marks behind all dps specs by a huge margin

90 Draenei Shaman
16690
http://raidbots.com/dpsbot/Overall_DPS/25N/100/14/60/default/

it isnt even my raiding spec, but I do raid with a hunter. im curious why marks isnt getting any hotfix buffs, considering it is behind *all* dps specs by a great deal.

sure, they could go survival, but I dont see why one spec should be left in the dust.


Do you think it's fair to compare the top 55% of Marksmanship Hunters with the top 4.1% of Survival Hunters? That's what the graph you linked is doing.
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Death Knight
5445
They've always treated pures like that. Only hybrids get to use the "I want every single one of my specs to be viable" argument.


anyone can make this argument, you clearly have a deep hatred for hybrids
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Paladin
16325
Bandet MM is under represented. To me it has no rythm. In Cata I could feel the optimal play right now I want another hand to do my typing.

For the speed that I feel is needed to play it. It is not worth the effort.
Reply Quote
90 Troll Hunter
11370
The sheer number of people who just read the first post and bring up the exact same points that were already debated on the first page...
Reply Quote
90 Worgen Hunter
12425
arks is behind and doing poorly atm but it's likely that it isn't getting buffed because it beats Survival at the very end of the tier.


Look, I don't where people get this idea, but it is entirely wrong--just because Marks scales with weapon damage doesn't mean it scales better than SV or BM overall. Marks' higher weapon scaling is off-set by poor agility scaling. That is how the class is balanced--it's how all classes are balanced. Going from T14 to T15, Marks stays in pretty much the same spot relative to BM and SV. There is no difference in scaling when you consider upgrading gear and not just weapons.

The fact is that Marks is just awful, and the only reason anyone would ever play it is if it were higher single target than BM--then no one would play BM. The problem is that there is nothing to separate the two specs utility wise. If the goal is to make all specs usable in raids, then there needs to be more interesting mechanics in each to distinguish them.
Edited by Kennyloggins on 3/26/2013 3:52 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Human Warlock
12725
http://raidbots.com/dpsbot/Overall_DPS/25N/100/14/60/default/

it isnt even my raiding spec, but I do raid with a hunter. im curious why marks isnt getting any hotfix buffs, considering it is behind *all* dps specs by a great deal.

sure, they could go survival, but I dont see why one spec should be left in the dust.


I think the devs should first focus on those classes that only have one dps spec and bring them up first before worrying about classes that have multiple ways to deliver damage that have at least one viable spec. Ret and WW for instance. WW really needs some help. They have no dps alternative at all.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Paladin
16325
think the devs should first focus on those classes that only have one dps spec and bring them up first before worrying about classes that have multiple ways to deliver damage that have at least one viable spec. Ret and WW for instance. WW really needs some help. They have no dps alternative at all.


Tired of this arguement when the spec I play is at the bottom
Reply Quote
1 Troll Priest
0
welcome to why pvp is horribly broken, people think every single class needs 3 fully viable pve specs.
Reply Quote
86 Night Elf Rogue
6820
Wait, balance druids are good again? sweet!
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Death Knight
9570
welcome to why pvp is horribly broken, people think every single class needs 3 fully viable pve specs.


The issue is a little more complex then that. When you are talking about a pure class who has no choice in what role they wish to play, are they not entitled to some sort of assurance of quality that they are viable in that narrow role they are offered?

Considering the trade off and what a raw deal pures have got and keep on getting, I don't think that is too much to expect.
Reply Quote
90 Troll Hunter
11370
welcome to why pvp is horribly broken, people think every single class needs 3 fully viable pve specs.

It cuts both ways. MM got some changes (Chimera Shot) reverted because people were worried about its burst potential in PVP, and now it is rubbish in PVE too.

The fact is that Marks is just awful, and the only reason anyone would ever play it is if it were higher single target than BM--then no one would play BM. The problem is that there is nothing to separate the two specs utility wise. If the goal is to make all specs usable in raids, then there needs to be more interesting mechanics in each to distinguish them.

