NERF BAT INC!

[Palladiamorsdeus]

4.0 is the bridging patch, it introduces the talent tree changes, the hunter changes, all the other class changes. These numbers people are so uptight over? Yup, those changes too. And even consider that, that still put's Cata at just over a month away. And that my friend is pretty darn close. Try to remember the state of Wrath after launching. Do you remember Death Knights? Do you remember retribution paladins? Both were numbers that were incorrectly tweaked, and both went live.

[Kalliope]

People are entitled to voice their concern where it's founded, but this latest round of crying over the MUCH-NEEDED Kill Command nerf was extreme. There was an outcry at a large nerf without there being any actual testing to see how the specs played against each other after said nerf. The crying came first. And that sort of attitude is what gets us not listened to as a community. (For clarification, as said before, testing-only nerfs aren't true nerfs, as they never actually made it to live.)

With the major changes to pets this expansion, Blizzard seems determined to make all of the specs competitive. They should be listening to constructive feedback this time around. But outcry over a massive nerf without any sort of testing, just a balking at the size of the numbers, is hardly constructive.

Yes, you have a right to be worried, but not to panic without real basis. These numbers can be fine-tuned if they need to be.

[Tulune]

People are entitled to voice their concern where it's founded, but this latest round of crying over the MUCH-NEEDED Kill Command nerf was extreme. There was an outcry at a large nerf without there being any actual testing to see how the specs played against each other after said nerf. The crying came first. And that sort of attitude is what gets us not listened to as a community. (For clarification, as said before, testing-only nerfs aren't true nerfs, as they never actually made it to live.)

With the major changes to pets this expansion, Blizzard seems determined to make all of the specs competitive. They should be listening to constructive feedback this time around. But outcry over a massive nerf without any sort of testing, just a balking at the size of the numbers, is hardly constructive.

Yes, you have a right to be worried, but not to panic without real basis. These numbers can be fine-tuned if they need to be.

Agreed.

[Palladiamorsdeus]

Kalli, the numbers WILL be fine tuned, that isn't the problem. The problem is that these numbers may very well go live, or at least go live in an incomplete form. There are numerous signs saying that the PTR is going to go live within weeks, which doesn't leave a whole lot of time for tuning. My argument is that saying "It's just the beta." doesn't really hold water, when beta's and PTR's have seen bad numbers get past them before. Numerous times. And in SPITE of warnings to Blizzard. I am not saying panic and run around like a chicken with your head cut off, but people do have a reason to be worried about it, and to voice those worries. Just trying to dismiss them like that bothers me.

[Kalliope]

Kalli, the numbers WILL be fine tuned, that isn't the problem. The problem is that these numbers may very well go live, or at least go live in an incomplete form. There are numerous signs saying that the PTR is going to go live within weeks, which doesn't leave a whole lot of time for tuning. My argument is that saying "It's just the beta." doesn't really hold water, when beta's and PTR's have seen bad numbers get past them before. Numerous times. And in SPITE of warnings to Blizzard. I am not saying panic and run around like a chicken with your head cut off, but people do have a reason to be worried about it, and to voice those worries. Just trying to dismiss them like that bothers me.

At the rate that new builds are coming out, both on the beta and the PTR, "weeks" should be plenty of time to fix things.

The strongest reaction came from non-testers who saw a big number taken away from us and were unhappy. That was their cause for concern. And that sort of concern isn't going to help rebalance the class, should it need it. It's unfounded unless proven.

Condoning overreaction to a needed nerf bothers me.

[Palladiamorsdeus]

You missed the part where I said "I'm not saying panic and run around like a chicken with your head cut off." then. I am not condoning over-reaction, and I never said I was. I AM condoning REACTION though, and voicing your thoughts on it.

[Kalliope]

Reactions based on actual testing mean more than reactions based on reading patch notes and seeing a big numbers nerf there.

You're condoning reactions based off on assumptions, which to me, are overreactions.

