Not sure how this counters the argument. But feel free to clarify what you meant with “there was some original intent”.
For one, no part of the original design iterations intended for you to forego the use of ranged weaponry in favor of intentionally switching to melee. Not unless you were forced to it, as was a situational scenario, which is very different from what we see today.
This is very easy…
Was the game originally implemented with hunters being able to equip and use melee weapons? Yes or no?
We all know the answer is yes. Neither yours not Bepples opinions (or anyone else’s) really matter since none of you were designers for the game.
The game was originally designed with melee being an aspect of hunter. No matter how many times Bepples has parroted his drivel about melee not being a core aspect of the class, he’s simply wrong. Facts don’t care about your feelings.
The thing about this is that there’s a part of it that you continue to ignore with your arguments.
While sure, melee weapons were originally a part of the class, they’ve never been intended as a primary focus of a specs core elements and design, prior to Legion. Not even in those early days when we didn’t have specs or multiple defined playstyles to pick between was that the case.
The reason the argument is made that “having a spec being centered around melee-combat is countering the historic design of the class”, is because it’s true. It’s not an opinion, but is an objective fact based on history.
Does that mean that such a core fantasy couldn’t be added to this class? Ofc not, but that does not take away the fact that completely removing a spec that did adhere to the core fantasy as established since the beginning, for the sake of this new fantasy, is objectively a bad way to do things. For a very simple reason…most players who at the time of the change, and before, did not choose this class for the eventuality of the new fantasy, but because of the core that it held prior to that point.
There’s a difference between saying that something is a part of a class, or saying that something makes for a core aspect, a primary focus, of a playstyle.
Again, prior to Legion, melee-combat has never been the primary focus of this class, in any form whatsoever. By design. At the very most, it was ever a situational part that you, if possible, wanted to avoid dealing with. As a Hunter.
At this point I don’t think you understand what a fact is… It isn’t your opinion. Since you aren’t one of the original devs, you cannot determine if those melee weapons that were implemented at launch were integral or not. Again, you and Bepples seem to think what you say is fact… it is not, no matter how many paragraphs you spew out.
We have the literal design of the class as it was originally implemented, we have a multitude of websites that in detail show what it was like. Even prior to what can be seen now in Classic.
If you’re trying to insinuate otherwise, that the elements of melee which we had back then weren’t anything but situational, and were to be avoided whenever possible, then you’re nothing but plain wrong.
By that, I mean in the scope of the class and it’s primary role as a damage dealer.
But by all means, explain why that isn’t the case…
Is reading comprehension hard?
Ironic question, coming from you.
Did any Hunter spec before Legion lack a ranged weapon? Yes or no?
Doesn’t work that way buttercup, because I’m not the one ignoring parts of the class’ toolkit. Try again in a couple more years.
Stat stick
Survival’s identity is literally built on ignoring the most major part of the class’s toolkit…
You mean MM? I thought they were the ones without pets.
Here’s the official Blizz description of the hunter class:
Class Information
Hunters battle their foes at a distance or up close, commanding their pets to attack while they nock their arrows, fire their guns, or ready their polearms. Though their weapons are effective at short and long ranges, hunters are also highly mobile. They can evade or restrain their foes to control the arena of battle.
As an aside, it’s always funny to come back to this part of the forums when I’m messing around on my hunter alt. Without fail, Bepples will be in every thread that mentions survival doing this:
Yes, Lone Wolf is also problematic. Congratulations. It should absolutely be single-target only and carefully tuned alongside pet DPS so it’s much more of a viable choice. This has been a debate going on since WoD.
The difference is the pet, while important to the Hunter class identity, is a lot less important than the ranged weapon. As MM your gameplay and aesthetic is almost identical with and without a pet out to the point where the entire petless style is encapsulated by a simple passive buff. Making SV melee required totally remaking the spec…twice…
They changed the description after changing Survival to melee. Whoop-de-doo. It doesn’t change the fact that Hunters are most recognisable by their ranged weapons, that we start with one, that multiple baseline elements are based around them, that our class icon is still a bow, or that descriptions from before Legion place the ranged weapon front-and-centre.
Survival is still the odd-one-out by not having a real ranged weapon. It’s entire identity is being less capable than other Hunters.
It’s always funny seeing Survival fans inadvertently prove again and again that Survival is mostly aimed at melee mains with casual Hunter alts rather than actual Hunter mains.
Bepples on your profile it seems like you havent chosen your talents for Survival yet
Why knock it if you havent tried it
I won’t taint my main character with it. Test realm characters only.
Because he has literally no idea what he’s ever talking about. This reason you mentioned is why I haven’t taken him seriously this entire time. He’s like one of those college kids who think they are now batman after taking half a semester of criminology. He has zero experience with the spec but will listen to the players who hate the spec apposed to the ones who play it and enjoy it. Its just stupid.
Opinion! Based on the description of the class that I already linked, it sounds like your opinion is different than Blizzard’s.
Good point! MM is even further from the true hunter identity than I had thought. Blizz should make the pet a more integral piece of MM to bring it in line with survival and BM, the specs truly aligned with being a hunter.
Whoop-de-doo, indeed! So we can agree again that the current description of hunters does not include ranged weapons as the key piece of hunter identity.
I identify them more by their pets. Seems like Blizz does, too. But we’ve been over this. That’s your opinion.
