Reintroducing Ranged Survival as a fourth spec can ONLY be profitable

Classes Hunter
1

Reintroducing Ranged Survival as a fourth spec can ONLY be profitable. Everything that melee SV had going for it in Legion, ranged SV has more. Reintroducing ranged SV would result in more profits than melee SV did, for a multitude of reasons. These reasons are as follows:

Ranged Survival already has fans and a playerbase attached to it. Melee SV did not. Therefore ranged Survival would attract just as many, if not more, players to the game, including returning players. This would in turn mean more income for Blizzard

Ranged Survival already has a fantasy, talents and abilities. Melee SV did not. Therefore Blizzard would be required to spend less time designing abilities and talents for ranged Survival (whereas they had to design new abilities and talents for melee SV), therefore it would cost less money than melee SV did.

Blizzard has years of experience balancing and tuning ranged SV. They did not have any experience balancing and tuning melee SV. Therefore Blizzard would be required to spend less time tuning ranged SV, therefore it would cost less money than melee SV did.

Bringing ranged SV back as a fourth spec wouldn’t require deleting melee SV, whereas melee SV caused ranged SV to be deleted. Therefore less players would be alienated, and the Hunter class and WoW in general would retain a higher number of players. Therefore more players would be playing, and Blizzard would have more income.

Since it has been shown that ranged SV would bring in more income than melee SV on average, and would cost less money than melee SV on average, it can be said that the profitability of introducing ranged SV is necessarily greater than melee SV.

Therefore, the only possible way for it to be not profitable to reintroduce ranged SV as a fourth spec, would be if the introduction of melee SV in Legion was not profitable.

In that case, we are left with two insights:

A. Removing ranged SV in Legion and replacing it with melee SV was not profitable. Therefore Blizzard should not have done it.

or

B. Reintroducing ranged SV as a fourth spec would be profitable. Therefore Blizzard should do it.

One of these must be true.

15 Likes
2

No.
-It pleases a small fraction of the game community.
-Will trigger other classes that didn’t get their 4th spec. Let alone 3rd spec DH.
-The re-added SV would be different, people would still complain.
-Nostalgia is different for everyone and they’d all say it ain’t right, change this, etc.
-Would cost more than it would bring in terms of $$$ to the buiness.
-Would create more balancing issue and work to the team.
-Would requirement more work from the art team to bring in old and new animation / effect to make spec more different
-and much more.

Abusrd counter to use:

But they used a lot already in DELETING (Changing, not deleted) the spec.
-They spend budged to change multiple class, some more than others. As with every changes come those that hate it and those that don’t. While old SV hunters all didn’t like the changes, they are quite happy with it. New and old players have turned to it and been enjoying the SV as it is.

Reverting changes is not an option, it would cause more trouble than fix issues. Thus why some slight change are being made. Example: Flying, LFG/LFR, Transmog, Warmode. All sounded like good ideas, but have hurt an aspect of the game. They cannot remove it anymore for it would hurt those that enjoy it. Thus they keep it and move on while making small adjustments… Path Finder was a small fix to flying.

3 Likes
3

So did the melee SV change. Already demonstrated that the ranged SV community is larger now than the melee SV community was prior to melee SV being added.

Already happened because of Druids. Non-issue.

Better than nothing. Non-issue that doesn’t refute the profitability argument in the OP.

Feedback is good.

Demonstrate this. The entire OP was to show that this wouldn’t be the case unless melee SV was also unprofitable. Choose A or B.

Not as many as melee SV did. Already addressed this in the OP.

Not as many as melee SV did. Already addressed this in the OP.

Lie. You don’t have any more and you just tacked this on at the end.

Irrelevant to the point in the OP. You could make this argument if there was merely two people enjoying melee SV. Doesn’t make it more profitable than bringing back ranged SV as a fourth spec.

Reverting changes by removing features is not the same thing as reverting changes by bringing back already removed features. I am not asking for anything to be removed, only returned. Therefore your argument is moot.

You must either choose A or B. You must either admit that the melee SV change in Legion was unprofitable, or that reintroducing ranged SV as a 4th spec would be profitable. If you cannot refute the points I have made (which you have not done so), then you must choose one of these two options.

