As opposed to 3 mage specs that essentially do the same thing? Or three rogue specs that do essentially the same thing? Or three warlock specs that essentially do the same thing?
Or are you going to tell me that an arcane mage is not the same as a fire mage? Because at the end of the day they’re still just throwing magic spells at something…
Just because all the specs do basically the same thing in the end doesn’t essentially make them the same…
I don’t base it off of people in general, only people who played Hunters prior. Almost all of the people who say “Man I love melee SV” are people who didn’t play or main Hunters prior. It doesn’t really convince me if some warrior main picks up a Hunter alt and then barges into the Hunter forums to tell us ranged Hunter players how ‘good’ melee SV is and how ‘wrong’ we were for liking ranged Survival. People like melee Hunter and that is fine. The problem is that that literally doesn’t matter a single iota. I don’t care that they made melee Hunter. I care that they deleted ranged Survival. That is the issue here, and that is what everyone hates.
Don’t forget that all warriors do the same thing too. They just hit enemies with melee weapons. Forget all the other things they do, because we can just focus on one aspect shared between all three of their specs, and therefore all three of their specs must all be essentially the same. Duh.
Normally I’d argue with you and show the numbers. But as I’ve done that so many times and no one cares to listen(and obviously you are another of those) this is no longer worth the time.
Many people want rsurv back. And that’s why is continues to be brought up. Period.
Look at the numbers in pvp, mythics, raiding. You’ll find the same in each area(with a small bump in pvp) for hunters in each competitive level.
The only number that covers ALL content… is the max level chracter class/spec, which has shown surv to be in the right numbers. Neither low, nor super high.
All other numbers you seem to use, have been pointed out to be innacurate, incomplete and cannot be used to speculate something that concern the whole game.
Show me numbers and I can say its only a portion of the game.
If you cannot read and properly take in that you are using hand picked data, then yes. You are no longer worth the time.
Its being brought up because of the same people, crusaders and troll. Its hardly being shown up compared to other demands from other class.
Using hand picked data:
PvP 1800+ rating 20 Dec 2019
Surv 2.1%
BM 1.1%
MM 0.2%
(DARN! Surv is highest ?!? No buddy loves MM, delete that spec! -_- sigh )
Mythic Raid Boss downed (Eternal Palace) 20 Dec 2019
Surv 0.5%
BM 7.3%
MM 1%
( F it ! Lets remove MM and Survival from the game, people only and ONLY play BM. No need for other spec )
See where this is going ? See how off you are ?
Max level hunters 20 Dec 2019
Surv 2.5 %
BM 3.2 %
MM 2.8 %
Oh look, yes there’s less Surv but its not drastically low as some people claim.
Average spec % is 2.5% , so Surv is doing just fine !
BUT WAIT !
While this is closest data you can get of representation of all of WoW, but it also takes in account:
So it ain’t the complete truth… but its closest thing nonetheless. The famous numbers you use is being done by a small portion of players. Not everyone is interested in Rated PvP, in Mythic raiding. Gets too be less fun or too dramatic for them. Some people just want to log in, Q up and pvp or pve. Some will do it for achievement hunting, some for RP, some for collecting stuff, etc.
WoW is a big MMO with multiple avenues in it. You cannot base whats popular or not using only 1 of those avenues.
Uuuh, weren’t you the one criticizing various numbers for not taking into account things like alts, logging off in a spec you don’t play, abandoned characters, etc.? Numbers like that are thrown way off by all of those things.
Tell me exactly how it is hand-picked data to show that Hunters dropped in total playerbase representation from 12.7% in WoD to 8.6% now?
What kind of nonsense statement is this? Sounds like you’re just throwing words like “defined identity” at the text box without actually understanding what they mean. Having a central element like a ranged weapon is what gave Hunters a defined identity and removing that from one of our specs actively weakens and dilutes that identity.
In my opinion, survival had always had kind of a weird niche between MM and BM but didn’t really do anything special. I really like that the current iteration of survival makes it feel like it really does something unique compared to the other specs instead of just being “hunter with a couple changes”.
It’s just a matter of opinion, calm down.
