Youre very free to actually test it, rather than just attack me, but hey.. when ppl dont back up their statements. I did, with proof. I dont argue from "i prefer". I actually test it, and read up on it.
I dont prefer one 3:2 over the other. I dont have the gearing to use them this time around, just like 95% of the hunters on this server. But I do pay attention to when Im outdpsing a 3:2 macro user using my 1:1, with roughly same gearing as me, and when talking to them, they all use the server altered 3:2. But hey, I already knew from retail that the 3:2 had a late starting point vs the 1:1 macro. I also knew from experience that the 3:2 was a mana dump, before it was a dps gain.
And when we got a new hunter in the guild, who wanted to know why i could outdps him. We did this test. And it was consistant. Then I recalled there was talk about differnces in 3:2 macros, and started talking to an old retail raiding friend. He used to be a theory crafter on EJ, and still had the other 3:2 macro. Told me to test it against the server macro, and the above is the result.
The basic point being, dont use the 3:2 macro unless youre doing the highest end raiding. Youll do less damage and have less mana. Wether you wanna use one over the other, thats entirely up to you in t6 gearing both will outscale 1:1. Fact is 95% of the hunters on the server use a 3:2 with 2.0gs gearing and even less, because nobody tells them otherwise. And they perform poorly because of it. Dont use 3:2 untill you have full t6.
Gore and ravagers do have early advantages. But im seriously not gonna argue wether which pet is the best. Its been proven time and time again. So its redundant to actually keep arguing it. Again, its not about the buffs, or the melee%. Serpent simply can dish out more because its top damage isnt capped. Gore IS capped. And the better gearing you get on the hunter, the better the serpent gets. Youre arguing wether ravagers innate 2% advantage outdamages a non capped skill (with current gearing). Doesnt matter that ravager gets 2% more from buffs than serpent does. Serpents LB outdpses what ever buffs ravager gains on by simply being useable almost constantly. Gore cannot compete, and that leaves the LB the absolute top contender for damage output, by a LARGE margin. Yes most damage on most pets is white, but the 2% better ravager, does more than 2% less (of overall damage) on its ability.. buffs or no buffs. Every single buff debuff etc you mention here, ravager only gains 2% more of than wind serpent, its not more. If youre counting from the point that, ravager gets buffed and wind serpent doesnt... Then you might be right, just maybe. Thats just not how this works. And thats before going into further mechanics. Adding in gores damage reduction from armor, vs lb's vs resistances. LB's useability from ranged.
So again, the argument is: Is ravagers 2% better start, better than an uncapped ability. Early, yes. Late no.
Really do remember, that even with all buffs calculated in, the higher white damage on the ravage is still barely 2.03% gain.
At higher gearing, Lb vs gore. Lb has up to 100% damage gain on gore, and thats jut the base damage and cd combined. If u think thats negateable by buffs to gore, you really should go make a dps test on a boss lvl 73.
Or some simple maths: if gore does 100dps in a fight nonbuffed. LB does up to 200dps, unbuffed. This is from base damage and cd cap. Lb will always have twice the base damage output potential (only depending on hunter gearing).
If u buff gore 50% it does 150dps, Lb still does 200dps unbuffed. But hey, you mentioned a 4% and an innate 2% with a lets be nice 15% random buff increase? So gore would do 125dps, and lb could do 200dps (absolute base damage, still not counting in the different mechanics of buffs LB gets). Sure thing, gores does look good compared.....
And when is the cap on gores max dps potential? At 25% crit rating on the hunter. Which is reached halfway through karazhan.