3 Likes
4

I think this point require a little clarification.

I am assuming that you meant Blizzard had to come up with abilities and talents for MSV from scratch. However, I suspect that people would misread this.

That being said, I found your OP to be clear and concise (and your argument seems solid). Nicely done. :slightly_smiling_face:

The only thing I would say is maybe add a little more to the introduction? Set up the problem so that people know what you’re talking about. I knew because I was following your discussions with Azagorod in multiple threads. But they might won’t.

5

Thank you. I did clarify a few things in the OP. Should be easier to digest now. I don’t really understand though. These things I say in the OP are common sense, and Blizzard should know them. So why are they throwing away free money? Why are they not implementing a change that would essentially guarantee profit?

6

Blizzard usually wants uniqueness for the sake of uniqueness, regardless of whether people want it or not and even if it ends up being harmful to a class.
Voidform, Roll the Bones, Eclipse, and Holy Power for Holy/Prot Paladins are all similarly controversial, but they make their specs stand out so they’re here. The same can be said for melee Survival, barely anyone wants to actually play it but it makes Hunter seem more varied and therefore more appealing for new players or people looking to reroll.

7

As much as I support reintroduction as 4th spec and not a replacement of current, it will not happen unless they introduce an extra spec for every other class in the game, otherwise the rageposting will be at least 10 times bigger than current rage over rsv. (maybe if they promised to introduce more specs on a later date or whatever and add over course of couple xpacs)

8

You know how I can see something similar with RSV added to the game?

Tinker Class’ range dps spec. Explosives, electricity , etc and of course small bots instead of hunter pet.

9

Bleh. Would rather have an actual archer class than a tinker

1 Like
10

I like to say that MSV is the FOURTH spec because of proper succession.

I even talked about how a new hero class–first it was Shadow Hunter and then Dark Ranger–would be ideal. Or to give ranged specs options to other melee. We can’t forget that we’ve been in MeleeCraft for far too long.

11

They already added a new fourth spec to Hunter: melee SV. They just also deleted an old spec in the process. If anyone was going to rage about another class having four specs, they would have already did it with Druids.

2 Likes
12

except druids had 2 different specs stuck in a single spec

1 Like
13

Irrelevant. Hunter has also now had four specs, just like Druids. BM, MM, ranged SV and melee SV. Therefore it only makes sense that we receive a fourth spec, just like Druids did.

Or would you have preferred that Blizzard had removed all tanking elements from Feral without introducing a new fourth spec to Druids? Why do Druids get to keep their fourth spec, but not Hunters?

6 Likes
14

these melee crusaders always trying to shut down the range fans smh

4 Likes
15

You know what else pleases only a “small fraction of the game community”? Classic WoW. In it’s history wow has had more than 100 million accounts. You think all 100 million came back for Classic WoW? Not even close. Just because it for some reason doesn’t please you, doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.

2 Likes
16

Because the answer to 3 specs which could all use some work is to add a 4th to the mix, just for kicks.

17

The game currently contains 36 specs that could all use some work, and it contained 34 specs that could all use some work before Demon Hunter was introduced. So then why are you insisting that one additional Hunter spec would throw it all off balance, but introducing two specs in an entirely new class did not?

2 Likes
18

We aren’t talking about the other classes. We are talking about hunters who haven’t been getting really any attention design wise in all of the dev class posts. I just don’t think all the existing specs are in a good enough place to justify or address the overall hunter issues by adding to this mess with yet another 4th spec that needs all new talents, balancing, and so forth.

I think they need to solidify at least 2/3 of the hunter specs before we start talking about a 4th one.

19

But it doesn’t need new talents. They can just go get the RSV talents from MoP or WoD or a combination of the two and retune/rebalance them for SL. They can even take the RSV talents they put in MM out of MM and come up with some new talents for MM.

3 Likes
20

Blizzard has the resources to do it all at once. It’s not like they can’t bring back ranged SV in its Cata or MoP iteration while also working on BM and MM. I don’t want to compromise when Blizzard is the one who deleted Survival and messed up BM and MM. They messed up. It’s their fault. They should fix it, even if that means they actually have to put effort into the Hunter class.

3 Likes