[Palladiamorsdeus]

No, I am saying that if you get word through reliable means that something is low, which said word has in fact been delivered now, then you have a right and a reason to voice discontent over it. You are just assuming, and taking words out of my mouth. Not only that, but I am mostly saying that you can't just say "This is beta!" anymore because of how far along the time line is. Yes, they have weeks left. They HAD that before, and things still went live in bad condition. Thus there is a reason that some people might worry. Just because you aren't, doesn't mean other people shouldn't. They had ALL of the PTR testing for our big nerf back in Wrath with full knowledge that that particular nerf was to much, but it still went live. During over HALF of the beta for Wrath of the Lich king, it was reported repeatedly that retribution paladins and Death knights were doing WAY to much damage, but both of those still went live, and took months to really sort out.

I am not saying just over react. I am saying to look at things analytically, to think about them, and then to give an informed opinion. I am sorry if you take something else away from it.

[Kalliope]

I think it comes down to us saying the same thing in different words, so we're actually in agreement!

The beta/PTR aren't set in stone, but feedback on them IS important.

I do think (and hope) that this stage of pre-expansion development will go differently than last time. Blizzard seems genuinely concerned with evening everything out and not going live with the ridiculousness of LK.

I am saying to look at things analytically, to think about them, and then to give an informed opinion.

^
This.

[Palladiamorsdeus]

That's why I was starting to get confused. I was like "We're agreeing with each other, but we're disagreeing...with...each...what?"

[Kalliope]

I hate it when that happens!

[Vephriel]

Wasn't there another thread a short while ago where the first page was an argument of everyone agreeing?

[Kalliope]

Wasn't there another thread a short while ago where the first page was an argument of everyone agreeing?

YES! And it was hilarious!

[Palladiamorsdeus]

I remember that...*Laughs* I think we all get confused sometimes.

[Gelannerai]

See, Palla hit the nail on the head. Couple of years ago, I get word they're giving Beast Masters something called "exotic pets." Furthermore, the Devilsaur is among those new creatures to be made into Hunter pets. I'm a dinosaur freak, the focus of my affections being the T-Rex, so naturally I'm on Cloud 9. Then I start seeing rumors and posts about BM doing absolutely atrocious damage in the beta, but I wasn't worried, because it's only the beta, Blizzard will fix it, and I'll have my dino. Then I started seeing rumors and posts about BM doing absolutely atrocious damage in the PTR, but still I wasn't worried, Blizzard will fix it, and I'll have my dino. Got my dino, and he proceeded to live in my stable for a year because the atrocious damage didn't get fixed and my favorite spec got me only ridicule and raid-bumps. Then, they "apologized" and "fixed it." Now we're caught up to the present, and my dino's primary residence is still, believe it or not, my stable. Call it being gun-shy if you will.

[Kalliope]

New expansion, new rules. Hopefully your dino (and mine!) will get to come out of the stable this time.

[Silvarain]

Even if we are a little (or a lot) messed up on release, they won't leave it at that. We will be tweaked and worked on.

I am a little nervous about all the changes, but I have faith that it will work out.

And while I do not oppose a choice to have a pet or not, Blizzard's stance on this is pretty clear (because of the added utility that pets are getting AND the further removal of melee abilities for the hunter), we are a pet class. PVP can be annoying at times to manage a pet and keep it alive, but since they have buffed (greatly, I might add) the survivability of pets in PVE situations, I don't see why having a pet would be an annoyance at all.

I agree with this whole heartedly. Blizzard made this quite clear. If we were meant to not have pets, we wouldn't be hunters.

lol how many games are/have been out were hunters/archers dont have pets? i get that its there game and there rules, but what about the customers? what about those who are not asking for the moon? my goverment tells me what i can and cannot do with my life/body, but doesnt mean that they are right or know whats best for me; same with blizz. more options are not a bad thing as we, the customers, have been telling them.

