Hunter survival 10.1 Disappointment?

Classes Hunter
141

As opposed to melee SV where you’ll have people who want it to go full Rexxar/BM lite alongside people who want it to have Lone Wolf in the same discussion :upside_down_face:

It seems to me there’s a consistent underpinning of wanting a spec focused around the more utilitarian/special munitions side of hunter with a fast pace and rot-focused damage. It’s kind of what Affliction is to Warlocks so it makes sense.

I don’t think most of those fit particularly well with ranged SV. Heavy Ammo, Light Ammo, Bombardment, and Razor Fragments are physical damage concepts and much better fitting of MM. Bursting Shot and Quick Load could be shared with a hypothetical RSV or even a classwide thing (I think the new talent system doesn’t really support utility talents within spec trees well). Chimera Shot is spec-ambiguous; it was even BM specific for a while and it’s a good candidate for a classwide talent, at least in its former incarnation as a separate ability rather than the weird SL version that’s a replacement to Arcane Shot.

That leaves Serpentstalker’s Trickery and Salvo. Obviously that’s an extremely limited representation of explosive/venomous munitions that was a stable of ranged SV. I think Serpent Sting should remain classwide with SV having specific bonuses to it, just like how it used to work. It makes sense when considering the purpose of classes and specs. In that context Serpentstalkers can still make sense for MM.

Explosive Shot is a weird case. On one hand, I’d rather it be SV specific which would mean Salvo would be an RSV thing rather than an MM thing; the concept of a multi Explosive Shot is something that came up in RSV concept discussions. On the other hand, and contrary to what people like leak in the TSL discord pretend all the time, Explosive Shot today is a very different thing to Explosive Shot before Legion. One is a 30-sec AoE cooldown, the other is a short cooldown single target signature. They could probably co-exist as separate abilities.

And ranged SV had a focus on explosives and poisons that MM didn’t have, i.e. they used different things. You’re generalising Hunters to a degree that you aren’t for other specs. For example, Arms and Fury: yes, one dual wields while the other doesn’t. But there are already specs that do both. So why can’t both be crammed into one spec? And as for Warlocks: so Affliction is a rot spec while Destruction is a hardasting bursty spec? Sounds like another pair of specs I know :thinking:

It exists in the most watered-down and token fashion possible before just not existing at all. It’s not sufficient.

You might not know it because you admit to only playing SV after the Legion rework, but this didn’t used to be the reality of SV. It wasn’t seen as the sick man/circus freak of class design that always needed preferential tuning and utility to be relevant, and we didn’t have this everlasting controversy over the spec’s direction. That’s something that came with melee SV.

Ranged SV would have a much easier time being relevant and appealing because it wouldn’t have the handicap that puts off most Hunters that is being melee. We know this not just because it’s common sense but also because we once had ranged SV and for all the concern trolling about how it would “struggle to be relevant against MM” that sure didn’t materialise back then.

Damn, all that performance lead yet people still overwhelmingly prefer to play BM and MM. People would rather nerf their characters even in competitive content than play SV!

I like to point out how in WotLK classic right now SV is by far the most played Hunter spec despite the claims of disonest people (would rather use a different word but mods don’t like it) like Yubie. The response is that it’s only because SV is the highest-performing spec right now in WotLK. Yet the performance difference v.s. MM is actually quite minor. In fact, SV in Dragonflight has a much, much larger performance lead than SV in WotLK.

But who am I kidding. I’ve long since given up on the existence of classic dispelling revisionist myths about Hunter’s past. We still have people running around proudly recalling how Thori’dal was a DPS loss for Hunters and was primarily given to Rogues instead. Hell, we still have certain people claiming that SV was a melee spec in Classic.

1 Like
142

It’s almost as if the WoW community is impossible to please because everyone wants three different things.

