A fourth spec. That’s what we’ve all been arguing for. A fourth spec so that we can have the original ranged SV back, and so that melee SV can return to an exclusively melee playstyle rather than this melee/range hybrid mess.
You know what the counter-argument is against it? This ‘other half of the crusades’ as you call it? Their argument is “No”. Just “No”. They give no reason as to why it shouldn’t happen or why it wouldn’t be a good change. They just tell us to shut up and get over it. They ignore the huge impact that Legion changes had on the Hunter playerbase numbers, and how the Hunter playerbase continues to go down, even though Hunter was very consistently the most popular class in the game prior to Legion.
We’ve offered ideas as to how to do it, changes that could be made to make it work. I made a post a while back about how to return ranged SV and to make it its own unique playstyle: https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/ranged-survival-not-just-dot-marksmanship-a-suggested-design/511936/23
But what do you expect? If somebody is making a particular argument against ranged SV, we are going to respond with reasoning specific to that argument. We aren’t just going to respond to them with propositions irrelevant to what they have said. We’ve given the positive feedback many times in many places. Just because we spend time defeating the pointless arguments and nitpicks of trolls doesn’t mean that those are the only forms of feedback that we give concerning the Hunter class.
There’s two concerns I have with a 4th spec. One being the floodgates that would open, because other classes would also ask for a 4th spec that is designed around specific playstyles (Blood DPS, shaman tanks, 2-handed enhance, battlemages and the ever famous shockadin that doesn’t have to queue as a healer, to name a few). Two being resources and time, which are required to design and balance this 4th spec.
Well, unless Blizzard makes an expansion dedicated to giving most classes a 4th spec (because warriors, priests, death knights, monks and demon hunters don’t have room for a 4th spec).
These floodgates were already opened with Feral and Guardian. Plus, none of those classes have anything close to a fourth potential spec in these examples. The examples you gave were minor variations of already existing specs. The difference between them and their current spec is much, much smaller than the difference between melee SV and ranged SV. The only exception is battlemages, which could be its own class (it wouldn’t be an over-saturation of theme, as we already have Preists and Paladins, both classes that have similar themes but express them in very different ways. Mages would be the Priest to Battlemage’s Paladin).
Also, I don’t really care about the floodgates being opened. This entire mess is Blizzard’s fault, so they need to fix it even if they have to dole out a fourth spec for the second time. Again, the precedent has already been set: if there are two different playstyles that are trying to be represented by one sec, then those specs should split into two specs to allow each playstyle to be its own thing. That is what was happening with the original Feral being both a melee DPS and tanking spec, as well as current Survival trying to be both a ranged and melee spec.
Resources and time are required for literally all changes to the game. This argument applies to all possible updates and changes just as much as it applies to bringing ranged SV back as a fourth spec. Furthermore, they already added the fourth spec: melee SV. They just removed ranged SV in the process. Really, they’ve already designed and balanced the fourth spec. They just need to return the spec they deleted that was already designed and balance prior to being deleted.
Well there is a solution here. Make a Ranger class and put legit melee spec in it. Take MM out of hunter and put it in ranger. Give ranger a 3rd spec, either a range/melee hybrid or a tank spec because let’s be honest, it’s about time there is a mail wearing tank seeing as we already have 3 leather wearing tanks.
Then we can put ranged Surv back into and give hunters a third spec that synergizes both the hunter and the pet rather then focusing on 1 exclusively like BM or MM do now.
@Bheleu
Need to check various sites, the reason I take 1800 rating is because that was the most common point from these sites, wowgraph included.
It is incomplete for sure, rated pvp is a different mindset than non rated ones. People hand pick classes for a specific role and etc.
I can tell you why BM is more present on low tier RBG, its due to their role of Point defender. ( A strat that doesnt work so well at higher rating ) Hunter is taken because of pet to prevent rogue cap. If the hunter is CCed, the pet is still there to interrupt it.
Yea, Hunter never was big in Rated pvp… few comps for arena -thug, beast cleave- which can have problem vs common comps. Hopefully with some covenant change and etc it might change a little… (I mean, Bastion skill of ignoring LOS is a big+ )
Sv’s current advantage comes from not being a pure melee build. Being able to keep uptime with eagle, dots, and pet is what separates us from true melee. The utility with traps gives us a lot of versatility as well.
Making it a pure melee build would be a mistake. I think the best way to add a 4th would be a new spec all together.
In terms of class fantasy I feel no less the hunter now as sv than I did in vanilla. I conceal, I track, I trap. I get the first hit with a ranged opener and harpoon in for some melee action. I am accompanied by my animal companions who assist me in all the above. I skin my prey and make survival gear before selling my excess pelts in town. Hunter confirmed.
