Just out of curiosity, what are you basing this statement on? When have the devs said that they do not want there to be another ranged spec which is completely void of movement restrictions?
You asking for an admission/acknowledgement to the percieved state or presence of a dedicated mdps profile for hunters in classic, through SV, vs acknowledging fact that the class had a certain number of melee-oriented abilities and/or effects, is not by any means the same thing.
I know we discussed this a while back, you then argued, with a passion, how SV was indeed designed to be a melee spec, based on how it was specifically designed as a pvp spec.
Why did I bring this part up? Because, like I said back then, the talent category that was SV, it was designed to build on/add to a common class wide foundation and toolkit, a foundation with a primary focus of ranged dps. Said foundation had only 2 abilities which were designed specifically for melee attacks; Raptor Strike and Mongoose Bite, one of which couldn’t be used at all unless an enemy was continuously attacking you as the hunter.
The SV category added one more melee-focused attack; Counterattack which, like Mongoose Bite, could only be used situationally, if an enemy was continously attacking you.
Regardless of any other talents or effects that somehow improved raptor strike, or gave more dodge/parry chance, none of this amounts to an actual mdps profile.
Like I said before, in most parts of the game, your so-called “profile” concisted of 1 ability in total; Raptor Strike. Why? Because enemies in those areas of the game weren’t attacking you. Even if we are to include Lacerate from the initial days, and even if that talent had been appropriately tuned in terms of damage, that would still only amount to 2 abilities in total, and no other major interactions or ways to further expand on the concept of a melee profile(beyond a select few minor passives).
1 Like
The Classic Hunter either had a mDPS profile or they did not.
Now from this floor, we can argue for or against situational use, design intent, or performance when the disscussion swings around to that stage, but we must first start from square one.
Bepples himself has acknowledged this, and I believe he presents a fair and clean case for future debate.
Well, 3 of the 4 new classes have been melee, and the ranged one is not 40 yard.
The fact that they’ve never added fully ranged to game and in fact took it away when it was a thing as it was “too strong” (warlocks, even when ele shammy could last lb with full movement)
How come you only come back to post when Bepples gets himself banned again?
1 Like
Your use of “profile” indicates the purpose of a playstyle dedicated to mdps, by intent of design. A class(hunter) having a select few melee-abilities to utilize in situations where you’re forced into it, due to restrictions put on ranged weapons with the minimum attack range, which they sought as a way to balance our toolkit, is not at all the same as having a playstyle structured around/built for intentionally engaging in melee-combat, if such could be avoided.
From Bepples’ posts, he acknowledges that the class had melee-abilities in Vanilla/classic. This is in no way the same as saying that the class was designed for the idea to purposefully seek out melee-combat.
TL;DR, a class having some melee abilities for situational use is not the same as saying that it has a mdps profile(dedicated playstyle, built around melee combat as the primary focus).
We can split hairs over how to define or apply the term “profile”, but in the end, the above is what you’re after. And the short answer is that such a playstyle, looking at the design, simply was not a thing. You can’t make up a “profile/playstyle” from just 1 ability that can be used reliably regardless of what part of the game you’re playing.
2 Likes
Very well. Do you agree that the Hunter Class had melee abilities and talents, and that these abilities either did damage or provided utility in melee range-- said melee abilities possessing talent tree support?
You can freely respond to this without fear of me springing some hidden trap. That’s not my intent.
All this means is that the devs have a preference towards making melee-oriented classes/specs. The addition of the Evoker class is just them trying new things.
The classes they’ve added were chosen based on how they fit the theme of the expansion in which they were added, and their designs were based off of archetypes and lore associated with what fantasy they were portraying.
Death Knight - Plate wielding, dark magic warrior. Makes sense to be melee-focused.
Monk - Light armor, martial fighter, focusing on hand-to-hand combat. Makes sense to fight in melee.
Demon Hunter - Light armor, dual blade-weapon fighter. Makes sense to be melee.