And it seems to me a LOT of rsv askers don’t care about any of this and just want dots that proc explosive shot. Less focus on DoTs and more focused on RNG procs. (Which can easily be fit into current MM)

I do think they fit well with RSV because people keep saying they want an special-arrow type ammunitions focused (Heavy/Light Ammo, Razor Fragmented shrapnel shots) fantasy for RSV.

Why’s that? Any sort of spec specific utility could just be baseline. Look at things like Cauterize recently added baseline to Fire and Fire only.

You really need to move on from 10 year old spells. There is nothing preventing whatever spec to have a damage bonus to ES when it damages a single target or some sort of spec specific modifier to it.

No they didn’t? RSV used bow/guns/xbows, just like MM, and just like BM.

Fury/Arms uses different weapons. Aff/Destro uses much different visual magic. There are only so many ways you can shoot a bow in WoW’s engine and shooting a white arrow (aimed shot) vs a green arrow (serpent sting) is not particularly different.

Oh, you mean like almost every spec design wise pre Legion?

Why are you pretending this only applies to SV? Look at MM and BM right now. Hunter is a DPS class without unique utility. This problem pervades the entire class. A DPS class with no utility is only as good as the DPS it brings. Right now, in this current patch, each of the 3 specs needs preferential tuning to be brought.

What’s wrong with MM and BM right now then? Both are ranged, are both are struggling to be competitive in the upper echelons of play.

Why did you post this? Half of the threads you searched for have nothing to do wtih your point.

It sure doesn’t seem you’ve given up since the only time you aren’t posting on the forums is when you’re banned for being abrasive, bud. :wink:

2 Likes
143

I would like to address your concerns regarding the design of the hunter specialization. It appears that you have raised several points about the current state of the spec, particularly in comparison to other classes like the rogue. To ensure a more professional tone, I have rephrased and restructured your statements while maintaining the essence of your feedback.

"Bro, why can’t a hunter spec be versatile? Does it always have to be focused on turbo lock? Look at the rogue class in Diablo 4, for instance. Additionally, when it comes to Rexxar and similar characters, I believe there are better options for hunters, such as Lothamar or Sylvanas. I apologize for the criticism.

Now, let’s discuss the spec itself. The current rotation of bomb spam, pet attack, and Mongoose Bite feels underwhelming. Starting with Mongoose Bite, it consumes 30 Focus per cast, meaning it quickly depletes our resources. In an ideal scenario, Mongoose Bite should be part of a three-step combo, where each cast increases in both cost and damage. However, it should be cast at 100/100 energy. For example, the first cast could cost 20 energy with two hits, the second combo could have a 50 energy cost with three hits, and the final combo should be a powerful 80 energy hit, capable of critting and potentially putting Mongoose Bite on a balanced cooldown, like 3 seconds.

To address the issue of focus generation, I suggest using the ability Harpoon with the node called Terms of Engagement, as it deals damage and generates focus. Additionally, an ability like Death Chakrams could be introduced to provide damage output while keeping in mind the focus management during Mongoose Bite windows. This would result in a more cohesive rotation.

Regarding the bombs, I propose either removing them entirely or reworking them to use arrows instead. This change would allow hunters to utilize both two-handed weapons and ranged weapons like bows, guns, or crossbows. For melee-focused hunters, we could introduce two abilities to generate focus: Carve for area-of-effect damage and Raptor Strike for single-target damage. As for focus spenders, we can incorporate Mongoose Bite for single-target damage and Butchery for area-of-effect damage. Moreover, new ability names like Dragon Strike could be used for a high-impact attack that applies a slow or stun effect, similar to a mini pet stun.

For the ranged aspect of the spec, I suggest a semi-range playstyle akin to the evoker range for spells. This would involve abilities such as Wailing Arrow, different arrow-based skills instead of bombs, Kill Shot, Arcane Shot, Exploding Shot, Cobra Bite, and Ice Shot.

To improve the overall design, traps could be reworked to be more visually appealing or made more unique. Alternatively, it could be beneficial to involve the team responsible for reworking paladins or balancing changes for warlocks, as they have a track record of addressing class balance effectively."

