Solution to RSV V MSV

Classes Hunter
22

I wouldn’t go that far. First, throwing someone’s livelihood out the window for something like this is a bit…brutal. Especially the person who suggested it, rather than the person who decided it was a good idea and pivoted to it.

Second, I doubt any loss from it could be possibly quantifiable. There may have been some players that quit playing specifically due to RSV being removed, but I doubt it was many. There probably were a rather larger number where the removal of it either directly (ie. they consciously thought about it) or indirectly (failure to find a spec they enjoyed, where RSV would have filled that niche for them) contributed to them quitting playing. Even so, it’s almost certainly impossible to determine how much of that can be attributed direct to RSV’s removal, and what the actual monetary loss from it was, or even be able to ballpark it at the coarse order of magnitudes level.

Have to keep in mind how revenue works for Blizzard. Even assuming 100% of lost subscription money is lost net (which it isn’t, the fewer average players, the less money they need to spend on server maintenance, bandwidth, CS staffing, etc), and assuming everyone is paying with the 15/mo sub (which actually may be a reasonable estimate, since the additional income from subs paid via WoW tokens (which cost $20 per month of sub time) probably largely balances with the lost monthly income from higher-duration sub packages), a million dollars over 4 years would require about 3000 people to have quit day one of Legion, or proportionately more of they quit partway through that period. Amplify that even further for your plural “millions”.

Still, the core sentiment is likely accurate. I suspect they did lose some players directly over RSV’s removal (just as they almost certainly lost players over the revamps to MM, Shadow, Demo, Aff, Enh, etc), and I also suspect that MSV’s relative unpopularity compared to RSV (ie. substantially fewer players finding it to be an entertaining spec they were interested in playing) probably contributed to the pile of reasons a number of other players quit playing.

Then again, designing classes with the goal of maximizing revenue is not a road we want Blizzard going down (or rather, going down more, since they are clearly already well along that path, both in class design and in greater game design). They should be designing classes with the goal of maximizing player enjoyment. MSV definitely failed that test.

3 Likes
23

There is always somebody who thinks this is an exaggeration. It doesn’t take a very large percentage of the player base to quit before it reaches the “millions” threshold. especially when ancillary income (in game purchases) is accounted for. For me personally, I saved $3,780 on subscription fees alone (I cancelled 7 accounts for 3 years). It only takes 265 people like me before it reaches the million dollar amount. Even people with only one account would account for $1,620 over a period of 3 years (618 people).

So it’s reasonable to assume they lost millions.

If I lost millions of dollars for my company, I would be fired.

You are correct. Suggestions are always fair game. The responsibility falls directly on the decision makers. My personal opinion is that something prevented people from telling management that deleting a spec from the game was a really bad idea OR management simply ignored the warnings. Given the pushback from Ion, I suspect the suggestion came from the same source as the decision maker - Ion.

Ion does a good job at raid design though, and he’s good for the game in the sense. Unfortunately, I think he is tone-deaf outside the Mythic Raider mentality, and that’s given us many bad decisions that range from the Azerite grind to Corruptions (in PVP no less) to Spec Fantasy.

To top it off, when people call out his bad decisions, he doubles down or he does something that makes it feel like he’s trying to get even with the players. In that sense, he is very bad for the game.

2 Likes
24

Well. One of the two primary points of my post was that the melee transition is a convenient way for people to gaslight away from any discussion about fixing this spec.

You’ve chose to open with exactly that tactic. So I guess I’ve got zero reason to acknowledge anything else you have to say on the matter.

25

I mean, that’s your choice. But as I stated, I have zero reason to care about whether MSV is functional or not, because I have no interest in playing it. Same goes for any other spec I don’t desire to play.

I’m not saying MSV shouldn’t be fixed. I’m saying that I don’t care whether it is fixed, and that my personal preference would be to see it deleted in favor of RSV. You know, like RSV was deleted in favor of MSV.

7 Likes
26

See, you kinda told me I’m wrong a lot, and then proved my point at the end.

I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you desire old RSV more than anything. But one of the points of my post was that discussion about changes or corrections to current Survival are always derailed by calls for a return to old survival.

That’s not a fix to anything. You yourself - and this topic in general - are making a clear distinction between fixing current Survival and bringing back old Survival.

Again: I appreciate your honesty about your own goals, 100%. But a lot of the loudest voices in the bring-back-old-RSV crowd don’t make that distinction - they actively work to bury all conversation about fixing the current spec by framing a return of old Survival as the only valid fix.

27

And I’m saying the old RSV crowd’s need to enforce their “personal preference” on everyone manifests as a concentrated effort to bury in and all discussion about building MSV into a stronger spec.