They already made that mistake in Legion. But there we still people that liked the change and said it was good, and that the new fully melee SV still felt like Hunter in the same exact way you are claiming that current melee SV still feels like Hunter.
I wonder how many times Blizzard will fundamentally change SV. First they deleted ranged SV and added melee SV and you had people coming out of the woodwork telling us that it was better than ranged SV and that ranged SV was no good. Now that Blizzard changed melee SV to melee/ranged hybrid SV you have people coming out of the woodwork telling the pure melee SV fans that it is better than pure melee SV and that pure melee SV was no good. Soon they will probably change melee/range hybrid SV to healing SV and you will have people come out of the woodwork to tell the melee/range hybrid SV fans that it is better than melee/range hybrid SV and that melee/range hybrid SV was no good.
Of course Sadistica would have to agree with those healing SV fans, because they are essentially taking an identical position.
Everyone is entitled to live out and interpret their class fantasy in their own way. What is interesting from the history you spoke of is that it seems like a clash between fans of the old spec and the legion iteration. Blizz tried to play the middle ground in bfa it seems and this is the result.
I played survival and marks from vanilla up to cata before swapping to dk for a few pacs so I didn’t play legion hunter. What I do know is that this current hybrid feels like a good mix of range and melee with lots of utility. It doesn’t feel like a typical range or melee and personally I like that, but I can also see why people say it “has no identity” or “doesn’t know what it wants to be.” This or that was better, ect.
I can see what it is now, and I see versatility, which suits my playstyle. Hybrid specs approach combat in many ways and having options allows me to be more creative. Have to move, no problem eagle and ss/bombs cover me. Get jumped on and I can hold my own or escape. Traps give me some control.
I’m all for more options so I stand by what I said about adding a new spec if anything. It’s clear that blizz won’t make everyone happy with sv but rn it’s is a strong spec (at least in pvp) because it’s a hybrid. I feel like I can do the most on it compared to mm and bm.
But there are other melee specs with this sort of hybrid utility and approach, like Feral, Retribution and Enhancement. Survival Hunter already had means to move, escape, and control. It didn’t need to be melee for that. Why did ranged Survival need to be deleted just to make room for this completely different spec in the first place?
There shouldn’t need to be a clash because Blizzard shouldn’t be trying to reinvent the wheel. If they want to try a new idea, then they should make a new spec or class to try it in, rather than diluting or deleting Hunter specs to do so.
Yeah I agree, they should have just made a 4th from the start like they did with druids. That would have been the only way to make melee a unique spec. Maybe it was the least popular spec back then and thats why they chose to rework for melee instead of building one from the ground up. Idk, but the kit does lend itself to melee well.
We can’t heal or sustain so prolonged melee fights are against us. The control from traps is strong and the escapes/utility allow us to keep pressure up when we need to kite.
Its always been my favorite spec for that reason. I’d play it ranged or melee. If they did revert it I have a crossbow waiting to be mogged in my bank.
This is exactly the correct take. The total amount of people in rated PvP is already very small and Hunter has very low representation. It’s crazy how they think Survival being a bigger share of Hunters in that corner of the game is some saving grace. It’s nowhere to be seen everywhere else (even casual play) and the last time it was ranged it had much higher PvP representation in an era when there were a lot more doing rated PvP.
This is delusional spin-doctoring. You might feel like you’re putting a solid list together, but a) you’re fluffing it up with meaningless crap (“skin my prey”???) and b) you’re missing the single biggest, most identifying part of the Hunter: having a ranged weapon.
Vanilla Hunters did not “harpoon in for some melee action”. They were distinct through their use and mastery of ranged weapons. Stop dodging this fact.
These floodgates were already opened with Feral and Guardian.
Blizzard can currently afford to smile and nod at anyone asking for a fourth spec because none of those requests come from any comparable circumstances to what necessitated splitting old Feral into Feral and Guardian: two roles that were crammed into one spec.
As for the examples I mentioned, all of them require either rebalancing of existing abilities/mechanics or the creation of brand new ones to accommodate those play styles. Blood DPS would require retooling several skills in addition to new mechanics (can’t have a DPS with Blood Shield, for example) to prevent it from viably tanking. By the same token, shockadins would have to be turned into ranged Ret because you don’t want them doubling as a healer outside of a pinch (they’d probably need to get Exorcism back in addition to some mechanic to tie it all together). Battlemages (AKA melee mage) would require mechanics and abilities of their own, well outside the gameplay of Arcane, Fire and Frost. Same for shaman tanks. 2H enhance would probably be the closest thing to a minor variation, since I’ve been told the sticking point is really windfury + two-hander.
Resources and time are required for literally all changes to the game. This argument applies to all possible updates and changes just as much as it applies to bringing ranged SV back as a fourth spec. Furthermore, they already added the fourth spec: melee SV.