144

You should be using Kill Command to generate Focus during your MB windows. It really doesn’t deplete your Focus unless you’re entirely neglecting your other abilities.

2 Likes
145

Is it really that hard to understand?

No, we wouldn’t focus solely on purely physical attacks(where you cause harm, relying on the force of impact of a weapon). But it would focus on attacks that rely on the use of a ranged weapon, as opposed to other ranged specs which don’t do this, they focus purely on magic, on conjuring spells.

It is a ranged spec which relies primarily on the use of a weapon, not on conjuring spells through magic.

You might not remember this, but Wailing Arrow was designed to rely on the use of a specific item, Sylvanas’ bow. The magic required for that ability was in the bow itself…

Sure, they’ve since added the ability into our talents. This, however, was done for practical gameplay purposes, not because of how it suddenly makes sense lore wise.

There’s no description for that ability, nor any lore pertaining to the class, which supports the idea that we as hunters are actually channeling magic into an arrow/projectile when using that ability. Outside of abilities which are tied to specific items or things like covenants etc.

There’s effectively only one exception, Arcane magic, where lore refers to how some hunters have opted to teach themselves about Arcane magic(note that from a game design perspective, the devs initially gave us abilities like Arcane Shot for the sake of school diversity, they felt that the Arcane magic school was underrepresented).

Having said that…not sure if you’ve noticed but with ranged weapons, our attacks are based on firing a projectile at the target(arrow/bullet). You can have a schooled mage/warlock, etc., enchant your projectiles beforehand, and then carry those with you into combat. You don’t need to do it yourself. In fact, if you check out the hunter class starter experience on the new island, we seek aid from an npc to imbue our Freezing Trap with frost magic. We don’t channel the magic ourselves.

Not “trying” anything…

It would deal damage primarily based on physical harm via a weapon yes, not on magic.

It’s a version of an explosives expert. As for that, coupled with the “mixed arsenal” part, no, people certainly weren’t asking for it to be added/replacing what we had prior to Legion.

If you think this, it only proves again that you’re not familiar with our history as a class, nor what people want now.

Again, no. If this was the case, we wouldn’t be here.

2 Likes
146

What’s the purpose of saying something like this other than trying to be mean? Do you feel better saying it or think it helps your argument?

It’s on the spec now. You can’t just pretend it isn’t there and only exists “for gameplay” purposes. If they wanted to, they would have reflavored it like Death Chakram. They didn’t so clearly it’s intended.

So at one point an arrow raising an undead minion wasn’t magic?

Woah I didn’t know that was in game right now. I thought you just used Arcane Shot whenever. Or are you pushing head canon?

It wouldn’t be physical harm, it would be magical harm.

You’re making such generalized statements. It’s what some people want, not 100% of the people want.

Guess what? People would still be here if RSV was implemented tomorrow because it wouldn’t be the exact thing they wanted and they would still be complaining because RSV didn’t make them feel like a teenager again.

2 Likes
147

Uhm…what?

Based on the context of how you included that ability in your argument, it seemed as if you didn’t recall how they designed it to be given to those who wielded the bow, and only then would they get said ability. Ergo, the bow provided the magic necessary for said ability.

I never said that it “isn’t there”…

But historically, it’s fairly common for them to reintroduce former abilities from, as an example, the covenants, into our classes. It’s done either because they like the design of a certain ability, and/or because it was received well by players.

But just because they decide to include an ability on a permanent basis, that doesn’t mean that it suddenly fits our original class lore/fantasy. For example, all abilities and effects we got from our covenants in SL are based on magic fuelled by anima. It makes no sense whatsoever, lore-wise, for us to be able to retain any of said abilites once we move on from the shadow realms that was/is the afterlife.

They added the mechanic of summoning a temporary minion purely because MM players during Legion were asking for some QoL during solo play, as, if they had opted for Lone Wolf as a talent, it literally wasn’t possible to summon a pet unless they specced out of the talent again. The purpose of the undead minion was to taunt the target and deal some damage.