Evoker - An experiment in terms of design, but still very much purposefully designed and built around the general theme of the current expansion, in which it was added. Could it be designed to fight from 40 yards? Yep. Does the fact that they did not make it so in any way tell us that they don’t want full 40 y classes/specs, and/or for them to lack movement restrictions? No, not even close. It just tells us that they wanted to try something different.
In short, you’re basing this on nothing but your own assumption of why new classes or specs shouldn’t come with a 40 yard range or the perk of not having movement restrictions.
What kind of comment is this? Am I supposed to know when/if Bepples gets banned?
For the record, the last time I replied to you, you didn’t even respond. I guess you missed it? Hunter survival 10.1 Disappointment? - #151 by Ghorak-laughing-skull
1 Like
Have anyone here ever argued otherwise?
I interpret this as an admission of acceptance. It appears that you did fundamentally agree with me, perhaps you just didn’t like how I worded it, or perhaps you may have personal issues with me as the messenger. That’s all fine, as I’m not here to argue semantics.
What I want is for this discussion to evolve beyond petty emotional sentiment with the aim to separate facts from feelings.
Is this a serious reply? I’m basing it off of any time there is a ranged spec with almost full mobility it’s curtailed very fast. There’s a trade off for fighting at full 40yd range and full mobility is that trade off.
2 Likes
Not to your point of a mdps profile. Again, a melee-centric profile built around the idea of intentionally seeking out melee range during combat was never a thing back then.
You’ve gone back and forth in your wordings on the matter, but if the above is what you’re saying, then no. If, on the other hand, you’re simply saying that the class had access to some melee-abilities back then, then sure. That, however, is not a “profile” in the way you’re alluding to.
It very much is.
And again, what you say there is nothing but the devs experimenting with design concepts and the evolution of classes. The fact that they do indeed make changes to individual classes/specs, to a point where they end up with fewer movement restrictions, that alone should tell you that they do NOT think that no more classes should be fully ranged, and/or with no movement restrictions. The fact that they’ve gone back on some of them tells us nothing other than how they weren’t happy with those specific classes, how they played.
You saying that it’s because they don’t want classes to have such a combination of perks, is nothing but your own assumption.
Still waiting for you to clarify what your point was here btw:
Are you saying that the below doesn’t constitute an mDPS profile:
A: Auto-Attack
B: Primary Damage Ability
C: Conditional Damage Ability
D: Snare Ability
E: Conditional Utility Ability
F: DoT Ability
The Hunter mDPS profile consists of 3 damaging abilities, 2 utilities, and an auto-attack. More precisely in terms of DPS, 3 damaging abilities and an auto-attack.
That’s about all I was going for with the question, and it appears both you and Bepples fundamentally agree with this assessment.
You misconstrued the meaning of the term and added in a bunch of emotional filler text that the question didn’t call for. Well, hopefully that’s all cleared up now and we can proceed with the debate.
Do note that the entire point of the question was simply to establish that regardless of impact or relevance, the Hunter Class has precedent for melee combat (dps, utility, etc), and that further exploration of that fact isn’t alien to the Class archetype, with melee combat being one of several original features of the class.
Myself, I would like to see a Trap-centric Specialization with cool stuff like Scarecrows and Snake Pits and such. Perhaps they could expand on the Flare/Tar Trap interaction and build either a sub-spec, or another class out of that direction. There’s more than one way to hunt, and these sub-themes all lie within the broader scope of WoW Huntercraft and may at any time be further developed or explored in the future.
Now, more to Bepples’ point, which I’ll get into later, is an exposition on Hunter rDPS and mDPS gameplay limitations. It’s dives deeper into the subject than this silly war over ranged vs melee ever did.
It must just be a supreme coincidence that a level 10 toon with 0 achievement points or activities done in game that only posts when Bepples is banned from the forum and has the exact same opinions and argues for the exact same things. 
It’s just not healthy game design to have a vast majority of 40yd classes with 0 movement restriction. That’s the worlds most obvious trade off in the world—RDPS generally has cast times and MDPS generally don’t. There’s a reason RDPS is generally seen as safer. There is a lot more room to spread from mechanics, more freedom to move places to soak things, more room to avoid things, never worry about cleaves, much easier to target swap, etc.
