Ghostcrawler Addresses Hunter DPS and Spec Issues

WARNING!! This is going to be a LONG, possibly EYE BLEEDING POST ALERT!!!

Recently over on the Lodge Forums we had an extremely heated debate thanks to our friend Ghostcrawler on the recent and ongoing Hunter Changes.

That being the case, I thought I’d just go ahead and address each post by GC over on the Official forums.

I’ll provide the links, quotes, and my thoughts on the offending threads here.

GC tries to explain the need for “Real Numbers“. (From what I can see, real numbers are parses that include multiple bosses.) Instead of posts from different Hunter DPS Spreadsheet or other Theorycrafting spreadsheets. He wants the combat log parses or maybe the WWS reports from WoW Web Stats or similar .

It seems that they only getting the min/max parses and those don’t seem to have too much of a variance or variety.  and want more “casual ones”.  Meaning, they need more parses showing different specs.

“Real numbers are much more compelling than what spreadsheets estimate. Multiple bosses are more compelling that combat dummies.”

2. http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=14578748409&sid=1&pageNo=6#106

The infamous post where GC claims:

“BM is an easier spec to play.”

But there is more hear than that.

“We tend to reward specs that are a little tougher to play if played very well with higher dps. Affliction and Mutilate are good examples, though we went overboard with Mutilate’s dominance over other specs. If BM was simpler and provided the same or higher dps, then you would see 95% BM hunters (which, no suprise, is exactly what we had). Some players will try SV or MM, decide it’s not for them and go back to BM. If they couldn’t make SV work, then their dps may be just fine as BM (or else the drop will be so low that they don’t care). At issue is how much lower BM can be than MM and SV before it isn’t worth spec’ing into. Combat for rogues is too far below Assassination so that you take too big a hit if you choose to opt out of the more demanding Mutilate play style. Make sense?”

GC tries but fails to explain that the combination of the complexity of the attacks and spec should help allow for people to achieve higher dps. I don’t think he realizes how inflamatory this remark is, but oh well.
But I do like what GC says at the end.

“When the community suddenly shifts, it’s because some smart player experimented with a new build and made that work. “

To me, this is the most important thing said in this post. It acknowledges that it’s not ease of play but knowledge that causes changes within the hunter community. Too bad GC fails to recognize this earlier on.

3. http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=14578748409&sid=1&pageNo=14#264

Basically a defensive GC post. Not much real info here, but we start to notice that GC being on the defensive means his shell is starting to crack.

4. http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=14578748409&sid=1&pageNo=14#266

Finally, we get a better explanation from GC on his previous statements.

He begins to explain that Blizz truly wants BM to be raid viable, not only that, they want all specs raid viable.

“This is exactly what we want – 3 viable specs. We don’t want BM to be the noob spec that serious players don’t use. We also don’t want it to be the spec that every hunter uses, which I agree is where it has been for some time.”

GC tries again to explain what he meant by BM being an easy spec. Basically stating again, they want BM hunters to do more than pet Steady Spam and I-Win Buttons. (Yes, I know pet management is an extremely important part of playing a BM Hunter, but GC seems to still be learning this.)

“Perhaps it is more fair to say that even though skilled BMs can squeeze even more dps out of their attacks, a BM player who did nothing but Steady Shot and use the pet could still do very high dps, which is not what we want.”

GC goes on to explain that they might have actually broken the hunter spec and if so will fix it.
But what I don’t like is what he says at the end. Stating that BM was the ONLY spec for too long, well that’s been the history of WoW, anyone remember Pre-BC when MM was the spec du jour??

“If BM becomes too unpopular with these changes, if it becomes no longer viable in PvE or PvP, then we will fix it. The problem was that for a long time BM was the only PvE spec and it had increasingly become the leveling and PvP spec too.”

GC also makes it clear.. if your going to do DPS as BM you need to spec in Beast Mastery. You don’t need to get the Exotic Pets, but those extra 4 pts are going to play a role in your overall DPS if not now in the future.

Again, This does NOT mean you need to have a Devilsaur or something, but it does mean that the 51 Point Talent will impact your performance if your speccing as BM.