Either way, I never said that Black Arrow wasn’t magical in nature. I simply said that there’s nothing anywhere that says that we as hunters are channeling magic into our projectiles, while using said ability. Only that we fire an arrow/bullet which deals shadow damage.

No, I’m going off lore for our class.

In terms of old RSV, from a fantasy and lore perspective, only arcane shot and black arrow dealt magical damage. Again, the other abilities and their schools were designed and classed that way purely because of game design limitations.

Poision/animal venom is classed as nature damage, but isn’t based on magic.

Explosive Shot dealt fire damage, but was based on an explosion attachment to arrows, or into bullets. It wasn’t designed as a conjured magical spell(like fire mages do).

:face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Anyway, again, there really wasn’t any petitions to rework SV to a melee spec prior to the Legion announcements. There was the odd topic of how a player wanted a melee spec for hunters, but it was aimed in a general sense for the class, not for SV. And it certainly wasn’t a common occurrence for such topics to pop up on the forums.

As for nowadays, since Legion, even the devs have acknowledged how hunter players generally aren’t interested in a melee spec for the class.

2 Likes
148

Which is no longer the case? I don’t know why you’re hung up on something that was almost a year ago at this point. The spell (yes, spell) is on the spec now.

You didn’t read what I said. Death Chakram was moved to not be a magical effect. If they didn’t want Wailing Arrow to be magical and a spell, they would have changed it.

Where is the lore in game that says we have a Mage enchant our Arcane Shots? Where’s the lore that says all the magical wind arrows MM summons aren’t magic too? Looking forward to learning!

And there’s nothing saying the contrary, either.

Nor are players interested in melee specs without mandatory utility. Funny how that works, no?

149

So maybe they shouldn’t listen to such niche requests as melee Hunter, melee Mage, tank Shaman, etc.

“People want different things” isn’t an excuse to ignore all feedback. It’s up to Blizzard to judge how representative the feedback is and make the right calls based on that. When it comes to Hunters they blew it. They made a gamble on a very small and flaky niche and they lost.

Call me crazy but when I stand still and turret cast Aimed Shot it doesn’t have the same gameplay feel that ranged SV used to have. So just maybe MM isn’t as good a fit as you think it is?

If MM were a good replacement for ranged SV you wouldn’t still have people asking for ranged SV.

Yeah but you think a lot of incorrect things.

In this case how on earth does “Heavy/Light Ammo”, a setting that modifies MM’s specific mode of dealing AoE damage with Aimed Shot and Rapid Fire, something that matches ranged SV? How does an AoE Kill Shot bleed match ranged SV? Stick to talking about Salvo, something that could actually be a good match.

You tell me. You wrote the SV WoWhead guide in which you listed 4 different builds for SV, none of which take Aspect of the Eagle.

This is of course because the spec trees are almost entirely based around throughput increases so any utility choice comes at the cost of throughput. The same thing happens to Bursting Shot; it’s rarely ever picked because it’s a big throughput loss to take it.

Both that and Aspect of the Eagle are essentially PvP talents that happen to be in the spec tree.

The talking point in TSL is often “MM can take Explosive Shot therefore it plays like ranged SV”. This is, like most melee SV arguments, clueless at best and dishonest at worst. Explosive Shot post-Legion is an entirely different thing to Explosive Shot pre-Legion, and having this version doesn’t create the gameplay or identity of ranged SV.

If we had ranged SV again, it should have something like what it had before: a short cooldown signature attack based around explosions. It was central to the theme and crucial to SV’s aesthetic prominence. Now Explosive Shot serves an entirely different purpose. It’s not worse; it’s just not the same thing. They could even do something like having both versions and just renaming the SV signature to something else; or they could make Wildfire Bomb the signature attack instead.

