No, I actually don’t use my personal preference as the platform for my arguments. That’s just you trying to apply a weak generalisation. When I talk about how making SV melee caused a rift in the Hunter playerbase, diluted the class identity, defined the spec around a handicap, caused the spec to have a nonsense, directionless theme, limited the game’s expression of ranged weapon archetypes, etc. none of that depends on my personal preference.
BTW Seven years ago we were in BRF and plenty of people were still playing ranged SV so check the timeline again.
The problem is more a case of having to play melee.
For maximum DPS, MSV is from time to time, (every minute?) forced to engage at melee distance. MM and BM don’t have that restriction, they can engage inside of melee or play ranged, as they please. It’s a wedge of sorts, splitting the Class.
Melee SV fans like to market this as a strength; they imply that SV has “the ability to fight in melee” while the other specs don’t. Even the wowpedia page for Hunters says SV is “the most versatile of the specs, able to dish out damage from any range”. This is of course nonsense; Survival is the least versatile of the specs for the exact reason that it can’t dish out damage at every range*. It’s the only one of the specs with a range-based handicap which has and still remains a major barrier for the spec.
I seriously think these sorts of people are banking on confusing people with memories of an earlier era when we couldn’t used ranged attacks up close. But that’s not the case anymore. It hasn’t been the case for almost 10 years now. In that context a melee spec is pointless from a pragmatic perspective. The only purpose it serves is appealing to people who specifically like the thematics of being melee. That’s an exceedingly small portion of the Hunter playerbase. In fact it’s probably a small portion of Survival’s playerbase. Especially in the current patch.
* Before I hear “Oh but SV can do lots of range damage!” Yes, everyone knows this. The point is its ranged damage is always handicapped; either by a small amount while Aspect of the Eagle is up or quite a sizeable amount when it’s not up (which is most of the time). In contrast, BM and MM (+ SV before 7.0) did the same damage at 1 yard as they did at 40 yards.
Occasionally, and I know this is going to sound nuts to a robot like yourself… but occasionally, people pick a spec based on the feel of the play style and how much fun they have. Not just the efficiency.
I’ll just let you bask in how absolutely foolish you look trying to pretend your anti-melee bias isn’t based completely on opinion.
This is all opinion, not fact. You’ve said some truly stupid things over the years, but you claiming your personal feelings hasn’t driven years of whining may actually be the worst yet.
That’s not necessarily contingent on being melee. It could have the same rotation as it does now only with ranged equivalents. What’s important is how many specifically play it for the melee, and conversely how many people avoid it specifically because it’s melee.
Also my post was talking about people who try to frame it as a unique, pragmatic strength. That’s objectively not true. The other Hunter specs can do all their damage at any range, SV cannot. It’s a unique weakness. And you know a lot of people frame it as a strength. As I said even the wowpedia article does it. It’s misleading and incorrect.
My personal bias is the reason I engage in these discussions. It’s not the backing I use for my arguments. Learn the difference.
Caused a rift in the Hunter playerbase: absolutely true. It’s easily one of the most controversial class changes, if not the most.
Diluted the class identity: true. We used to have 3 ranged specs and our class outline was explicitly ranged for all Hunters. Now they have to make an exception for Survival. It would be exactly like if they took Stealth away from a Rogue spec. You would no longer be able to use Stealth as a universal and identifying characteristic for the class because not all Rogues would have it; that’s diluting the identity.
Defined the spec around a handicap: True. Not being able to do 100% of your damage at any range is itself objectively a handicap. The only way it isn’t a handicap is specific encounter design scenarios where having more ranged is a detriment. Luckily for Survival that does exist in this tier, but it’s extremely rare: the last time it happened before now was back in Nighthold.
Nonsense, directionless theme: Admittedly “nonsense” is an emotive term, but it’s a directionless theme nonetheless. Wildfire Bomb is just not in the same thematic realm as Kill Command or even Raptor Strike. Thematic matters are hard to call objective, but it’s also hard to say that the utilitarian sapper using explosives and venom is in any way the same concept as the melee beastmaster that fights alongside its loyal pet. SV hunters themselves point this out; the only difference is they think the more ranged-friendly Wildfire Bomb and Serpent Sting should be replaced in favour of melee while I think the opposite.
Limited the game’s expression of ranged weapon archetypes; this is as literal and objective as it gets. The game used to have 3 ranged specs to express ranged weapon archetypes, now it has 2. 2 is less than 3.
So all of these are as objective as they get. At best you could argue that it’s subjective to say that Survival has a directionless theme, but then you’d be stuck arguing how Wildfire Bomb and Kill Command both make sense in the same toolkit, not to mention adding Raptor Strike and Serpent Sting to that comparison.
You seem to think that emotive “you’re so stupid” statements make your posts more impactful. They don’t.
