I’ve already shown you how you’re wrong again lets try again.
But you’re right, on the topic of Ranged survival, I don’t think that Blizzard is likely to introduce a 4th spec. I think it would cause disenfranchisement to other classes who would want the same kind of treatment.
How does what you quoted there disprove what I wrote in my previous reply?
…honestly, nvm.
Like you said yourself, ignore him then and move on.
I admit, I had to look that word up as I’m not a native English speaker.
This was what I found in terms of explaining what that meant:
Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or through practices, prevention of a person exercising the right to vote.
Anyway, what does that have to do with giving Hunters a 4th spec option?
I guess you’re just saying that other players(of other classes) would want a 4th spec option as well?
I’m not saying that certain other classes don’t have merit for an additional spec as well. Though for Hunters it actually is a special case, unlike any other class.
Simply put, no other class had an entire specialization deleted/changed, to the point of that spec now filling a different sub-role.
Examples:
Warlocks were changed a lot. So were Rogues.
But Warlocks still have their Demon spec, their Destro/hard hitting spec and their DoT spec. All focused on magical damage.
Rogues still have all their dual wield weapon specs, with combos and finishers.
As for Hunters, where’s our ammunition+trap -focused spec? With the main mechanic involving DoTs? The spec that relied on a ranged weapon?
Besides, they have already added a 4th spec to a class before. Druids.
Rather than removing either Feral DPS or Feral tanking(Guardian), they decided to keep them both, by splitting them into two specs.
You’re good another it’s commonly used as a way of saying someone feels they revoked a right or privilege not just to do with voting.
Exactly, by giving one class a fourth spec option even though I agree it would be easily done, and merited. That opens up other class complaints.
I personally don’t think that Blizzard would do it, unless they can do it to all classes.
All the classes have been drastically changed Since vanilla, enough so that you could probably throw enough reversions to warrant a 4th spec.
If they could do it without upsetting the player base, id say for sure go for it.
They have already done so before?
Why should it not be taken into consideration now?
Heck, for Druids, they decided to give them a 4th spec based on the fact that they were dealing with 2 halves of 1 spec which were aimed at different roles.
They essentially decided to create 2 fully developed/complete specializations out of 2 halves of 1 specialization.
In the case of Hunters, it’s even worse compared to what it would’ve been if they had decided to drop one of the 2 versions of Feral.
Here it wasn’t a case of, “Hmm, which one should we keep?”
For Hunters, it was “Okay, out with that one, and in with something entirely different”.
For Druids, they went “We can’t pick either one, as players want them both so…let’s give them both”.
For Hunters, that wasn’t even in question.
It wasn’t a question of “Some hunters/players want a melee option. So, let’s give them that in addition to what they already have”.
Keep in mind that SV did not slowly change into a melee spec over the course of the game’s entire history. It became a melee spec over night. Something it has never been throughout history.
True, all classes have changed vastly since the versions we had back in Vanilla/BC(partially even WotLK).
But, since Cata, when we got actual defined Core Specializations for all classes/specs, all classes except for the Hunter class still have their main features which they got with Cata.
And yes, I’m aware that Rogues no longer have Combat, as it was changed to Outlaw. Though it’s still a spec with a focus on using 2x 1h-weapons with combos and finishers.
SV for hunters, is no longer a spec with a focus on ranged weapons, mainly through DoTs.
Most of the melee SV fans lost nothing, only gained a new spec to play with.
For people that enjoyed ranged SV, legion was basically someone burning your house down, building their own crappy hut on your property, and telling you to gtfo.
Ironically, it made me reroll to a different melee class.
In WoD, all three specs were stupidly similar. Do you know what I did when I wanted to swap from MM to SV? I took Chimera/Aimshot off my bars and exhanged it with Explosive shot/Black arrow. Literally 2 spells were the only difference between the specs. One of which you just pushed off Cooldown.
That being said, the new melee survival is probably my favorite spec in the game. It is crazy unique by allowing me to weave in and out of melee range. All while still doing almost full damage to my target, if played properly.
If you are looking for the WoD style of survival, its gone. Just like how the WoD style of marks is long gone. So if anything, I believe people miss the run and gun style of hunter (that BM still has).
Actually same here and i agree on that analogy. Im either rerolling to monk or mage vulpera. I might come back to hunter if and when we get rsv back till then tho im moving on. This will be last post on this guy.
Well yeah, they’re all a part of the same class. That’s kind of the point.
Is that why you’re MM? Lol
You mean like Unholy Dk?
Just like Legion SV is gone and hopefully BFA SV as well.
Im MM for random bg reasons. In arena, raids, and rated bgs I go survival.
Im not a one trick and i know how to play most specs in the game at a high level.
Didn’t hunter used to be one of the most popular classes in the game before they butchered it in legion? I don’t get this “change for the sake of change” mentality blizz devs have.
Is it? Is there another class where your action bars are exactly the same other than literally 2 spells?