As for Explosive Shot being an AoE or not: it started off having an AoE component in WotLK but they removed that early on because it was impossible to balance around at the time. Specs didn’t have passive cleave back then to the extent they do now. Nowadays having a signature attack with an AoE component is fine. SV is almost already doing that with Wildfire Bomb.

This is, again, just a different standard of generalisation. If they wanted to merge those pairs of specs into one each they could. It would be a horrible idea, but if there’s one thing characteristic about Blizzard it’s that to their developers there is no idea too bad to try.

Hunters not having flashy-enough animations is not an excuse for cutting down on ranged weapon specs. Just make better animations. They’ve already done that throughout WoW’s history, and SV already had unique flair with Explosive Shot. Besides, the gameplay is the most important part.

It shouldn’t need to be said, but making SV melee just to introduce a token aesthetic difference with the other specs was a terrible idea. While uniqueness is important, it’s not the sole goal of class design and chasing uniqueness for the sake of uniqueness often ends with bad results as it did in this case. It’s also only a token difference v.s. the other Hunter specs. It actually makes SV a lot less distinct v.s. other specs in the game, because we already have 12 other melee weapon users but only Hunters use ranged weapons.

It’s true Legion introduce more in-depth specs but there were a lot of blunders that took expansions to fix. Hunters were probably the worst example, as a matter of fact. An iterative approach would have been better. Hunters had already gained a lot of depth over the course of the first 5 expansions compared to how they started. We didn’t need total reworks to all 3 of our specs (with all 3 of them turning out badly and requiring extensive work).

BM and MM are still very relevant, though. Both of them have good representation. They don’t need 30% damage leads like SV evidently needs in order to stay relevant.

Right now SV is the highest performing Hunter spec, yet it’s the only one of the three without a Sarkareth kill. So at the very (literal) cutting edge of PvE content Hunters would rather nerf themselves than play SV. Of course, it’s not the best example because being melee negatively affects its viability (which kind of just proves my point about it being a handicap for the sake of uniqueness…), but for a more extreme example you can look to Shadowlands S4 where there were more BM Hunters than SV in M+ despite the colossal power difference between the two.

The pattern we see with SV is that if people can get away with avoiding it, they avoid it. This should be obvious, but that doesn’t create a good outlook for the success of the design.

They’re doing a hell of a lot better than SV so there’s not really a big problem.

It shows SV is a very contentious topic. I didn’t search for anything. I just sorted this forum by number of replies. SV is by far the most discussed topic and easily the most heated debate (perhaps in all of class design) yet it remains the most avoided. Maybe you don’t know it because you did admit to only being a fan of SV since Legion launch but this wasn’t the state of SV pre-Legion at all. It was a very non-controversial spec. In fact it was broadly well-received. The stigma and drama only came with melee SV.

I know you’ll blame people like me for it but as you can see from that screenshot I’m not the one starting all of those discussions and it’s not like no one else has ever been against the melee rework.

Don’t cut off most of the paragraph, maybe? The point was I used to think that the advent of Classic would mean common urban myths about Hunters would go away but that didn’t happen. Thori’dal is a good example of that. You also go around in the discord claiming SV was a melee spec in Vanilla which isn’t true. These things are easily verified over the course of classic put people tend to double down on incorrect beliefs.

(this is why it helps to be Always Correct™)

This whole Wailing Arrow/Black Arrow discussion seems like a waste of time. I agree that neither ability made us casters or even dark rangers. They just added them because they were cool references. We don’t have a Dark Ranger class so it makes sense for the only ranged weapon class to get those. They’re still ranged weapon based attacks and the ranged weapon is the central part of the Hunter aesthetic and theme.

They’re definitely more spec-ambiguous, though, and would better suit us in the class tree rather than any one or two specs. I would have preferred Black Arrow to be changed to something else for SV just to keep with the aesthetic of practical utility (Explosive, Venom) rather than actual magic-infused shots, although magic-infused ranged weaponry is a theme of some other RPGs like FF14 so maybe there’s a place for it. There’s also Arcane Shot for MM which doesn’t really fit but that’s pretty much only kept in for nostalgia at this point. They even almost changed it to a physical damage equivalent (Quick Shot) in BFA.