“We are making some changes to hunters. Some of them are pretty cool. We will have to rebalance many of the attacks at that time. For example, we are likely to add additional pet talents that increase dps so that the 4 bonus points from BM 51 will inflate player dps overall.”

5. http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=14578748409&sid=1&pageNo=18#350
(YAY!! One of our own came to the rescue!!)

Elwynnia gets credit for deciphering what GC intended to say. GC basically apologizes for insinuating that ALL BM hunters were doing Auto/Steady/AFK attacks. What he meant to say was.

“Put another way, BM played badly could beat out a lot of other classes practically with SS and the pet alone.”

Not so sure this is better, but I think we’re getting closer to the real issue.

It seems that Blizz doesn’t like the fact that the Theorycrafters figured out and shared with everyone the trick to having the best possible DPS by “exploiting” the “bad design” of  the BM spec. Even the worst BM player could potentially out damage other hunters.

But to give GC some credit, it does seem to me, he is attempting to give some positive PR to hunters by saying they (Blizzard) knew there were bad hunters out there. And that they wanted to help us better differentiate ourselves between the skilled and unskilled ones by redesigning some core components and forcing you to start using Arcane Shot in your rotations.

I find it funny that GC again hints that they may have over-nerfed BM.

We do want to give the community a little more time to really try to max their dps with various specs and rotations and for us to make sure all the major bugs shake out. As many of you pointed out, the hunter class does have a lot going on and we don’t think everyone is going to be operating near their max potential with all ofthe changes after less than a week of raiding and Arenas turned off half the time. If after that time BM continues to lag behind, we’ll buff it. We just don’t want to do it in such a way that sends every hunter stampeding back to that spec. If that happens, I will have no problem admitting we over-nerfed BM.

Yes, he’s asking for some more time, but there seems to be hope.

6. http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=14578748409&sid=1&pageNo=24#460

Here GC just complains about posters that only want to vent and complain about the forum moderation. Nothing of content here, but does show that GC is continuing to get frustrated.

7. http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=14578748409&sid=1&pageNo=30#591

At the time of this post, this is GC’s last comment regarding ths issue. Here we notice that Blizz feels that BM has been in the spotlight for too long and it was time to take it down, but not out.

It seems that Blizzard feels there’s some magic delta between classes that should be allowable and acceptable. This gap, (stated as 1% or “close enough”) is where the focus is going to be.

“Well put, and that’s what we want too. BM was the highest spec before by a considerable margin (and has been for a few years). If it is too low now, we will buff it. It is challenging with dps classes to get the numbers within 1% of each other. But if they are close enough, then it won’t matter for the majority of players, who can then play whatever matches their playstyle the best.”

What worries me most about this comment, is that the margin isn’t really defined. We see a 1% but it’s the “close enough” portion that bothers me.   Is 5% close enough? 10% Okay?? What’s close enough???

What I do like about this comment, is the continued positive notion that Blizzard will revisit BM and ensure that it is raid viable.

“If it is too low now, we will buff it.”

Also notice that GC hints at the strategy of Blizzard. They are appealing to the masses, not the minority.

“Those players who always want the highest dps at any cost will respec for even a marginal dps gain, and we can live with that. For 95% of guilds though, that marginal dps increase is not what is standing between success and failure. There are very few moments in the history of the game where a few dps was the difference between success and failure for all but the most cutting edge of guilds.”

Bizzard is basically saying that those players within the top 5% are considered hardcore and not within their demographic.  They are targeting the other 95%. These are the ones that don’t min/max but are willing to work with each other and don’t let “marginal” dps numbers determine “success or failure“.

I feel for you my raiding brethern, but it does seem that Blizzard is looking more and more to the masses and less and less to the elite.

However, GC does end it on a positive note. Without commitment, he does seem to imply that Hunters are broken and they need to find a way to get ALL the specs close to each other in damage.

“But first we just have to get all the specs to be marginally different from each other.”

Well, there you have it. This seems to define the current strategy of hunters from GC’s point of view. And personally? Even if the current state of affairs seem grim, the future does look brighter. Different? Yes. But still brighter.