Ghorak,
Did Ion say it was a flavor choice when changing the spec to melee?
Yes, or No?
Yes. He did.
1 Like
Show me,
It’s not in that interview.
survival is a really fun spec to play compared to mm and bm wich are both really boring in this patch, it just needs a damage buff, better talents and removal of kc and flanking strike back as the ressource manager
There are a lot of angry people in this thread but I really miss Black Arrow and Explosive Trap, I’m just sayin’. I don’t think a 4th hunter spec that is the old SV playstyle would be a bad thing.
4 Likes
Already explained it to you…read the replies.
I read the reply’s. No where in the article did he state the change was a change for flavor.
That’s something you’re assuming.
Can you show me where Ion or another developer states that is the reason? Yes or no?
By all means, you tell me what type of change the one to MSV was…
You’re way to hung up on the literal word of “flavour”.
There are many ways to say the same thing.
2 Likes
I’m not the one making the claim its for flavor.
The burden of proof is on you.
I said its a weak argument, in tandem with “Flavor being a catch all buzzword used to excuse poor design choices.” Because that’s an opinion and not fact.
There is no proof and that article shows that. He didn’t say it was for flavor at all.
Look man, I can argue all week. we’re headed that way. You have your opinion and that’s fine. Its obvious we’re at an impass why not just let it lie?
I didn’t say I did. I said it’s crappy to take something away from someone so you can have it.
1 Like
When changes are made towards a class, where a part of the class is removed in favor of something completely different, something that is not even intended for the players currently playing that class.
Then it’s not just an opinion.
That is an actual situation of poor design choices being made.
So yeah, some players who like MSV, relies on the word “flavour” to justify it’s implementation. Which is nothing but their attempts at justifying screwing over all those players who were already playing and liking/loving the previous spec.
Especially as pretty much noone wanted a melee spec for the class. And NO ONE was arguing that SV should’ve been turned into said melee spec.
Fine. We’re done with this then.
2 Likes
No. I like the nod to its vanilla roots.
1 Like
“for new players picking up that class, it is an intriguing option”
It was to attract new players. That’s what he says.
Aye, have a good day mate.
It could’ve been done without screwing over current players. Hence why it was a bad choice.
6 Likes
Also, why are they trying to attract new players to a class that’s already overplayed?
If a lot of people find melee SV cool, give it as a fourth spec to a class that’s underplayed.
Then no one loses anything and everyone’s happy.
5 Likes
Same reasoning as the pet, only moreso. Even if you did like those things, and I struggle to sympathise with anyone who found them to be anything that could be described as “fun”, what actually changed for Hunters when they removed pet happiness and ammo in Cataclysm? How did the look and feel of the class change? The answer is, of course, that there was minimal impact. They just weren’t important and didn’t contribute any significant value to the class. Many Hunters were actively calling for them to be removed. In fact, I remember people being upset when they couldn’t remove ammo in patch 3.1 (they did apologise and up the stack cap to 1000 and removed the need for a quiver).
It’s absurd to pretend that this timewaster fluff had even a fraction of the importance to the Hunter class identity as the ranged weapon or the pet.
The manual opens with talking about the ranged weapons and names them as the thing that makes the class unique. It says pets are an additional important element. Meanwhile, it has just 3 sentences in the larger section on pets to talk about pet happiness. Again, pretty outlandish to pretend it’s as important as the ranged weapon or pet combat in general.
If they open with some variation of “I prefer melee and I haven’t played Hunters in the past”, and then go at length to argue that ranged Survival was the same as MM and making it melee helped the class, then yes that absolutely makes them ignorant and their opinion invalid and I’ll call them out on it.
No, they didn’t. Just as an example, BM didn’t have to worry about Lock and Load, SV didn’t have to worry about Focus Fire and Bestial Wrath. You are focusing on raw ability count (and there were differences beyond just Kill Command/Explosive Shot and Black Arrow/Frenzy) and ignoring how the spec fits together. Just another example: both specs use Multi-Shot, but for BM the value comes from Multi-Shot causing your pet to cleave targets whereas for SV it would spread Serpent Sting to all targets. Given how both of those things functioned it changed the priorities and usage of Multi-Shot and contributed to each spec’s identity in different ways. Yet to you they are the same thing and not even worth mentioning.
Let’s say for a second that they really were too similar. Firstly you’d have to concede that they were not similar from an identity perspective since the difference in identity is quite clear and obvious to everyone. In fact, Blizzard and everyone else are claiming it was too similar to Marksmanship and not BM since most of the debate is actually centred around identity and not playstyle. Regardless, let’s say they played too similarly. How is making Survival melee the solution to that? There were plenty of ways to differentiate the specs wile keeping them ranged. Just compare the current BM to WoD SV: that’s already extremely different, and that’s not taking into account potential changes to SV such as Black Arrow multidotting.
Plus… look at SV now. It’s identity is mostly just “melee BM” with a couple unrelated attacks tacked on as filler (Wildfire Bomb, Serpent Sting). If their goal was to make it different to BM, why does SV now have BM’s signature ability (Kill Command), a copy of BM’s iconic cooldown (Coordinated Assault), and an iconic BM passive (Spirit Bomb)?
Odd since the overwhelming majority of Hunters are playing BM and MM.
You mean the Vanilla Survival which had a ranged weapon and preferred to use it and stay out of melee as much as possible?
7 Likes
Fourth spec is a horrible idea, keep the class Diverse.
The loss of RSV was the best thing that has ever happened to the Hunter.
People like you are part of the problem. You fail to realize that some people who had been playing RSV from day one essentially had their character deleted when the melee change came. Some people might gasp feel like MSV is the worst thing to happen to hunters. Why are you so against a 4th spec that brings back the play style and feel of RSV. Are you afraid people might prefer it so much MSV becomes a gimmick spec. Or are you just against players having more choices in how they play.
9 Likes
Because we all know that’s not how it would happen, and so do you. So let’s cut through the rhetoric and bullcrap of this post and speak plainly. Please stop trying to camouflage what your real agenda is by claiming "you melee guys can have a “Fourth Spec”.
No. You ranged lovers can have Blizzard design a 4th spec to accommodate the people who miss old Survival, just like Shadow can be accommodated by having a 4th spec called “Anima” or the like.
As much as I despise the Voidform / insanity Shadow Priest, I have to concede that it would be selfish to try and get it deleted, because there are people like say Ryeshot who genuinely like that spec. I might not understand why or how they could like it, but it is not my right or place to say that they are wrong. The same also applies to Survival.
We need to give players more options, not fewer.
It’s sad you think like that and not the other way around. You harass them because they play a spec different than you just like you did with me.
This is my last response with you forever. I don’t like being falsely accused of something I didn’t do because you thought I harass your opinion, but you’re freely to harass others.
1 Like