|
The reason why representation numbers for hunters are in no way related to how good they are has been beaten to death. Hunters take more skill than avarage to play and so does their partner (same for rogue/druid for example, amazing setup, but it just requires ten times the druid one with a warrior or warlock would, so it's less popular), that and the fact that lots of people chose a hunter as a farming alt etc means your data means nothing as to how well a hunter _can_ perform. And even then, if hunters would infact be terrible, that still doesn't mean you can't break the personal rating requirements if you'd be good. I don't know if you like hearing it so much but if you can't atleast get to 1850, YOU'RE THE PROBLEM YOURSELF.
I played a shaman in blues/greens, I know what it's like to suck in arenas, but I made an effort and got to a (for that gear) respectable ~1750 rating. And you know what? I enjoyed being the underdog more than having loot handed to me. I had to work for what I got, not just spend time. Spending time looking at your lawn doesn't reward money for gardening either, mowing it does.
The BG system is a huge failure for two reasons. First off, like you said, it's a time sink that requires no skill at all. Secondly, you need to do it to arena. That has always pissed arena players off, and now suddenly it's a huge problem since you actually need to have some kind of skill to get gear? It just doesn't make sense, don't you play a game to have challanges? It's not all about showing your welfare epix off in shatt. It's about having fun in a game, not impressing fat inspect geeks, y'know.
And yes, if a game would be too hard for me, I'd either quit or learn it. Take the easy way or take the hard way, but don't drag the only competative PvP system in the game down to the pool of what the carebears do with their time, or atleast don't justify this because you in particular couldn't compete. There's always BGs, dailies and heroics to waste your precious time on while arena players have a challange.
|