Having cast times is this trade off. BM’s niche is to not have to worry about this./
Yes, it tell us they generally don’t think fully mobile classes should be fully ranged. Why do you think Aspect of the Fox was taken out behind the woodshed? Why do you think Augmentation’s similar ability only works on 1 healer?
It’s a pretty safe assumption that RSV, if ever added, won’t have the same mobility BM does, won’t be fully mobile like old RSV was—and people would get upset at that.
1 Like
Again, no, because in most parts of the game, most of those abilities you mentioned won’t be usable/useful, unless you deliberately choose to take aggro from your pet in solo content, while staying in melee range. Which would require you to turn of pet growl(taunt), and severely gimp your throughput to accomplish.
As for group-based content, unless you intend to be doing the tanking instead of an actual tank, the enemies won’t be hitting you much at all, ergo, same as above.
And for the record, a dps profile does not include pure utility, like snares(example). You can have utility and CC be part of your toolkit, but it’s not part of the damage profile. Including such abilities is the same as saying that abilities like Counter Shot, Concussive Shot, or Tranquilizing Shot are part of your rdps profile as a ranged hunter.
What are you left with?
A: Auto-Attack
B: “Primary” Damage Ability
F: DoT Ability(if we include Lacerate, despite how bad it was)
In what world/area of the game would that constitute a valid damage profile? Auto-Attacks, a 6-sec CD Raptor Strike which added damage to your next Auto-Attack, and a DoT which dealt roughly 100 damage over a period of 21 seconds.
You can argue for the inclusion of Mongoose Bite and Counterattack if you want, but in the end, it wasn’t intended for you to be taking the hits from enemies throughout most parts of the game, and as such, you would never be able to use these abilities.
If you were actually after the acknowledgement of the fact that we had melee abilities in vanilla, then go for that. Don’t argue about damage profiles, or intended playstyles.
The distinction of how said abilities applied to our gameplay is very much relevant to establishing what role they filled, what the purpose of having them was. ESPECIALLY if coupled with your argument of how “SV was the melee spec in Vanilla”.
You’ve been listening too much to what Toxiktraktor has been spouting on the forum.
I “only post when Bepples is banned from the forum”?
I “have the exact same opinions and argue for the exact same things”?
You clearly haven’t done much reading then, if this is what you think. Just an example, Bepples frequently argues that MSV should be removed. I have never said this, not even once. My main point is that we should get RSV back as a 4th spec option.
I’ve directly replied to him on several occasions on topics where our opinions differ, and he’s done the same to me, even on topics that have little to do with this one about RSV vs MSV. A while back he posted a screen-pic of a DM conversation between us from several years ago(on MMO-C), in response to someone else saying the same as you’re doing now. I guess that was just Bepples planning for what was maybe about to happen several years down the line?
Not to mention your claim that Bepples, someone who’s proudly arguing that MSV should be removed, apparently spends money on a second account just to argue for the opposite, for us to find another way to bring RSV back?
makes sense…
“…vast majority”? Sure.
There’s a lot more to it than what you said there ofc, such as how you could balance various classes/toolkits vs eachother or “the game”. But either way, again, this is nothing but your assumption/opinion on why we shouldn’t have more ranged classes/specs with few/no movement restrictions to them.
No, BM doesn’t have to worry about such restrictions, while being ranged. On the other hand, BM is dependent on having a pet(several pets/guardians) to deal damage, units which are NOT ranged, does not function as ranged units, nor do they have the same perks as player characters do. They’re squishier, the are easier to lock down, and in general, they are fairly restricted in terms of how to move them around in the world.
RSV obviously wouldn’t depend on pets in the same way, so naturally, you’d have to think of other ways to balance it. Example: It would rely on DoTs(which can be removed), and as such, it would not/should not be designed to have a lot of front-loaded damage/potential for burst. Again, just an example. You could go much deeper into the question of balancing, like the question of how we rely on an equipped weapon which can be disarmed, where-as other ranged specs do not. Etc. Etc.
Your point about ranged + no movement restrictions is just one part of the whole, and it’s also not the only way to look at/handle balancing.