Ok, cool. That’s your misinformed opinion. Firstly, SV did not have pet aspects like BM did so it couldn’t be a weird in-between of MM and BM. If you want to see a version of SV that infringes on BM, look to the current SV. Secondly, just because it used a ranged weapon doesn’t mean it was just the same as MM but with a couple changes. That would be like if I said all the mage specs are the same thing because they cast spells. I don’t see you demanding they change Fire Mage to melee so you feel more at home in that class when coming from your ret paladin main, so why do it to Hunters?
Survival’s “uniqueness” now is its failure to live up to a Hunter’s basic capabilities. Amazing.
Right, well it’s evident you came to the forums to be told you were right instead of actually discussing the spec, so enjoy your temper tantrum over people liking things you don’t.
Pretty big difference between saying you like something and saying I like it now because it’s no longer the same as this other thing I don’t like. Especially when the old thing and the thing you don’t like were never so similar as you try to make them out to be.
You may be the only person I see on these forums who truly, utterly, despises SV. And yes I use the term SV because it is melee and has been now for a bit.
We all have varying opinions about the spec and playstyle, but
This isn't helping any type of argument.. How can someone's opinion be misinformed? They play the class just as you do, and if they feel a certain way, how is that wrong?
You don’t see people here demanding that because we aren’t on the mage forums. Look I’m not saying that you’re wrong or right, because yes, ALL Mages specs do the same thing, in different ways, just as all the ranged hunter specs did, just as warriors and so forth. It’s all the same. I’m sure if they had deleted Arcane from the game you’d be seeing as many posts as we do about RSV.
I’m sorry you feel this way, but many of us don’t. You don’t have to respect that, but flaming people because they like SV isn’t the answer.
Because there are objective aspects to the core of the class. Those aspects of the class were the ranged weapon and the pet. If somebody changed Arcane to a melee spec then it obviously wouldn’t be an informed opinion to say that it is better than old Arcane because you thought that Arcane was too similar to Fire. It misunderstands the problem. The problem is not how different the spec is, because being different is not the same thing as being good. The problem is that melee SV is fundamentally a warrior spec, and it replaced what was fundamentally a Hunter spec. You could make Arcane ‘very unique and different from Fire’ by making it a melee spec, but that defeats the point of playing a Mage in the first place.
And they would be right. Trying to argue that a spec deserves to be removed because it has any number of similarities with other specs of the same class is ridiculous. After all, that’s the idea of a class composed of three specs. The class itself is composed of a combination of abilities/spells from the three spellbooks (BM, MM and SV), and thus the base class gets access to some abilities from each. But a specialization is increased focus into one of those spellbooks. All Mages can use Blink, even though it is an Arcane spell, but not all Mages can cast Arcane Blast, because that requires a specialization into Arcane. A spec should not deviate from the base class to the point that melee SV has.
What is this all to say? It is to say that Blizzard messed up and made a mistake that they never should have made. If they wanted another melee spec for some reason then they should have made a new class to put it in rather than deleted ranged Survival to do it. That is the point of contention here. We are upset not just because a new melee spec akin to Warrior was added to the game, but rather we are upset because Hunters had to lose one of their specs in order to make room for it.
Also, no, current Survival is not the same Survival that it has been, any more than the two Restoration specs for Druids and Shamans are the same, or the two Holy spec for Paladins and Priests are the same, or the two Frost specs for Mages and Death Knights are the same. They are completely different, and the current Survival spec in-game in retail is a completely new spec as of Legion; thus we refer to one as ranged SV and the other as melee SV.
1) This is SpawnofGoat, went back to my original name. I am fully aware of why people call it RSV / MSV. But as of right now, MSV is the current form of SV, so there's no reason to call it MSV. You can simply refer to the "old" playstyle as RSV, and the current iteration as SV. That's all I was getting at.
2) once again, i'm not advocating they don't bring your spec back, but him yelling at people because they have a different opinion just detracts from his credibility, and makes him look immature.
Once again..
[quote="Graiver-runetotem, post:1, topic:521862"] First of all let me say it sucks that people lost a spec they liked, but some people gained a spec they like. [/quote]
what the original poster wanted, was improvements on the specs going into SL, the specs that are currently in the game, and are going to be moving forward.
