Hunters in vanilla had melee abilities for when they got caught in melee range. They were not melee DPS. Survival was not a melee DPS spec. Deleting Survival and replacing it with a melee DPS spec as if they are just ‘iterating on a melee design for hunters’ would be like if they deleted SV to ‘iterate on a trap only design for hunters’, where hunters don’t have ranged weapons or attacks anymore and all they do is put traps on the ground to do various things and that is it.
8 Likes
In a sense of class/spec roles, yes. But that is not what I am saying. We’re talking hunters here.
Your opinion, I beg to differ.
Odd thinking… some of it is simply because of how game mechanic is… bombs at melee sure doesnt make much sense… but the deadzone thing been gone for a long time now. If you want to go down that line… using a bow in melee range no better. Accuracy should be much lower, but higher damage.
Are people just hating on BM now? They would want modify a spec to modify another one now? These suggestion are not helping and does not make any senses.
For game mechanic purpose, but game lore they are not X class or X spec. Being a paladin, hunter is a job.
Raptor Strike, Mongoose Bite, Serpent Sting and Wing Clip were hunter skills (for all specs) when the game first shipped. They weren’t design afterthoughts for current SV.
1 Like
people are saying add melee option to BM because it is almost identical to SV already and rexxar is literally the original beastmaster in wc3. it would have been even better in legion when we spammed dire beast.
yea i know i have a 60 hunter in classic. i was describing how much of a joke the melee hunter design is.
2 Likes
So, lets rename frost mage and uh dk Watermaster and Deadmaster… they are similar to BM ? They both have a pet and use it ! /end of dumb thinking.
They are not the same and I’ve said so up in the thread. To think they are is to limit yourself and not explore deeper.
Beast Master is a fantasy archetype… that’s why it is called that… what exactly are you getting at here? You don’t think that melee SV is a beast master archetype even though it has been explained to you how it is? Need I repeat myself?
Raptor strike (named after a beast)
Mongoose bite (named after a beast)
Kill command (BM’s pet attack)
Flanking strike (Kill command but attacking with pet)
Muzzle (the word for silencing beasts)
Intimidation (BM’s pet stun)
Coordinated assault (literally just Bestial Wrath)
Spirit bond mastery (bond between hunter and pet, always has belonged to BM)
Tons of abilities and talents focused around beasts. But apparently you think it is somehow more ‘jack of all trades’ focused. But where are the fireballs and holy spells and magic armors that a real ‘jack of all trades’ would have?
1 Like
sorry i honestly don’t even get what you are trying to say…
beast masters are legit archetypes in rpgs and i can understand people wanting a melee pet class to exist. that’s why i think it’s stupid how they shoved it in survival and added melee bombs and the stupid crossbow when it could fit perfectly in BM
I think the hunter class needs a 4th spec. Most hunters I’ve talked to don’t really mind melee survival, they just dislike having the choice to use ranged survival ripped from them. MM and survival played very differently. Survival was more of a poison tipped arrow / traps / and some magic thrown in. MM doesn’t really use any of that.
I would personally love a 4th spec that would bring back the old surv playstyle. However, I don’t feel melee survival should be removed. The players should ALWAYS be given a choice when it comes to their characters. Removing one for the other removes that choice and it’s what created this issue in the first place.
6 Likes
I agree with basically everything you’ve said here. The funny part is instead of all these people trying to convince blizzard of that (yes I know there have been other threads) they would rather argue about the definition of “versatile”.
Some people want to infringe upon Beast Mastery’s territory by adding current MSV to it, while not thinking that they would just be ruining someone else’s favorite spec as theirs was.
I get it, we all have different opinions and I would love it to have more options on my hunter, because I do agree with most comments saying “MM is bad in PvP, doesn’t play well” and “BM is boring”. I loved RSV, and I really enjoy MSV although it’s not perfect. But sitting here arguing over little things isn’t going to get RSV back.
What will get RSV back, is continual RSV threads that are well thought out, on why hunters need RSV back, and how it would be good for he game, blizzards wallet and the player base. Let’s be honest, Blizzard is a business and If a business isn’t making money off something, they are not going to invest the resources on it.
1 Like
I wish they had priorities like that when they deleted ranged SV. Unfortunately that was around the time that Overwatch released so they had a metric crapton of money. So the design decisions going into Legion were probably more off the wall to appeal to Blizzard’s ‘vision’ than what the fans would like.
