Which amounts to what, exactly? It’s relative hypermobility, but what does that actually do? (And, just how thematically deep or vivid—especially as a single, distinct spec—does “I’m ranged, but with only instant casts” really run?)
In dungeons and raids, such may make us more than averagely able to perform mechanics, but whether that actually sees use will depend fully on the fight itself and whether the average isn’t already wholly sufficient.
PvP’s an altogether different beast which I’ve yet to see Bepples make any comment on, so let’s skip to the next for now:
Okay, and look at the threads discussing whether we’d prefer Aimed Shot not to have an immobile cast time. Others are clearly finding a thematic anchor in playing around that weakness, often weighing it more vital to their identity, even, than their Mastery-increased range because it’s not just something that can be leveraged but something around which play must be centered.
That is ultimately going to do far more for spec identity than the mere fact that it’s ranged.
And yet, the moment SV goes melee, that absolutely broadest of types must be its sole claim to identity? Not the Mongoose Fury charges and window, nor the trap arming mechanic, nor the DoT interactions, nor the synergetic buffs, no… it’s identity must have been built, contrary to explicit statement, around being melee?
(Or is it just that every melee spec must actually have no distinct thematic core, because they’re all first and foremost “built around” melee range?)
Rsv needs to come back, period. I played it exclusively until they created msv. Msv has been the bottom of the barrel for many xpacs except for short periods of time in pvp. Blizz has reworked it twice and they won’t be dumping anymore money into it.
So either they add a 4th spec, change surv back to rsv, or msv continues to dwell on the bottom shelf, collecting dust.
The joy of rsv was that it was a ranged dot class that wasn’t super convoluted like aff locks or over complicated like feral dr00ds. SS, BA, manage ES. Stack crit until 100%. It was refreshing, ES made the spec fun with burst and a fulfilling spell, and you had good mobility.
I think there’s two separate things going on here.
Because I understand your point with MM cast times as an example, or pet management for BM being a bigger focus, etc. I think those are important to the specs, but they still fit the mold of the class as a whole. That still fits with the examples that Ghorak gave concerning things like rogue stealth.
I think, if you abandon what players consider to be essential to the whole class, the spec identity of whatever they come up with won’t matter as much (since players already feel like it doesn’t fit within the core class to begin with).
It would be like a druid who couldn’t use nature magic, or a warlock who isn’t using fel / shadow magic or associating with demons.
Can you make new and interesting specs around those ideas? I absolutely think you can, and I think Survival is a great example of that actually. I, contrary to popular opinion around here, believe current SV can absolutely fit into the themes of the hunter class.
But to me, it should have been an expansion of its themes. There’s a lot of pushback (as you’re well aware ^^) because it is taking the place of a spec that already fit into the class that many people loved. I don’t think we’d be having this conversation about weaknesses or what does or doesn’t fit into the class if they simply added it as a 4th spec to begin with. To broaden people’s views on what the class could be without pushing people away.
I think Bepples is incorrect in saying you can’t or shouldn’t build a spec around an inherent weakness. I think you do a good job pointing that out. But that weakness should not both go against what people view as the core aspects to the class as a whole and replace an already existing spec. That makes it feel like it wasn’t made for fans of the class at all, which we already know thanks to Ion saying as much.
Edit: As always, I will mention I think the only solution that is going to satisfy everyone is a 4th spec going forward. I truly think Blizz screwed up in Legion.
That I’ll fully agree with. As we’ve talked at length about before, I wasn’t happy with the drastic shift either and believed those elements could have been brought out to more vivid and distinct effect without taking up spearhunting.
I merely thought Bepples pithy take there (that, contrary to both the elements stated as central and which Legion SV players typically found central, just being melee was the only thing fundamental to its design) was overly reductive at best.
Moreover, given his responses to “WoD MM and WoD SV played too alike” as being similarly reductive, it pricked me as a bit hypocritical.
The only path forward for blizz and surv, both Msv and rsv, is a fourth spec. Anything short of that will only further alienate the hunter class and those who wish for rsv to return.
If they try to somehow make it a range/melee hybrid spec, as some have suggested, it will only muddy surv’s identity and set it back another xpac or two. Plus it will drive away surv loyalists.
