satisfied, and more that I sat through a PR event.
I was disappointed at this as well. Not surprised, but disappointed. I figured they would stay class restricted, but I was hoping they would loosen up on the spec part.Qraljar wrote:Still, I can't help but be a bit sour that we can't cross-spec transmog. I wanted to use that holy paladin hammer on my retri paladin.
That is a bit of a shame. If their use is that restricted then it lowers the worth of those artifact appearances to the player. I've leveled up all artifacts on all specs of all classes, and I was planning to try to collect the Mage Tower appearances before they were removed. Now I'm not going to bother for most of them because I don't normally play those specs/characters much, or at all, and if I can't access those appearances on the specs / toons I do use then it's a lot of work with no real value. On the plus side, that's a lot less work to worry aboutQuiv wrote:I was disappointed at this as well. Not surprised, but disappointed. I figured they would stay class restricted, but I was hoping they would loosen up on the spec part.Qraljar wrote:Still, I can't help but be a bit sour that we can't cross-spec transmog. I wanted to use that holy paladin hammer on my retri paladin.
Rather disappointed that they are spec specific. I wasted a lot of time and energy in a spec that I despise because I loved the look of its weapon-and now I can't use it on my main spec for that character? rather upsetting.Wain wrote:That is a bit of a shame. If their use is that restricted then it lowers the worth of those artifact appearances to the player. I've leveled up all artifacts on all specs of all classes, and I was planning to try to collect the Mage Tower appearances before they were removed. Now I'm not going to bother for most of them because I don't normally play those specs/characters much, or at all, and if I can't access those appearances on the specs / toons I do use then it's a lot of work with no real value. On the plus side, that's a lot less work to worry aboutQuiv wrote:I was disappointed at this as well. Not surprised, but disappointed. I figured they would stay class restricted, but I was hoping they would loosen up on the spec part.Qraljar wrote:Still, I can't help but be a bit sour that we can't cross-spec transmog. I wanted to use that holy paladin hammer on my retri paladin.