2 Likes
150

Sounds like a recipe for disaster if they kowtow to people who will never be happy.

I’ve said many times that the things people want can easily be meshed into current MM.

Gee, I wonder how ammo specialization talents are evocative of a hypothetical munitions-aimed spec?

Gee, I wonder how using special ammo that fragments when it hits the target scratches the itch of a munitions expert with specialist shots like RSV asks for?

The builds on WoWhead’s talent pages are generic recommendations, you can look at boss tips for suggestions on when you can get great use out of Aspect of the Eagle.

It’s also “of course” because that the Hunter trees are clearly some of the oldest still in the game. I have a thread on this forum that you’re suspiciously absent from detailing that Hunter trees (particularly BM and SV) have extremely narrow yet expensive trees. It would be a lot easier to grab spec utility if a spec didn’t have an extreme amount of 2pt (or in BM case, 3pt) nodes bloating the tree compared to the newer specs.

Much different than RSV arguments of historic data being applicable to a hypothetical spec that doesn’t exist and hasn’t existed for 10 years. Surely another ranged spec without utility would be picked more than BM.

I don’t know why you keep saying things like this. Hunter is a pure DPS class without utility. It’s only as good as the damage you do. That’s why SV is the preferred spec in M+ now, as it does the most damage compared to the other Hunter specs. It’s truly not that deep.

Being melee without unique and mandatory utility like Druids, Warriors, Rogues, Demon Hunters, Paladins, and Monks, you mean?

Maybe you should have looked at what you posted though, there are threads discussing Hunter survivability or people just asking questions about the spec. What happened to “only MSV arguments are dishonest?”

Seemingly not since it was changed nearly 10 years ago.

Yeah, how could anyone think SV was a melee spec? It’s not like the melee abilities in vanilla were SV spells.

1 Like
151

And? The lore/history of how we got to have said ability is the relevant part here. You used an ability as an example to show how we are in fact spellcasters(channeling the magic into the projectiles), yet the ability you used wasn’t designed for that to be the case.

I read it, it’s not relevant to the point. You assume that they’re concistent in their actions pertaining to design decisions, which, quite often, they’re not.

I guess you skipped this part…

…either way, again, the fact that we as ranged fighters, using guns/bows/xbows, rely on the use of projectiles, projectiles which can be enchanted well before having to use them in combat speaks for itself.

Lore makes note of how most hunters avoid the use of magic, with the exception of some who have taught themselves about Arcane magic. That is, however, only Arcane.

Does any of that mean that you can’t make use of such projectiles with enhancements already made? No. Does it mean that you have to be the one doing the enchants? No. Is there anything that says that we are in fact doing the enchants in a general sense? No. Merely with a few exceptions, usually with abilities that are tied to an external source of power/magic, not our own.

They didn’t change it because of controversy, or because players didn’t like it.

3 Likes
152

What do you mean? The current status quo for those classes is a disaster? Because SV is the only time they listened to such niche class rework requests and it’s been the biggest disaster of all.

MM isn’t just missing things that people want out of ranged SV. It has things that former ranged SV players don’t want. This is because it’s a different spec with a different approach.

If Blizzard tries to just cram all the ranged SV concepts into MM, you just end up with watered down MM and watered down SV as options within a spec. All to preserve melee SV, which the tiniest fraction of the class is actually interested in.

It should be needless to say that this isn’t a remotely good “compromise”, although it’s apparent that melee SV players think “compromise” means “I keep 100% of what I want while ranged Hunters fight over the scraps”.

Is this really the stance? Fixating on the name?

It’s a mechanic that specifically affects MM’s mode of doing damage - Trick Shots. Thematically, it’s also a far cry from the types of exotic munitions that SV specialised in, namely explosives and venom.

