2.3 thoughts

[Dor]

anyone thought about running 4 bm specced hunters and a healer (prob shadow priest). seems it would be nasty in av or something with 4 pets on you and with the semi removal of the dead zone, seems like might be fun.

[grimfandang0]

Im secretly prepping 3 BE hunters for tests on this for when 2.3 launches

[Ughmahedhurtz]

I have 4 60 hunters on another server. Not sure I'm interested in playing another set here on Mag. The three biggest problems are not having AoE, having to face your target to shoot them and having to stand still to do DPS. Plus, with the changes to warlocks in 2.0 and 2.1, demo-spec felguard armies have many of the same benefits as hunters.

I like hunter squads a LOT for instance farming but not so much for general PVP.

[Sandman004]

I am also kinda wondering how hunters would do...I think their pets would do good if the person was BM, at least in AV

[Wally]

I think this will make them a very viable choice. Not only do you have the pet tanks and high dps .. but you have toons that wear mail and can take a reasonable amount of damage, you have hunter traps etc.

And if it all goes to crap .. just get them to faint

[Djarid]

it is a shame mouse synchronisation is so flaky :(

4x hunter kiting with jump shot would own in PVP ;)

[Zaelar]

And if it all goes to crap .. just get them to faint

And pray one of the jumper cables works on the priest.

[Djarid]

And if it all goes to crap .. just get them to faint

And pray one of the jumper cables works on the priest.

ROFL - 5% chance to work x4

1 in 5 times you won't have to corpse run! ;)

[Zaelar]

Last I checked it's 25% for regular and 50% for XL.

In theory anyway.

[kalih]

Is it 25%/50% based on every try of that particular set of jumpers, or 25%/50% of every set on the server, effectively making it random.


Erm. Both of those options seem, to me, to be perfectly equally random.

In your post you seem to think that somehow other rolls of random numbers for a certain % drop that are happening elsewhere somehow effect your rolls. I don't think that's the case.

25% is 25%. Always. Everywhere.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

I used both extensively on my first two 60s (solo, pre-multiboxing) and I've never experienced more than about 5% success with those POS.

[kayb]

25% or 50% chance is exactly that. This has nothing to do with other people on the server, or the server as an entity. It's just statistics.

Use the XL version 100 times, and you'll find that you're pretty close to 50 successful revives. It might fail 5 times in a row, thats pretty easy to remember. The times it succeeds 5 times in a row is harder to remember, this is why it feels like its failing alot more than its succeeding.

If you roll a dice 100 times, do you think it would matter if someone in China also rolled a dice 100 times?

[Shogun]

Ya.. if you take everyones usage (every player on a server), and crunch the numbers, you probably get somewhere in the 25% range.

But to the individual player (me for example), the actual success rate is FAR less. Less than 5%.

I'm saying the data pool is every player on the server, not each specific player.

So its possible for an individual player to have a zero percent success rate.

Knew a few people who claimed that they sucked and worked about 5% of the time, if that. And then they'd revive people fairly often with them in raids...

[Djarid]

I found about 5% success rate also with the XL

about every 1 in 20 would be a success... ironically it often seemed to proc when it was really needed to avoid a wipe but maybe it is just my flaky memory only remembering the good times ;)

[Zaelar]

Any time something has a chance to succeed, the observed percentage of success could be anyone from 0% to 100%. The larger the sample, the better the odds that it will be closer to whatever the chance of success is. Flip a coin 100 times, you got 55 heads. That doesn't mean 55% chance to get heads, thats just what your sample observed. You could have gotten 100 heads or 100 tails. Flip a coin once and you will either have 100% heads or 100% tails.