World of Warcraft

Will he now? You are discussing theory, with an extremely talented warrior. However, while going trough your theories you make the hunter below extremely talented. Sure, he may be able to get a shot in- if the hunter is not able to run a maximum range kite. If there are two perfect players, there is no way that a warrior without intercept can catch up with a hunter. Neither will he get within shooting range.

Also, a good kiter predicts. A good hunter does not run into trees, walls, rocks or anything while kiting.
The hunter only stops for half a second to shoot before it starts running again. Since it has 7y further range than the warrior as well as concussive shot, the warrior will never get within range.

Moot? A good hunter keeps an eye open always. The warrior would be charged by the pet and shot by an arrow before he get a chance to charge if the hunter is any good.

It does not matter if this warrior was God himself by the keyboard. Without luck, it does not matter how good he is. He will never touch the hunter unless the hunter run out of kite space (Which a good kiter does not)

But sure, a good warrior versus a less good hunter probably would win.
An exceptional warrior versus an exceptional hunter would not.

Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, that's what a good warrior would do, Dark. Run away and hope the hunter would be stupid enough to give chase, and then lead him into an area with a bunch of level 10 mobs that would aggro him.

And yeah, you'd get kited, but with the level difference, and the lack of HP that a level 10 USUALLY has (most level 10's don't even have much green gear, maybe a piece or two) all the warrior would need to do it get like 3 or 4 shots off to win the fight.

Even if the warrior armed himself with a twink weapon, like the level 18 PvP bow or even Venomstrike from Wailing Caverns, those are both 2.4s shoot times. The first shot, if fired from within range would obviously hit because of your mentioned lag, but after that I severely doubt the warrior's ability to simply run up within shooting range again and stop and shoot before the hunter runs out of range again, especially if the hunter was capitalizing on the use of Concussive Shot. That's almost 2 and a half seconds for the hunter to gain some ground against the warrior. Warrior's best bet if you're going into a ranged situation would be a faster gun/bow to make up for more ground. With a weapon so slow as the twink ones, he'd have an extra 5-6y to make up for.

Originally posted by BackFire
As the hunter would eventually have to change direction while kiting to avoid aggro or running into a tree, the warrior would use this to gain some ground and get within range.

Originally posted by Lady Fox
Will he now? You are discussing theory, with an extremely talented warrior. However, while going trough your theories you make the hunter below extremely talented. Sure, he may be able to get a shot in- if the hunter is not able to run a maximum range kite. If there are two [b]perfect players, there is no way that a warrior without intercept can catch up with a hunter. Neither will he get within shooting range.

Also, a good kiter predicts. A good hunter does not run into trees, walls, rocks or anything while kiting.
The hunter only stops for half a second to shoot before it starts running again. Since it has 7y further range than the warrior as well as concussive shot, the warrior will never get within range.

Moot? A good hunter keeps an eye open always. The warrior would be charged by the pet and shot by an arrow before he get a chance to charge if the hunter is any good.

It does not matter if this warrior was God himself by the keyboard. Without luck, it does not matter how good he is. He will never touch the hunter unless the hunter run out of kite space (Which a good kiter does not)

But sure, a good warrior versus a less good hunter probably would win.
An exceptional warrior versus an exceptional hunter would not. [/B]

Of course I'm discussing theory, YOU made this argument about what COULD happen, what is possible, you made the factually wrong argument that it would be impossible for a good hunter to lose to any warrior without the hunter making errors, I have proven that it is very possible for a level 20 warrior to beat a level 10 hunter even if the hunter does not error, simply by taking advantage of game mechanics. You made it not a matter of what is likely or easy, but what is possible, even if it's a %.000000001, it's possible.

Learn to read, please. I did not say the hunter would run into trees, I said that the hunter would be forced to change direction (as in, not just run in a straight line forever) to avoid mobs and random pieces of scenery. The warrior could see this coming and take advantage of it and use it to make up ground get shots off.

And it is again, factually impossible for someone to look in all directions at all times. Unless you spin your camera in circles constantly you will have your back to someone at some point. And going back to the innate lag in the game, a warrior can and will use that to get a charge off before you can turn around, and fire a weapon.

Also if you're stopping AT ALL when you're kiting as a hunter you are playing poorly, .5 seconds is more than enough time to ensure that the warrior will get a few shots in every now and then if, again, he knows how to take advantage of the innate game-lag and get some shots in when he technically shouldn't.