Blizzard may bring back RSV yet, we will never know until we hear an announcement. OP is right though, focusing on the specs we have is a good start. There's nothing wrong with advocating to bring RSV back, but that's not helping the specs we currently have in the game get to a more playable, fun state for everyone.
It's like buying a Honda Civic but you hate the way it drives. Give feedback that's going to help the company build a better model next year. If you just tell them to build a different car, it's not helping the company get better as they will not correct those flaws you dislike.
I get it, bring back RSV and "the game will be more fun for everyone". I've seen the posts, and I agree it will add more flavor, but I also agree it's not helping BM, MM or SV moving into Shadow Lands right now.
I agree, but no matter the reason Blizzard gave, they went ahead with the green light to remove RSV. That’s why I don’t understand people arguing in the first place. There’s no reason to argue about WHY it happened, what the game would have been like, because it DID happen.
People arguing over numbers, "facts" and all this other BS for what? All of that energy could be going into a massive "Bring back RSV thread" with everyone working together, instead of arguing with each other in every thread on the hunter forums about RSV..
People, including yourself @Spinnerdh, have brought up some really great ideas and reasons to bring back RSV in threads, and I believe that blizzard will eventually listen if people keep posting quality content on why RSV returning is good for the class and game.
here come the tone police wee woo wee woo
I will continue to refer to it as melee SV since that is what it is, if for no other reason than to avoid confusion. Realistically speaking, there is essentially zero reason to refer to is as Survival in the first place. The only reason it is is because Survival was the spec that it replaced.
I disagree. If ranged SV was returned then melee SV could become its own thing. It would improve as it would no longer be ‘Survival’. Blizzard could design it however they wanted (whether that’s a good thing or bad thing I’ll let you decide).
I’m not really concerned with giving feedback about ability tuning, which is pretty much the only real changes that could take place after this point. Blizzard has already decided how they want class design to be in SL. Ability tuning is not going to make the class fun, engaging or fulfilling. I will give feedback that aims to actually improve the class rather than focusing on short-sighted minor changes that won’t benefit the class in the long run. If we just shut up about changes that need to happen in the long term, then Blizzard will just go into the xpac after Shadowlands once again enacting their ‘vision’ onto everything in sight and the class will suffer for it.
I disagree. There is merit to discussing what the game would have been like, because if the game would have been better then that is an additional positive argument for why ranged SV should be returned: it would make the game better.
I agree, but when so many people take the position of “Shut up about ranged SV it is never coming back. Melee SV is better and ranged SV was garbage” then we should realize that Blizzard will take their chance to hone in on that garbage feedback and tell themselves “See? People don’t really want ranged SV back. You did good Blizzard. You did good.”
Plus, again, these arguments keep the ranged SV discussion at the forefront, even if they aren’t perfect or classy. Blizzard listens to what is loud, not necessarily what is well reasoned.
Imagine the audacity of telling someone their opinion is wrong. By the way, Blizzard apparently agrees with him and not you. So, in fact, if anyone’s opinion is wrong it would be yours.
I don’t understand the intent of the OP. You said there are tons of threads on this topic, and people shouldn’t argue, so you decide to open a new thread over something that has been beaten to death dozens of time?
How does this add anything new or valuable to the forum? Posts like this are hot topics (that often devolve into pissing contests). Sadly, this will get bumped often, burying new content.
Thanks for your first post… Perhaps be more selective in the future.
For MM in Legion, Black Arrow had no interaction with anything, by default.
Yikes…that’s really bad. That’s basically “here’s an extra button to push that doesn’t really mean anything”. The summoning thing looks like a callback to Warcraft III’s version of Black Arrow, though that’s something that should have been implemented when the skill was originally brought in (back in WotLK). Way too late to change how Black Arrow worked, IMO.
