SV doesn’t feel much like a hunter because like you said:
Old school indeed.
Yeah, I like the direction they’re taking SV too. Back to ranged, where it belongs.
12 Likes
Old school hunter hunter, not hunter class…
Exactly same as it is with BFA, Hybrid range and melee.
1 Like
But that’s not what a lot of people want. Some people want it to be exclusively melee. Some people want it to be exclusively ranged. Why is it a good thing that Blizzard keeps fundamentally changing it to being a completely new playstyle? What happens when they change it from being melee/range hybrid to something else? Will you still be blindly defending them and claiming that there are more people who want to play whatever the new iteration is rather than one of the old iterations?
2 Likes
OK - I’ll bite. From Warcraft logs, all over past 2 weeks, all percentiles. Number of parses.
Mythic
BM - 135,612 - 97%
MM - 2,659 - 2%
SV - 1,134 - 1%
But lets see how heroic and normal look:
Heroic:
BM - 421,450 - 94%
MM - 18,227 - 4%
SV - 9,995 - 2%
Normal:
BM - 67,730 - 90%
MM - 5,424 - 7%
SV - 2,422 - 3%
Mythic+ (all keys)
BM - 776,180 - 92%
MM - 46,875 - 6%
SV - 22,793 - 3%
SV doesn’t seem to be well represented at any level, not just mythic. Sub Rogue is the only spec with less parses than SV.
My 2 cents - Hunters don’t want to be casters (MM), Hunters don’t want to be melee (SV) . Yet MM is about twice the representation of SV.
10 Likes
Well its incomplete, are the numbers accurate?
-No. Its only number that player have uploaded.
Would the numbers be that different?
-Not that much probably.
With a high focus on BM, could it be that people simply chose that not because its their fun spec but because it does +50k more dmg than the other two?
-Yea, probably.
Something I dislike by any of the available data, is that it cant tell you if the person is playing it because it is optimal or because he has more fun on it.
Also weird how warcraft log shows different numbers on Mythic+ , is it counting unique players? Or counting # of attempt careless of player ?
BM : 244,852 -79.11%
MM : 40,402 -13.05%
Surv : 24,233 -7.83%
Unique characters that has done a M+ in Season 4.
On a flip side : PvP Rated 1800+
Hunters in 2v2
SV 76.2%
BM 22.9%
MM 0.9%
Hunters in 3v3
SV 81.7%
BM 17.2%
MM 1.1%
Hunter in RBG
SV 63.9%
BM 22.2%
MM 13.9%
So if we only take these into speculation.
The vast majority of players are playing BM and Surv. Few of them are playing MM.
1 Like
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.
To a degree, I concur. Specs should have solid mechanics out of the box, with talents either adding to or modifying those mechanics.
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.
Agreed, but the problem is that if you implement the ability exactly as it was in Warcraft III, that means you need corpses for Black Arrow to do its thing (assuming we don’t keep the requirement of BA dealing the killing blow). So the ability would be good in fights with adds, but not so much in fights where it’s just the boss.
I would have rather kept it similar to how it was pre-Legion to avoid that whole mess.
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.
I was using what I read on Legion MM and SV from Cata, MoP and WoD. This was just something I came up with as an alternative to what was done during Legion with the hopes of better integrating SV mechanics into the spec. At least I think it’d feel less off-putting to see the mechanics well-integrated instead of just random things that have no cohesion to the rest of the kit.
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.
I wouldn’t aim to give a spec multiple playstyles, since that has some pretty big issues. What I would aim for is taking mechanics that work together and build around them.
Can I get your source on the PvP numbers?
Those numbers were taken on https://www.arenamate.net/ , I;ve looked at various site / source for it and they are roughly all the same.
1 Like
Yep. My point exactly.
Agreed.
The problem is that even if you were to add in the things you mentioned earlier, into MM, it would still by large just be MM(with a lot of core MM mechanics) but with certain key elements added from the old RSV.
I’m not saying that you could not change enough to make it feel like the old RSV and also not feel much like the current MM.
But at what point does that get to be the same thing as “trying to contain 2 different playstyles within 1 spec”?
The more talents and effects you add for MM that caters to the old RSV playstyle, the less you can have in there that focuses on current MM and how it plays/is intended to work. You would essentially end up with the default MM spec and most of it’s talents would be made to change the default design into something that more closely resembles RSV.
