For one, you can clearly see that melee wasn’t the only thing that was “unique” to the SV category. Literally all aspects of that category were exclusive in terms of function/theme, and weren’t also found in either the BM or MM categories.
SV focused on improved defensive capabilities, it had talents that focused on improved general utility, improved melee capabilities, and also traps.
Meanwhile, the BM category was exclusively focusing on anything and everything that had to do with pets and bestial aspects.
MM was all about the primary functions of ranged weapons, literally nothing about talents with a primary focus on defensive capabilities, or traps, or pets.
Is this really that hard to get? Again, each category was designed to focus on specific parts of the base toolkit/core class design, to improve upon them. The philosophy did not intend for you to want to suddenly ignore your primary ways of fulfilling your role(in this case, as a damage dealer).
I was working on a response but it honestly isn’t worth the time anymore. I give my opinion. You tell me I am wrong because history. I use your logic against you, you tell me I am wrong again and the cycle repeats.
Survival is a melee spec. Be mad about it. Best change blizzard ever made because yours and Bepples hatred for it makes it worth every ounce of energy spent making melee. Can’t wait to see the rust under your eyes in the next SV thread. The salt in those tears is industrial grade.
Call down Thanos, Reality cant always be what you want especially here
you parry in melee genius
Warriors can root with a charge, does that mean they are ranged too?
for melee
it was melee. The spells you are trying to claim are not melee trigger melee ability’s to be used. At least pretend to know what you are wanting to make a claim against cause
and it worked wonders with aspect of the monkey. Again you dont know what you are trying to say here.
Didnt prot pallys lack a taunt in classic but were supposed to be tanks? Bruh you clownin hard here.
why would you repeat yourself
oh here we go, cant wait to see this Olympics level mental gymnastics to attempt a victory on a losing argument
The original ending talent was Lacerate. You lost just take the L for once.
so melee? gotcha
and a melee weapon, since you were gonna be focusing on using that one
MM abilitys* Also Survival didnt preform well at all especially the way you are trying to say it worked in Classic.
kinda funny the entire tree is about keeping in that 5y range
So you didnt play survival in classic aswell did ya?
its a situational argument you like to engage in. If you are losing you will hop to the classic side of things, or go to WoD. If we get to legion or beyond, you cry like my 4 year old over not getting tater tots for dinner.
and them raptor strike crits were destructive especially on clothies or mobs the same level as you.
you still cant get around to hunters using melee abilitys with a talent tree designed for them to use them as well. I mean you still try to debate it, but the information is readily available
I mean this just contradicts your argument earlier lmfao
I imagine you think someone smiling at you means they want your phone number huh?
you* its you and your other account. Anyone notice they speak the exact same until one gets mad then the other one gets mad aswell?
try doing this for 2 years lol. It gets funnier every time they respond.
If you want a good laugh, go to the hunter class discord and go to the survival tab and type in !bepples
You been going against both of his accounts. But just a friendly reminder for everyone that Survival will still be Melee in the next expansion onwards. Cheers!
One good reason to argue is to pick people’s brains. The way people pick at Bepples’ brain, he may very well have a Ph.D in Hunterology and want to see exactly how much he knows the class.
oh look the Meme channel, it even says it in the channel description. You know it so stop being stupid cause you are backed in a corner. Its just sad on your end cause this is a major cope
So, you? I mean when people who enjoy and play the spec are told they are wrong by a pathetic little forum troll who doesnt know what hes talking about or play the spec are told they are wrong, its kinda hilarious. Hurry and link your favorite anti msv youtube video to back up your claims! That will make me want to go range!
Some great ideals in this post. I especially like the pet raid utility, the AoE change, also the disengage change. Though the later would drive the player base to be outside with pitchforks and torches at Blizz HQ.
That’s the pattern I’ve always kept seeing. I’ve read most of his dissertations already. I can admit it would have felt like being in Hunter graduate school.
That’s why I don’t argue, mainly because if I did, chances are he would have said something I would have read a time ago.
The thing is, you haven’t argued your opinion. You’ve made claims, referencing “facts” of history. You’ve argued, using our class’ historical design as your basis of support. The main problem when you say you’ve used our logic against us is that, when you make your arguments, you ignore the very fundamental design of the class, as it was initially realised back in Vanilla(that being the actual core toolkit). None of us have ever argued that there weren’t talents within the SV category, in Vanilla, which focused on the melee-aspects of the class. What we’ve been arguing, is that the idea that current SV’s design is a modern realisation of what the initial SV category promoted, in terms of gameplay, that it’s categorically false.
The SV talent category in Vanilla focused on survivability over anything else, in terms of its main theme. The devs have spoken about this several times, how their intent with talent categories back in the day was for each of them to focus on a central overarching aspect of the class as a whole, focusing on ways to improve it. As I’ve said before:
Beast Mastery: This category, its talent focused on improving everything that had to do with our pets, and other bestial aspects. It focused on increasing the survivability of our pets, the damage of our pets, certain pet-specific utility(Intimidation, IRP, etc.), and again, it provided options to improve our bestial aspects(Monkey/Hawk/Cheetah/Pack).
Marksmanship: Its talents focused on improving all aspects of the use of ranged weapons. Better damage, improvements to specific ranged utility(ImprCS, Scatter Shot), along with improved efficiency in terms of mana consumption, CDR, attack range, etc.
Survival: Its talents focused on improving all aspects of our survivability, allowing for a better adaptation to specific situations(content). It improved our tracking capabilities(damage), our defensive options(for both melee and ranged), increased our stamina, bonuses to general class-wide utility such as Feign Death, and more-so, our Traps. It also provided enhancements to our melee-capabilities, talking both utility and damage*.
*Was the purpose of the melee-oriented talents to make you want to intentionally go toe-to-toe with your enemies? Not at all, the purpose was to make us more efficient at dealing with situations where we would find ourselves forced to enter melee range. Why? Because we had hard restrictions put on our ranged weapons, where we could not use them at all when we were closer than 8 yards to an enemy. And in certain types of content(mainly PvP), you were naturally forced to spend more time in melee range of your enemies.
Your fellow MSV-enthusiast ‘Toxik’ more or less put forth the same counter-arguments as you did. He have made it clear that he’s only memeing and trolling me and Bepples, so you’d never know if he actually means anything he says, but since you said these things as well, let’s take an example or two:
you parry in melee
Yes, but they’re still talents designed with the main purpose of improving our survivability. If you remember, the main argument from certain MSV-enthusiasts is that “SV was a melee spec in Vanilla, which is what current SV is based on”. But again, talents that give a higher parry chance would never make you want to intentionally seek out melee range, when the main purpose of the class is to be a damage dealer. Especially in certain types of content where melee can be avoided entirely.
It(talents that increased dodge+parry chance) worked wonders with aspect of the monkey[when combined with abilities like Mongoose Bite and Counterattack].
You[Leokitas] didn’t say this word-for-word, but I assume this is what you meant when you used talents like ‘Deterrence’ and ‘Deflection’ as a basis for your argument.
Like I mentioned above, the issue with this argument is that such abilities were useless in certain parts of the game, that being PvE content in general. In solo-content, the intent was that your pet should do the tanking, while you stood back and fired off ranged attacks. In group-based content, the intent was that your tank should be taking most, if not all(preferably) incoming attacks. And, as such, any abilities you had that relied on the enemy attacking you weren’t useful for pretty much anything at all.
This is why I said that the intent with the SV category in Vanilla wasn’t to make you want to intentionally seek out melee range, and use melee attacks as your primary source of damage. Because, again, the only ability that could be used reliably for damage, while in melee range, was Raptor Strike.
I have. Multiple times. Ask Bepples he’s called my opinion “rancid and terrible” multiple times. My most recent posts maybe not. I have been trying to show Bepples that if you look 18 years in the past you can justify whatever you want if you dig deep enough.
So exactly what Bepples and you do. “It was; there for it shall be.” My original argument has been it doesn’t need to be the same as in the past. But some people can’t let go of what was in the past. So I’ll dig through the past too so maybe some of you will understand the leaps in logic that are being used.
I don’t. I just don’t think fundamental is as rigid as “uses a bow”. MSV has pet, uses traps, even shoots some arrows. Just because it uses a melee weapon doesn’t mean it isn’t fundamentally a hunter. It is. At least in my opinion.
Agree to disagree. In PVE this may be true. But I don’t PVE on my hunter. But in PvP MSV truly feels like a double down on what made SV unique.
So you took survival talents to deal with the situation of being within melee range? So you might say. . .the survival tree was based around your melee capabilities even if the design of the class didn’t revolve around melee back then.
Due to the new design of SV they are no longer useless in PVE. You just don’t enjoy them.
I understand that. . . I also understand that vanilla was 18 years ago and things change. I also understand that just because I dislike the way something was changed doesn’t inherently make it terrible and the people who enjoy it lesser beings.
MSV is fundamentally a hunter whether or not Bepples and yourself agree. You fight beside a loyal pet companion you tamed from the wild. You shoot arrows (albeit far fewer). You lay traps. You focus on damage.
The weapon you use is NOT what makes you a hunter. It may be the reason you enjoyed the spec in the past. I preferred the balancing act that was BFA boomkin. Its gone. As an adult I had to accept that. I enjoyed Gladiator stance on warriors. Its gone. As an adult I had to accept that. I enjoyed DfA as a sub rogue in legion. Its gone. As an adult I had to accept that. Using a bow as a survival hunter is gone. You have to accept that.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, this is true. The reason people get so sick of Bepples though, is because he derails every single constructive thread about the current playable iteration of the spec into a Make survival ranged again flame fest. Take this thread for example. The OP literally states they enjoy playing the current survival. Instead of putting reasonable constructive input as to the way the spec currently plays its “MSV is garbage bring back 2003.” Make your own thread about it and let people who want to discuss that, discuss it; instead of jabaiting people into reading the same thing you guys have been saying for the past 6 years. We get it. You don’t approve.
This whole thing stems from your assumptions that what makes a hunter, a hunter, is the bow in their hand. It’s an extremely shallow perspective.
What I meant is that you’ve made claims that inherently require a basis of facts, but you’ve based them on your opinion, not facts(in this case, of a historical matter).
Need? Ofc not, I’ve never said as much.
My arguments for this have been based on the fact(yes, fact), that most players of this class, both former, and current ones, they play(ed) this class for the combination of [the theme of] ranged weapons + pets. To say it was/is anything other than that, is a baseless assumption. Why? Again, because of the history of this class.
To rework a spec(one of the primary core playstyles of the class) into something that, on a fundamental level, was not an option in the past. Especially since pretty much not a single person throughout the history of this game has actually petitioned for that to be done…to do this, it can basically only end up one way.
This, coupled with the arguments they used to motivate the rework, is why it was objectively the wrong thing to do. Why? Because their arguments don’t actually have merit, when you look to the historical design.
I’ve literally never said that SV isn’t a hunter spec because it uses a melee weapon…
What you said there is a side-step to what you quoted(what I said).
Why would you base your arguments on just a part of the game?
No, you may not. Again, the survival tree/category wasn’t based “around” your melee capabilities. It was based “around” increasing our survivability in various ways, incl enhancing our melee-toolkit.
How does that in any way counter what I said? More specifically, why I said it?
In fact, if anything, it further emphasizes how current SV isn’t based on the primary gameplay of the class, incl anyone who ventured into the SV category, in Vanilla.
The reason it was a bad change, or terrible as you say, is because they didn’t make it based on the preferences of the actual hunter playerbase, what the majority of them wanted/were interested in. They’ve literally said that they, partly, made the change for players that weren’t previously considering the hunter class as anything of interest.
In the process of doing so, they managed to alienate a large portion of the hunter playerbase, more than what they could hope to bring in, based on what they changed it to.
Again, I’ve never said anything where I claim that this is the case.
This is not what I’ve been arguing. My argument is that the primary focus of the class was originally about ranged weapons, something the devs have said as well(referring to the manual both you and Bepples have mentioned before). Current SV is a version of a hunter archetype/fantasy, but that is beside the point of my arguments. It is beside the point of why changing SV to a melee spec was objectively the wrong thing to do. Again, because regardless of whether it meets enough of the criteria for a hunter spec or not, it does NOT adhere to the fundamental historical design, and with that, to what most of its players actually want from it.
Had they simply added MSV as a 4th option, this would never have been an issue.
Then tell Bepples that, don’t lump me in there. And for the record, I only joined in by responding to other players, fellow MSV-enthusiasts of yours, what they said. So if you want to blame anyone, blame them for making claims and arguments of objectivity based on faulty logic/or on nothing but their subjective preferences, despite saying otherwise.
Again, see above. I’ve never said this. If you think that I have, feel free to show me where…
What people like you seem to consistently (deliberately?) misunderstand was that for classic SV melee was a weakness you had to play around, not the intended goal of the spec. If you could spend 100% of your time at range, you would. That’s utterly unlike the current version of SV. This isn’t a minor difference; it’s a fundamental mismatch. Modern SV is built on a critical misunderstanding of what classic SV was and how it operated.
It’s a bit weird then to try to use your misinterpretation of what SV was 18 years ago as a platform to say it should be melee now.
Uh, no, you don’t. Unconditionally accepting any and all change and giving no criticism for negative changes is NOT a virtue. That applies to many aspects of life beyond just video games. Sometimes Blizzard makes egregious mistakes and they need to be called out for it.
Saying SV should be ranged again is the most constructive feedback one can give for the spec.
If they reworked the class so it started off as melee and became ranged with a spec choice of BM and MM, it would make sense (although it would be a stupid idea). But as it stands they established the framework of the class as a ranged weapon user. The current setup is nonsensical and it’s the main reason why SV has been a directionless dumpster fire for so many years now.
You are right, I apologize for lumping you two together. While we disagree you have been pleasantly respectful throughout this debate. For that I apologize and I do appreciate your input.
sidestepping all of uh… [gestures at most of the thread] that,
i think this sounds very cool. both having a bit of extra reward for the jump-out-jump-in playstyle, and just the idea of haste when you harpoon. i find terms of engagement’s focus regen kinda superfluous since i like running a DoT build that doesn’t often run low on focus–but haste would be useful no matter what
See, I agree with that. I suspect even that most MSV enthusiasts would level with many of your criticisms, too, if they didn’t
tacitly claim that change is inherently bad (e.g., even had Legion made the wholly doable effort to allow for both RSV and MM playflows within the MM tree, instead of wrapping the entire spec around an even more niche RNG-based Vulnerability mechanic, instead of paying only lip service to RSV) or that anything new that exists under a same title as something that came before should be considered as a meritless squatter/invader,
and
rely on a pretense of how much RSV had going on (in terms of decision-making, next to nothing), and (outside of such rare times as you finally make suggestions as to how the spec’s depth could be increased from what it was) essentially ask that a job with less decision-making or anchoring vulnerabilities than even modern BM should be competitive against it and MM (the latter of which would likely be pushed out by it, as it’d have little to no advantage over it despite greater weaknesses).
The first puts you on entitled ground that makes any sensible parsing of merit impossible. The second obfuscates the actual stakes and design considerations, to much the same effect.