As the the discussion going on, there really isn’t much more to say. Like all the best and most logical arguments for why ranged SV shouldn’t be removed, have been consistently posted since the dawn of ranged SV’s deletion. There really isn’t much new ground to tread because Blizzard continues to bumble around ignoring community feedback as to how to fix the massive mistakes that they made. Honestly I’m not sure why people like Darke or Azagorod are so furious that we are providing feedback that would improve the class. It’s like they are on some sort of moral crusade against ranged SV or something.
Basically, Blizzard has had all the best reasoning and arguments laid out squarely in front of them since day one, yet they continue to cling to their pride and refuse to change anything. I understand Bepple’s position that a fourth spec is unlikely, but I am past the point of caring. If Blizzard botches the class this bad, then it is up to them to fix it, and I couldn’t care less about some silly rule against fourth specs. It’s completely and utterly arbitrary. How on earth could they think that giving a class a fourth spec was some sort of unspeakable taboo but that deleting a spec outright was somehow perfectly acceptable? It’s a shame child labor is illegal because Blizzard could have hired an 8 year old to advise them against that particular decision.
8 Likes
I feel like they are scared to give a class a fourth spec (even though druids have four, respectively) due to the outlash of other classes. Quite simply, they are too scared to upset everyone.
Basically if blizzard were to give hunters a fourth spec, every other class that isn’t happy would cry in the forums for years. Blizzard probably just doesn’t want to upset everyone. That seems to be the age we are living in now.
1 Like
In short, you were wrong. It’s funny that you try and play semantics when it suits you while arguing about using facts and logic to others. I’m done with you. You’ll be gone when SL launches and SV is still melee.
There you go, and that is why a 4th spec isn’t an option.
Druid, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, is a special case. For years they had two spec in one.
It is as you say, if they add 4th spec to hunter they need to as well for others. You cannot favor 1 class… with how the community on WoW is, its asking to kill your numbers.
Just ignore him. Let him reply to the wall. The more people ignore the toxic, the more it will isolate itself in a corner and vanish.
Honestly, since blizz is a business, I think adding in a 4th spec would increase revenue. Just add a 4th spec in for like 2 classes at a time each xpack
2 Likes
But all the work done to MSV in Legion and BfA would be an exception to that rule I guess?
No, they don’t. It’s not a case of “all or nothing”.
Didn’t you just say that Druid was a “special case”?
Why did they favor Druids?
Just because of conflicts in terms of a specific spec focusing on multiple ways of gameplay experience? (They key here being that they wanted to make the experience better for even more players)
But for Hunters it’s more like:
“Yeah, there’s no conflict here so, we might as well create one by screwing over current players and their preferences in favor of replacing an existing design with something entirely different which for the most, is not even intended for said current players”
And yes, that last part was mentioned by Ion himself, regarding their thoughts on MSV.
Remind me again about how certain…design choices…“kills numbers”.
More than likely, it would yes.
The question here specifically, would be about how much.
Although, considering the case of everything they’ve done to MSV in the past 2 expansions and how it has turned out, I can’t see how that is such a major factor.
And no, ofc they could not know with a guarantee that it would be a success to add in that new spec. But honestly, Ion said so himself later on that “They knew going in that it was a niche spec, not necessarily meant for existing players(hunters)”.
So, if they “knew” this. Why the heck would they opt for a design not actually meant for the players playing the class?
That makes no sense whatsoever. Especially since the likeliness of getting tons of other existing players to switch from their current classes to this new spec, is FAR from being a reasonable expectation.
4 Likes
There’s a different modifying something and adding something new. Its a big difference in the game.
Every single class community has a group that “wants” more. Give only one group something, you can be sure to expect big backlash from the others.
You didn’t read my comment on druids. You are taking this the wrong way assuming its the same as adding a 4th spec now.
The druid had 1 spec that did 2 roles in it. Im sure you can think enough to fill up the rest… if not, sorry.
More likely “No” is the real answer. You’re all taking this the simplest way… without thinking further on it.
“Add 4th spec, more ppl happy so people will pay more!”
What ? No…
-
Adding 4th spec cost more than modifying. To add a spec, you do not only add spec, you also put more new strings in the web that affect multiple parts of the game. Modifying a spec, the strings are already there… just moving them slightly.
-
4th spec in, people will simply switch back to their Hunter or switch spec. Or do you actually believe that thousands of players will sub only because of 1 spec? It ain’t a big increase of revenue at all, because of the people that cares to have Ranged SV back already plays and pays for the game.
In general, how do you feel about the balance of the classes right now? Warcraftlogs says Survival Hunters are the least represented spec right now, and are there any concerns about some classes or specs?