Druids start with a staff, warriors start with a sword and shield, rogues start with one dagger, etc. What weapon you start with is hardly an argument against survival (which doesn’t lose its ability to equip a ranged weapon, btw). The same thing is true of the weapon on the class icon. Multiple classes/specs use different weapon than on their icon. Doesn’t sound like a “problem” exclusive to survival.
Like what? Traps and pets? Oh wait, those are still useable with a melee weapon…
I dunno! There are quite a few of these “less capable” survival hunters in PvP that absolutely wreck. Are all melee classes less capable than ranged?
Interesting! Unfortunately, my main is a disc priest. Sorry to disconfirm your theory.
All of this is for naught, btw. Everybody already knows your opinion. You’ve shared it who-knows-how-many times. The fact that you haven’t even tried survival on live just further solidifies my point that you’re a tantruming child. You can keep throwing a fit, but you aren’t going to get what you want. 
lmao you need to reroll Warlock because, DESTRUCTION!
Point out where I was wrong, then.
…yes, because they rewrote the description. That doesn’t change the fact that a) the original descriptions were very much in favour of ranged combat and b) the class is still designed in a way that puts ranged weapons first and treats Survival as the odd one out.
Rewriting the description on the official website after the fact to try to make Survival make sense is an utter farce.
Abject denial and repetition is an interesting argumentative approach I guess but the fact of the matter is Marksmanship is far more recognisable as a Hunter because it’s ranged and that’s the most immediately recognisable part of the class.
Ask yourself how much your DPS and gameplay is affected by using a pet as MM v.s. using a ranged weapon as Survival. Survival is the odd one out. Survival is the one most Hunters avoid. Better luck next time with the deflection tactic.
Again, this is a farce. Changing the description changed jack. They still very much design the class as if ranged weapons are the primary feature which makes Survival an awkward exception.
You aren’t a Hunter so why would I care what you think about this class?
Making a petless Hunter playstyle required a single passive talent option in MM (and SV at the time). Making a play option without a ranged weapon required remaking one of the specs from the ground up with a resulting spec so alien to the class’s playerbase that 95% of them unconditionally avoid it. Use your brain for a couple seconds to figure out which one is the more iconic and crucial feature.
You had to know what a weak argument this was when posting it.
The point is that the Hunters start with a ranged weapon and their icon is a ranged weapon. It doesn’t matter that it’s specifically a bow. What matters is that it signifies the Hunter’s mastery of ranged weapons. Denying that to one of the specs is an entirely different league to, say, a Rogue changing between daggers or swords or whatever.
The Hunter starting with a ranged weapon is absolutely an argument against Survival. It makes zero sense. Specs are meant to build on existing capability, not throw them away. If you want to see how representing melee and ranged in the same class should actually work, go see Shamans and Druids. Hint: it depends on them not having ranged weapons.
Survival being able to use ranged weapons is pointless. It was also able to use melee weapons before Legion. If the spec isn’t built to support that playstyle it doesn’t matter. Survival’s effectiveness with a ranged weapon is significantly reduced and the spec’s design is built around using a melee weapon. You literally get a -50% nerf to your Auto Shot damage just for being SV. The game expects and requires you to switch to a melee weapon at level 10 if you take SV whic his why hardly anyone takes SV.
Kill Shot, Binding Shot, Tranquilising Shot, Flayed Shot, and Resonating Arrow are all abilities that are available to all three specs that are themed around usage of ranged weapons. SV has Serpent Sting on top of that. Blizzard still designs the class as if it’s primarily a ranged weapon user and they apply awkward workarounds to Survival to make it work i.e. a phantom animation-only ranged weapon. It’s jarring and slapdash. Why not just give it a ranged weapon already? We all know it makes the most sense. It’s time to end this “Emperor’s new clothes” situation.
It’s PvP strengths are in spite of being melee and not because of it. In fact any PvP SV Hunter will tell you they play as a ranged Hunter much of the time anyway. So why not just go all the way and make it a ranged spec? Why cling to the tiny percentage of the spec that’s still melee? It’s only a couple of abilities at this point.
You seem to be confusing thematic strength v.s. in-game viability. Thematically SV is less capable than MM or BM because they can attack with full freedom at range while SV can’t. The Hunter class has a clear, iconic capability that SV doesn’t have. You might not think that matters because they mechanically compensate for it (in PvP at least) but it absolutely does matter to people; Survival is automatically seen as a less-capable, less-valid option because instead on building on a strength of the class it takes one away.
No, but melee is inherently a restriction compared to range. Being able to attack at 40 yards v.s. not being able to is a binary, factual matter: you’re at an advantage with the former. That’s why they have to apply a bunch of compensations to melee classes such as a shorter interrupt CD.
I don’t care what your healing/tanking preferences are. Ultimately you’re not a Hunter main. It’s not your class of preference. So when you’re talking to me about how great it is to have a melee Hunter spec it just confirms to me that Survival isn’t made in the interests of Hunter players.
And Survival will always been seen as the circus freak of class design for as long as it’s melee. SV Hunters can act smug about it staying melee all they want but they can’t turn around and complain about their spec being in permanent pariah status. It’s either being a widely-enjoyed and respected spec or being a melee spec, not both.
I know this is hard to hear, but you don’t speak for the hunter class. Your opinion is no more valid than Grief’s. I know it’s crushing to your astounding ego, but facts are facts.