19 hunters? I'm calling bullshit on that.
I was in a game where each side had 4 hunters, and at the same time, there was a second game with Daydra in it that had 5 hunters on each side. Total that up, and it's 18.
You would think that at some point it becomes unattractive to play when there are so many hunters, and you take the initiative to make another character to switch to when that happens. Am I saying ban hunters? Discourage hunters?
Nope. I am simply saying that I don't think we need more than 1 hunter per side, and alliance regularly has more than one. Some of you need to roll a different character, even if it's just to swap to when you find yourself amongst multiple hunters on your team in a game.
And that goes for any class, really. It shouldn't have to come to everyone enforcing a ban on hunters (which would involve the throwing of games and/or camping of hunters) for you to realize that too many is a bad thing. Last night we had 4 priests on horde in one game. It was ridiculous because no one on our team died for the first 5 minutes, and every single player who tried to intercept them midfield ended up dying.
There have been other games with 4-5 rogues on one team, which ended up in a GY camp fest where the horde can't even out play them because of stealth and vanish.
I think it's much more appealing for everyone if we see a variety of classes in games. I don't think people are going to want to keep playing, much less pick up a 4th night if this continues. Please find a way to limit what you have queuing at any given time. Rubikz is obviously the only skilled active hunter on alliance right now (in terms of more than just damage meters) and horde doesn't even have a regularly active hunter.
We get people we would just as soon report afk to get rid of, which inevitably puts us down players in the long run. Meanwhile when you sit players to compensate, it's anything but a hunter.
Something's gotta give.
Getting it free is a bonus too 
