Visuals
/10char
Building an identity/theme is about more than just a visual effect, specifically, different visual effects.
2 Likes
To each his own.
For me visuals are the most important. Gameplay second.
You can look at a mage and clearly see what spec he is, you could not do that with sv/mm.
It’s the best dps spec in mythic + and in arena. Just flat out lying isn’t a good look.
2 Likes
They were talking about popularity, my dear Bruenor/Damodrehd/Ahrtemis/Caramon.
You should try to understand the conversation before you stumble in and make a fool out of yourself.
3 Likes
SV isn’t the least played spec in Mythic + nor arena, so I’m correct regardless. Would the bumbling buffoon care to try again? The mental midget gymnastics you lot use to try and claim superiority is astounding. It’s also cute you avoided the last post after getting called out on your stupidity.
1 Like
Do you have any differing numbers? Idk about arena, but you seem kinda wrong on this one.
Also, you didnt come here to take part in the discussion, you just wanted to dunk on someone and fell flat on your nose while trying.
I know im still doing it, but there isnt much point in replying to you. Youre like a rabid dog that tries to bite everyone and just ends up chasing his own tail. At leats Metroid knows hes just a troll, but you just seem so furious and unironically obtuse that its prolly just better to ignore you. Until your next alt shows up, of course. 
5 Likes
Fair enough, you have your priorities, your personal preferences.
Having said that, when talking design and philosophy, it’s not about the preferences of a single person, not even in a situation such as this. When judging diversity and uniqueness, you have to take everything into account.
Visual representation obviously plays a part, but it’s not the only part. If you take a step back and look at the hunter class, by nature, the visual effects of hunters aren’t going to stand out as much as for example with casters. That’s honestly perfectly fine. Not every class needs to have the biggest flashiest of animations. The visuals have to match the intended fantasy, not be flashy and big just for the sake of it.
For you as the player of a class, what others see is of less importance, when you invest in a class of your choice. Again, talking about your chosen identity. Ofc it can vary what is important to a single individual. This is the very reason as to why every part should be considered, not just one part.
2 Likes
I’m not arguing with that, but it might be the reason of a lot “they weren’t different enough” comments.
Honestly, I think you might be onto something there.
I’m kinda the opposite of you — I have never liked “flashy” classes (Fire Mage being the only one I can put up with), ever since Vanilla.
The… flashier… the animation, the more ridiculous it is to me. That’s why I don’t play female Forsaken on melee classes, for one.
Hunters used to have the least visuals out of all the classes — which was exactly what I liked. I’ve always preferred the “quiet and unassuming” trope.
I don’t like the stupid visuals Hunters have nowadays — MM’s Aimed Shot and Kill Shot effects are just so stupid to me.
(Sonic boom? Sonic boom!? SONIC BOOM?! How dumb is that!!)
But, I do put up with it because Hunters are still relatively “unflashy” compared to other classes.
However, I HAVE seen so many threads ever since Vanilla begging for more visuals added to the Hunters, and it always made me nervous.
I really, really hope Blizzard does NOT add even more ridiculous visual effects to the Hunters. We’ve got enough already!!
Incidentally, this is a big reason why I could never get into BM. I never liked the big red effect of Bestial Wrath, and I like the new red-orange effect even less.
So yeah, this statement of yours does track with my observation.
And I won’t lie, it’s a bit of a bummer to feel as if I’m in the minority when it comes to liking/disliking flashy effects. 
Oh I agree, it’s one of the more frequently posted comments about the hunter class in general. Perhaps not in the top section, but fairly common still.
However, while it may be how certain players “judge” a fantasy/theme, and the diversity, still, it’s only a part of the combined design, and the goals it aims to achieve. I’m not saying that it’s not common for this to be how some players “judge” the designs, just saying that it should be based on more than just visuals.
I very much agree, the hunter class have a general theme and fantasy that does not promote overdone visual animations and effects. The idea of more subtle details is prefectly in line with the fact that we’re(hunters) a class that isn’t designed to imbue attacks/shots with magic. If there’s magic involved, for example with Arcane Shot, it doesn’t warrant more than a minor animated effect as the arrow/bullet has been infused with magic beforehand, not during combat(by us).
Having said that, if certain classes that are based on magic to a larger degree, also have more flashy/grandeur animations or effects, that’s perfectly fine by me, because it would fit their respective themes.
1 Like
I don’t like flashy either 
Otherwise I would be playing ret.
Well, Mages have three distinct attacks; Arcane, Fire and Frost. Warlocks have Demonology, Affliction and Destruction, all of which play and act differently, always have.
Before Legion, Rogues were so interchangeable they were almost boring, so they changed them by making a thief (Assassin), a fighter-thief (Outlaw) and then there was Subtlety which I think they were going for a magic user-thief but never really stuck the landing.
Of course, Assassin lost much of their new identity in Shadowlands when Blizz gave back poisons to all Rogues.
The problem with RSV was its only game-play differences were minor compared to MM. So when they gave MM a changed Black Arrow (I miss that) and Lock and Load as talents the remaining differences between MM and RSV weren’t great enough to justify keeping it a spec as is, so they went melee/range (skirmisher?) hybrid.