We - the players who enjoy having a melee option and would like to see it improved - did not take RSV from you. Stop punishing us for it.

28

Your existence is punishing us. You may not have pulled the trigger, but you’re benefiting from it. There’s only 3 possible outcomes from that:

  1. MSV continues to exist, and continues to punish players that preferred RSV.
  2. RSV replaces MSV, punishing MSV proponents but relieving RSV advocates.
  3. They make a 4th spec, allowing both groups what they want.

For no readily apparent reason, you oppose option 3, instead preferring option 1 and advocating that RSV proponents should simply give up and quietly forget RSV. Well, if that’s your preferred approach, then mine becomes option 2, with the same corollary that MSV proponents should give up and quietly forget the mistake that was MSV.

Option 3, of course, is the one that annoys the least players, and the one that I feel is probably the correct move. But if your stance is going to be “RSV doesn’t need to exist, just give up already”, then I’m going to reflect that same stance with regards to MSV.

You also seem to have this mistaken impression that introducing RSV, as a 4th spec, is somehow mutually exclusive with fixing MSV’s issues. I’m not convinced MSV can be fixed, at least without another BfA-level revamp, but fixing it is entirely separate from reintroducing RSV as a 4th spec.

So take your pick. I’m fine with discussion about MSV’s issues and how to fix it, as long as y’all MSV folks stop coming in and campaign against RSV being re-added as a 4th spec. You know, without harming MSV.

8 Likes
29

I want to respond to this, really. But A) My Discord is currently alive with release date hype and scheduling. And B) I laughed myself to tears over this statement.

30

Excellent contribution to the discussion. I can see why MSV is taken so seriously.

5 Likes
31

I mean blizzard has given this attention before, the answer has been no. But hey lets see what they say next.

32

You under estimate Blizzard’s ability to ignore the hunter forums.

3 Likes
33

Ignoring hunters seems to be their habit lately. Despite weeks and weeks of bug reports on Wild Spirits in the beta thread, the blues were apparently completely unaware that it was bugged at all, much less as critically as it is, until it was more or less slammed down their throats after they finally bothered to check in on the hunter thread.

6 Likes
34

I honestly wish they would just say something. The ignoring us part is 100 times worse than just telling us a bow is never coming back.

The movie quote from the matrix about HOPE fits good here

35

Im going to slap this debate with cold hard facts

Ranged isnt coming back unless they add it as a 4th spec which is highly unlikely to begin with, stop complaining already. Game director himself said SV is going to stay melee so your only chance of old survival is a 4th spec which the chances of that are slim to none.

36

The current CEO of Blizzard said, several years back, that Classic was not going to be a thing, and that in fact the players that thought they wanted it did not in fact want it.

Guess how that turned out.

Ion also said that flying was gone for good. He said that account-wide essence unlocks wouldn’t happen. He said that buyable corruption wouldn’t happen. He said that major class and spec revamps wouldn’t happen in SL.

Point is, the devs say a lot of things, with finality, and then change their minds. Besides, the last time I heard him say that was sometime during Legion, no?

4 Likes
37

Ion said that this year, also its been MSV for 4 years them suddenly switching it to ranged will create so many problems with the current spec, a spec that needs minor changes for it to be viable in the current iteration of SL.

I understand devs making changes after definitive statements but it seems like they are doubling down and im fine with it. Its time for people to accept this and try to get improvements for the current iteration of SV instead of complaining for something that likely won’t come.

What ive seen so far is people that whine for RSV don’t even play the current iteration of sv, while I understand its a niche spec and people don’t like melee; its kind of funny to suggest getting rid of a spec people enjoy playing now. I would be happy for a 4th spec but I doubt it will happen.

I can’t post links anymore for some reason but if you look up “Ion on Survival Hunter” it should be the first link to a reddit post that will link the interview with him.

38

Why would people who want to play a ranged spec for a class that was historically always a ranged dps until legion when they forced in a melee spec, want to play a melee spec?

Most people aren’t suggesting this. Most people are suggesting a 4th spec and the vast majority of MSV people are like “No, it’s not going to happen so stop asking”

4 Likes
39

Oh, you mean like the many problems that were created when they suddenly swapped RSV to MSV after 12 years of it being ranged, which it didn’t even really need minor changes to be viable? When it was in fact quite viable and heavily used in BRF before they kneecapped it (along with Demo) in preparation of their melee revamp? Those types of problems?

Nope. I won’t accept it, I won’t forget. And I definitely won’t be putting effort into trying to get improvements for a spec I don’t even think should have been created, and whose mere existence serves as a continuous reminder of what the devs stole from us.