That’s why I said what I did earlier about “merging 2 playstyles”.
2 Likes
The more talents and effects you add for MM that caters to the old RSV playstyle, the less you can have in there that focuses on current MM and how it plays/is intended to work. You would essentially end up with the default MM spec and most of it’s talents would be made to change the default design into something that more closely resembles RSV.
My goal wouldn’t be “MM spec with the option to spec to play like old Surv”, but instead “mechanics from old Surv and mechanics from MM adjusted to fit together as one playstyle”. That’s where my criticism of how Legion’s Black Arrow was implemented came from. I’m aware this wouldn’t please either camp (MM players would complain it’s not MM enough, Surv players would complain that it’s not close enough to pre-Legion Surv).
1 Like
So MM is close enough to RSV, but there is nothing in the game like RSV?
Mind-Blown
Whose point are you arguing?
8 Likes
Nooooo thank you. I’d rather not have my spec deleted for some hybrid of MM and RSV.
4 Likes
I thought they where going to change BM into a melee Rexar like spec if anything as was excited about that. Was really surprised they did it with Surv.
What I wish they did was make Survival the ranged hunter + pet spec. MM the archer petless spec and BM as a melee with throwing weapon attacks for range and lots of pets.
1 Like
This argument is so moot at this point. Its just both sides of the crusades. No one is actually reading or listening to others. No constructive feed back ever. This is honestly terrible.
People just in a room yelling that every one but themselves is wrong. People can’t want things with out triggering some essay write up on why their numbers proves they are right. I just want to talk about current design and ways to improve. If blizzard devices to go back to ranged then they will. But no let’s keep arguing. Im sure its a good way to spend time.
1 Like
That’s easy to say if you’re not fighting to get back something that was stripped from you after you invested more than a decade playing it.
I’m so tired of being told to get over it.
8 Likes
The problem is you are not fighting to get something back. You are fighting other people on the forums and derailing all over forms of conversations.
1 Like
What am I supposed to do, shut up and wait for Blizzard to get their head out of their butts? This is just another way of saying “get over it.”
I don’t typically post about this subject on threads that are not about this subject.
1 Like
Did I tell you to get over it? Nope, you just want to argue.
You are not offering valid concepts of how you want to get what you want back. You are just saying “You’re wrong, i want what i want.”
Do you think Blizzard is going to go over and read all these inane arguments? Do you think they don’t have the numbers?
Offer some idea’s, how can blizzard get your survival back with out taking mine?
2 Likes
It is funny that these posts always get the most attention lol.
Also, noticing that blizz is slowly taking the spec back to ranged. I’d rather they just split it into a ranger spec and a surv spec.
Wanna be a melee hunter, fine. No big deal. But I’ll keep hoping they make another spec that’s surv outta cata and let it roll. Was so much smoother than the mess that hunters are now. All specs included lol
7 Likes
Thank you for posting your source. I checked it out, and I guess I view the data there differently than you. I would certainly recommend that people check out these sites and judge for themselves. If I am reading the data on this site wrong, please correct me.
For full disclosure, I don’t really PvP. Occasionally if Blizz makes me, or like during the 15th anniversary for a mount.
First thing I noted - if you look at all classes as a whole, Hunter is least represented in RBG & 3v3, and 2nd last in 2v2.
Second, it has been said more than once on the PvE side, that the data is modded, incomplete, or hand picked. That mythic raiders don’t represent everyone. Well… If go to filter, pick RBG, Hunter only, all ratings, I get:
BM 53.6%
SV 32.7%
MM 13.7%
As I move the slider, BM is in the lead up until 1800 rating. Only then does SV get a higher % than BM.
SV is pretty securely in the lead for 2v2 & 3v3 regardless of rating.
Thirdly, data size. Once I select 1800 rating, these are the numbers we are working with:
2v2 - 342 hunters (SV - 254, BM - 86, MM - 2)
3v3 - 268 hunters (SV - 217, BM - 47, MM - 4)
RBG - 37 Hunters (SV - 23, BM - 9, MM - 5)
Not exacly huge sample sizes.
As I said, everybody judge for themselves. My take away is this. SV is the ‘best’ PvP spec of the worst (or least played) class in PvP.
5 Likes