tenacious p
July 21, 2009
Or not… Ferocious, more than tenacious, it would seem. The next report in my series on hunter pets is up here. This one covers pet talents.
The most interesting numbers come from ignoring pet types and just consolidating the talent data across the three trees. For example, if we just get a count of each of tree we have this:
| Ferocity | 68% |
| Tenacity | 22% |
| Cunning | 9% |
Of course this is a reflection of the popularity of the different creature types, but it is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem – if hunters wanted the talents in the other trees they would just get different pets.
The thing I’m having a bit of trouble with is reporting on popular builds. For example, the most popular ferocity-based build is this one, which goes with cats, wolves and other non-flying ferocity-based pets. Part of its popularity comes from the fact that it can be applied to both cats and wolves – the two most common pet types.
But to link that build to either the Blizz or Wowhead calculators, I need to provide a specific pet family (I’ve set that link up for cats) even though I want to show consolidated build stats and not builds by each pet family.
My question to you is this: if I just set up all the links using just one pet type (one ground and one flying type, for each tree), would it be clear that this was consolidated data ?
July 22, 2009 at 3:20 am
The only difference between ground and flying is in Dash/Dive, correct? I think most people with flying pets would understand if you just used a build that said Dash. What’s more important to me, is that you provide both 16 and 20 point versions of each tree. Yes, there are still a few of us BM hunters out here
July 22, 2009 at 10:30 am
Yes, that’s an excellent suggestion about the 16 and 20 points.
My main concern is not so much with the flying/ground difference, but with having to link general builds to a specific pet type. If wolves and cats have the same popular builds, as they do, and I just linked to a cat build in the calculator, would readers realize that the data was not just for cats?