He has literally said, on this forum, that hunters shouldn’t be able to use melee. You’ve also been in those very threads. So quit lying.
2 Likes
It just means you didnt know how to do it properly. Melee weaving was a thing pro hunters did.
Were talking 6 more years here mate
its still in MM. If anything the fantasy of what it was intended to be is in Live currently
Because it was a clone of MM.
Except he has contradicted himself a few times. It always seems to be pushed towards what he wants instead of what reality is.
1 Like
Either you’re choosing to ignore the part, or you’re not understanding the root of the argument as presented…
No, he does not want a melee-spec in the class. No, he doesn’t think that melee-combat should be a primary function of any spec within the class. His motivation for this is that melee-combat, as a primary function/focus, has never been a thing for this class in the past. No spec or playstyle of this class, prior to Legion, has ever been built around the aspect of melee-combat.
The thing is, none of the above matters when you look at the previously quoted argument which you brought up. That specific argument was not rooted in the fact that he himself dislikes the idea of melee-combat within the class, but it was purely about how the devs decided that “change for the sake of change” was more important than actually catering to existing players of this class.
He was saying that the devs decided to remove a spec that was indeed catering to existing players, because of an internal bias based on the idea that two specs can’t both be built around the use of ranged weaponry, no matter how they are designed.
That is the same as saying that you cannot have more than one Mage spec that is built around the use of magic, or one Warlock spec for that matter(Demo gets a pass because it’s centered around demons, same as how BM got that pass as well due to being centered around pets).
In short, the devs changed Survival to something that they themselves did not think was meant for then-current hunters, but instead was meant to cater to players from other classes.
Objectively, that’s a bad way to go about with philosophies involving class and spec design.
7 Likes
Good thing it isnt up to him to dictate
except it has
laughs in classic wow/Bc
ones fire, ones frost, ones arcane. hunter it was just arrow, arrow and sword, arrow and pet.
Nah im pretty sure they just wanted to expand on what it once was before following what MM is.
Talking to Metroid: absolutely not which is why he’s back on the ignore list. I’m not going to waste any more effort helping him figure out which of his opinions are sincere or not.
Posting about SV: probably not, but I don’t want the issue to ever be swept under the rug.
Yes, which is why as a matter of fact WoW isn’t my job: software engineering is. Thanks for the life advice, though.
I literally just said no one was denying that Hunters were able to use melee weapons. Please stop wasting everyone’s time and fix your reading comprehension.
Ranged weapons were central to the class including in Classic. That manual page I linked was from Classic and said as much. They already had several other classes devoted to melee weapons so it made sense for Hunters to be distinguished via their use of ranged weapons. We had melee weapons but that was a response to a built-in limitation of the class; not a core capability. If a Hunter could spend 100% of their time at range they would.
Our class icon is a bow for a reason.
How about you stop trying to speak on my behalf because you do a really bad job at it.
Firstly, whether or not Hunters were meant to support melee playstyles in Classic is a done detail; they really weren’t and their melee capabilities were for situational use only. We can tell this from what Blizzard said about the class and how they designed and tuned it. The melee toolkit was extremely limited; only one ability did decent damage (Raptor Strike) and it was on a 6-second cooldown. Mongoose Bite was weaker and required parrying. Counterattack and Wing Clip were both for crowd control and were mainly used to escape melee. Most of the capability and power was in the ranged toolkit. There are people who tried to make melee-only playstyles but never in any competitive context.
As for whether or not there should be melee now: I think all 3 Hunter specs should be ranged by default. It’s just sensible class design: it’s the most prominent and unique feature of this class and Hunters start with a ranged weapon from level 1. There are such things as melee-focused hunters in fantasy so I understand why people want such a thing out of the class: I just don’t think it’s worthy of an entire spec. It’s too niche and ultimately represents a loss in capability when specs should be about gaining specialised capability. And, of course, we lost an existing ranged spec to get it. Having a melee Hunter is something more fitting of a talent within an existing spec rather than an entire spec to itself. The perpetual unpopularity of melee Survival vindicates this stance in my view.
6 Likes
This is why I think you are actually stupid. I actually tell you when im being serious and funny and you seriously cannot grasp this. Idc if im on the ignore list, it means jackshet. You are nothing special man.
Wendys drive through*
So its okay to waste everyones time crying for 6 years of your life over a spec nobody really liked in the first place for another version of the spec thats still unpopular but more fun?
Look into the survival talent tree there mate. Your just wrong.
Death knights have an axe. This isnt some check mate point you might think it is.
You do a good job messing up that on your own.
Thank god you dont get to make decisions. I cant imagine a gaming company hiring someone that acts like this. You might of ended up being one of the problems the company had to deal with recently since you cant seem to take no for an answer.
1 Like
If you truly don’t care that you’re on Bepples’ ignore list… then why did you even bother with this rant?
I mean that sincerely. Why bother yelling to a wall? I don’t get it.
