You trap, he trinkets it, hamstrings u before u even get out of melee range, so u scatter ( which apparently gives u enough time to get out of intercept range if ur hamstrung), he intercepts, and then what do u do for the next 20 seconds?
I just gotta say, your reading comprehension skills don't give the rest of what you say much credibility.
This hunter/warrior theorycrafting really doesn't seem to be going anywhere though. Might be time for the discussion to move to more productive areas?
I don't really understand, how is an ability that the Paladin you run with can Purify and then you don't have to worry about it at all for the next 14 seconds one of the greatest abilities in arena?
For the same reason that dots are useful, (even w/o UA) stuff doesn't always get dispelled instantly or sometimes not at all. Healers only have so much time/GCDs, not to mention the (semi)protection that scorpid poison gives it. It's such a powerful drain, 1 GCD per 15 seconds for over 100 mana per second drained (ALL THE TIME!) The drain really puts huge stress on classes like ele shamans or mages. It helps a huge amount in any game where the game goes on for a significant amount of time. Hunters counter mages pretty well, with how fast they can kill WE's, the damage pressure they can put on a mage, and viper sting.
It's amazing in 2s and 3s where many teams run with Priests and can't cure it at all. It's pretty overpowered in those situations.
For the same reason that dots are useful, (even w/o UA) stuff doesn't always get dispelled instantly or sometimes not at all. Healers only have so much time/GCDs, not to mention the (semi)protection that scorpid poison gives it. It's such a powerful drain, 1 GCD per 15 seconds for over 100 mana per second drained (ALL THE TIME!) The drain really puts huge stress on classes like ele shamans or mages. It helps a huge amount in any game where the game goes on for a significant amount of time. Hunters counter mages pretty well, with how fast they can kill WE's, the damage pressure they can put on a mage, and viper sting.
It's amazing in 2s and 3s where many teams run with Priests and can't cure it at all. It's pretty overpowered in those situations.
Can people stop talking about scorpid poison like its the fix-all for stopping viper from being dispeled? Do you know how easy it is to stop a scorpid from poisoning you?
Viper is bloody good, but against a GOOD shaman/druid/pally, it won't have a longer uptime than 1-2 ticks. Which is enough sometimes.
Can people stop talking about scorpid poison like its the fix-all for stopping viper from being dispeled? Do you know how easy it is to stop a scorpid from poisoning you?
Viper is bloody good, but against a GOOD shaman/druid/pally, it won't have a longer uptime than 1-2 ticks. Which is enough sometimes.
?? I specifically said 'the (semi)protection scorpid poison gives it'.
It is remarkably hard to cleanse a hunter's viper sting poison as a Ret paladin since most of my global cooldowns are spent actually trying to DPS if they have a scorpid. I also have a limited mana pool. I usually have to resort to LoSing and killing the pet, but usually I'm down to 50% by that point.
How do you plan to get away with only improved wing clip? ...I mean, really. Piercing Howl? Intimidating Shout? Hell, the Warrior can also proc improved hamstring on *you*. Some of the methods you describe for getting range simply involve a really poor opponent.
They dont. I played good opponents (2.3k or higher ratings). If the quality of warriors you face on a daily basis is better than this, well kudos to them. I'm not gonna bullshit you by stating things that work only versus nubs. This stuff works. It's how I do it. Fact is most hunters just don't know how to beat warriors. They lack the timing with their cooldowns and understanding of how to strafe kite properly. Piercing howl isn't gonna matter if you have hamstring on you already, and once you are moving away from him, you are faster no matter what debuff you have on you, because wingclip > any snares warriors have. Next season when hamstring is 10 seconds, it will be so much easier to handle them than it is now.
The problem is how people are focusing on one thing at a time. I never said i'll escape them with improved wingclips "only". People on forums quite often focus on ONE thing without realizing it's the bigger picture that counts. It's not just wingclips. It's scatters. It's traps. It's wingclips. It's wingclip procs. It's concussive shots. It's concussive procs. You have a ton of abilities to make warriors miserable and it all adds up to something that can be very hard to counter. But you need to execute it well (this brings up the issue of skill required for the hunter class vs skill required by others, and having played all classes except rogues in pvp, I agree that hunters require more skill than the average class to execute well - but it doesn't mean we don't have the counters, and this is why Blizzard will never buff us to be more than a semi average class).
