So we did find common ground afterall. That may yet prove reason enough to continue.
The broader class was composed of 3 different archetypes. I simply dissected the whole into its three constituent parts which was done to glean the nuances that each contributor offered to the overarching whole.
Think in terms of anatomy. The Liver and Kidneys are both filtration organs but one interacts with pre-digested food and the other filters waste from the blood. One is not superior to the other. All organs function independently, but the BODY needs each of them to perform their independent functions.
So to say that Hunters were a fully ranged class is only partially true. The truth was that ranged dps was a critical feature of the class, its prime contributor the specialization of Marksmanship. The base ranged feature had broad applications, in addition to severe shortcomings which allowed the other archetypes to shine.
Which this post highlights:
This is an agreeable take. I once said that you were in fact the more reasonable rival. Now if only you could let go of cherished yet outmoded philosophy concerning SV, then all would be well between us.
Thoughts on RSV and Hero Classes
[Explosive Shot] was simply a conveyance of incendiary ordnance via a ranged weapon and was thus merely a feat of Marksmanship.
[Serpent Sting] was also originally a feat of Marksmanship.
[Serpent Spread] was simply [Serpent Sting]-laced ammunition conveyed via [Multi-Shot], which was a dual-feat of Marksmanship.
RSV finds its roots in MM and its proponents should take their grievances to the true parent specialization, and not antagonize the adopted parent.
If it were to be reimplemented, it should be an on/off toggle MM sub-variant.
The highest form of WFB and Explosive Shot finds its leaning towards a dedicated Sapper class. The Sapper dispenses with all physical dps elements and pets.
[Sapper]
The Sapper sets depth-charges that knock the opponent upwards. They would hurl dynamite at targeted areas and asphyxiate targets with plumes of toxic vapors and smoke.
Some of these elements do overlap with traps and ranged weapons, but there is enough lore and a large enough interest that it deserves a new one-off hero class, a class befitting of a Goblin.
The same could be said of a one-spec Elven Dark Ranger, Troll Berserker, Dwarven Mortar Team, Gnomish Tinker, etc but Blizzard is set on jamming these otherwise worthy archetypes into a limited class fantasy.
It’s a fairly simple question that doesn’t require abstract examples to internalize.
What was Survival’s original symbol?
May you instead feel that the Specialization Symbol doesn’t accurately reflect the intended design of SV. Is that an accurate assumption?
Do the symbols for BM and MM somehow miraculously communicate the intended design features that they respectively offer, but the SV symbol is somehow a mistake?
How far are you willing to go with this?
I was once distraught in that we could not reach common ground earlier, but now it has become if not mildly enjoyable.
What was Survival’s original symbol?
What was Survival’s original symbol?
WHAT WAS SURVIVAL’S SYMBOL?
I find this sport most enjoyable. How long will you afford me such sweet merriment over a technicality?
Well, this is an exploratory topic.
The statement was a retrospective summary, not a recontextualization.
In the beginning, I arrived here with a particular set of unrefined ideas that with time were honed and sharpened into a more cohesive argument and is yet ever improving. I gain knowledge and wisdom about the class with each passing exchange, the constructive discourse opening up new channels of insight into the class that I once may have taken for granted.
The issue that we’re having is that by attempting to minimize or outright ignore my points, you have stunted your own internal growth which inhibits further discourse upon this topic.
And so, I once again ask:
-
From a design standpoint, what do you think the fundamental purpose of specialization icons were meant to convey?
-
What was SV’s iconic symbol?
-
What was SV’s contributive physical dps profile?
-
Where were its intended design features best leveraged in-game?
These questions are legitimate angles in terms of design philosophy which I feel are purposefully being minimized or outright ignored.
I thought this as well, but after analyzing the design scope of the original trees, the post-legion design philosophy for Hunter Throughput has more in common with Classic Talent selection than I first thought.
[Retail Throughput]
[Classic Talent Trees]
Retail BM: 80% Pet DPS
Classic BM: 95% Pet DPS.
Retail MM: 90-100% Ranged DPS
Classic MM: 90-100% Ranged DPS
Retail SV: ~60-70%+ Melee DPS
Classic SV: Sole Contributor of Melee DPS
The key difference is that the base class overlapped more which comprised a tripart Pet–Bow–Axe: each separate but whole, with each independent archetype covering the shortcomings of one another.
Its only that Legion tossed out the notion that BM or SV were merely MM sub-variants.
-
BM was a pet spec in terms of physical damage delivery.
-
SV was a melee spec in terms of physical damage delivery.
-
MM was a ranged spec in terms of physical damage delivery.
Some build options
…and you were free to hybridize these independent archetypes at leisure. Most choose a hybrid MM-build which provided a higher damage ceiling but would lack in other critical areas under offensive pressure as a counterbalance. There were also the lesser-known SV/BM and BM/SV hybrid builds available. Ever tried a 31/0/30 build, or used [Bestial Wrath] without [The Beast Within]? Ever tried a spell power BM/SV melee build with fast ZG Hakkari Manslayers for high self-sustain? Probably not.
All the years spent attacking MSV were in error.
A non-specific warning
Do note that if I catch any erroneous “Classic SV was a ranged dps spec, therefore RSV is valid and MSV is invalid” style tropes in future threads, I will be there to counteract it. Such fallacy will not escape my watchful gaze. It is better to quickly excise an infection than to watch it fester and rot– enduring such toxicity for an extra 20 years, or a sum total of 40 years into the future.
I’m not sure if you realize how disgusting this has all been, that we can’t come unto the forum and discuss our chosen spec without heckling–without passive-aggressive existential threats upon SV’s legacy, when it is now closer to the original design than it has ever been since Vanilla.
If you say, ‘delete MSV’ you will be flagged.
If you say, ‘reimplement RSV as a dedicated hero-class, 4th spec, or an MM sub-variant’, you will encounter no friction from me.
Thoughts on RSV
[Explosive Shot] was simply a conveyance of incendiary ordnance via a ranged weapon and was thus merely a feat of Marksmanship.
[Serpent Sting] was also originally a feat of Marksmanship.
[Serpent Spread] was simply [Serpent Sting]-laced ammunition conveyed via [Multi-Shot], which was a dual-feat of Marksmanship.
RSV finds its roots in MM and its proponents should take their grievances to the true parent specialization, and not antagonize the adopted parent.
If it were to be reimplemented, it should be an on/off toggle MM sub-variant.
The highest form of WFB and Explosive Shot finds its leaning towards a dedicated Sapper class. The Sapper dispenses with all physical dps elements and pets.
[Sapper]
The Sapper sets depth-charges that knock the opponent upwards. They would hurl dynamite at targeted areas and asphyxiate targets with plumes of toxic vapors and smoke.
Some of these elements do overlap with traps and ranged weapons, but there is enough lore and a large enough interest that it deserves a new one-off hero class, a class befitting of a Goblin.
The same could be said of a one-spec Elven Dark Ranger, Troll Berserker, Dwarven Mortar Team, Gnomish Tinker, etc but Blizzard is set on jamming these otherwise worthy archetypes into a limited class fantasy.