I don’t agree, and class design includes the fantasy of the class. They’re not separate matters.
WTF are you talking about? I said that we know that their original vision for the Hunter class did NOT include a melee Hunter because they designed the class to be dependent on ranged weapons and then explicitly said in the manual and patch notes that Hunters were meant to be ranged weapon users. So no we CANNOT agree that “Rugged melee survivalist” fell into the category of what they believed a Hunter could be. That’s a post-Legion thing.
Stop reading the first line of paragraphs and assuming you know what the rest will be. It’s very obvious you’re doing it and it’s a waste of everyone’s time.
… No they don’t. You don’t need to design something for the fantasy of it to exist lmao. Spellbreakers, Spirit Walkers, etc etc. All of these ‘fantasies’ exist in the WoW universe, and their existing powers in lore are what would be used for inspiration if Blizzard ever decided to give them to us. Design cares about the fantasy, fantasy doesn’t care about the design. That’s why the design is a separate conversation.
For a guy that loves screaming “SPEED-READER!!! NO READING COMPREHENSION!!!” I seem to have to keep requoting myself so you can actually pay attention to the words I’ve said.
I’ve said three times now: 2002 when they debuted Rexxar. You know, in that little game that came before WoW, WC3? What a complete mystery on why you keep talking about Classic instead of just answering my question about the series whole. Can we agree ‘Rugged, melee survivalist’ fell in to the category of what they believed a “Hunter” could be back in 2002, and did it contradict any previously existing lore when he debuted?
When we talk about captial-H “Hunter” we’re talking about the WoW playable class. Not the broader concept.
In WC3 you didn’t have broader “classes”. You had hero types, there were a lot of them, and they were more specific. Rexxar was a Beastmaster, not a “Hunter”. Hunter is the WoW playable class, and when they outlined that they did not envision it being melee.
You’re still dodging around the matter of whether it’s a good idea to blindly and haphazardly chase what random lore characters are doing over a decade after WoW launched. To you the fact that part of the Hunter class is derived from a character that uses melee weapons is 100% justification to change an existing ranged spec to melee. I shouldn’t need to explain why that’s a terrible idea.
The Hunter class, for a very long time, was 3 specs that fought with a ranged weapon and a pet (meaning one pet). That was the class. Ranged damage, you and your pet.
Now none of the 3 Hunter specs are played optimally at range with you and your one pet. With BM and MM you can do it for a damage loss. With SV you can’t do it at all.
Whether or not you like MSV or RSV, the fact is that the original Hunter class fantasy and playstyle is just totally gone now. If I want to play with a bow or a gun and my one pet I have bonded with, I can no longer do it at all unless I sacrifice damage.
Once again, this is a thread about current SV and the buffs to the spec.
Enough of this derailing garbage, go and make your own theads and whine all you want.
For those who actually play the spec, Zuco put out a few vids showcasing some potential builds post-buffs, Bombadier build looks like it might have some potential
I’ve only done 1 key since buffs, but dps difference is quite noticeable, much better AoE…
Even had 2 puggers in my group say “woah, survival FTW!” - so like another poster said, keep turning heads with this spec
just throwing in my two copper here but hunter melee meme specs were all over vanilla, usually in low level bg brackets but still. It existed (much like shaman 2h stuff) so like… having one spec embrace that while the others still are able to do ranged is pretty solid.
Yes, when you’re talking about DESIGN, not FANTASY. We’re talking about FANTASY right now. C’mon buddy, pay attention.
… The classes are based on the broader concepts in universe. I can’t believe you’re even trying to argue that they’re unrelated lmao. How do you think Death Knights came to be? Blizzard randomly decided to make undead plate-wearers wielding death, and just so happened to realize Arthas was also an undead plate-wearer wielding death?
But since you want to play this silly little semantic game: Can we agree ‘Rugged, melee survivalist’ fell in to the category of what they believed an animal befriending, animal hunting, beast master could be back in 2002, and did it contradict any previously existing lore when he debuted? Yes or no?
You didn’t ask, and the question isn’t relevant to whether or not melee fits the fantasy, which is the topic we’re currently focusing on. You’re really not able to stay on one topic for very long, are you?
Literally been hearing this same anecdote in its various forms since Legion.
Don’t worry guys one day they will land the plane…
Ah yes a meme build a few people played as a joke sometimes in Classic is definitely justification for throwing out and replacing an entire ranged spec a decade later…
Definitely a Rogue take right here.
I’m talking about design, and the fantasy of the WoW Hunter class. I don’t care about anything else in this discussion, so stop trying to take it there. I won’t follow you.
Yes the broader “hunter” concept can include melee since it can basically include anything. I’ve said this before. No, that does not mean it’s a good fit for the WoW class.
Look what similarly broad definitions like Warrior, Rogue, and Mage can also include if you broaden the definition enough.
WoW classes need specific, definable foundations; not dilute, broad concepts that are totally up to individiual interpretations. In fact I’m reminded of our argument 2 weeks ago where you consistently failed to understand what “diluted” means in this context so it’s good to see you haven’t improved at all.
I’ve been saying it since you mentioned Rexxar.
