That's how I think of it, and I may be a complete and total alliance nut, but Rexxar will always be awesome! I think there should be a largely definable difference between hunter trees, I mean you get trackers, beast masters, game hunters, ect. I've always kind of felt the same as mm/sv, the only real difference is that I chose a flashier pet in exchange for good damaging moves; the BM tree tries to put more emphasis on actively controlling a pet but it's always fell short.. at least I think so anyway.Worba wrote:I dunno - to me, the idea of temporarily summoning 2+ of your pets seems more like a pack thing, which is very "beasty", e.g. whilst MM and SV hunters lack the skill and sheer dominating force of spirit to control more than one pet at a time, a beast master almost by definition would (or should) be able to break past those limitations at some point in his/her career; case in point the original beast master, Rexxar.
I hate seeing them die as well, for as long as I can remember while raiding Sarth, i've always seen the floor littered with the corpses of wolves; I was usually the only hunter who bothered using masters call to get my pet into a designated safe zone. That's kinda why I wanted all 5 pets to split 20% damage taken between them and instead of dying they scatter in different directions and then fade.. and in the event that we're getting aoe bombed by 5-10 people; then I guess the whole pack - along with the hunter - dies as a pack.Ryai wrote:AotD zombies can be KILLED; I dislike seeing my pets killed as it is and seeing multiples able to be facerolled would not go well with me; it would distress me horribly. I don't like seeing my pets smish; and yes it would be hard to control because what happens when you have 4 big pets and a small pet- something aggros the small pet, it gets pulled- would the small pet then pull the other pets because it was so easily overlooked? Or hell in general what would happen if ONE pet was aggroed by something. it's so easy for something like this to turn into a REAL nightmare for some dungeons.
Yeah it may be difficult to use in dungeons, but that depends more on the player than the spell itself; I admit, it would definately add more fuel to the fire and give people another reason to call us huntards.. But if your pets switch between Defensive/Passive as frequently as mine do, and you remain aware & vigilant throughout the run, then I can't see very many problems cropping up. It's like saying: "All hunters should not be allowed to have a pet, because a handful of people are careless and let their pet aggro." If we aggro one mob then it usually runs to the tank or we freeze it as it attacks our healer. If it's 2-5 creeps that we aggro with our pet in the middle of a pull, then i'll freeze one and have the pet off-tank one or two while I kite the rest around until the group can deal with them; we can easily contain the situation using traps/disengage/deterrence/distracting shot/FD/mend pet/intimidate. Every hunter should be able to do this regardless of how many pets they're controlling, and having 5 pets who split 20% damage taken among eachother (meaning your initial pet would be able to soak up a potential 150k worth of damage, and getting healed for 50% of the combined total of the 4 additional pet's HP when the spell ends) only makes the job that much easier.
That is a very good point, I guess if they wanted a spell like this to work out then they would need to add a little something for each class of pet.. Perhaps have the additional pets deal 40% white damage, each ferocity pet increases the pack's damage 10%, each tenacity pet temporarily grants the hunter 5% HP (like Vampric Blood for DK.) Something along those lines so that you could tailor the ability to your own specific ideology.Ryai wrote:Edit: Also, a talent such as this would FORCE hunters to most likely stack -all- their slots with ferocity pets. Since Ferocity would hit more than cunning, or atleast tenacity.
