New SV Talent BuildsFollow

He gives his opinions and nothing else.
a.k.a its pretty worthless.
He says a whole lot of things but doesnt provide any prove for them whatsoever.

Note that he's also not talking about BM hunters. Hawk will increase your dps, it's just seen as not as viable for the SV spec, it also causes changes in your shot cycle which makes it hard to keep a consistent cycle going. I think the shot cycle stability is probably the main reason why you might not spec it.

I release detailed theroy with new test notes. Such as the hawk testing that is currently being done by myself and 5 other hunters. Once the theory has been released and has been accepted into the community, it gets added into the guide. At the moment we're still stuck on what we're calling "haste drop points". Those are the posts at which rotations change and how that's affected by hawk. Give it a try and you will see why so many people use it. I'm not going to put months worth of WWS reports under every single talent icon.



Because the guide isn't just for end game progression raiding. Monster slaying isn't in the compulsory talent because it isn't compulsory. I reason there is a section is because it was brought up almost nightly on the US hunter forums and that sections waylays confusion. Out of the 7 low tier talents, monster slaying is the 3rd best for dps in a beast/giant/dragon strewn environment. Not that not all guilds are good and not all guides 1 shot easy *** lootbag bosses. That doesn't mean the guide shouldn't cover those people. Generally I let people pick whatever they want below surefooted before making them a build. The only 2 compulsory points below that mark are humanoid slaying and hawk eye.

Also, thank you for pointing out the typo. Never noticed it.



Now you just seem to be reaching for straws slightly. It says what to do about the talent at the moment. Steer clear unless you want to test it for yourself basically. I work with hunters that manage to use hawk builds to deal about 1700-1800 dps in practice and yet the statistical theory shows that to be an impossibility. That's what provoked the last 2 month of testing with various weapons, talent compositions, gear points etc I'm working with these hunters now to find out their exact playstyles and we've come up with alot of interesting data so far that will be released as soon as I'm off bed rest and have time to type up our findings properly.

Most survival talents aren't a case of good or bad, they're a case of good or bad on a certain hunter in a certain situation. The reason I'm an active member in the community is so I can help assess those hunters and situations/progression levels in order to yield the best results.



And now you're just bullsh*tting. ;) You got yourself on a roll and couldn't stop typing. Please don't pretend to know anything about psychological reactions. When my work gets attacked, I get defensive. That is logical and natural. A non-responsive reaction would be far more suspicious and concerning.

Survival isn't a stock standard tree. With beast mastery and even marks, statistical theory is enough to tell you everything you need to know in order to do max dps. Survival has far too many variables and talent variations. Once hawk testing is finished for good (which won't be for another few weeks) then the work on armor pen full damage iAS/Barrage builds will begin. Theory is forever changing and discovering new things, nothing is set in stone.

I hope that clears up a few inconsistencies. Assuming Alumatine is the author of course. -.-


Alu.

Edited, Apr 6th 2008 12:49am by Alumatine

I won't argue anymore matey. The fact remains that you are talking for the sake of talking. You are simply wasting my time over what you do not understand. You are twisting words to try to make yourself look big and I tell you what, It isn't going to work. I put in the time and effort and collate and test information to give input on EVERYTHING. Not just what is good for certain raiders, not just what is good for certain weapon speeds, raid make ups etc etc. Basically all you are saying is that I'm wrong because you don't agree. The fact that hunters that use the site and email me or leave me comments with thanks and for the dps gains. I think that speaks for itself.

Anyone that reads the site and reads your post can work out that you have no evidence. Well done.


Last post. You aren't worth the time and because of that, neither are these forums. Anyone that wants to talk to me in depth can leave a comment with contact info on the site. I assure you that the "Hoop jumping" will be worth it.

Cheers,
Alu.

We arent downtalking you, trying to insult you, or saying that your site is crap.
We are however asking for more information, we dont blindly trust any website without seeing proof.
Or in other words: we want to see the theory behind your opinion.
And you give no proof of what you say on that site, there's also not much more then some basic petinfo, some macro's and some links on there.
So i have now looked at everything on that site and i still stand behind my initial response, wether you think its close minded or not.
I just think its realistic and not naive like you apparently expect people to be.

A better example is that marksmanship is the top DPS tree in early end-game (i.e. learning T4 content) but gets weaker as time goes on, due to the scaleability of TSA.

I also have no idea what exactly he's talking about with hawk, however the reason some people may see huge spikes or dips in damage due to imp hawk is if imp hawk brings them to a more or less optimal rate of fire. e.g. less auto-shot clipping. However, I've done the math in the past, and found that if you keep hawk up 57% of the time then IAotH SHOULD yield a higher DPS increase than master tactician,

However, in Altumatine's posts, all I have seen is a lot of "we did the research" but no research to show for it. There aren't really any numbers on the site, just a lot of text. While text is good, when concerning wow mechanics it should be used to explain numbers, not substitute for them. It would also be nice if after doing the "months of work" on the testing, they could at least provide numbers/spreadsheets for how many points to use when your weapon speed is X, or your weapon speed is Y and your crit % is Z.
As to the talent builds themselves...WAY too many. Posting every variety is pretty much annoying rather than helpful, if the difference is 3 different talents (i.e. imp mark/efficiency, thrill/rws, etc) we don't need every variation. Just put up one with the first set, and one with the second set of talents. Also, I've noticed that all of the "utility" builds use MT, none include scatter shot, which IIRC a lot of the people who want utility prefer.

Now, I haven't done any math on iAS vs. IAotH, or barrage vs. others, etc...but I would be interested to see it, if someone has done it. However if all someone has done is speculate, I'm not too interested in seeing walls of text for it.

Basically, I think that the information Altumatine provides is not answers, but questions. And they deserve answers, however they need to be supported by some numbers.

Edited, Apr 6th 2008 4:54pm by skribs

The word you are looking for is 'optimal'. It's 'viable' in that it wont make your raid unable to complete the task, just not ideal.



Funny thing: That build he has on the top is basically my current build o.O And here I thought I was being all original.

Edited, Apr 7th 2008 3:45pm by digitalcraft