Heavy/Light Ammo have NOTHING to do with ranged SV concepts.

Stick to talking about Salvo.

SV was never focused around Kill Shot or bleeds. This is something that makes sense for MM, not SV.

Stick to talking about Salvo.

I checked the logs. On most of those bosses there’s at most 1 SV Hunter using it. To be fair, the later ones have fewer than 10 SV Hunters (mythic raiders avoiding the highest damage spec :thinking:).It’s apparent that Aspect of the Eagle, something often advertised as a major selling point of the spec, has a lot of trouble finding place in PvE content.

But you are right that a big part of the problem is the inflexibility of Hunter trees.

Ranged SV in the past had no problem seeing representation similar to BM. Why would that be different now?

Maybe you should go ask some Hunters why they don’t play SV. Particularly Hunters that don’t post on the forums or discord. I do it. The answer that dwarfs everything else is “melee”. So it’s only common sense that if SV were a ranged spec a lot more Hunters would play it.

That’s the M+ representation right now: 93k, 69k, 23k. Guess which one is SV.

SV has a representation problem much more severe than the other Hunter specs. What I posted above is actually better than average for SV, no doubt because of its high performance. But the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Hunters would rather take a performance hit than play SV. This isn’t a Hunter problem. It’s a Survival problem.

Of melee specs, only SV used to be ranged and only SV exists in a class otherwise thoroughly based in ranged combat.

Why? The point is to show that SV is by far the most contentious topic and that wasn’t the reality before Legion.

Do you actually think SV was a controversial and struggling spec back then? Because it really wasn’t. That’s something that came with melee SV.

Every damaging ranged attack (other than SV’s Wyvern Sting) was classified as MM in Classic. Does that mean BM wasn’t ranged?

3 Likes
153

Betterhelp .com

3 Likes
154

But there are threads in your screenshot that aren’t even about the spec, and are about the classes (surv)ivability. That seems pretty odd to include things like that in your “contention” proof.

Shaman and Druid? Huh??

Why do you keep avoiding the utility elephant, bud?

A DPS class without utility is seen as lesser, and a melee without utility will struggle. That’s really all there is to it.

I’m glad you have your anecdotes. I have some too! Isn’t that crazy that people can have different experiences or feelings that don’t agree with Bepples?

Because now BM would be the hyper mobile ranged DPS and MM would be the turret burst. RSV would not have the same mobility as BM, and people would stick to BM.

When people private log :thinking:

When high end mythic raiders avoid melee specs that don’t have utility :thinking:

I never said it was focused around KS or Bleeds, I said people on this forum, when they ask for RSV, ask for a munitions focused, special ammuntions, ranged magical/physical damage dealer. Using different “ammunition” fits that 100%. If you don’t like it, well, sorry, that’s what people ask for. This is what I mean when I say that RSV askers have thirty different things they want out of RSV, so no matter what blizz would do you wouldn’t be happy.

I mean, you kept bringing up “Survival” as a spec name in your earlier arguments.

Using munitions that shrapnel is not special and or exotic. Got it!

Special and exotic munitions easily fit into MM. I’m happy to argue in circles with you about this.

Do you realize the irony in you saying this?

Are you ignoring the shadow rework every 4 months?

Presented without commentary

1 Like
155

/wink

FFS…Grab an axe already and smack things with it like you were meant to from the beginning.

Bows were reserved as an inferior last-resort option.

1 Like
156

Like I said, I didn’t search for anything. I just sorted by replies.

Here’s the next lot of threads after that:

If you’re gripe is that my Ctrl + F “Surv” highlight is including threads that aren’t necessarily about melee v.s. ranged SV arguing, it’s also excluding plenty like those that say “SV” instead of “Surv”.

Nevertheless, it seems like you’re fixated on missing the point here, which is that it’s by far the most contentious topic on the Hunter forums and that wasn’t the case before Legion. All the controversy and stigma surrounding SV did not exist for ranged SV. It came with melee SV.