Hmm, my bad I guess for not making my point more clear…
I’m not actually looking at strength vs. weaknesses of singular specs and how those are realized in individual cases, as much as it’s more about how all 3 hunter specs used to adhere to the same, more general strength, and with that, common identity. And yes, this ofc ties into the concept of “class fantasy” as well when talking design theme.
Same, PvP works very differently and there, the idea of ranged vs. melee, while not insignificant, isn’t nearly as important as individually designed strengths/weaknesses found in singular abilities/effects.
But without a doubt, in context of this game and the focus it has on PvE, there’s no situation(or extremely few) where current SV is perceived or found to be the stronger alternative. Even though all 3 specs bring the same defensives or utility, and even with the same throughput, the melee-side of MSV makes it less desirable as an option.
And yes, this have a lot to do with encounter design and such, but it’s also highly unlikely that we’ll ever come to a time where suddenly melee is considered stronger in general and more favorable to pick for a multitude of encounters/fights.
@Lazyguide said it very well really.
And like I’ve said before as well, as you already know, I’m all in favor of going down the route of making RSV’s return in the form of a 4th spec option.
Would the above still be true for current SV/MSV? Yeah, sure. Although, like Lazy said, it would matter for less since it would no longer be tied to the removal of what we used to have.
Again, return RSV as a 4th option and this endless debate of ranged vs. melee would no longer be a matter of importance. It would essentially be a non-issue.
It’s pretty obvious at this point that when they wanted to create spec identity in Legion, Hunter was the class they were the most successful with… and that’s probably not a good thing.
You don’t see fire mages complaining about frost or arcane much. Nor do you see affliction warlocks complaining about destruction or demonology.
Yet the hunter community is extremely divided between Beast Mastery, Marksmanship and Survival at this point. It’s really like you have 3 classes in one. This whole situation feels unsalvageable at this point.
…Was it, though? It was a huge improvement to spec identity, sure, but this was the same expansion that gave us modernized Fury, Demonology, Shadow, Unholy, Blood, etc… Whether we like the exact changes or not at a gameplay level, a ton of specs came out of Legion pre-patch way more thematic and distinct.
Or, more simply put, let’s not forget the other classes when making broad comparisons. (Lest we turn complaints like “X feels slow!” to “X is (the) slow(est)!” while forgetting that half of competing specs are slower by any metric by which we might gauge that.)
I mean, you’ll see complaints whenever their preferred spec is notably outperformed by another. But fair enough, that’s a different vein of complaint.
That… is the point, though, no? Fury and Arms play almost nothing alike. Demonology, Destruction, and Affliction play almost nothing alike. Feral and Boomie are polar opposites. Fire and Frost, while each centered around procs, respond to them in entirely different pacings and Arcane plays nothing like either of them. Nearly every DPS spec is distinct, especially from its competitors.
Personally, I can’t think of why that would be a bad thing. Outside of some finer design decisions that give me pause, I’ve more and deeper striking zones by which to play what I play than I ever had before those changes towards treating specs as more than a half-measure.
:: Tbf, that doesn’t mean I’m sold on any and all things spec identity, but given that we’ve never revisited the core tenets behind talent trees to allow for hybridization and each spec to be thematic and integral without reinventing the wheel of their basic needs (combat gameplay loops) each time, I’d rather at least go deep with specs than not. “Class identity” in the present context seems like an absurdly twisted euphemism for “We didn’t have time to give this spec much of its own.”
Punt this dead spec to DH’s, who need a third spec, and change the ability names/graphics to appropriate fel themed clones. The pet can be a Coilskar. Most DH’s will rejoice.
Bring back ranged surv, and most hunters rejoice.
Or leave things as is and watch a dead spec continue to be a dead spec.
MM feels clunky to me, I only use it for raids. SV had a smoother flow and I miss lock and load, dem explosive shots. I mean, I cannot prove it. And I do like to hold boobies. I may, in fact, be a bra.
I haven’t been proved wrong once. You lot just get you’re emotions wrapped up in somethings that’s never coming back even though its hardly different then Marksmen.