Which leads me to this point: we need to seperate two issues here. The first issue is the fact that hunters require more skill to execute well, and has more glaring weaknesses than other classes in arena. This is something I am not arguing with. The second issue is what do we do about it? Thinking of abilities is nice and all, but there is just no chance in hell Blizzard will make a deterrence with snare removal + immunity + speed bonus with a 30 second cooldown. Forget it. Therefore we can do 2 things:
1) Think of other more rational ideas (like slight alterations to cooldowns)
2) Talk of ways to counter our issues with the current system
I am mostly focusing on the latter. Warriors seem to be a big issue for hunters. Therefore it would be pretty good if we discussed ways to counter them. Obviously I can't describe the warrior matchup to the very last detail by writing it on a forum. All I know is that it's not as hard as people make it sound. Warriors can't keep us from running like rogues can. If you can't dispel rogue poisons in arena, I agree, you're doomed to stay in melee if the rogue is focusing you. If your healer can cure poisons (or just BoF you), there is still hope. But with warriors it's easier because wingclip > hamstring and they can't see traps like rogues do.
People here seem to say that warriors see their traps the majority of times. My experience has been exactly the opposite. I actually remember telling myself a few weeks ago that I think warriors can't see traps for some reason, because they seem to ALWAYS fall into my traps.
Since my experience is different than yours, we're doing something different. I believe there's 2 reasons for this:
1) Preemptive trapping - your target will not see the trap if you put it from far enough (and "mask" it by moving).
2) If you're putting the trap while your target is in your melee, he WILL see it. But if he already has a snare on him (wingclip), it will be very hard for him to move in time. By the time he sees it some of the 2 second arming time would have passed. Add to that human reaction time (0.5-0.8 secs or so), and there is very little chance he'll move fast enough with a wingclip on him, the trap trigger area is bigger than the trap itself, so even if they start moving away, it's very likely to be triggered anyway.
I logged a hunter and a warrior simultaneously just to confirm these issues now. They will not see the trap if you put it from far enough. This is what I usually do when a warrior is about to intercept. If the warrior is already in my melee, I always wingclip first, then trap or scatter (or if improved wingclip procced, I just start kiting).
Also, if they move towards the trap, they will not see it before they trigger it, no chance. Unless they use the "walk" option or move very slowly towards the trap, they will trigger it without even seeing it.
Another thing I confirmed is that scatter and traps do not share a DR (someone earlier said they did).
I'm a bit confused here. Are you speaking of 1v1 or 2v2 with druid+warrior? As those are the only places where freezing trap is usable.
In 1v1 situation the result will depend on whether you have more than 20 seconds left on cd to next trap when warrior steps to your first trap, all I have to say.
I use freezing traps on healers in 3's and 5's but thats VERY, VERY rarely. It requires so much pressure put on enemy healers and viper sting up on one of them + scatter, silencing shot used on them to make it work. It does work, but rarely.
Generally freezing trap cooldown should be lower for what it is. 30 second cooldown on use effect with 2 second arming time thats affected by dimishing returns? -.-
I'm a bit confused here. Are you speaking of 1v1 or 2v2 with druid+warrior? As those are the only places where freezing trap is usable.
In 1v1 situation the result will depend on whether you have more than 20 seconds left on cd to next trap when warrior steps to your first trap, all I have to say.
I use freezing traps on healers in 3's and 5's but thats VERY, VERY rarely. It requires so much pressure put on enemy healers and viper sting up on one of them + scatter, silencing shot used on them to make it work. It does work, but rarely.
Generally freezing trap cooldown should be lower for what it is. 30 second cooldown on use effect with 2 second arming time thats affected by dimishing returns? -.-
I agree that freezing trap has limited arena use, and barely in 5v5. But in 2v2 versus warrior/druid or warrior/shammy, it's excellent. In 2v2 versus warrior/pally it has it's situational uses (with rank1 hunter's mark). Whenever the enemy team splits up in 2v2, freezing trap is also useful, even if they can cleanse it.
In 3v3 we faced a 2.2k rated shaman/mage/warrior, trap was excellent there. It's also not bad against druid/lock/rogue or druid/mage/rogue allowing you to hold the rogue while he used AR.
I agree that trap cooldown could use a change. I was hoping this would be the new 4/5 set bonus, but I guess Blizzard thought such a bonus + resourcefulness would be too powerful.
I just gotta say, your reading comprehension skills don't give the rest of what you say much credibility.
This hunter/warrior theorycrafting really doesn't seem to be going anywhere though. Might be time for the discussion to move to more productive areas?
