Talk:Hunter builds

Back to page

Revision as of 16:01, October 23, 2007 by Sharlin (Talk | contribs)

103,501pages on
this wiki

Talent builds on this page need to be updated. They link to the new Burning Crusade talent trees on the WoW site, so the talents are now a little messed up.

Hawk Eye

Hawk eye was moved to the Survivalist tree. You should fix that. -User:Lodra what the fudge? 5 points in trueshot aura something isnt right...-User:beserke

Hunter specs

I have noticed that much fact has been said with no proper backup, like "Beast Mastery does highest damage, followed by MM followed by Surv" but truth is it is all down to the individual player, his play style and his armour.

Also the World of Warcraft forums are huge, if someone is aware of posts that can prove one build is by far superior to the other, please can they link to it, or else it seems like someone's biased view on this. Furiousv 10:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In regards to this point, why don't you go find something to prove the claim wrong before deleting it. The bulk of these articles were written by people playing Hunters who know the numbers and helped figure them out (and worked on numbers as posted on wow forums).
The point of talent builds cannot preclude bias. Else why would be have different builds? The claim is about as moronic as I have seen here SharlinTalk / Did 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


The neutrality of the Hunter's builds page is very disputable. There are indeed numerous claims that one build is superior to another without explanations about talents or theorycraft to back the claim. At best there's a risk of being misleading. The page could most definitely do with a clean up and a good review to be objective again.
Marking accordingly in order to see how we can improve and make it informative it without biased views and claims. Malusz 06:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Currently copied the article in my sandbox to try and clean up the humongous number of proposed builds, some of them in double exemplaries. Updating to TBC status where I think is relevant. Going to need peer review to check out I actually remain as neutral as possible in describing the potential of each tree and that it improves the overall quality of the article. Malusz 17:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've have read some of your changes to the page. Sorry, but Beast Master builds have higher sustained DPS during raids and your removal of that claim is incorrect. The Beast Master build will get off more shots per boss encounter than ANY other build. If you do wholesale replace it I will simply go back and put it in. For someone claiming to make the article neutral and crying because its not backed by "theorycraft" you certainly aren't attempting to back yours. I have both MM and BM hunters and the BM gets requested because of sustained predictable damage.
I said "Trying to", not that I can or that I can alone. In addition, it would seem that at high agility levels the Surv build gets better results. I'm more interested in pointing out which talents to take in a specific tree and goal and why than rating trees against one another actually. Please sign your comments too, makes it easier to converse. Malusz 20:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I did sign my comment, you replied into the middle of it, next time figure it out SharlinTalk / Did 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
What needs to be done is for the various builds within each specialization to be trimmed down. The section of "What builds best for" should have its information put into a description of each tree at the top as it tends to repeat what was said before. SharlinTalk / Did 11:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You may have a point. I'll try to see at that. Malusz 20:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Revising Hunter Bulds

I've begun to revise some of the build roundups, starting with the descriptions of BM and Marks. I've chosen to address each build's situational uses within the initial descriptions so that they're context is more apparent. If this looks good, I'll continue.

The "What's the best build for____" section is rather subjective. I think a list of builds that's organized into categories like 5-man, raid, pvp, arena, etc. would be more accessible and specifics like Expose Weakness can be kept within the tree descriptions.

Precisely why I flagged the page NPOV. I'm trying to do the same, but in Sandbox. Once some neutrality is restored and it is informative again, I think the whole section can be replaced. Your help is more than welcome to improve my draft. Malusz 17:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
As I posted above, the "Whats the best build for" section should be removed. The strengths and weaknesses of each build can best be described in the previous section which details the talent tree. In fact the "Whats the best..." seems to duplicate a lot of what was said before SharlinTalk / Did 11:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
May I also suggest removing suggested talents from the builds specific to each tree? Its, like, redundant. SharlinTalk / Did 11:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Revising the whole article

I am going to model my replacement page on the work I did ages ago for Warlocks. Essentially I am going to section that page along talent trees. Each tree will have a list of talents to focus on, its duties in pve, pvp, and instancing, and various builds.

I plan on stripping names off of every build. I will keep two or three builds per talent tree and throw few under a hybrid category SharlinTalk / Did 16:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki