Pretty common in these forums, select few posters stuck in a time bubble of at least 6yrs ago. They just can’t let it go.
Yep, its fun - needs a dps buff but plays very well. Bigger mongoose fury window would be nice also
1 Like
I play every class, and it does not play like a warrior in any capacity.
/facepalm
1 Like
Warriors, don’t they fight their enemies face to face?
MSV, don’t they fight side by side with their pet against their enemies? They both fight, want to fight, have to fight up close to achieve max dps.
RSV, Marks, Beastmaster, we don’t want to fight, that is our pets’ job, if necessary, but better if there is no fighting, better if we just locate our mark and put it DOWN, no drama, no heroes, just a job well done.
THAT is what a Hunter is, a quiet killer.
and this is why MSV will never be a Hunter.
3 Likes
In Vanilla, a lot of players were new to the genre, and concept, that’s MMOs. The short answer is that people were uninformed. Some people probably chose ignorance over investing into learning how to play a certain class well, for several reasons ofc.
None of that amounts to how people were “stupid”.
If you want to continue arguing about this with Toxik, by all means, but he is a self-proclaimed troll so…he has no interest in any sincere conversation, debate, argument or otherwise. He will argue his point a multitude of times, just with a minor twist to them each time, just to keep you hooked. This is what trolls do, and he loves it. For your sake, the best thing to do is just to ignore him…
1 Like
I’ve never said the spec was perfect. But it is super fun! It’s nice seeing them at least try to make something a little more active.
I personally think SV has so much situational utility, blizzard doesn’t know how to balance it.
It also doesn’t help that it’s controversial.
So if it does great damage, people playing PvP complain because it’s also got so much utility. Hunters who want to range also complain because they are “forced” into playing the spec. MMO players love claiming they are “forced” into things.
If you remove the utility, you remove what makes it special.
If it has low damage (which is how Blizzard typically had balanced it, save for a tier here or there) then you have a more complex, melee (more risk) spec that does mediocre damage, with most its buttons not being relevant for the DDR-like combat most people play wow for (kind of like vanilla SV). Utility is ignored for raw damage in almost every PvE situation. Likely always will be.
But I commend them for trying! And as someone who thinks parsing is about as lame and unfun as gaming gets, I’m enjoying being batman!
GL on your crusade, though. I respect your preference. I hope they add a 4th spec so we can all be happy.
Those comparisons completely disregard design, theme, playstyle, inherent fantasy of specs, etc.
They are not remotely similar.
They do engage in combat though…
Ranged combat.
What is Rexxar in the lore? What are people IRL who go on hunts for say, wild pigs and hunt with their dogs and go into the fray?
What about hunters of old who used… Spears?
They are hunters though.
You’re just being heavily opinionated.
3 Likes
We do. And we engage in melee combat too, if we choose to.
Rexxar, in Lore, is a … Rexxar , Champion of the Horde, is a Half-ogre, half-orc beastmaster( of the Mok’Nathal clan(, and may be one of the few from the clan. Due to his mixed lineage, he is a towering and massively muscled warrior, and he wields his two huge axes with tremendous skill and ferocity. Rexxar is always seen with his loyal bear companion Misha. His Class/spec is listed as Beastmaster/Survival.
See? He is a BM Hunter, and as MSV he is a Warrior with a pet.
And always, a Force of Nature, and unique.
People who hunt pigs with their dogs? In real-life, what are they? Around here, mostly they are neighbors. There is a trick to it, no fray-jumping until after the dogs got the pig stretched out and pinned.
Hunters of old who used… Spears?.. used them from blinds? Maybe used their dogs to pin down their prey before getting very close? (and hunted in large groups,)
“MSV is like Warriors with pets” is/was the most common description.
The last great melee hunters? Were Neanderthals.
MSV is following the same roadmap. Unfortunately, so is Blizz.
My opinion…
1 Like
Well its just bad that they give it melee but leave it squishy and i just hate aspect of eagle and want arcane shot and for Arcane Shot to interact with talents since it still has the bread and butter kiting system i think it should be ranged…but im not offended that it has melee.
Is this how this conversation is going to go? Should I even been wasting my time talking to someone who’s just going to ignore whatever other people say, and repeat the same nonsensical talking points people have already addressed, like a broken record? Do you even care about having an actual discussion, and being open to the idea you could be wrong like an intellectually honest person?