How so?
IMO, hunters are fairly balanced against a good chunk of caster group, and i think this arcane shot change will further enforce that is the ability to remove a shield to actually finish someone off who is LoSing us will help immensely.
I think our strongest opponents, are rogue and warrior teams, and because warrior teams are a bit more common, i chose them to be the subject. It could be a rogue as well, and the same thing still happens, both melee classes have gotten many changes to improve their ability to close range/stay range and while this may have been balanced when facing other classes, hunters were clearly forgotten. Hell, our escape methods were even nerfed ( entrapment on DR.. which i agree was needed, but something else should have been given to compensate seeing as hunters defenitely need any help they can get and are in no position to be nerfed. The other change being the increase to trap cooldowns, plus arming times)
Also, picking out a single thing of a persons argument that is questionable, and then using that to discount the rest of their entire post is kind of stupid.
I don't understand why all of you hunters seem to mind, or even care if a warrior is on you in 5v5. You are one of the best classes to tank the opposing team's warrior, having mail armor, and decent dodge and parry. Focusing the hunter in high end pvp is suicide unless you can burst him down with a quick swap.
If your viper sting takes 2 dispels to remove, so what? You just wasted 2 GCDs of opposing shaman/druid/paladin, the mana for two dispels, and 1-2 ticks of drain on the target you chose to drain. You cant think of your skills in a vacuum, that is time spent not healing, and your teammates are still doing damage that needs to be healed up.
I don't understand why all of you hunters seem to mind, or even care if a warrior is on you in 5v5. You are one of the best classes to tank the opposing team's warrior, having mail armor, and decent dodge and parry. Focusing the hunter in high end pvp is suicide unless you can burst him down with a quick swap.
Hunter tanking a warrior? You're joking, right? Our dodge and parry combine for around 10-12% that only works if the warrior is dumb enough to stand in front of us and Mail is hardly an upgrade over cloth. The only reason going after a Hunter at 2200+ ratings is bad is because you allow their priest free reign to mana burn every single healer and caster on your team (and mana drain teams are the only setup that works for Hunters because of this). You are not avoiding hunters at that rating because Hunters are dangerous or difficult to kill, you are avoiding them because one of their teammates is too dangerous to leave alone.
Hunter tanking a warrior? You're joking, right? Our dodge and parry combine for around 10-12% that only works if the warrior is dumb enough to stand in front of us and Mail is hardly an upgrade over cloth. The only reason going after a Hunter at 2200+ ratings is bad is because you allow their priest free reign to mana burn every single healer and caster on your team (and mana drain teams are the only setup that works for Hunters because of this). You are not avoiding hunters at that rating because Hunters are dangerous or difficult to kill, you are avoiding them because one of their teammates is too dangerous to leave alone.
Which is exactly why hunters don't get focused fired, there are more dangerous targets left open if a warrior goes on them. There is nothing gained by pressuring a hunter, he can still get frost trap and viper sting off, the two skills that have any meaningful effect that only a hunter can provide. If a warrior went on a warlock, the warlock would tank it just the same, except without mail armor which gives 20% more damage mitigation, and over 10% more dodge (Looking at geared hunters I see they have 14%+ dodge, and 5% parry, far more than the 10-12% you claim).
So what that hunters are forced onto outlast teams, they still have more arena viability than rogues and druids on non 4 dps teams; and they are much like druids in the fact that they take more skill than the average warrior/paladin, so they are under-represented in the top end.
Which is exactly why hunters don't get focused fired, there are more dangerous targets left open if a warrior goes on them. There is nothing gained by pressuring a hunter, he can still get frost trap and viper sting off, the two skills that have any meaningful effect that only a hunter can provide. If a warrior went on a warlock, the warlock would tank it just the same, except without mail armor which gives 20% more damage mitigation, and over 10% more dodge (Looking at geared hunters I see they have 14%+ dodge, and 5% parry, far more than the 10-12% you claim).
So what that hunters are forced onto outlast teams, they still have more arena viability than rogues and druids on non 4 dps teams; and they are much like druids in the fact that they take more skill than the average warrior/paladin, so they are under-represented in the top end.
Except, Warlock arena/PvP gear gives them significantly more resilience than Hunter arena gear, and they also get boosted armor. Through talents, they usually have much higher hit points than we do, and they have the additional benefit of instant dots for damage (while our damage is set to almost zero as we cannot steady really while focused). Not to mention, a Warlock can drain tank, while a Hunter has no way of healing him/herself. Did I mention Warlocks also get +20% to any healing they receive? And if they're soul link their pet absorbs 20% of the damage they take?
