I don’t know what they would do if they changed it back.
What actually makes sense to me, and what made sense in the first place, is making BM the melee spec, not SV. Survival seems like it should be the petless, “ranger” type focusing on traps, bombs, camo as a baseline ability, etc., but still be ranged and rely on imbued arrows (fire, poison, etc…)
I’d still be down for that change.
Guess what, they aren’t the only vanilla hunters in the thread.
I got to rank 13 by playing surv/mm.
I raided mc, bwl, aq, naxx while it was current content.
There were no melee hunters doing that content. They didn’t exist.
Quit spouting nonsense.
I disagree.
Firstly I’m not sure why they had to make any spec melee at all to begin with, and secondly there was never going to be a world in which they changed beastmastery, the most popular hunter spec in the game for casuals. I know it’s vogue to dismiss BM as the ‘scrub spec’ for people who like ‘braindead easy content’, but as many as 50% of wow’s playerbase don’t participate in raids, m+ or ranked pvp, and BM has consistently been the most popular spec by far amongst that crowd.
People on the whole like BM because it’s quick, has high mobility for getting between quest objective mobs, it’s easy to solo content with and between the pocket tank and the range it’s a friendly and welcoming spec for beginners or players like me, with limited hand mobility. Making it melee-only would have given it nothing in return for removing one of its most popular features - the survivability that comes from being a ranged class with a pocket tank, able to bounce cheerfully and aimlessly around a mob while spamming any of our instant cast abilities and take no notice of cleaves or whirlwinds or ground effect aoe or whatever the melee mosh pit are dealing with.
You could still summon a pet and use it as a pocket tank. By “petless” I just meant like Lone Wolf for MM, where your focus is your own abilities and not the pet.
But either way, I have always preferred MM since forever anyway, so it wouldn’t affect me much. Just thought it seemed fitting for the class fantasy.
I’ll always miss old SV and be angry they didn’t make BM the melee spec instead, since it makes more sense.
It’s another melee troll, 206, not even LFR, no dungeons, no pvp. These ugly characters transmogrified to look like knights are so transparent it’s ridiculous.
If the OP is reading replies here I just wanted to say that if you enjoy the slashing w/ pet playstyle you should also try out unholy dk!!! It’s a lot of fun too and with some range to some of the spells. I can dance around to work with my pet to do good AoE damage with him. The only thing is dk is slow but night fae makes it a little better.
I just like that all these people that are saying melee surv is one of the most played/requested hunter specs, yet back before legion ranged surv was one of the highest dps/most played hunter specs on more than 1 occasion between wotlk-WoD.
I half-disagree here.
On one side, with how pets currently work, exotic pets mean nothing… Blizzard has really killed anything special with pet breeds/specs. And with that, I think it’d be cool to see exotic pets on surv.
On the other side, I think Blizzard needs to really change pets back into something unique enough that choosing BM really means your pets ARE significantly special. Because right now, there is literally no time when I would take a spirit beast to do any content over a regular ferocity pet. And that doesn’t feel good, to have the “special-1-spec-only pet” be effectively worthless.
As I have said, and others have said, most of us are NOT advocating for the removal of melee surv.
We want the old ranged surv back as 4th spec.
That’s wonderful! We aren’t asking for melee surv to be removed. We want the old ranged surv to return as a 4th spec. Both sides are happy.
Indeed.
Idk why so many naysayers are out here crying about MSV being removed.
We just want our RSV back as a 4th spec, we never said we wanted MSV to go away.
I mean, we might use MSV as a bargaining chip to get RSV back if needed, but we haven’t outright asked for its removal.
Exotic pets are special because they have two abilities instead of one. For example, if a Ferocity pet is what you need, a Clefthoof has 2 defensive abilities making it the tankiest Ferocity pet. MM and SV don’t have access to it.
For raiding I think a Tenacity pet is still preferred for the health boost.
What I don’t get is why are pets so crucial to out lore yet they provide almost zero benefits outside of the minimal benefits you stated.
You would think they would mean more than just a kill command spell and a Def buff.
I agree with this 100% - as of WoD.
Well since a majority also gave you same answer it does not sound so silly does it then? Your argument being debunked does not change the facts that there are more than one option for a melee spec with a pet. If you have other augments for MSV then you should present them.
If they each provided more unique bonuses and benefits that would likely lead to clear best/worst choices as it did in the past. In BFA and SL Hunters are much more free to choose based on preference over performance.
One thing I do miss from, I can’t remember when it was a thing, that allowed more freedom was the ability to make your pet any spec, so a wolf could be your solo tank pet, PvP pet and DPS pet all in one.
It adds the aspect of fighting with a melee weapon and visuals and being balanced around a melee kit.
I don’t want to be in melee with a bow/gun and shot. I want o be in melee with a spear/axe and use abilities based of those.
That would be Legion.
And yep, would be nice indeed.
So either have cool, better traits with a clear winner or have mundane, horrible, and overall useless traits across the board with no clear winner.
Yea, I choose the former.
Did you just reply to yourself?
Hahaha! Why?
And for the record, if you see a hunter grappling to a target, well then they are doing their job to get in melee range.
Much better than the Surv that is still 20m away plinking it with a poison arrow.
I enjoyed it when pets had special abilities that were useful to a group.