I just want to add to this. I think the decision didn’t just cause a rift in the survival playerbase - I think it damaged trust in the developers from all hunter specs. I didn’t really play RSV regularly (or really at all) and I’ve said before I’ve got no interest in MSV, but I still check threads like this because usually people will trot out some “I think BM should be the melee/a tank/a healer” comment and I fear the consequences of that line of thinking going unchallenged.
I can only speak for myself, but I find myself wading more frequently into discussions about the fundamental ‘fantasy’ of a spec because I worry devs will listen to people on the forums who don’t play BM main spec, and absolutely alter the spec on a whim without consideration for its long-time playerbase - as they did for RSV players. So even though I have no horse in the survival race, the decision to make it melee damaged my trust in the devs - and I don’t think I’m alone; I think to expand on bepples’ point, the reason why discourse in the hunter forums is uniquely poisonous in a way other class forums are not is because all of us , whether melee hunters or ranged, are secretly terrified the devs will choose on a whim to listen to “the other side” and screw us all over unless we argue extra vehemently for our preferred option.
Changing SV to melee caused a rift in the hunter community?
This is not an opinion, it’s a fact. Just look as this topic, it’s just one example.
Dilution of the class’ identity?
Same thing, our identity prior to Legion was that we were a ranged fighter who relied on the use of ranged weapons, pets, and traps. Now they’ve also added melee, as an intended primary style of combat, to that identity.
SV is now defined around what amounts to a handicap, compared to the rest of the class?
Prior to Legion, SV could deal 100% of its damage in both melee, and from afar. Now it can’t. This, again, is a fact.
SV is now lacking a coherent theme/identity?
Yep, prior to Legion, it was about augmented shots. Now it involves melee weapon-based attacks, pet-based attacks, ranged shots, and bombs. Where is the coherency in that?
The change to melee limited the games’ expression of ranged weapon archetypes?
We used to have 3 options for the above, now we have 2. Again, fact, not opinion.
Seven years, and Bepples and Ghorak are still trying to pass their opinions off as fact. Good to see some things never change. By the by, since you need some enlightenment, the decision to make SV melee may have caused a rift, but whether SV should melee or not is completely opinion. And just one last pot shot to let it sink in…
Rexxar says hello. Melee has been a staple of hunter since the launch of the game. No amount of whining and revisionist history by you two can change that simple fact.
The Hunter
The Hunter is a unique class in the World of Warcraft because it is primarily a ranged attacker. Even though other classes can learn to use ranged weapons none of them is as proficient in their deadly use as the hunter. To support the hunter’s ranged attacks, this class has Two main advantages: a loyal pet and a wide array of movement-restricting spells.
Class Abilities
The hunter is a combat class, like the rogue and warrior, but where-as those classes rely on melee attacks, the hunter relies on ranged power.
Melee was a staple since launch huh… ? (me going back above to re-read the original hunters description…) ya you smoking something, talk about revisionist… (or if by staple you mean a side note in it’s original play, maybe you just have a really odd meaning of “staple”).
as far as Rexxar how many of the other classes match up with the Hero’s on wow. (Rexxar is always showing dual weapons how much is he matching up to even current MSV).
have = staple of the class… hmmmmmm
simple question has nothing to do with what I said… (or what you said it seems) *you saying it was a staple of the class and not a side note.
it was designed to use ranged even said it in the description (can you read yes or no)… ?
seems you’re the liar.
FYI quick look up of staple = principal, chief. (unless you are trying to say it’s a thin piece of metal holding the class together you’re just waaaaaay out of there). it’s chief design was ranged…
Ya how “staple” melee was… Hmmmm talked about a lot there isn’t it… mentions it can use some melee weapons and then go how about how much it uses them (oh wait no it does not, it goes on about ranged power and using the pet to keep things at range).
Xhttps://i.imgur.com/kBVr5Uc.png
(can’t link things yet but delete the X and you can see a scan of the original page).
Apparently, you can’t read so let’s try again and I’ll highlight the relevant bits:
This means you answer yes or no. Anything else and you’re deflecting and trying to move goal posts. You can lie again, but it just looks poorly on you.
Second, were hunters designed to equip and use melee weapons? Yes or no…
Again, if you say anything other than yes you’re lying. The class was literally designed to use melee, so you and Bepples trying to pretend otherwise just makes you look silly.
Third, and even if all of the above wasn’t true, the game is as approaching 20 years old. Things change, and if the devs want SV to be melee then that’s what they are. Your opinions are irrelevant.
I can read just fine, was melee a Principal or chief design of the class, and if so why is not not mention in the class description (you’re the one trying to pass off a side note of the class as part of it’s main design) you can’t even read what you write.
did it have melee yes
was it a staple of the class no
Do you know what something being the staple of something means (obvious not).
Was hunters meant to be melee at the start NO.
You’re so mad you can’t even type coherently. Keep moving those goal posts, and not being able to answer a simple yes or no. Bepples has some competition for incoherent arguments and deflecting.