Which is exactly why hunters don't get focused fired, there are more dangerous targets left open if a warrior goes on them. There is nothing gained by pressuring a hunter, he can still get frost trap and viper sting off, the two skills that have any meaningful effect that only a hunter can provide. If a warrior went on a warlock, the warlock would tank it just the same, except without mail armor which gives 20% more damage mitigation, and over 10% more dodge (Looking at geared hunters I see they have 14%+ dodge, and 5% parry, far more than the 10-12% you claim).
So what that hunters are forced onto outlast teams, they still have more arena viability than rogues and druids on non 4 dps teams; and they are much like druids in the fact that they take more skill than the average warrior/paladin, so they are under-represented in the top end.
If hunters are so good, then why are there so little in top 5v5 teams?
Not trying to flame, but anyone who even tries to suggest that hunters arent broken and are infact " fine", are just stupid.
I can see people disagreeing with certain methods of how hunters should be fixed, whether it be increased survability, more mana, more damage, more mobility... but the question of whether hunters need to be fixed at all, isnt even a question.
Except, Warlock arena/PvP gear gives them significantly more resilience than Hunter arena gear, and they also get boosted armor. Through talents, they usually have much higher hit points than we do, and they have the additional benefit of instant dots for damage (while our damage is set to almost zero as we cannot steady really while focused). Not to mention, a Warlock can drain tank, while a Hunter has no way of healing him/herself. Did I mention Warlocks also get +20% to any healing they receive? And if they're soul link their pet absorbs 20% of the damage they take?
Yeah Warlocks may have on average about ~80 more resil than Hunters although part of this is because they socket resil whereas many Hunters don't. Yes they have boosted armor but they still are at ~18% physical reduction where Hunters are at ~38%. Even with SL a Warlock takes more damage from physical than a Hunter. Instant dots are great but so is autoshot. The Hunter can still do decent (if maybe not his best) burst on a target while he's being focused but a Warlock can't really put out much burst, just consistent damage (much like autoshot). Drain Tanking... lol. Yeah that works really well in 5s. So many people are SL/SL for 5s. And nobody bothers to purge Fel Armor. I'm not saying Warlocks have it bad but you're misrepresenting the situation pretty badly here. You take (albeit a little) less damage from physical but more from magic. Your damage is not reduced to 'almost zero', and Warlocks don't usually have much more hp than Hunters, they're roughly even (you have a +10% hp talent, you know that right?).
Warlocks are a great class but you seem to be just making stuff up here...
I have read these forums for a months and have enjoyed the information discussed and presented here.
Nadagast, this post is directed towards you. The reason why warlocks have 80 more resilience has nothing to do with socketing, unless you are going to admit to having ten sockets all with 8 resilience. This is an unrealistic claim and from my common history of reading forums, belongs on the wow forums.
Another thing you fail to see is that your gear generally has more stamina. Your spec has 15% inc to stamina and 5% to overall health. Locks have more hit points than hunters and they don't have to go nearly as far into their tree to do so. Your information in regards to your own class is as reliable as Dick Cheney for a hunting partner. Even though this has nothing to do with hunter's problems in arena, you aren't seeing the big picture here in comparing the two classes.
Next, to compare our physical mitigation to yours. Soul link? Doesn't that give you 20% damage taken by pet on top of your 18% damage reduced to physical attacks? So you mitigate like a shammy if I am not mistaken.
Finally, if warlocks are still not convinced that hunters need some help balancing-wise, I'd like to link you some statistics I saw in a different post on EJ. When I read this, I just went "wow." I don't think we need a 30s cd that gives us god mode, like mentioned earlier. But they need to make some large changes to bring hunters to the level of other ranged dps classes. You will notice that the higher rated the teams are, the less hunters are represented. But you will notice that the green line, which represents hunters, is consistantly at the bottom of the graph. I do agree with posts made earlier about how a good hunter will bring a lot to an arena and can serve a purpose if used correctly. My team broke 2300 in the 5v5 bracket so I have seen it possible (even with my BM spec.) I just believe if I played this good with a "better" class that our team would be higher rated, end of story. The statistics do not lie. Another thing to consider... hunters and rogues are the most played characters on World of Warcraft. This suggests they'd rather roll an alt pally, druid, priest, or warlock than deal with a class that still needs work. Anyways, here are the links. They date at 10/24/07 on EU servers.