[Kalliope]

lol how many games are/have been out were hunters/archers dont have pets? i get that its there game and there rules, but what about the customers? what about those who are not asking for the moon? my goverment tells me what i can and cannot do with my life/body, but doesnt mean that they are right or know whats best for me; same with blizz. more options are not a bad thing as we, the customers, have been telling them.

At a certain point, it comes down to core game structure. When the requests would essentially end up with the complete restructuring of a class, it's too big. At that you, you might as well be playing a different game, since at that point, you're basically asking for something that this game just ISN'T....which IS the moon, no matter how "simple" the request appears to be.

[Nimizar]

Keep in mind also, that much of the Cata talent tree design (especially the big spec decision at level 10) is an outgrowth of the fact that the devs *couldn't* tweak trees properly in Cataclysm, because of the risk of unintended side effects on other specs of the class, or the risk of creating overpowered hybrid specs that cherry-picked talents from two trees.

With ICC/RS gear, max theoretical DPS from BM and SV is actually pretty close* (I still raid as SV though, since we're usually short of sources of Replenishment, plus I like the crazy high crit chance SV has when raid buffed). MM only vaults way out in front because of the perverse scaling effects of ArPen.

Coupled with the relative improvements in spec balance between TBC and Wrath, the changes made in Cataclysm explicitly to make balancing easier *should* give people confidence that the numbers will be brought in line *far* more quickly in Cataclysm than they were in Wrath:

Explicit class specialisations allow individual specs to be tuned without the risk of impacting other specs and without needing to make assumptions regarding the talents players have taken.
- ArPen is gone, since it made physical damage too hard to balance against elemental damage both within and between classes
- Rage is being normalised, to fix the warrior scaling problems of being UP with poor gear and OP with BiS gear
- Pets are being adjusted to scale with all stats so BM, Unholy, Frost and Demonology are easier to balance against other specs of their respective classes (giving Frost and Unholy permanent pets innately also makes those trees easier to balance in general, since variants of those specs without the pet are no longer possible)
- Resilience as flat damage reduction of incoming damage from players avoids devaluing of crit (and crit-based abilities) in PvP

Some crazy numbers *may* go live with the launch of 4.0, since Blizzard genuinely don't care as much about level 80 balance at that point (neither progression raiding nor competitive PvP happen between 4.0 and the launch of Cataclysm proper and those are the two environments where strict balance matters the most. Poor balance may be annoying in other environments, but it isn't game breaking to the same degree). So any reports from the PTR are pretty close to irrelevant. It's the reports of level 85 balance from the beta that matter, and those have been steadily improving. Now that Blizz have released iLvl 333 superior item equipped premades for heroic testing, we'll start to get better information on that front.

*For the skeptics, SV currently has a max theoretical DPS about 0.6% higher than BM with BiS gear. Such a small difference will be absolutely swamped by gear and player ability differences. By contrast, the jump up to MM is more than 11% (Source: http://elitistjerks.com/f74/t42519-best ... readsheet/)

[Nimizar]

lol how many games are/have been out were hunters/archers dont have pets? i get that its there game and there rules, but what about the customers? what about those who are not asking for the moon? my goverment tells me what i can and cannot do with my life/body, but doesnt mean that they are right or know whats best for me; same with blizz. more options are not a bad thing as we, the customers, have been telling them.

To paraphrase GC, Blizz see asking to play a hunter without a pet as similar to going into a hamburger joint and asking for a kebab. You're free to ask, but don't be surprised if the staff look at you funny and then say no.

Blizz have made the decision not to offer an archer class. They have stated several times that they have no intention of allowing the hunter class to be played as anything other than a pet class. While BM emphasises the pet, it is still a core part of the MM/SV gameplay and becoming moreso in Cataclysm (through the raid buffs and the revamped Kill Command).

Players can certainly continue to ask for an archer class, but really, how would the gameplay of such a class be sufficiently distinguished from that of rogues, mages *and* hunters?