They aren’t? Both of those classes have themes and implementations that competently support having a melee spec as well as a ranged spec, and neither are based around ranged weaponry like Hunters.

Because BM and MM have the same utility and they aren’t nearly as troubled as SV.

I understand there are those that want SV to get some exclusive utility that makes it a mandatory pick in raids, but I don’t think bribing people with essential utility or overtuned damage is a solution when evidently people just don’t like the spec very much.

Ok then it’s a little silly to introduce a melee spec to an otherwise ranged class who’s appeal is already predicated on a certain level of damage and appeal, isn’t it?

Well if we talk about the realm of actual data, that shows SV being an unpopular spec despite having good damage. So it’s no use pulling the “you can’t use anecdotes” card.

In any case, I’m telling you that you should get a sense of how people feel about SV outside of the Trueshot Lodge discord. TSL is a great resource but it’s primarily a platform for discussing competitive content and optimisation. For many of the frequent posters there whether or not they would play SV starts and ends at whether SV performs well. However it’s evident that much (if not most) of the Hunter playerbase would rather lose damage than play SV.

BM was fully mobile back then too. SV still had no problem.

It’s true that all 3 specs being equally relevant was a rare occurrence but it’s not like any one of the three was the one that was usually left out. It changed per tier. But making SV melee did cement it as the spec that was always left out. So thinking of melee as a valuable distinction that helps SV rather than a handicap that holds it back defies common sense. It only makes sense if you’re so infatuated with melee combat that you can’t imagine anyone liking anything else.

So there’s a wealth of SV hunters out there that all just happen to private log more often than the other specs?

Well here are some former ranged SV Hunters telling you that bleeds don’t fit ranged SV and never did. Maybe you should listen to them.

Explosives and venom were key. No one is asking for a ranged SV based around bleed attacks.

And if they tried really hard they could cram Affliction concepts into Destruction and make them two “paths” in the same tree. They would have to sacrifice a lot of both styles but it could be done if they really wanted to. Does’t make it a good idea.

I’m open to compromises such as a melee option within BM e.g. a talented stance. Those are what compromises actually are. They’re not ideal for either party but they make a fair balance.

Nothing melee SV players ever suggests is ever “compromise”. It’s always “we keep everything we want, you deal with the rest”. That’s not a fair compromise given it’s handing 1/3 of the class to a group of people that make up maybe 1/20 of the audience.

Did they turn Shadow into a melee spec at some point and I didn’t notice? Reworking a spec’s internal mechanics is not “listening to niche rework ideas” like melee Hunter, melee Mage, tanking Shaman, etc.

Statements like these, given Hunters had 2x ranged attack power scaling from Agility back then, prove that all your classic WoW “experience” is made up. Or you just had zero understanding of your own class.

What’s your opinion on Thoridal’s Hunter performance, by the way?

3 Likes
157

/Whoosh

You’re still at it, I see… and just as callous.

You still have plenty of room for character growth. I’d advise development of a sense of humor. For instance, why did you take defensive measures against my post, rather than simply find humor in it and laugh as I intended?

1 Like
158

If it was ironic it doesn’t work when you’ve claimed many times in other post that Survival was a melee spec in classic, or at least a melee-preferring hybrid.

1 Like
159

Why so serious, Le Bepples?

What is the source of this impulse to ‘correct’ other people about Survival?

The purpose of that post was to trigger any forum goer who retain a hypersensitive stance on the subject, by employing a bit of reverse psychology.

I see no reason to regurgitate my stance on the subject. Take it from a Classic/BC Survival Hunter, let RSV die.

Let the game grow, or let the game go.

It’s that simple.

I will however state that you are a true fan of RSV. If only I defended the original direction of Survival with such fervor and determination, it would never have become RSV in the first place.

1 Like
160

pls and ty

only way itl stay alive tbh

told him this myself

2 Likes