I have been in a sort of reroll limbo since Blizz messed up hunters with the ability pruning in WoD and with Legion turning SV melee and MM being a shadow of it’s former self compared to when I enjoyed it during Wrath and Cata until the DS 2 set favored SV. I would like to see either a 4th spec with similar flavor to Cata/MoP SV or MM returning to it’s former glory. Seeing Chimera shot a joke and BM only just makes me sad.
Also MSV can stay, but all of the MSV players, put yourself in the shoes of the RSV crowd and imagine Blizz basically deleting your spec and replacing it with something completely different, wouldn’t you be fighting to get it back.
Yup, in fact Ranged SV was actually the most popular spec in the game back in the day. A far cry from where SV is now. I guess people really liked their specs “stupidly similar”.
The change for the sake of change mentality stems from new devs trying to make their mark on the game even though their predecessors had more talent. They have to justify their employment somehow.
With the upcoming “unpruning”, I hope they’ve learned their lesson. I guess only time will tell.
I personally always loved marks the most, never was a fan of survival until wod. But I have to say when I finally played it I fell in love with it. It was so much fun during that expac.
And how do you know this? Also what do you consider back in the day, just wod?
Why? Old survival was boring with 0 identity. It was a mix of MM+BM with some healing factor? Weird as heck.
It was marks with Chimera shot renamed as explosive.
That’s the only place MM is good in terms of PvP.
Blizzard it seems doesn’t like ranged classes. They’ve never added a new type of ranged class to WoW and with Survival they took that spec away from them.
I see people do it all the time on the forums so I’m not going to waste text putting stuff like “This is my opinion and not necessarily fact…” before statements such as these. If I said something like “melee SV is factually less fun than ranged SV” that would be bad, but saying that flavour is a meaningless buzzword used to justify all sorts of terrible design is just pointing out what people do on the forums. It really is the negative equivalent of “clunky” and even Blizzard complains about people using that one. “Flavour” is an extremely vague and subjective term that has no inherent meaning for anyone yet it keeps getting applied to all sorts of intrusive, unwelcome designs.
How exactly does, say, having Hunter shots scale off spell damage instead of ranged attack power add “flavour” to the class? Because that was a flat-out terrible choice of original WoW yet I have people defend things like that saying “it’s flavourful”. As for the Survival debate: how does having a melee spec in the Hunter class add “flavour”? It’s just a Hunter spec that lacks the defining element of the Hunter class and for most of the Hunter playerbase that’s completely disqualifying. So how is it “flavour”? I think having a spec that focuses on buffed shots like Explosive Shot and Serpent Sting is “flavourful” yet evidently most of the melee lovers here don’t.
This is even weaker. I base that statement on the history of the Hunter class including the original description of the class which I’ve linked here several times. The ranged weapon was stated to be the first-and-foremost distinguishing element of the class, pets are an addition to that.
The original Hunter manual says as much, and it was most likely written by or with the assistance of a class designer:
`https://i.imgur.com/kBVr5Uc.png
So whenever someone says something like “I think vanilla Hunters are more flavourful” or “I think ranged SV was exactly the same as MM” can I just dismiss it as Gish-galloping opinion?
You’re just raising the standard of proof to a ridiculous level to try and say I’m making things up. Fact is I have real Blizzard material that explicitly says the ranged weapon is the distinguishing element of the Hunter class and you have the history of the Hunter class to prove that, including the fact that to this day the official icon of our class is still a ranged weapon.
Retconning the Hunter identity 12 years later does not invalidate the claim. When they announced melee Survival in August 2015 by definition it did not fit the Hunter class identity of the time. Rewriting the identity doesn’t change that. They took a class who’s identity did not allow for a melee-only spec and shoehorned a melee-only spec into it. I can’t just rewrite Mages to say “can also be a physical melee fighter” to justify replacing Arcane with Arms Warrior 2.0 because “it fits the class identity after I rewrote it”.
You’ve shown a couple weak examples that do not demonstrate Gish Galloping. I still regularly post in the Hunter forums by the way so your final sentence here is nonsense.
Holy hell, dude, you already said at least once that you will no longer post here yet here you are still whining because I don’t respect your opinion.
I’m not going to suddenly respect your opinion if you whine hard enough. You have zero importance to me or this thread beyond your stance on Survival, which you have already admitted to be ill-informed. You’re just a voice on the internet talking about Hunters, nothing more.
Clearly you haven’t read all the descriptions because you have people explaining why the spec was unique beyond those “quotes” in this very thread. But I’ll still answer. It was unique because it represented all the ranged attacks that were based on projectiles enhanced with things like explosives and venom. It had unique spells to highlight this identity such as Explosive Shot, Serpent Sting, and Black Arrow, along with passives to complement those such as Lock and Load and Serpent Spread. This facilitated a playstyle that was more centred around free movement and sustained damage, as well as rot damage to multiple targets. It’s actually very similar to the differnece between Affliction and Destruction if you go look at Warlocks.