My point here is that I don’t see Blizzard putting aside resources to implement a 4th hunter spec. I’ll reiterate that you’d probably need to make extra specs or “class expansion” (if you want a marketable term) a primary feature/selling point for them to do it.
They just removed ranged SV in the process. Really, they’ve already designed and balanced the fourth spec. They just need to return the spec they deleted that was already designed and balance prior to being deleted.
I don’t think reimplementing Survival as it was in WoD would be enough. It’d need to be looked at and adjusted where needed, just like all the specs that changed between WoD and now.
Funny that the first thing that came to mind for that third Ranger spec would be Dark Ranger. Of course, that’d be more warlocky than I’d like. So you’d have the TFT Sylvannas spec, the Aragorn spec, and current MM.
Vanilla hunters carried a melee weapon, and the SV tree even had a talent to improve raptor strike. It’s comical that you’re telling someone to quit dodging things when all you do is dodge facts that don’t support your arguments.
Hunters carried a melee weapon because there was this thing called “dead zone” so they atleast could defend themselves. That’s it.
Ok, improve 1 melee attack got it. Again for something to help when someone was in your dead zone. And then you would kite back away to use your ranged weapon lol.
So what I said was 100% factual, you just don’t like it. Got it, Maybe you could take your agenda elsewhere. Ironically the SV tree doesn’t have one single talent that improved just ranged attacks. Tell me again how they weren’t designed with some melee in mind.
The reason they gave us(in an interview with the lead class dev and senior producer at the time), was basically how they felt that SV “was just like MM, but with more traps, or different arrows”.
Translation: They accused the specs of being too similar to one another.
This statement is ironic to say the least. For 2 reasons.
At the time, the actual Core Specs that were MM/SV, did not share much of anything in terms of abilities/effects. They only shared the class-wide nuances that was the Hunter fantasy along with the fact that both of those specs were designed to focus mainly on the use of the ranged weapon, just in different ways. One focused on having perfect aim while the other focused on augmented shots/enhanced arrows and ammo.
No matter the above, if they actually did feel that the two specs were too similar to one another then…why didn’t they just do to SV(RSV) what they did to all other specs, going into Legion? That being further exploring it’s intended fantasy and theme.
Double down on it’s fantasy/theme, add in spec specific talents that are theme-accurate. Make sure that certain old abilities/effects that held strong ties to the old SV, make sure that those were made into core functions of the default spec. Make the talents build on that core concept.
The thing here is that, it’s not actually about the ‘separate roles-situation’.
That was part of it, sure. But it isn’t just about making sure that one spec doesn’t include two different roles. It’s also much about how those different roles(themes) were focusing on entirely different playstyles and fantasies.
The same issues would come to light no matter what roles each fantasy/playstyle fills.
Any change that has something to do with classes/specs and how they play, apply to the above.
All this sounds like is that those suggestions would require a lot of work to make them feel different/unique compared to existing specs within those particular classes.
I agree that 2h-Enhance should just be made part of the current Enhancement spec.
Still, none of the above would really apply to the idea of adding in the old SV as a 4th spec. At least not on the level of what’s required for the above.
Much of the core theme/fantasy of the old SV and many of the required abilities/effects tied to it, are already in the game files. It has already been developed once before.
Ofc it isn’t just a matter of re-adding the code with some minor polish to it. Ofc it would require more than that. But the concept of the old SV as a 4th spec, isn’t like creating a whole new spec from the ground up.
It is unlikely yes.
The point we are trying to make is…why?
The reasons others have come up with so far, does not really hold up.
Adding in new specs to 1 or several classes isn’t a “all-or-nothing-deal”.
Dev time/resources, is required for everything in this game, all parts of the development process.
Hunter doesn’t need an extra spec focusing on the ranged weapon?
Yes it does. There’s currently only 1 spec in the entire game that is designed with the ranged weapon as the primary focus. That spec being MM. And especially considering how narrow MM is in it’s design and the mechanics tied to it, it doesn’t really have a “neutral” approach to ranged weapon-gameplay that attracts a wide variety of players. There needs to be more options for that to be the case.
But BM is also a ranged weapon-spec. Yes it is, but it’s not designed with a fantasy in mind that is based on ranged weapons as a primary focus. It’s designed to focus primarily on pets/beasts. The part of it that is the ranged weapon, is there to support the theme of pets/beasts. Not the other way around. Which is what many players want from a Hunter spec.
The same applies to MM, it’s not designed to focus on pets much at all really. Not even with optional focus.
So…where’s the spec that can serve as the middle-ground for this core fantasy? Neither BM nor MM or current SV fills that role.
Hopefully my point here is more clear, as of now.
The hunter class IS missing something. Something with the most resemblance to the older style of the class’ design. A spec focusing on the ranged weapon primarily, with the pet serving as a support-role(but with the option to rely on it further, if so desired).