Cool, I guess this is how this is going to go. I never said or implied that class diversity is the only metric for good design. I said numerical balance and design aren’t the same thing. You’re lashing out at strawmen.
Sure, but you’re missing the obvious: Blizzard doesn’t need any one specific person playing any one specific class in order to run their game, or have it be a success. Adding side options that may or may not be popular is a perfectly valid use of developer time.
Take this chart from Shadowlands as an example:
| Covenant | Amount | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Night Fae | 580,259 | 31.74% |
| Kyrian | 529,892 | 28.98% |
| Venthyr | 436,253 | 23.86% |
| Necrolord | 281,920 | 15.42% |
A rational human being looks at this, and understands that even though Necrolord was by far the least selected covenant, that doesn’t mean Blizzard should have completely skipped developing it, because 1) Blizzard can’t see the future and know their outcomes with certainty, and 2) Even if they magically know it’s less popular, the flavor that it adds to the game is worth the investment, because selling the game as a whole is what makes them money, not the amount of people specifically playing Necrolord.
Not necessarily. If you look at a ‘rework’ in the framework of ‘How does this thing still maintain it’s purpose while also being distinct’ like most developers would, making it a healer spec wouldn’t make sense, because it never had any outside healing in it’s kit. There’s no healing to draw inspiration from when reworking, whereas you could draw inspiration from a skill like Raptor Strike.
- So have many other unpopular classes, all evergreen content is going to need this. This isn’t a uniquely Survival thing.
- “Excessively copies”? How many abilities do you believe Survival shares with BM that aren’t universal to the class?
- Already addressed. Class fantasy is historically ignorant, and spears are magically as effective as guns in this magical world.
- And it increased the amount of exploration in spear focused classes, so what? Sure, you like ranged more, that doesn’t make ranged intrinsically more valuable.
That’s embarrassing. Looks like WoW’s lore team disagrees with you, and Azeroth’s hunters have been using spears for as long as they’ve existed. Surely you’ll accept spears as a part of Hunter fantasy and not keep blindly lying about the lore. The Bepples I know wouldn’t do that.
Yes, mechanically, to the player, they’re different. In the context of in-universe power that our characters wields with them, there isn’t. A sword and a spear are just as effective tools of war as a gun, mastery of the arcane, etc. You can’t say “A SPEAR IS WORSE THAN A GUN!” when warriors exist in universe. Their swords are just as deadly as any gun, and any argument for why a spear can’t follow the same logic is special pleading, simply because you just don’t like it.
Quality over quantity, a principle you’re lacking.
3 Likes
Imagine though if SV was like a medic type healer and ranged dps i know Bepples was joking but I feel like its more viable then the Tank Survival that gets tossed around and just as good of an idea as bringing back RSV without the melee. I like idea of Survival having both melee and ranged because melee is always made stronger because its weakness in uptime and that it can be kited but to have a whole kit thats ranged means you can fight equally at a distance and save your harpoons and charges and be the bane of every caster and other hunter… SV should be turned into something evil mwahaha.
What I do not understand is why the rework is so vehemently disliked…
I mean lets be real here.
Kill command - Ranged
Serpent Sting - Ranged
Concussive Shot - Ranged
Kill Shot - Ranged
Explosive Shot - Ranged
Bombs - Ranged
Death Chakram - Ranged
Flanking Strike - Melee (Gap Closer)
Mongoose Bite - Melee
All Traps - ranged (which hasn’t always been the case)
Most of our damage does come from Mongoose bite which is melee this is true. However with AotE being 15 sec duration at 90 sec CD that like 17% of your burst main damage ability able to be used at ranged - nearly a quarter of our globals of our main damaging ability is usable at a range. Keep in mind that’s strictly if you were able to use every GCD on mongoose bite which objectively is not the case. We don’t spend every global on mongoose bite… so really its probably upwards of what 30-35% of your main melee ability is usable at a 40 yard range. (This is general extrapolation as I don’t want to actually do the math of how many we do cast in a general rotation over the course of the 90sec AotE CD)
RSV supports consistently describe us as a pure melee. Its objectively false. We just dont use a Bow. Is that what this is all about? All these years of moaning strictly cause you aren’t using a stick with a tight string?
Good SV players don’t sit in melee unless they need to be in melee. Doesn’t sound much like the warriors you all claim we want to be.
We gained 3 gap closers which allow us to stay at a range whenever possible but pick and choose when to go in without much thought… We still have the tools to stay at range and kite and use our closers without needing to be stingy with them. %70+ of our rotation can be done at max range.
Old school survival kept people at range and also had some kit revolving around being in melee (Just in case)
MSV is extremely similar with one main difference. We are actually dangerous if someone comes in close.
Heck, Wildfire infusion even leans into the different munitions everyone keeps talking about.
The way I see it Blizzard has done a pretty decent job providing a spec both MSV and RSV hunters can enjoy if the RSV hunters could just get over the fact they don’t use a Bow. . .
SV needs some love. But it’s issue isn’t that its partially melee. Its that it needs defensives and self sustain along the lines of other DPS classes. And and increase in tuning to our damage in AoE.
I would like to thank the RSV hunter community for derailing yet another thread about SV into MSV vs RSV. Keep doing the lords work.
5 Likes
There wouldn’t be continued complaining if blizzard had simply done the correct thing during legion and either made msv a talent in either rsv or bm, or just made it a 4th spec entirely. It’s been demonstrated clearly and repeatedly since the rework that the melee hunter concept is just not that popular with hunter players.
6 Likes
The thing is Pre-legion Survival was pretty much just Marks or BM it wasn’t this mystical spec that was amazing it was legit just another ranged spec.
If people really wanted Survival how it was they would play Classic to experience ranged Survival when it was different from the other ranged specs.
But they didn’t. And we are getting to the point where the spec will have been “melee” based if you can really even call it that longer than it was a ranged. So to the adults in this community its starting to really come off as petulant whines that you got a green popsicle instead of a red one.
I will agree, I would have rather they changed BM to what MSV is today. BM has always been a dull unimaginative smooth brained spec in my opinion. But my opinion is not all that matters. To my astonishment there are people who enjoy BM. More power to them.
They didn’t add a 4th spec because of the uproar it would have created from other classes saying they want 4th specs too. The only reason druid got a 4th spec is because at its core it was objectively broken when feral and guardian were one spec so they split them. Which was pretty well received by the community as a whole if I remember correctly.
1 Like
This fantasy only exists in your mind though. RSV and Marks didn’t care at all about their pet.
That’s also something that exists only in your mind and never in the actual WoW version of Hunters.
This is just needless gatekeeping.
You have to be talking about yourself and the Ranged Survival fans here, right? Because you’re the ones constantly bringing up how Survival is a failure because it’s gone through “multiple reworks” since Legion, even though it’s just been one. How many has MM had since then? Enhancement? Feral? Shadow Priests? You’re the ones constantly saying it has no benefit to bring over other melee, except if it receives any damage to be ahead of MM and BM or spec specific utility (like Windtotem) you’ll cry how it’s unfair.
You don’t want the current iteration of Survival to succeed, and you [Ranged Survival fans] have done everything within your power, mainly forum posts and feedback, to ensure it never had a chance to.
But sure, people who like the current iteration are the delusional and dishonest ones.
3 Likes
It has been explained countless times already…
Nice attempt at trying to twist a point into something else. What people have been saying is that the reason SV is still stamped as a melee spec is because, as a damage dealer, in order to do full damage, you have to be in melee range to accomplish this. Literally any time spent outside of melee range as SV, you lose out on potential damage, even so when you’re under the effect of AotE.
Ofc, in PvP, your priorities aren’t necessarily aimed at pushing damage to your full potential. In PvP, dealing damage(constantly) isn’t always what you want to do.
Obviously, there are situations where the same holds true in PvE as well, but to a much smaller degree.
See above, the only reason you would make this argument is presumably due to your point of view, your method of playing, in PvP. This argument is pointless if you consider PvE, as a general concept.
Again with the PvP based arguments. And also, are you actually making the argument that current SV is similar to the first iterations because of the reasons you mentioned above, despite how the class had an entirely different approach to ranged vs. melee-based combat back then? Talking range restrictions, etc.
That’s not true at all…
In other words, you’ve missed the most obvious part of all arguments put forward by any players who argue in favor of the return of RSV. You look solely at the base mechanic of ranged vs melee, but you don’t consider the actual design and gameplay of RSV, along with the thematic approach to the class fantasy.
This is nothing but an empty argument. No objectivity whatsoever. But hey, feel free to elaborate on what you mean with “just Marks or BM”.
Did you not just argue that “it was pretty much just Marks or BM”?
The playstyle/spec that’s refered to as RSV existed for 8 years, so no. (Ignoring Vanilla+TBC)
Either way, and?
Literally any design implementation that happens for 1 class, but not for others, causes an uproar. They’ve never leaned towards this argument in the past when making said implementations, so why should it suddenly dictate decisions now?
Besides, no, this wasn’t their reason for not adding a 4th spec option. Their reason for removing RSV in the first place was because they thought it was underdeveloped, and too similar to MM. In other words, most likely, they never even considered the 4th spec route as a potential option.
Their reasoning for removing RSV is laughably pathetic, considering many choices they’ve made since, along with their basis of what the class was in the past, they’ve made points about our(the hunter class) past design which are factually incorrect, and easily disproven.
By some, sure. But as with other cases, with many other players, it was not.
3 Likes
You’re right, I PVP. It is one of the 3 pillars of gameplay this game provides. How is me bringing up PVP based arguments any different from people constantly bringing up PVE arguments for the other side?
Please, enlighten me as to the glorious and unmatched gameplay that was ranged SV.
What was it that made it so great when compared to MM or BM?
Black arrow? What was so thematically hunter about that? You invoke thematics like SV was this eye popping visually crazy spec which isn’t true. You shot some arrows. one exploded one was black.
And by the end of DF we will have passed that 8 year mark. Simple enough to see isn’t it?
AND by the RSV logic it will become historically a “Melee” spec with some time as ranged meaning I guess by RSV standards will become its identity as you all have cried so many times that its identity was historically ranged.
You’re right. It wasn’t an option. The only reason it was an option for druids was because in order to fix feral it was split them and give them a 4th spec or completely remove and entire gameplay role from a class.
Was it though? really? Maybe to you. Others disagree.
Look at that, didn’t even need to quote a different post to hit my point above about what the class was historically. Thanks for that.
1 Like
Because running around shooting exploding arrows is so quiet?
3 Likes
Do you know what “diluted” means?
It does not just mean “bad” like you evidently think it does. I picked that word for a reason. It means unconcentrated. The Hunter identity is diluted i.e. it isn’t concentrated. There’s no clear definition of what a Hunter is. It used to be ranged weapons and pets, but now they don’t all use ranged weapons and they don’t all use pets. That’s why when people are asked what a Hunter is they have to come up with some wishy-washy crap about weapon experts with an affinity for nature… like we’re some mix of Warriors and Druids.
“Hunter” is a very broad concept. Just like “Warrior” or “Mage”. WoW made the important decision early on to clearly highlight what each class focuses on. For Hunters, that was ranged weapons and pets. It both set us apart from other classes and gave a clear outline of what the class should be. Utility ended up being the third pillar, and that’s how we got a Survival spec focusing on utilitarianism and special munitions.
This isn’t just semantics. Diluting the class identity makes the class less appealing and especially makes Hunters feel alienated. And as much as you want to believe that it doesn’t matter, it really does.
Well you did shoot down “how many people enjoy the spec” as a success metric (lol), and your only given “metrics” were “how different the spec is to the rest of the class”… were there any others you think both matter and are a success story for Survival?
They didn’t just add a side option, though. If they only did that none of us would be here complaining. They removed an existing option.
Damn, I must have missed the part where Necrolord replaced a more popular existing option i.e. the part needed for this analogy to work…
Newsflash: lacking a ranged weapon makes it no longer maintain its purpose. This is evidenced by the fact that it’s aimed at people other than Hunters to begin with. Blizzard even said as such.
You still seem to be missing or deliberately skipping the part where Survival replaced an existing option. Again, if it were actually a side option, or even if it were an option within an otherwise ranged spec (e.g. a talent within BM) no one would complain.
I’m fine with a melee experiment that I can safely ignore as it inevitably nosedives into obscurity. The problem is I can’t safely ignore it: I lost my main spec to it. It had collateral damage.
It does copy BM. This is alleviated somewhat in DF now that Coordinated Assault is something more than just a blatant rebrand of Bestial Wrath, but even still it has Kill Command and Spirit Bond. There’s a reason people love to drop the line “Survival feels more like BM than BM”. They’re wrong, but there’s a reason they feel that way. Survival is heavily infringing on what used to be BM’s territory. They’re trying to drive a wedge into the pet companionship identity, saying Survival is all about the companionship while BM is more about mastery and sheer numbers of pets, but that’s a post-Legion fabrication. BM has historically always been about the pet companionship, but that aspect is being actively siphoned off to SV.
As for use of spears: it’s just another melee weapon. There’s nothing inherent about them that makes it a Survival thing. Other melee specs can and have used spears, and Survival itself doesn’t need to use a spear. Hell, the spec is meant to be inspired by Rexxar (oh hey: the iconic Beast Master that got rebranded… something else they stole for melee SV) who most notably did not use spears but rather dual-wielded axes.
There is of course the Talonclaw matter. On that note…
What’s even more embarrassing is that you evidently don’t know that Talonclaw and in fact Huln Highmountain’s entire lore affinity to the Hunter class was entirely retconned into existence come Legion to create precedent for melee Survival. Huln Highmountain himself existed in the lore long before Legion’s development, but he had absolutely nothing tethering him to the Hunter class. He did use a spear, but it was just the Eagle Spear and again had nothing explicitly involved with Hunters.
That’s the Huln Highmountain page from before Legion’s announcement.
To be quite honest, Blizzard probably just went through the lore to find a character that used a spear and then built a bunch of lore on that to make him a Hunter, i.e. they just needed any character with a spear that could be considered a Hunter with a little extra writing.
As for how the Hunter class was actually modelled, here’s something that’s not ad hoc lore but rather the manual page from the original game release:
It doesn’t get much clearer than that. Blizzard considered Hunters to be ranged weapon users first and foremost; even more importantly than pet users. The concept of a Hunter lacking a ranged weapon was utterly foreign to the original development team. It was something the new guys around WoD conjured up as part of their broader desecration of class design in general.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Melee weapons are just like other melee weapons. Ranged weapons are just like other ranged weapons. But melee weapons are not like ranged weapons. There’s a clear difference in capability you seem to be desperate to gloss over.
You’re lacking in both.
This whole post is so transparently manipulative it’s legitimately sickening to read. So admittedly I didn’t read the whole thing but I read enough to understand that what you’re trying to do is pretend the current SV is “sufficiently ranged” enough for there to not be a problem.
Let me assure you as someone who’s played every iteration of Hunter that this is wrong. These are the most important things for a Hunter spec:
-
It must use a ranged weapon
-
It must be fully capable at all distances within 40 yards
Survival has neither. Its use of a ranged weapon is limited to a fake animation-only crossbow on a few attacks and it is, as Ghorak explained, absolutely always at a penalty for being beyond melee range. Survival Hunter is played as a true and pure melee spec in most situations. The only time it isn’t is when you’re fighting a much stronger melee player in PvP or team fights where you can’t afford to get close (i.e. you’re handicapped where other Hunter specs aren’t). Even during Aspect of the Eagle you’re at a loss due to Auto Attack, and that’s only up sometimes on top of it being an optional talent that often isn’t taken.
So spare the effort and stop trying to convince people melee SV is ranged enough. I’ve noticed you seem to fancy yourself good at spin-doctoring based on this and your rancid takes on Double Tap’s removal. Let’s be clear: you aren’t good at it and you’re fooling nobody.
This might be shocking to hear for the average SV fan, but most Hunters don’t in fact consider ranged specs to be automatically equivalent and expendable. That’s a melee brain thing. Ranged SV was a different and unique experience to BM and MM, just as Arms is different to Fury, Affliction is different to Destruction, and Assassination is different to Subtlety despite each of those pairs of specs sharing elements of the base class like MM and SV did. That’s just a natural part of two DPS specs belonging to the same class.
As for playing SV in classic: bit of a self-own when SV is currently one of the most played specs in the game in classic WoW.
I don’t think for a second that anything I’ve said has remotely impacted Survival’s development, but if it really were the case that our posting here hindered melee Survival’s development that would be a very good thing and I’d be proud of it.
3 Likes
I mean… Of course it diluted the class. But it’s such a weird argument to make, since that was the purpose of the redesign. They had three specs that were basically the same… Do more damage with pet while pew pewing, do more damage while just pew pewing (and I guess either dd or dot). They WANTED to dilute the class. And they did so successfully.
I mean… By your logic, shaman are incredibly diluted and poorly designed. One uses a mace and shield and heals, one uses dual wield and melees, the other is a ranged caster. Compared to shaman, the hunter family is purebred.
What a weird argument.
5 Likes