No really, people that prefer old RSV aren’t interested in playing MSV? YOU DON’T SAY! I’m SHOCKED. Absolutely SHOCKED by that. (/s)

It is a niche spec, and it’s the 5th new melee spec added to the game since original launch, in a game that now has 13 melee specs and only 11 ranged. In fact, ranged DPS is the only role in the game with fewer specs on Retail than on Classic!

So, that interview is quite interesting:

That’s a good question. I think part of what led Survival to a melee space to begin with was trying to differentiate Survival from Marksmanship. The rotations over the years had become very very similar — OK you might have a couple more magical-seeming shots in the Survival space. Beast Mastery was very clearly its own thing with its clear niche as the pet-based spec. But then you had these two ranged specs that basically did a lot of ranged shots in their rotation.

Basically, he’s saying that because they both used bows, they were the same spec. Which is actually hilariously basic. Might as well argue that Destruction and Affliction are the same because they both cast spells.

The two specs played completely differently, especially in WoD, right before the revamp to “differentiate them”. One was a DoT/rot spec, one was a slow burst spec. Literally Affliction to Destruction here.

However, this is the key part:

We want to keep melee as part of the unique identity of Survival but in Shadowlands and beyond, as we start to think about what classes should look like in future expansions, it’s important that there will be this sort of universal base of what defines a Hunter. All Hunters should have access to ranged attacks and Survival Hunters can be ones that specialize in melee but not necessarily at the expense of the universal skillset that everyone had as a level 5 or level 10 Hunter because that’s what being the class means.

Even Ion is acknowledging that ranged damage is what defines the hunter class. He’d like SV to at least have some elements of melee, but that may be as basic as having access to ye olde Counterattack and Raptor Strike as an auxiliary option to a predominantly ranged playstyle.

What he’s definitely not done here is put his foot down and said “SV is staying melee and that’s the end of it, so stop asking”. If anything, his narrative on SV has been softening considerably over the last 4 years. At the start of Legion, his statements were along the lines of “We knew SV was going to be a fairly niche spec, but we’re fine with it and have no plans to change it back to ranged”. Now it’s “well, we want to have melee continue to be a part of SV, but SV is a hunter spec, and hunters are about ranged damage, so it needs elements of that too”.

He’s hedging more and more towards RSV.

:point_up: THIS.

I won’t put effort into try to get MSV fixed, because I have zero interest in playing the spec. Same reason I’ve not put effort into getting Shadow fixed, because since the Legion rework, and until the SL rework, I’ve had zero interest in playing it.

That doesn’t mean I definitely want it deleted. If we can only have 3 specs, flat out hard stop period, I’d rather RSV than MSV, but I’m sure you can say the same in reverse. My preference would be to get RSV back as a 4th spec, though. If I can have what I want without taking what you want, sure, let’s do it. But if it’s one or the other, no third option, RSV is and always has been my vote.

And frankly, there are a lot of classes that could benefit from having a 4th spec. Warriors would love to see Gladiator spec back. Splitting 2h Frost and DW Frost into separate specs would allow them to properly gel around separate mechanics, and possible separate themes. Many rogues would love to see ye olde Combat returned to rogues as a 4th spec, and many warlocks would love to see Cata or MoP era Demo returned as well. Druids, of course, already have 4 specs.

So there’s a lot of room for a 4th spec already.

5 Likes
40

You know I prefer RSV over MSV but I already accepted that its staying melee, id rather have improvements to a spec that exists instead of a spec that is fictional atm. I have grown to like both iterations of SV I favor RSV but im still sticking with SV instead of quitting like most people did. I don’t blame people for quitting but come on, this so called community should be putting in effort to get more attention on SV improvements along with BM and MM.

I think the main reason blizzard has ignored us is because whenever they look at hunter forums its almost always people arguing over RSV or MSV something that doesn’t really matter in my opinion. I really think they should focus on specs that exist currently, if they added a 4th spec I would be happy to advocate for improvements to that spec if it existed. Maybe next expansion they will add RSV as a 4th spec, right now it isn’t looking like that will be a possibility no matter how much people whine for it; pre patch is probably in a month which leaves little to no time for class improvements.

41

What’s worse about the Hazzikostas answer: he buys into the revisionist narrative that SV and MM trended towards becoming more similar over time. He also seems to think that Explosive Shot and Black Arrow were added in MoP and that the things that made ranged SV unique were talent tree passives that were removed in MoP.

It’s exactly like some of the completely uninformed takes you see in the depths of an /r/wow or wowhead thread from people who don’t play the class, yet here it is coming from the lead developer.

4 Likes