What’s with this desperate attempt to define what we’re actually talking about? This has always been about WoW Hunter design and why making SV melee was a bad idea. I won’t listen to any talk about how “if we broaden the definition of Hunter and decide we aren’t actually talking about WoW then melee can make sense so that means making SV melee in WoW was a good idea”. We’re too far into melee SV being an obvious failure to keep pretending that it all worked out fine.
Ahh, there we go. There’s the Bepples I wanted to see. The one that throws a tantrum and screams “NO, I declare melee doesn’t fit the fantasy, but NO I won’t discuss why!” We all know why staying on one topic isn’t something you’ll ever do:
Great! So a melee hunter does fit the established fantasy of the Warcraft universe, like in the groundwork that they laid with Rexxar back in 2002?
Normal people call ‘defining what they’re talking about’ an ‘intellectually honest discussion of something’. A person who believes what they’re saying holds merit isn’t scared of not deviating from it lol
The point is stuff stuck and at the end of the day what doesnt fit your fantasy doesnt matter as blizz clearly enjoys melee survivals concept and everything that ranged survival had aside from like… What, black arrow? was baked into other specs.
At this point you’re trolling and derailing this persons thread just asking for input.
You say anecdote, when its quite literally my reality, so once again I find myself brushing off a Bepples reply… maybe nex time it happens (and it will), I’ll take a screenshot just for you
100%. Contrary to these whiners beliefs, the spec has identity befitting what a hunter could reasonably encompass, and is pretty damn fun.
Lots of nuance to the spec when you engage with it.
^^^^^^^^
Please leave this thread if all you’re going to do is be like Bepples.
I won’t help you out here; I’d like you to detail what you think about what ranged SV had and how it got baked into other specs.
Because I suspect your understanding of it is extremely limited.
Blizzard enjoys and is happy with a lot of terrible design decisions. This is the major part of their steep decline in reputation in the past few years. They double down on crap all the time.
I am discussing why because I’m talking about the WoW class.
You’re the one trying to say that “if we look beyond WoW the term “hunter” can refer to a lot of things including melee so that means melee makes sense for the WoW Hunter class”. It’s a nonsense argument. No matter how you slice it ranged weapons were and still are the bedrock of the WoW class.
I’ve been talking about the WoW class the entire time and I’ll continue talking about the WoW class.
For the WoW class, it doesn’t.
Rexxar was a Beastmaster in WC3, not any specific class. He’s someone who used pets to fight. So when they made Hunters in WoW, they derived inspiration from Rexxar by including pets in the class.
It really is incredible how your entire argument boils down to just incessantly screeching “REXXAR!!!”. Only an SV main would believe something as stupid as chasing old random lore characters equating to good class design.
I have defined what I’m talking about: the Hunter class design in WoW. I’ve explained how it’s a class that needs a specific foundation given “Hunter” is on its own a broad concept, and how ranged weapons provided that unique and iconic foundation. You say believing what you’re saying means not being scared of deviating from it. I say it means basing it in real logic and being consistent.
SV fans have been talking about how they’ve been breaking the stigma since Legion. This crap comes up all the time.
I’m not even saying that you made up that anecdote (although to be clear I’m sure many times it comes up on the forums it’s made up; we’ve had people like Jinday outright lie about this sort of thing and been caught out on it before so it’s not like this behaviour is beyond SV Hunters). It’s silly to think that Survival will ever be viewed as anything beyond a dysfunctional and unnecessary third wheel for the Hunter class or that playing SV well in groups is going to ever progress the spec’s image beyond that.
The spec doesn’t have much of an identity at all. It’s just random crap thrown together with no overarching plan.
Funnily enough certain (mistaken) people accused ranged SV of being that even though melee SV has the worst and most ill-defined identity of any spec in the game.
Half its identity is just straight up lifted from BM, for crying out loud. And people want to tell me how they made it melee to make it distinct and well-defined
It has identity. You just dont like what that identity is. The SV hunter uses a wide array of abilities and skills, very reminiscient of a witcher… a monster hunter.
You really need to get over yourself and accept reality lol. Interacting with you is tiring
Funnily enough, here you are (again) constantly derailing a thread about current survival’s tuning.
Get out Bepples, and start your own thread where you can cry me a river there
Yes, and Class Fantasy is one of the arguments you made against it. Fantasy and lore extend outside a single game, buddy. You can’t just say the prequel’s lore and fantasy suddenly disappear just because there’s a sequel now, no matter how inconvenient it is for you lmao. If ‘Fantasy’ isn’t an argument you feel like you can defend anymore, be honest and admit it’s not one you should be using and you were wrong. Y’know, like an adult.
Oh no, I’m not saying hunter can refer to essentially anything, you said that. I’m telling you what established characters existed as traditional hunters we’d see in WoW, and the fantasies that they cemented in the lore because of it.
Wow! So you’re telling me that they drew inspiration from an existing character, and then build out an class based around the established fantasies that they’ve already had in lore?!
Here’s a crazy idea: What if Blizzard used Rexxar’s fantasy as inspiration for more than just his pet, and actually made a spec that was a rugged, melee survivalist in a similar way to him! What if they doubled-dipped on fantasy inspiration!?
Lmao, I’m talking about Class Fantasy right now buddy, not design. You’re the one that desperately needs to swap out what we’re talking about the second you understand it’s actually indefensible, but are too childish to admit that you were wrong.