So, if you don't like where the argument is heading, down the road of theory, then you should have made a better argument than "No warrior can beat a hunter if the hunter doesn't make a mistake". You're forgetting the biggest fact of all, there is no such thing as a perfect player.

And DarkC, it would take about 4 shots, at least one of them would probably crit because of the huge level difference, so that would make it down to 3, and that's being generous. And as said above, it's not about what you doubt, it's about what's possible and what isn't. It is absolutely possible that the warrior could get back in to range to shoot the hunter, it may not be likely, but it's possible. The argument became about what is and isn't possible when Fox made her poorly thought out 'all or nothing' argument. Also, a good warrior can negate that circular strafing every single time.

L2 read is my saying....well techinally, mine is L2P...... still....

Originally posted by BackFire
And DarkC, it would take about 4 shots, at least one of them would probably crit because of the huge level difference, so that would make it down to 3, and that's being generous.

For example, take my warrior; he's 70 with his Thrown skill maxed. When I was running my friend through WC, I critted with the thrown around 1/4 of the time. And that's with a fifty level difference.

Originally posted by BackFire
And as said above, it's not about what you doubt, it's about what's possible and what isn't. It is absolutely possible that the warrior could get back in to range to shoot the hunter, it may not be likely, but it's possible.

Originally posted by BackFire
Also, a good warrior can negate that circular strafing every single time.

Originally posted by DarkC
If it was crit with melee instead of ranged, I would agree with you since that is a warrior's most primary form of attack. However, while the level difference is reasonably high enough, they're both still at a low enough level so that the warrior isn't going to get a lot of added crit. Certainly not close to the margin you described, 1 in 4 crit with a level difference of only ten. It's not a matter of "at least one is going to crit", if the warrior gets a crit period he should consider himself lucky.

For example, take my warrior; he's 70 with his Thrown skill maxed. When I was running my friend through WC, I critted with the thrown around 1/4 of the time. And that's with a fifty level difference.

It can technically be done, but it's still very unlikely against a skilled hunter, like I said. It's not something to be relied on however. We're not dealing with a black and white situation where the chances are 50/50, not even close. It's simply a possibility and not a high one at that, nothing more.

Not exactly. It's simply a matter of throwing stops and feints to get the warrior to stall, like deking out a goalie in ice hockey. The hunter's in control of where he/she is leading the warrior, so the warrior's at an even worse disadvantage.

WC is filled with elites, they have different stats and resistances. Even though, yes, a ranged crit wouldn't do as much, I don't think you're appreciating how little HP a level 10 has, especially an average geared one. Would probably be around 300 or so, an average level 20 warrior would have around 700, and his ranged crits would probably hit for 60 or 70. But yes, with no crits it would probably take about 5 hits or so.

Yes, it can technically be done, that's all that matters in the context of how the scenario is being discussed.

No, a good warrior will almost always negate circular strafing, it's cake for them, they simply won't fall for the deking, like a good goalie.

Originally posted by BackFire
WC is filled with elites, they have different stats and resistances.

Originally posted by BackFire
Even though, yes, a ranged crit wouldn't do as much, I don't think you're appreciating how little HP a level 10 has, especially an average geared one. Would probably be around 300 or so, an average level 20 warrior would have around 700, and his ranged crits would probably hit for 60 or 70. But yes, with no crits it would probably take about 5 hits or so.

You also seem to be disregarding the hunter's ability to concussive and run away to bandage fast, while the warrior can't exactly do that; hunter still has the ranged jump on him to waltz right back in and interrupt.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, a good warrior will almost always negate circular strafing, it's cake for them, they simply won't fall for the deking, like a good goalie.

A shootout in the NHL, that's an entirely different thing, more factors come into play such as shot tendency, weak side, whether to go for the pokecheck or not, etc.

I'm not disregarding that ability, I spoke of it earlier. It's not make or break, though, it doesn't make it an absolute impossibility for a warrior to beat a hunter if both are played well, which is again what is being discussed.

Yes, the warrior would hit for 40, and crit for 60 or so. Give or take some.

I know it's in a players instinct, some players are good enough to where they change their instinct, good warriors are incredibly difficult to kite, because they are thinking about 10 seconds ahead and know what you are probably going to do before you even do. The warrior is in a good amount of control in an open ended battle, some great ones will even control ranged battles by being so knowledgeable in the kiting strategy, they simply won't fall for the dekes, they'll see them coming.