You're right, but I suspect that Blizzard won't be willing to redesign the mechanics of MM for at least a year or so, until the Burning Legion expac is further along in development.
Edited by Meleti on 3/27/2013 12:53 PM PDT
Reply Quote
10 Blood Elf Paladin
10
welcome to why pvp is horribly broken, people think every single class needs 3 fully viable pve specs.


pvp is broken cause blizzard cant get balance right.

it's why disc/shadow priests make up half the ladder right now, while say...monks dont even have 1 great pvp spec.
Reply Quote
10 Blood Elf Paladin
10
i think part of the reason is pve has become an arms race, much like pvp.

every class needs raid utility! (see: smoke bomb now reduces raid damage)

all buffs must be covered! (mark of the wild/kings being the same)

everyone needs cc!

and so on.

these changes have side effects: and some changes are made for pvp, some for pve. but imo, we need to "trim down" a lot of this stuff. homogenizing everything isnt good.
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Paladin
7070
i think part of the reason is pve has become an arms race, much like pvp.

every class needs raid utility! (see: smoke bomb now reduces raid damage)

all buffs must be covered! (mark of the wild/kings being the same)

everyone needs cc!

and so on.

these changes have side effects: and some changes are made for pvp, some for pve. but imo, we need to "trim down" a lot of this stuff. homogenizing everything isnt good.


It's the min/max nature of the entire game. If one class is strong then raids will just stack that class/spec. This is more true now than it was say 5 years ago.

More to the point, fixing marks is incredibly easy considering it's a pure DPS spec, under-performing in both PvE and PvP and not a single person is saying, "OMGZ nerf MM". MM can get buffed.
Reply Quote
1 Troll Priest
0
marks is pvp viable, it just isn't as good as bm.

you have 2 viable arena specs and 2 viable pve specs, do you really need 3 viable pve specs?
Reply Quote
10 Blood Elf Paladin
10
marks is pvp viable, it just isn't as good as bm.

you have 2 viable arena specs and 2 viable pve specs, do you really need 3 viable pve specs?


if mages do, why not hunters?
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Hunter
16400
marks is pvp viable, it just isn't as good as bm.

you have 2 viable arena specs and 2 viable pve specs, do you really need 3 viable pve specs?


We don't have 2 PvE specs though. The mechanics of Throne are extremely punishing to Beast. We've been telling Blizzard that since the PTR. Pets not getting buffs, travel time, random despawns, random instakills, etc.

We're the only Pure with a single spec usable in the new raid. Marks is stupidly easy to buff too without impacting PvP due to the high amount of low key passive modifiers like Careful Aim, Piercing Shots, Steady Focus, and Bombardment that would have little to no impact on PvP.

I don't understand why people are arguing against boosting an underperforming spec.
Edited by Bullettime on 3/27/2013 3:49 PM PDT
Reply Quote
1 Troll Priest
0
marks is pvp viable, it just isn't as good as bm.

you have 2 viable arena specs and 2 viable pve specs, do you really need 3 viable pve specs?


We don't have 2 PvE specs though. The mechanics of Throne are extremely punishing to Beast. We've been telling Blizzard that since the PTR. Pets not getting buffs, travel time, random despawns, random instakills, etc.

We're the only Pure with a single spec usable in the new raid. Marks is stupidly easy to buff too without impacting PvP due to the high amount of low key passive modifiers like Careful Aim, Piercing Shots, Steady Focus, and Bombardment that would have little to no impact on PvP.

I don't understand why people are arguing against boosting an underperforming spec.


viable doesn't mean the best, it just means you're viable.. the point is both specs(bm/surv) are pve viable. in all of my years raiding in this game i've never seen a guild sit one class in favor of another just because the other class does more dps.

for some reason people on these forums think they're pushing world first kills and need max dps/more than 2 viable specs.
Reply Quote
90 Troll Hunter
11370
the point is both specs(bm/surv) are pve viable.

If you enjoy being 10% behind SV on the mostly single target stuff and 40% behind on anything with multiple targets; as well as behind just about every other class and spec; sure BM and MM are "viable."
Edited by Meleti on 3/27/2013 4:01 PM PDT
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]