Nadagast, this post is directed towards you. The reason why warlocks have 80 more resilience has nothing to do with socketing, unless you are going to admit to having ten sockets all with 8 resilience. This is an unrealistic claim and from my common history of reading forums, belongs on the wow forums.
That's probably why I specifically said it was 'part' due to socketing for resilience. And it's true, here's my profile and Hamchook's (a well known hunter) profile: The World of Warcraft Armory The World of Warcraft Armory
I have 76 more resil than him and 26 of that is from gems, I believe. So I have 50 more resil from gear. That's a decent amount but nothing huge...
Another thing you fail to see is that your gear generally has more stamina. Your spec has 15% inc to stamina and 5% to overall health. Locks have more hit points than hunters and they don't have to go nearly as far into their tree to do so. So to compare this to make your case makes you as reliable as Dick Cheney for a hunting partner. Even though this has nothing to do with hunter's problems in arena, you aren't seeing the big picture here in comparing the two classes.
Look at his hp and look at mine, that's really all I have to say. HP are roughly the same. BTW, Fel Stamina (the talent you think gives +5% hp) only gives +3% hp.
Next, to compare our physical mitigation to yours. Soul link? Doesn't that give you 30% damage taken by pet on top of your 18% damage reduced to physical attacks? So you mitigate like a paladin if I am not mistaken.
You're mistaken again. Soul Link is only 20% and it doesn't stack additively with armor, it stacks multiplicatively, so I have 34% physical mitigation. (but keep in mind SL doesn't remove damage it just moves it to your pet) What's bigger, 38% or 34%? That's not even counting the extra 10% dodge and 5% parry he has...
Finally, if warlocks are still not convinced that hunters need some help balancing-wise, I'd like to link you some statistics I saw in a different post on EJ. When I read this, I just went "wow." I don't think we need a 30s cd that gives us god mode, like mentioned earlier. But they need to make some large changes to bring hunters to the level of other ranged dps classes. You will notice that the higher rated the teams are, the less hunters are represented. But you will notice that the green line, which represents hunters, is consistantly at the bottom of the graph. I do agree with posts made earlier about how a good hunter will bring a lot to an arena and can serve a purpose if used correctly. My team broke 2300 in the 5v5 bracket so I have seen it possible (even with my BM spec.) I just believe if I played this good with a "better" class that our team would be higher rated, end of story. The statistics do not lie. Another thing to consider... hunters and rogues are the most played characters on World of Warcraft. This suggests they'd rather roll an alt pally, druid, priest, or warlock than deal with a class that still needs work. Anyways, here are the links. They date at 10/24/07 on EU servers.
Finally, if warlocks are still not convinced that hunters need some help balancing-wise, I'd like to link you some statistics I saw in a different post on EJ. When I read this, I just went "wow." I don't think we need a 30s cd that gives us god mode, like mentioned earlier. But they need to make some large changes to bring hunters to the level of other ranged dps classes. You will notice that the higher rated the teams are, the less hunters are represented. But you will notice that the green line, which represents hunters, is consistantly at the bottom of the graph. I do agree with posts made earlier about how a good hunter will bring a lot to an arena and can serve a purpose if used correctly. My team broke 2300 in the 5v5 bracket so I have seen it possible (even with my BM spec.) I just believe if I played this good with a "better" class that our team would be higher rated, end of story. The statistics do not lie. Another thing to consider... hunters and rogues are the most played characters on World of Warcraft. This suggests they'd rather roll an alt pally, druid, priest, or warlock than deal with a class that still needs work. Anyways, here are the links. They date at 10/24/07 on EU servers.
Unless they introduce a mechanic that makes hunters so counter intuitive that it makes average hunters get 2k ratings, much like average paladins/warriors can get, hunters will never be properly represented at the high end. You said it yourself, you can get 2300 with a subpar spec, why does that mean others can't? Are they just not skilled enough, it's obviously possible if you aren't even doing it with a marksman spec.
If you are going to pull numbers out saying that hunters need help because the vast majority of hunters aren't on high rated arena teams, I don't know what to tell you, other than the vast majority of hunters need to learn to play their class. If there were NO top rated hunters at all, that is a completely different story, but when a team with a hunter on it is consistently in the top 3 of bg9, they are most certainly viable given a well played hunter.