7 Likes
Well, he is a jester. If he has nothing to jest about, he has nothing left. See how he now used sharper language to try and entice Bepples to answer him again? Thats because thats his only point of existence.
His channel is a troll project by his own admission and his forum presence as well by any logical standard. If people just ignore his trolling, its all for naught.
3 Likes
Its fun.
Nah. Just funny to me someone who spent months being unable to understand what im telling him straight up finally somewhat gets it and runs off to hide. Its childish. So fight fire with fire. He will come back. Hes in too deep.
I mean, its more of a goof off channel than a trolling channel. I’m not trolling anyone. I’m just having fun making videos. I think the only real video I made to troll (outside the gromit one since Bepples just reminds me of a gromit) was me buying the store mount and showing it off because I knew poor kids or dumb people would rage out that I had the audacity to spend my own money on what I wanted. I only messed with bepples here or that other hunter alt I dont care to remember since they were so azz hurt over someone having fun with a spec they hate. I’m not a forum troll outside of that.
1 Like
Ironically you spent a lot of time proving my point, so I did a rather fine job. You basically just said the same things I did, that you abhor melee. I don’t know why they would lie either, considering this is hardly the first time you’ve said this.
And just so Ghorak doesn’t have another episode of I don’t remember that…
Thats not objective. Even given the decidedly pro-rsv slant to your reporting (words like “catering”, “internal- bias”, etc.) one could still come to a different conclusion than “thats a bad way to go about with philosophies involving class and spec design.”
For example, one could believe that the actual goal behind class specs is not to provide “extra” talents for players of said class to play what is essentially a single homogenous archetype, but instead to provide different ways to explore the fantasy of a given class. One might be forgiven for thinking that the internal bias was against catering to existing players of that class in favor of accomplishing that goal for the hunter class. In that case, a person could believe that everything you said was true, but that it was not objectively bad.
I get your point here.
My question is: If you think that this truly is more accurate, then why do we still have “essentially… a single homogeneous archetype [to play]” in the other classes?
Specifically, I am thinking of: Rogue, Mage, Warlock, and to a slightly lesser extent, Warrior and Death Knight.
They all still have an “essentially homogeneous archetype” regarding their specs.
So… why single out the Hunter class? Why intentionally change from that archetype 12 years into its existence?
I think this is what bothers me the most about this whole mess. I wouldn’t have minded in the slightest had Blizzard used one of these approaches: Either create a 4th spec, or given a talent to BM to change it into a melee hunter (‘cuz, y’know, Rexxar the Beastmaster. And yes, I’m still furious over the extremely sloppy change on Rexxar).
But no, Blizzard had to go with the worst possible approach: removing an entire third of an existing play style for a pretty unique archetype — the Hunter is the only class that could use ranged weapons; in comparison we have three classes that fulfill the magic-caster archetype — in order to include a “different way to explore the fantasy of [the] class.”
I’ll always be firmly in the camp of ‘Blizzard broke this, and Blizzard should fix it.’
10 Likes
While I don’t necessarily think that is the case (even though it would be my philosophy) I would imagine that SV and combat were phase 1 with combat switching to outlaw being much less jarring than SV switching to melee. The community response to SV probably put a halt at least temporarily to any other major spec changes. I could imagine a world where the devs, in the aftermath of legion, perhaps questioned the wisdom behind specs for full DPS classes at all.
Personally I prefer survival to mm - I rolled a hunter originally specifically because I love animals IRL and wanted to have an animal bff in my fantasy video game - but even then it’s not my preferred melee. Like, if I was gonna go melee I find fury warrior, ret pally or even feral druid (mostly because with feral i AM my own animal bff!) more fun in terms of playstyle than surv in different ways.
Just as a side note here, this perfectly sums up the ranged survival movement lol
1 Like
I’ve mentioned this before in different threads, and I will say it again.
Never underestimate the tenacity of WoW players.
/points at Classic as Evidence A
3 Likes
So when another player argues to a wall you question it, but when RSV people do it its this?
Not hating just trying to understand
2 Likes
Been a hunter main since vanilla, current survival is a lot of fun esp in pvp, it’s a super unique. Super high mobility, different builds that makes for good burst windows and lots of outplay options. If they ever revert survival to a range spec I hope the make a mail melee class that plays like it
With community wishlists, often I think its a matter of timing. People wanted melee hunters and Legion needed three unique hunter weapons, so the timing was right.
Right now, the hunter controversy is the least of wows problems.
2 Likes
I think you misunderstood my original post.
I asked Toxik why he bothered going on that rant at Bepples, when Bepples had him on ignore. That’s what I meant with my “talk to a wall” comment — context matters, after all! 
And then my observation of WoW players is just that, an observation.
Players have been requesting a variety things, and they’ve successfully gotten Blizzard to change their mind on many things (RealID on the forums, flying, ability pruning, Classic, and many more).
I didn’t state my opinion — I only shared my observation.
To be frank, I’m not entirely sure how you got the two separate statements mixed up.
5 Likes