Ion : Overall I think we are satisfied with balance. There is always people who perceive themselves on the lower end, and no matter how good the balance is, no matter how tight the difference gap between the specs, probably lower is always going to feel frustrating about that, and people are going to be vocal about it. We understand that, but I think it is an ongoing process. We are never just sitting back and saying: “ Alright, we are done. It’s ok if some specs fall behind. ”
Representation doesn’t necessarily matter as much, I think. We knew with Survival Hunter that we were making a niche spec. It is a melee spec for a class that has traditionally being range. I think that a lot of existing hunters, they are all hunters because they want to be a range class, and so we don’t necessarily expect them or want them to feel like they should be changing; but for new players picking up that class, it is an intriguing option; and we have seen a lot of Survival Hunters doing extremely well at very high levels of play. So the fact that they are not playing as often, I don’t think reflects upon their potential so much as it just does where the audience is at right now. That’s not much of a problem.
So lets use the full quote.
You think the changes done to SV going into Legion especially, and even BfA, would be considered minor, compared to adding a new spec?
Yeah, no.
Especially considering much of what the old RSV was, is already there to be used.
It was talked about when Druids got their 4th spec. But was it such a big deal as you’re implying? No, not even close.
And “a lot” of players certainly won’t quit the game because one class, other than their own, gets something new.
I read it.
This wasn’t your argument.
During Cataclysm, it did yes.
I never said that adding a 4th spec to Druids was the wrong choice. I think it was a very good one actually.
What they actually did, was solving a problem they had where having 2 different specs in one, did not allow for either to be “fully explored”.
And rather than removing/deleting one or the other, they chose to split the two so that players could continue playing the part they liked.
All good so far.
But then we have Hunters…
Hunters had 3 different specs that focused on various themes/fantasies. Two of which were themed around the weapon itself(MM and RSV), in different ways.
Then they decided that the class should also have a focus specifically on melee-combat. But rather than making it an addition to the class, they chose to make it as a replacement for an existing playstyle.
This resulting in the exact opposite of what the Druid split did for players.
The intended solution?
Trying to cram two different playstyles into a single spec. That being MM focusing on both itself as well as the old RSV.
Although, that did not happen did it now?
And for your argument of…
…combat roles.
The actual “role” part does not matter at all here.
It’s about the different playstyles, no matter what roles they filled.
It’s about how neither playstyle/fantasy could be sufficiently explored unless they decided to split them.
It will be/would’ve been the same for MM if RSV would’ve been made a part of it.
You’re still underestimating how much they actually had to do with current SV(MSV) going into Legion especially but also BfA.
The changes to make/implement MSV wasn’t just about “moving the strings slightly”.
Not to mention the problems it still causes now when they are going back somewhat on the focus on spec fantasy/identities. And the conflicts of having 1 class that is designed around the use of weapons but said weapon changes so heavily depending on which spec you choose.
Thousands? Perhaps.
Hundreds of thousands? No.
Still, your argument falls short when compared to current SV(MSV).
The game did not exactly see a ton of new players subbing because of MSV. Heck, it did not even see a ton of players that switched classes for it.
Still, they poured so many resources into it for 2 expansions in a row.
Yes? And?
6 Likes
Hi, here some news you might have forgotten, in legion multiple classes got changes and some got heavy changes. Survival was not alone.
You keep using Legion survival as a terrible example. Stop taking a slice and use the whole pie.
Great so can we all stop using the change to melee survival made people quit? Cause its the same.
Since vanilla it did… until they got their spec added.
Which in the end are too similar, just like Blizzard said, so they went with a melee choice. And MM out of the two was the one that felt more Hunter.
It does… and it was the reason of split…
Here you go again using one slice of the pie instead of the whole thing.
Some switched to it, some didnt. Lots turned to DH. Im saying it wont bring much income in and you’re saying the same thing in a context where all classes had changes and a new one got added.
It’s clear that you are trying to present straw men arguments instead of any actual discussion so I’ll leave it with this response.
Obviously no one believes many people would resub just because 1 class got 1 spec. I’m clearly indicating that by steadily giving each class a new spec that allows a new take on their class as well as new and varied decisions within their class, more people would would want to continue to play the game. The more people wanting to play the game, the more likely you are for them to recruit others.
I’d say at this point there is little reason to continue to argue with him. He presents strawman after strawman and has already partially succeeded in derailing the conversation.
With that being said, I do agree that the main reason people dislike MSV is due to losing the choice between MM and RSV. I think blizz needs to put more focus on players having actual decisions in their class. I loved RSV even though it hardly ever did more dps than MM. But I loved it because of the amount of utility I was able to bring to my groups and the nature of always feeling like I was setting up my next big moment with explosive shot.
4 Likes