All that being said…
This is hardly an honest tack. Building to reducing the steepness at which one’s performance dives in non-optimal scenarios doesn’t mean that the point of the build is those non-optimal scenarios. Those are merely a warrant for taking a certain approach to what personal utility (or, auxiliary capabilities) are housed on the way to whatever the build can press as an actual advantage. So long as the oldschool Hunter isn’t fighting against only other Hunters, and therefore being advantaged within that deadzone, that still-weak portion of their capability can’t be called an advantage.
In the same way that improving pet health on BM made for a natural bundling of personal utility there and improving range (on Vanilla Eagle Eye, before spec-relevant utility was shuffled to and fro) did so on/for MM, SV bundled all else into its flow as the “other”/“eclectic” spec. But that was it. It was never the point of the spec.
I realize all that ends up a bit beside the point, as your larger claim was that the past designs hold no inherent value for having simply existed, but even a very mild skew like that will border on undue revisionism, and therefore hurt your point.
Idk why people would try to argue with “facts”, when this is mostly an emotional/opinion focused topic. The RSV wants it the way they want, which is understandable. The same is true for MSV. Some are upset still that the spec they used to enjoy got turned into current survival, and the ones who enjoy it now just want to be able to keep enjoying it. Both sides are valid for how they feel.
Blizzard is the one who should get the focus of all the ire, as they probably shouldn’t have taken a popular spec and completely changed it. They honestly should have just changed the specs name as well, like they did when they made Outlaw rogues a thing.
On the other hand, why wouldn’t they, so long as the facts are potentially/likely relevant?
Bepples would likely argue that continuity is itself to be protected for the benefit of user perception of the specs’ design quality, in which case laying out the continuities and discontinuities is relevant and fruitful… as long as something useful now can also be abstracted from them (which we could sensibly give the benefit of the doubt, so long as we don’t grow mired only in what would until then be tantential).
On the other hand, I, and likely Leokitas (just above), would argue otherwise, or at least agree only to the most essential points among that “continuity” (e.g., Hunter as sort of the any-weapon resourceful Ranger archetype, so our emphasis might be less on laying out the (dis)continuities as simply what comparative span of roles and themes the Hunter was originally sold per and what niches seem desired and easily leveraged today. Since that second half is more forward-looking than simply historical, it’s harder to argue of facts alone, but that doesn’t mean looking at the past for useful cues can’t work decently alongside looking at potential improvements independent from (neither hones in on nor avoids) those cues.
Regardless, though, leaving everything at “just my/your/our/their” opinion is about the least that can be done with limited space and resources, as it largely just invites the larger body to stifle out the other ad populum or for the smaller to simply body to make its case all the less honestly.
Both sides are valid in how they feel, of course. But how we feel presently is a far call from how we might make a net improvement for both sides.
For context/disclaimer:
My “side” (population: probably 1) is neither MSV or RSV, but simply wanting a comparatively gigabrain SV. I feel that only BM should be forced to use pets, only MM effectively forced to stick to ranged weapon usage, and SV forced to use advanced tools [traps or adaptations thereof], with Lone Wolf and skills turning into their melee forms with an initially miniscule advantage [talentable for more] being baseline.
I could kinda see that, though I’m not sure what would have fit it much, if any, better at the time.
Bepples has offered Tactics (or, Tactician). I offered Pursuit, as the many raw mobility components favored over the relative mobility of ranged weapons seem to go that way. But I suspect either, if adopted, would equally demand changes in kit to better suit the new name. (Similarly, Ghorak has offered Munitions as a name for a 4th spec as descendent of RSV, if any pure DPS could ever be permitted a 4th.)
Thematically, I think I like this, but in practice?
We already lose a ton of mobility by being forced to blow a gap-closer on cooldown just due to the super-accessible state of Terms of Engagement.
Adding yet more obligatory out-and-back convulsions doesn’t sound appealing unless the benefits were bankable enough to not demand locking in our CD (at significant cost to our actual mobility).
I think I’d rather see more free bundling of personal utilities that better leverage timely play around our spammable or multi-charge skills, if that makes sense, than have our average effective Haste be dependent on blowing Harpoon on CD, etc.?