Unless they introduce a mechanic that makes hunters so counter intuitive that it makes average hunters get 2k ratings, much like average paladins/warriors can get, hunters will never be properly represented at the high end. You said it yourself, you can get 2300 with a subpar spec, why does that mean others can't? Are they just not skilled enough, it's obviously possible if you aren't even doing it with a marksman spec.
If you are going to pull numbers out saying that hunters need help because the vast majority of hunters aren't on high rated arena teams, I don't know what to tell you, other than the vast majority of hunters need to learn to play their class. If there were NO top rated hunters at all, that is a completely different story, but when a team with a hunter on it is consistently in the top 3 of bg9, they are most certainly viable given a well played hunter.
I think hes arguing more that the ratio of skill/arena rating for hunters is worse than most other classes. Yes, it was possible for his ratings to get high, but that doesn't refute the general consensus that if most hunters were to be playing a different class, their ratings would more often than not be higher.
I'm always intrigued by arguments that the existence of *some* 2300 (or whatever) rated 5v5 hunter means that the majority of lower achieving 5v5 hunters such as myself need to learn to play.*
It's almost as though someone 100 years ago in Alabama pointed to the existence of a succesful black lawyer as evidence that most black people are only capable of manual labor.
* of course I need to learn to play. But that's not the point.
Unless they introduce a mechanic that makes hunters so counter intuitive that it makes average hunters get 2k ratings, much like average paladins/warriors can get, hunters will never be properly represented at the high end. You said it yourself, you can get 2300 with a subpar spec, why does that mean others can't? Are they just not skilled enough, it's obviously possible if you aren't even doing it with a marksman spec.
If you are going to pull numbers out saying that hunters need help because the vast majority of hunters aren't on high rated arena teams, I don't know what to tell you, other than the vast majority of hunters need to learn to play their class. If there were NO top rated hunters at all, that is a completely different story, but when a team with a hunter on it is consistently in the top 3 of bg9, they are most certainly viable given a well played hunter.
Im really not sure what you are trying to say here. In the first paragraph it sounds like your saying hunters need to be balanced so that an equal skilled hunter can achieve the same rating as an equally skilled warrior.
In thee second paragraph you sound like your saying that any hunter that doesnt have a 2000+ rating just needs to l2p.
What you have to assume when discussing class balance is that the amount of skilled players spread out among each class are pretty much equal.
Im pretty sure if you made a graph of the distribution of a class among the different ratings, that rather then being flat all the way across, that it would look much like a bell curve.
Im also fairly certain that the majority of hunters on this graph would find themselves sitting around 1600, while the majority of warlocks ( or any of the more powerful classes for that matter) would most likely be around 1800 or slightly above.
What im trying to say here, is that the skill required of a warlock to hit 1800-1900 is probably about the same as it is for a hunter to hit 1600. This also means that if most hunters played another class and maintained the same amount of "skill", they'd be a good 200-300 points higher assuming they had an equal partner.
Im really not sure what you are trying to say here. In the first paragraph it sounds like your saying hunters need to be balanced so that an equal skilled hunter can achieve the same rating as an equally skilled warrior.
In thee second paragraph you sound like your saying that any hunter that doesnt have a 2000+ rating just needs to l2p.
What you have to assume when discussing class balance is that the amount of skilled players spread out among each class are pretty much equal.
Im pretty sure if you made a graph of the distribution of a class among the different ratings, that rather then being flat all the way across, that it would look much like a bell curve.
Im also fairly certain that the majority of hunters on this graph would find themselves sitting around 1600, while the majority of warlocks ( or any of the more powerful classes for that matter) would most likely be around 1800 or slightly above.
What im trying to say here, is that the skill required of a warlock to hit 1800-1900 is probably about the same as it is for a hunter to hit 1600. This also means that if most hunters played another class and maintained the same amount of "skill", they'd be a good 200-300 points higher assuming they had an equal partner.
When I am posting here, I'm talking about 2k+, yes in lower ratings you can play like a complete scrub as a warrior/warlock and still get 1800, but does that mean hunters should be buffed, because the hunters are seeing people at 1800 when they are at 1600? Does changing core class mechanics have to occur because one class has a higher skill requirement than others?
Again, I'll point to restoration druids. In the hands of an average player, they are an undesireable class, but in the hands of a skilled player, they are the most dominant class in 2's and 3's. While this does not occur in such a dramatic fashion in the case of hunters, it remains that if played right hunters are "balanced".
11/04/07, 9:22 PM
Similar Threads
