I am trying to help Survival appeal to me (and all the others who played ranged SV and did not continue with melee SV, before you again claim that this is just about me) by making it ranged. You keep advocating for bad compromises that mostly amount to “melee keep all, ranged make sacrifices”. That’s not sufficient.
That’s not the only reason and you know it. Vishamani, Ghorak, Lazyguide, Yura, etc. and I have all given countless detailed arguments as to why SV should be ranged over the years.
To take one of them: what exactly does SV gain by being melee? It’s not the reason for the spec’s strengths right now. It’s a stark departure from the core Hunter identity and Survival’s own history. It’s a practical loss of capability. It’s the source of thematic and aesthetic confusion throughout the spec’s design. It’s a source for bitterness and alienation in the Hunter playerbase. It replaced an existing popular spec. It seems to me the only reason the spec is melee is to chase an audience of melee players who don’t play much of the Hunter class to begin with. So why make it this way in the first place and why keep it this way?
Hilariously naive argument. Blizzard makes uninformed and disastrous decisions all the time and routinely doubles down on them out of pride and spite. To think that any of their game decisions are driven by data and honest, unbiased analysis is a pipe dream. In melee Survival’s case, the spec is routinely very unpopular. This is NOT based on assumption as you seem to think but rather raid representation statistics. Even Blizzard themsevles have acknowledged the spec’s unpopularity.
The only patch where it hasn’t been one of the least played specs in the game is the current one, 9.2, which is largely because they bribed everyone to play it with one of the most spectacularly overtuned borrowed powers the game has ever seen. If we are at the point where the only way to get people to play this spec is to make it by far better than everything else then it clearly was not a healthy game design decision and it should be revised.
Vishamani is likely referring to WoW Hunters where it’s absolutely true. The class in this game was built around ranged weaponry. When you start from that perspective melee is a flat downgrade. Why on earth would a Survival Hunter, the spec ostensibly built around resourcefulness and opportunism, arbitrarily not use the most significant resource available to the rest of the Hunter class including a specless level 1 Hunter? It makes ZERO sense outside of totally warped perspectives of tokenistic uniqueness, i.e. “now because it doesn’t use a bow it’s a special snowflake!”.
“Making the current spec better” means making it ranged. Nothing else. It’s the single most issue-ridden and problematic aspect of the spec. There is no conversation outside of melee v.s. ranged. No other level of naive tweaking fixes it. You love this line because it sounds good in your head but in reality it’s the same desperate fencesitting nonsense as the rest of your posts.
This is from the other active thread. We have posts like this going years back detailing everything wrong with Survival being melee, but sure: keep pretending that none of that exists and it’s just us saying that we want ranged SV because we personally like it more.
People who take this fencesitting, tone-policing approach are by far the most obnoxious people on the forums. At least those like Toxiktraktor openly embrace the bad-faith trolling nature of their arguments.
Literally everything you ever post in SV discussions is trolling one-liners. You have no place to talk about “logic” here.