Okay let’s pretend you’re not just being obtuse and we even pretend your straw man is accurate, why do YOU want bombs to be more optional/less focus for survival like you’ve claimed you have? What is YOUR reasoning? What magical factor makes your opinion and reasoning better? Why does it matter WHY someone wants the same thing you do?
let’s pretend you aren’t a snide hostile ox who is hostile to anyone who dares pushes back on you at all
the magical factor that makes my reasoning better is i dont pretend that SV doesn’t fit in the game or have any problem with WFB. i know what specializations are I understand who they work in the game and context of the game.
i also understand it’s really unrealistic to expect optional bombs lol. never been a spec in the game that had a complete optional set up for a main draw of the spec
“I actually don’t think what I claim, I just like arguing” great, thanks for confirming you’re dishonest. Byeeee 
HPal had melee vs caster.
Fury had SMF vs Titan’s Grip and Annihilator vs Raging Blow.
Ele had Lightning vs Lava.
There’s no reason they couldn’t simply offer the following:
Tethered Axe - Mechanically the same as WFB except for Bleed damage instead of Fire.
Replacement for Shrapnel Bomb talent.
Fury of the Eagle - Could either be more Bleed damage vs Boomstick as Fire. Or greater damage in a smaller AoE vs Boomstick dealing less damage in a larger AoE.
Choice node with Boomstick.
These two options would leave you with your arsenal of weapons of mass destruction while we would be able to utilize a more subtle array of weapons that emphasize technique over “shock and awe”.
1 Like
Based I agree
waiting for that shadowless priest still
1 Like
Well, technically development time and resources, but alpha is definitely the time to do it. It would take less if they reused assets they already have. A reason, though not one I’d consider good enough to rule out having the options.
I really don’t think you understand this concept lmao
right so you agree it’s a bad place to start a class fantasy lol
1 Like
sure, but then all rogues, warriors, and hunters are in the same boat; which is why I said weird premise
1 Like
No, rogues and warriors are not described as “just dudes looking to survive out there” like you have been describing survival
1 Like
???
you literally agreed with me and then disagreed with me one post later about the same exact point lmao
if we say survival can’t survive because it’s not a magic user in a magic setting, that applies entirely to the warrior, hunter, and rogue classes as a whole.
if we say not having magic actually doesn’t matter…then it doesnt matter? sv can survive as well as anything else. you realism guys are so weird
1 Like
You’re actually insane. Warriors & rogues main theme isn’t “to just survive” they have other motivations, which is why I said they aren’t described as such. Survival’s theme, that you have described multiple times, is just “guys who use whatever they can do to survive.” Which I have said is a bad place to start a class fantasy. And you agreed with me, and then brough up rogues and warriors, even though that’s not their fantasy and it’s not related.
You don’t use any thinking, you just see a post disagree with you and your eyes go red, its crazy lol
1 Like
and thats what they do man are you daft??
you’re saying this as someone who reads “survival” as a spec name and the only thought you have is “hmm they must only be to survive”.
>arms warriors
>they use legs
is blizzard stupid?
3 Likes
This has been how you are describing them the whole time lol. “whatever it takes” is not a class fantasy, and it’s definitely not the Ranger fantasy, particularly in WoW when you had like Ranger Generals and what not.
Rogues and warriors are not described as “whatever it takes” so you bring them into to avoid thinking about anything that goes against your alt reality. You don’t even look at counter points, you just look for a rebuttal lol youre a joke. Thanks for the laughs
1 Like
it clearly is, you just dont like it.
your whole point is “um survival hunter cant survive” without any explanation of why you think something so deranged
1 Like
It about a name, calling a spec Survival yet they fight up front were all the danger is while at same time throwing explosives. It’s a odd fantasy when you hear what the spec is called.
there’s a spec named arms but they walk around all the time on two legs. outlaw named spec but allowed to talk to guards. spec named destruction but doesnt destroy anything with any noteworthy level higher than any other spec in the game. kind of wild to be so literal about spec names huh
sounds like they’re SO good at survival they dont need to be far away huh? and they’re SO good at surviving they’re immune to explosives as the only spec in the game with friendly fire as a consideration
Don’t need to over analyze it. It’s just simple as the theme and what it’s called. It’s about contradicting themes, like calling something awfully good. It’s not about realism of Survival that its play-style and name would be conteractive.
1 Like
you haven’t said anything about the gameplay or fantasy of survival that contradicts the name though. you’re applying realism to it, which doesn’t make any sense
do you really thiink a rugged survivalist would be okay with just pointy spears and arrows in a world where there’s giant insects and sentient rock monsters trying to kill you?
1 Like