Originally posted by Lady Fox
I theorycraft 🙂

And I HAVE played 😄

..bangs 🙂

and i hope this whole wall-o-text that im reading isnt about that level 20 warrior and level 10 hunter argument still

Partly yes, i think they're upping the levels at bit aswell

Originally posted by EvilAngel
Partly yes, i think they're upping the levels at bit aswell

Well, it should be obvious a level 70 hunter would win against a warrior with even skill and stats.

thats just the ez mode law of the hunter

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Well, it should be obvious a level 70 hunter would win against a warrior with even skill and stats.

thats just the ez mode law of the hunter

I disagree, i played warrior to 49, i never once lost to a huntard 😛

So either i'm uberly skilled, or Warriors just generally beat hunters.

I'd say it's about even some warrior find hunters impossible (lol) at others like myself think their easy. As is the same with hunters or so i get the impression

Originally posted by EvilAngel
I disagree, i played warrior to 49, i never once lost to a huntard 😛

So either i'm uberly skilled, or Warriors just generally beat hunters.

I'd say it's about even some warrior find hunters impossible (lol) at others like myself think their easy. As is the same with hunters or so i get the impression

Originally posted by Mairuzu
at 49 im sure its easy, i mean at 70

Right of course, remind me of the skills they gets from 50 to 70 that changes that......

Becuase i looked by i don't see any, so it kinda makes that sound like a load of tripe. My friend is 61 at the moment, when he gets to 70, if he says Hunters are hard, i'll believe you, but at the moment the only thing he outright looses to are mages and skilled warlocks.

Again, at 70 a good warrior is one of the hardest opponents a hunter will face, warrior and rogue.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
just messing with you....

..bangs 🙂

and i hope this whole wall-o-text that im reading isnt about that level 20 warrior and level 10 hunter argument still

It is, but I myself am dropping the whole 10 > 20 thing 😛

Bangs 😄

Originally posted by EvilAngel
I disagree, i played warrior to 49, i never once lost to a huntard 😛

So either i'm uberly skilled, or Warriors just generally beat hunters.

I'd say it's about even some warrior find hunters impossible (lol) at others like myself think their easy. As is the same with hunters or so i get the impression

You might very possibly have killed a 49 hunter as 49 warrior. I do not doubt that. However, if the hunter is talented enough and the right build, the warrior stand chanceless.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
Right of course, remind me of the skills they gets from 50 to 70 that changes that......

Becuase i looked by i don't see any, so it kinda makes that sound like a load of tripe. My friend is 61 at the moment, when he gets to 70, if he says Hunters are hard, i'll believe you, but at the moment the only thing he outright looses to are mages and skilled warlocks.

Steady Shot, Snake Trap and Aspect of the Viper are three skills they get. Not that they change that, but they help.
Other than that, mostly a 70 hunter is more talented than a 49 hunter. They also got better gear and got more talents to assist them in the battle.
A hunter can specificaly focus on being a better warrior killer and still stand a general chance against anyone in BG. If no hunter has ever stood a chance against you, it is the hunters that are terrible (Not saying you are not a good player. I am sure you are)

http://www.wowhead.com/?talent=cVfhdx0oZE0bRVuZ0GhGz

This build along with a boar is in my opinion the exceptional way to beat a warrior in my opinion 😄

ahh ime thankful for being a lock, i can own almost anything my level and not too high in equipment above me, altho if i was Demo id prob be much more powerful in pvp?

Depends on the situation 🙂

A demonologist is a survivalist with a lot of firepower. They are most endurant of all and the safest path to go.

An affliction warlock on the other hand is almost destined to win any 1v1 battle. They are not as endurant as a demonologist though.

If you want to kill quickly and get high crits, destruction is your build, but you are at that point in the most vournable state 🙂

I myself would prefere a demonologist, mainly because of their endurance and capability to fight multiple at once 🙂

well technically ime a PVE character, ime master of Affliction build, mostly, so ill prob stay the affliction build, its great for killing loads even if you end up dieing

but in PVP ime sure Demonologist is great, in old WoW i owned almost anything with Demonologist, i love sacking Voids and almost instantly getting a new pet (maybe Suc) i used to own with that combo, altho since lvl 70, ime sure a felguard would be cool, altho i find them less of support than a Suc or Felhunter

fighting muliples would be useless for me since ive not got great pvp gear, only some T4 and 70 purples but from no higher than Karazhan and maybe Grulls so most of the serious players could easily out DPS me