TL;DR The traps alone weren’t a big enough difference to define Survival from the other two specs.
1 Like
So you’re telling me we had a ranged class with pets; one spec having a focus on the pets, one spec focusing on hardcasted burst, and one spec focusing on rot damage? And that was a sufficient difference in how they played and acted? Damn, sounds familiar…
And yet all three Rogue specs remain dual-wielders with Stealth. They preserved the core identity of the class.
False. It played entirely differently; especially if you consider that Legion would also remake MM.
Huh? This is certainly a new take. And a bad one. They didn’t move those spells over to MM and then decide there was now no difference. They decided on removing ranged SV and moved some of its mechanics to MM (in massively changed/diminished forms, mind you) as a weak form of compensation. You’re putting the cart before the horse.
Yes, traps alone wouldn’t be enough. It’s a good thing ranged SV had a lot more distinct features than just better traps.
Making it melee to “define it” and make it more “unique” is still a stupid idea. That’s the thing; it’s not enough to prove that ranged SV and MM were too similar to one another, which itself is a misinformed and ignorant stance. You also have to explain why making Survival melee is the ideal solution. Because obviously that’s caused a lot of problems and, let’s be honest, Survival has far worse and more existential problems now than being too similar to another spec.
You mentioned Rogues. When they heavily updated that class in Legion they made sure that they kept their core design in all three of their specs. The same goes for Warlocks. Why couldn’t they have just added more unique mechanics to ranged Survival and Marksmanship (which, again, was reworked anyway going into Legion)? It would have taken far less effort while being far more successful.
9 Likes
Wrong, Assassin’s Creed, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Naruto.
1 Like
for me it’s cobra shot’s giant snot glob animation. i prefer my tbc hunter’s animations over everything in retail now.
3 Likes
So, this is judged solely on aesthetic variation? Solid argument…
So, Warlocks:
1 magically oriented spec with a primary focus on demons(pets), focus on empowering and summoning said demons.
1 magically oriented spec with a primary focus on upfront damage and strong burst. Partial focus on demons, optional.
1 magically oriented spec with a focus on DoTs and sustained pressure. Partial focus on demons, optional.
Now, Hunters(before Legion):
1 pet oriented spec, primary focus on empowering and calling beasts, also with a focus on ranged weapons.
1 ranged weapon based spec, primary focus on upfront damage and burst. Partial focus on pets, optional. Partial focus on traps. Theme: Sharpshooting/archery.
1 ranged weapon based spec, primary focus on DoTs and sustained pressure. Partial focus on pets, optional. Partial focus on traps, increased focus. Theme: Munitions, augmented shots, empowered traps.
Wow, how about that…
All three Rogue specs currently have a base structure of Stealth, Energy, Combo point builders, and finishing moves.
What differentiates them are the specific abilities, how they deal damage, how they empower your character, etc.
Funny how you think that same core structure is okay with other classes, like those you described above, yet when it came to Hunters, no way would it be enough!
Like Bepples said, you kinda mixed up the order of how they did things.
The decision to go through with the rework came before the actual rework…
Well, as described above then, lucky for RSV that traps weren’t the only difference.
6 Likes
I always thought the same that they are very much alike in concepts. The only distinction is that Hunters are physical based and Warlocks use magic as themes. This is also what I think caused the redesign as the designer didn’t want two classes that have similar themes. It about clear separation between the classes.
While I do understand your point with this post, this is THE reason as to why one must(should) consider the overall design, not just parts of it, when judging diversity and distinction.
By this, I’m referring to what I talked about earlier, with Taigertraps.
Starting with this reply: Is survival hunter fun? why is it fun? - #616 by Taigertraps-darkspear
It is true that, on a fairly basic level, hunters and warlocks had a somewhat similar setup/structure. But by no definition are Warlocks and Hunters similar in fantasy and theme. In many ways, they are the opposites of one another. I would go as far as to say that, when judging diversity within a particular class, unless you have another class with more or less a similar fantasy and theme, you shouldn’t compare multiple classes at the same time.
Edit:
Even if one was to consider it in that way, we can then look at the end result, current SV.
Current SV/MSV has quite the blend of themes/sub-fantasies.
- It retains some aspects of ranged weapon combat, despite not using an actual ranged weapon.
- It now includes abilities and effects copied/taken directly from Beast Mastery, causing it to now share more with BM than RSV ever shared with MM. In terms of core abilities tied to a core specialization.
- It now includes several weapon based melee-abilities, causing the spec to also share a partial theme with almost every single melee spec in the game.
By definition, RSV was more unique, even when compared solely to the class itself.
4 Likes
It’s not a bad thing. We don’t have a single real hybrid spec in the game.
Though I would love it if SV used both melee and bow at the same time. (I am an advocate for a visual overhaul after all)
It’s only their big CD that a copy paste. Kill command may share name, but their usage is completely different. (like comparing DK and warlock death coil) One is the big hit dps ability of the spec (BM) the other is a focus generator (SV).
???
I’m sorry, but this point is absolute nonsense. By this logic every spell caster shares a theme and every ranged hunter ever also shared a theme
1 Like