Validation for making Survival ranged: it would better allow them to explore ranged weapon themes and it would allow for more ranged weapon playstyles, including multidotting which is something that fits thematically and mechanically with ranged weapons very well. It is far more unique for this game than yet another melee spec. Every DPS spec they have added to the game post-launch has been melee. Enough is enough. They can’t only design melee specs and ignore ranged for so many years.
There’s also the moral side of the matter. Ranged Survival was the far more widely-enjoyed spec so it would be giving back to those people what they took away. This isn’t just a simple “you can all go have fun in MM” matter. People were quite attached to ranged Survival and some even quit the class or even the game due to Survival’s removal.
The key word is “many”. You can interpret that to mean what you want but usually the term has a comparative connotation. And comparative to other specs Survival does not have “many” people even playing it to begin with. I’m sure the people who do play it love it, but there really aren’t that many of them.
P.S. as a sidenote you also have to wonder how many of the people currently playing Survival would only play it if it were melee and wouldn’t enjoy the ranged version.
Go look at what that person is saying. They even admit they have little knowledge about Hunters. Their only “contact” with the Hunter class is the melee spec. So yes, I think people who primarily play melee specs should not be dictating Hunter development. I don’t think melee needs a foothold in the Hunter class. It was already a popular class, we did not need to start throwing away things Hunters liked in order to try to pull in people like that who don’t play Hunter.
Nope, their opinion is bad because they have minimal investment in the class. Plus, they are biased; they even point out how there are more melee specs in this game than ranged specs and still say “I think it’s balanced”. They clearly think it’s balanced purely because they are part of the group that’s being favoured.
It’s not.
If I threw in a bunch of unprovable or false claims purely to pad the length of the post, that would be a Gish Gallop. But I don’t do that and you’re failing to demonstrate anything that looks like that.
How would you know what my intent is when I post? Looks like you’re the one presenting baseless opinion as fact.
I do want people to read my posts, actually. Your argument makes no sense. If no one read my posts there would be absolutely no point in posting at all. What would I get out of posting a bunch of stuff people won’t read? I would literally be wasting my own time and no one elses.
Great job derailing the thread into nonsense, by the way.
Well god damn, people switch between the Mage, Rogue, and Warlock specs based on what’s best. It’s almost like both playstyle preference and numerical performance are factors in people’s spec choice.
Survival and Marksmanship were different enough. They were just as different as Affliction and Destruction, in mostly the same way too.
Making a Hunter tank is a dreadful idea, just stop.
Uh, OK? This doesn’t prove anything. Nightfall was an item that buffed other people’s DPS and Hunters were the best at applying it because Raptor Strike and Wing Clip did not share a GCD and you could just endlessly spam Wing Clip. This doesn’t validate any sort of melee Hunter.
And this should have been the start and end of your contribution to this thread.
No, not literally. SV had Explosive Shot, Black Arrow, and Serpent Sting while MM didn’t. MM had Chimera Shot, Aimed Shot, Rapid Fire, and Kill Shot while SV didn’t. Furthermore, you have passive differences; MM had Sniper Training and Careful Aim while SV had Serpent Spread and Lock and Load, as well as utilities like Entrapment and Trap Mastery.
You are being deliberately reductionist and dishonest to try to minimise the spec difference.
Were they still too similar as of WoD? Maybe. I don’t think they were as they both felt very different, but if it really was a problem then there were plenty of ways to further differentiate them without totally transforming SV into something hardly anyone in the class wants to play.
Ranged SV could weave in and out of melee while doing 100% damage no matter what. Guess it’s just another way ranged SV was categorically the better spec *shrug*
Melee playstyles are not unique in this game. We need more ranged weapon representation. Having a spec based on explosives and poisoned arrows was very unique indeed. It could also allow for a multidotting playstyle which the class sorely lacks.
Data from MoP: https://cynwise.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/class-distribution-data-for-patch-5-4-2/
Oh, look, SV was still very popular then, as well as in the last patch of Cata.
Considering it was also a frequent appearance in world first kills (something melee SV literally has never had) in T11 and T8 you can reasonably assume a lot of Hunters were playing it then too.
At that point you are looking at SV being popular for most of the patch cycles between getting Explosive Shot in 3.0 and becoming melee in 7.0.
I would say “I don’t know why people say it was a mix of BM and MM” but I do know why: you’re uninformed.
It was a different take on ranged weapon focus to MM, just like how Affliction is a different take on demons and fel magic to the other two Warlock specs. Clearly it wasn’t boring to people since it was routinely a very popular spec.
Current SV is the one that’s weird with 0 identity. It’s a mix of generic Warrior crap (Raptor Strike, Carve) and stuff stolen from BM (Kill Command, Coordinated Assault) along with stuff much more suited for ranged SV (Serpent Sting, Wildfire Bomb), none of which fit well together.
Yeah, it was exactly the same as Chimera shot except it had a different name, aesthetic, cooldown, damage type, and interaction with baseline passives of the spec. If you ignore absolutely all those things that made it 100% different, it was totally the same!