Only legitimate reason for 4th spec to happen is if all other classes gained a fourth spec. Otherwise it would simply be unfair to the other classes. Hell, we still have a class on its 3rd expansion that still only has 2 specs and yet somehow you believe it would be fair?
(Btw we literally had this very same convo multiple times over the years)
If this was a valid argument, it would apply to all classes equally, but since Druids have already gotten a 4th spec, while the other ones did not, this argument does not hold up.
You can’t make it about “all or nothing” without it actually being “all or nothing”.
druids were 4 specs stuffed into 3 since vanilla…
Right. Then how about you go to DH/paladin/priest forums and start saying that they don’t deserve a second dps spec while you deserve a 4th one. See how they react.
Irrelevant to your initial argument of “all or nothing”.
Why should I do that? I’m not the one arguing against the implementation of a 4th spec. You are.
I don’t play those classes, ergo I have no interest in speaking for or against anything related to their respective class design. As long as they can come up with a new spec that meets all the necessary criteria to be eligible for implementation, I say why not…
let’s agree to disagree
I am not against it either. I am saying that it doesn’t deserve a 4th DPS spec while there are classes with only a single choice.
You do know that your argument of “all or nothing” means that either a 4th spec is given to all classes(3rd for DH) or no class gets another spec, regardless of circumstances, don’t you?
You can’t claim “all or nothing” and then decide that it should only apply to some classes. By definition, if you start making exceptions, then your argument of “all or nothing” is meaningless and shouldn’t be taken into consideration.
Your argument did not specify DPS specs, so…why are you moving the goalpost?
Besides, your new version of said argument is relying on the arbitrary rule that all classes must fall within a certain spectrum when it comes to the number of specs they have that belong to a specific role. This is not a realistic expectation in a game that hosts multiple variables of class types and setups, for example, we’re dealing with both pure dmg classes, along with multiple different types of hybrid classes.
The only thing that really matters for this bit, is whether there’s a certain niche within a class that hasn’t been filled, whether there’s a basis for why adding a new spec with its own thematic approach to the general class fantasy, whether that makes sense.
The reason they did not give DHs a 3rd spec(2nd dps spec) is because they did not think that the second one could meet all the necessary criteria. But again, what the DH class should or shouldn’t get, is irrelevant to the Hunter class. They aren’t linked to one another.
Like it or not, every class has multiple “niches” they are lacking and literally every non pure dps class is more worthy of an extra spec (unless it’s a tank or a healer spec) than a hunter. Hell, I can think of multiple niches without spending any time at all
Arcane archer
Whatever tyrande is
Duelist fighter (single one hander)
Sword and shield dps
Ranged holy warrior (ranged pally)
Ranged dual pistol rogue
it was 3rd. Its the black sheep of the class and always has been.
if we ever did, give us back spell hunter.
But your opinion is complete trash considering you don’t even play it. Why anyone would listen to someone who hasn’t even swapped over to it is beyond me.
Weapons a weapon. Its why they are called weapons.
SV was never popular. Like never.
Yeah I mean, how else does anyone learn what they enjoy playing in this game?
Good so this is finally over and you can finally stay in your lane and not pretend to know anything about something you have zero experience with.
Nobody has too, you havent even played it. So again, your opinion is just trash.
your opinions change more than what you claim mine do.
Provably untrue. Not much else to say about it.
So, basically, ranged Survival Hunter.
This still isn’t an explanation of why you think I’m wrong.
This still isn’t a response to what I said. I’ve told you what the point was. You don’t get to just change it to what you want.
If someone came to the class to play ranged, which most did, it’s exceedingly unlikely they’ll suddenly enjoy being limited to melee. This is why very few people play Survival. It’s not a hypothetical. We can see the clear result.
Again, you can get to explaining why you think I’m wrong.
They do if they want to argue I’m wrong, actually, because otherwise this is an argument to authority i.e. a fallacy.
What he said isn’t a change in opinion at all. You need to stop speed-reading people’s posts without taking in the actual point at hand. No one has ever argued that Survival was always the most popular Hunter spec in every patch it was ranged i.e. always number 1. The argument is that it was consistently a popular spec. Unlike you, Ghorak and I are basing our claims on real data from the time.
Spell hunter is also known as The Arcane hunter. Learn your memes.
The mere fact you dont play it shows you know nothing about it so
This is literally what you do on here daily
Then they could just ya know, switch to MM or BM. Or just not select survival. Idk why this is difficult for you to grasp.
Reread as much as you need too.
yes, yes you are.
LOL no
At this point you’re just dumping empty one-liners for the sake of having a response. You could have taken that “LOL no” line and used that for every quote and it would have just as much value.
Do you have a single sincere value for Hunter class design?
I think his advice would be to make the whole class melee.
I mean I must of said it 100 times, I’m memeing on you since you never had a good opinion of msv since you don’t even play it. So yea, you sound absurd talking about things you have zero experience with. Nothing else to add to that, so no point in trying to even take you seriously scooter.
That wouldnt make MM interesting or fun.
What am I wrong about?
Reminds me of:
Based on?
There’s no rule that says that hunters/mages/warlocks/rogues can only get another spec if at first they add dps specs to other classes like priest or paladin, etc.
Fair enough if you think that this is how it should be, but again, that opinion isn’t supported in the game and the philosophies tied to class design that we can see.
I suppose we could have long conversations about these in particular, but in short, if you want those fantasies available as playable options in-game, you have other criteria that needs to be met, such as whether they can be sufficiently unique from other specs in terms of theme, can they bring their own advantages/disadvantages which aren’t already present in other specs of the same classes which you intend to add them to, can they bring their own mechanical niches as well? Do you see a realistic number of people being interested in those playstyles/fantasies to warrant time spent on development?
Etc.
You do realize this has nothing to do with an opinion, don’t you?
This part is about statistics and historical data. Besides, my arguments on it’s popularity hasn’t changed. Like I’ve always said, RSV held the highest median representation of all 3 specs. RSV, however, wasn’t always the most popular spec of the three.
usually collect data from the 1% not the overall playerbase so
What needs to happen after that is to petition Blizzard to discontinue ranged DPS classes. Blizzard forces PvE design to accommodate ranged when melee, even though we’re not quite in MeleeCraft anymore, is still the popular range type.
If we’re going to make Hunters all melee, then let’s make all ranged DPS melee. Who’s going to complain? Answer: not the majority.
So, your argument is that RSV was popular in e.g. content as proven by data, but that’s irrelevant because it doesn’t include everyone due to the lack of ways to access such data.
But, you also claim that it wasn’t popular even though, in the areas where such data could be accessed, it very much was, so then you must be pointing to the areas which we couldn’t collect said data from?
If that’s the case, how do you know that it wasn’t popular in those areas as well? Everything we know points to the opposite being true, yet you somehow know that it isn’t?
Just for reference btw:
As we can see, your statement was very…definitive…and all-inclusive(as in " across all types of content").