Looking over some guides (since as I mentioned, I never played old Surv), I would have made both Aimed Shot and Explosive Shot baseline and share the same cooldown, Aimed being for single target situations and Explosive for AoE clusters of mobs (bonus being we would have side-stepped the meme that was Barrage). Implement the Lock & Load mechanic baseline and have it proc off DoT ticks from Serpent Sting and Black Arrow. Black Arrow would be a shot with a cooldown (probably 30 seconds like it was during Wrath and MoP; 10 second duration that deals damage every second) that deals DoT damage and increases target’s damage taken from your pet, encouraging the player to combo Black Arrow with either Aimed or Explosive Shot. Leave Steady Shot as a focus generator, leave Arcane Shot as a focus dump/filler. Then design the talents around that.
Sounds like you’re mad about being misinformed and wrong.
It might sound all flowery and nice to you to be brought up believing that opinions are infallible and immune from criticism but that’s not how the world works. Everyone’s entitled to have an opinion. That includes my opinion that Alaridawn’s opinion is misinformed. I’m not obliged to pretend it isn’t. Plus, it isn’t just a matter of opinion. Saying that SV was an in-between of MM and BM is factually wrong for exactly the reason I detailed: SV did not have any more pet aspects than what came with the baseline for the class. Alaridawn just spat out that line because it sounded good to him and he doesn’t have the necessary knowledge of the Hunter class to know how and why it’s wrong.
It’s all the same yet Blizzard singled out Hunters and acted on those terrible class design takes. That’s the problem here.
No, it pretty much is the answer because arguing that taking away the key, defining element of a class from one of its specs just for the tokenistic ability to call it “unique” is monumentally terrible class design and defending terrible class design is just a crappy thing to do. This is like taking away stealth from Outlaw Rogues because “All three specs do it so I really want Outlaw to be unique”.
People have bad opinions all the time, including Blizzard and, in fact, many posters in this thread. What people like you misunderstand is that entitlement to an opinion goes both ways. You might hold the opinion that the sky is red and I’ll be fully vocal with my opinion that your opinion is misinformed and wrong.
P.S. Did you really use Blizzard’s stance as an argument? Do you really want to go down the road of evaluating Blizzard’s credibility when it comes to this sort of thing?
This topic is about constructive criticism and feedback towards the class in general rather than being about the argument of ranged vs melee SV.
That doesn’t mean that we cannot talk about, for example, how to bring RSV back.
Except that such numbers/data haven’t been presented with the whole game(all content) as the reference.
That data is referenced with that type of content in mind, comparing all classes in said content.
Get the difference into your head and stop dismissing it for what it actually is.
Got any examples?
Because I see new players/posters on these and other sub-forums every other day posting about how they want RSV back.
Sure, some of us talk about it more frequently. But that doesn’t take away all those other posters who mentions it once/makes a topic about it but don’t actively talk about it as often.
The reason some of us keeping with the MSV/RSV differentiations is because of how it highlights how we are talking about different versions of SV.
Anyway, does it actually matter?
He/she did not specify that it was only about the current specs.
The topic was more in line with constructive feedback toward the class in general.
If you look at most things for what we’ve gotten on that end since, incl all stand-alone abilities we can get through BM-talents, it’s the same theme there.
A talent here, press on CD, then forget it for a while.
A talent there, press on CD, aaand…forget.
I honestly hate such talent design.
Talents should modify/improve what we can find in the core toolkit tied to the spec.
I have nothing against passive talents, as long as the passive effect isn’t just X% more damage.
A talent can be passive in itself but the effect it provides allows for you to change your priorities. It allows for you to make different choices depending in what talents you pick and for what encounters you use them.
You can see this clearly in my suggested concept for RSV below here. Most talents are in various ways passive. But the effects tied to them, changes your gameplay and your priorities, indirectly or otherwise.
Maybe it was.
Though that would be inaccurate as well, if that was the goal with the design.
The WC3 ability reanimated corpses into a skeleton. In Legion, they made Black Arrow summon an undead boar out of nothing.
Not really the same thing.
That would be one way to get a somewhat bare-bones version of RSV back, sure. Although one still influenced a lot by current MM.
But, as have been stated before, we shouldn’t opt for vastly changing existing specs for the sake of other playstyles. I suppose this applies to MM as well.
Also, trying to contain 2 distinct playstyles within 1 spec, it will never work properly. Not if you want some depth to both of those individual playstyles.