Because of the issues pertaining to the motivation of class stacking, since it allowed you to chain multiple uses of the ability together, with little downtime inbetween? The problem wasn’t the fact that a single use of the ability allowed a group/raid to have a short period of unlimited movement. The problem was that they designed it in a way which allowed for a major advantage to anyone who could provide multiple separate uses of the ability(via several hunters).
The fact that they removed it in 6.2, instead of reworking it for the sake of balance, is more likely because, at the time, they were also working on the Legion expansion, where their goal was to cut down on group-wide utility/buffs in general and didn’t want it to negatively impact the remainder of WoD in the meantime.
Because it has a 60% longer duration than Fox did, it has a 33% shorter CD, and it also increases the range of your, and your target(friendly healer)'s abilities by 100% for the duration? And, from what I can tell, there’s no shared/global CD, if you decide to bring multiple Evokers.
From what I can tell from the tooltip, this ability also buffs the caster(you) when you use it, not just your target.
From the perspective of a Classic SV Hunter, I would say that MSV is an indirect relative in that MSV is hyperfocused on a single aspect of the Original Class, but key faculties such as damage mitigation and utility are in fact absent in the modern talent tree.
Classic SV had a 64.7% emphasis on utilities and defense, a 23.5% investment into all-source (rDPS and mDPS) passive damage, a 11.76% investment into mDPS, and 0% investment into rDPS-exclusivity.
A SV Talent Tree with rDPS-exclusive talents is alien to the original game design, thus disqualifying RSV.
A SV Talent Tree without a 50%+ emphasis on utilities and defense is also foreign to the original game design, thus disqualifying MSV.
RSV and MSV are both disqualified as true successors to the original SV Specialization based on these key facts.
However, Blizzard is free to expand on an rDPS or an mDPS focus for SV if they so choose, as these physical damage expressions are both original features of the class.
Damage Profile =/= Intended Playstyle. A Cooking Fire has a damage profile of elemental fire damage, that doesn’t somehow conflict with its intended purpose as a Profession Tool.
Drop the semantics and accept the accord, or feel free to wallow in perpetuity at your leisure.
More on Semantics
It also appears that you’re functionally unable to process that a toolkit consisting of melee abilities with properties of primary, conditional, utility, and damage over time effects with supporting talents does not constitute the mere presence of an independent melee dps profile, despite this description being the very definition of a damage profile.
You instead argue that the conditionality of Melee Abilities disqualifies the notion of an independent mDPS profile, which is utterly ridiculous.
I find it hilarious that ranged fundamentalists contend against mDPS due to its conditional properties, when Hunter rDPS itself had more conditional limitations placed upon it than practically every other caster in the game.
The Hunter Class rDPS profile had the highest damage ceiling available to the Class when utilized from 8-35 yds. Fact.
However, that privilege comes with its own set of conditional limitations in which the rDPS profile fell completely flat or did no damage at all.
Kettle, meet Pot.
Okay, now I’m sure we have communication issues.
I quote: “Or more precisely in terms of DPS, 3 damaging abilities and an auto-attack”.
Role, gameplay, performance, etc has no relevance to the question that I deposited. I disclaimed this, and you still managed to assert the very thing I cautioned and disclaimed against.
You’ve assumed that my goal here in this thread is to conflate Classic SV with MSV despite me stating otherwise.
I think I see a big problem here. I am only talking about PvE and not PvP, because the majority of the discussion of this game is about PvE and not an impossible to balance side content.
Yes, and also I said it must have been a pure coincidence then. You sure wrote a lot trying to deny it when I said it was just a coincidence.
Units that are not affected by 99% of mechanics in the game, do not have to position themselves, and more.
Please, go on. Because BM pets are effectively immortal in any serious content and can be healed to full very easily, and like I said aren’t even affected or targetted by mechancis, so this is a really weird thing for you to bring up in an argument about ranged vs melee.
Not in PvE?
And yet, ranged Hunters can’t be silenced or interrupted etc etc.
Exactly…so more specs in the game with unlimited movement would be just as bad lol.