Don’t care if it does good damage. It is terrible to play. The damage is irrelevant if the playstyle is awful. For me personally anyway.
1 Like
See, that, too, is what helps bad gameplay changes like Mad Bombardier, DF Viper’s Venom, or Alpha Predator being a capstone node get okayed: “It was DoA* anyways! (So why complain now?)”
Overdramatic broad gesticulation can be just as bad as giving blanket-but-unbending positivity despite concrete issues.
Granted, I’ve been culpable of waxing the overall despair/disparity from time to time as well, but at least I try to point out the concrete and actionable issues.
*
Term "DoA" may be exchangeable with the bi-syllabic word "Melee," in some cases (see Bepples-speech, where, given its meaning of making specs inherently and irredeemably inferior despite the frequently high performance of melee-range specs, is probably distinct from the term referring to having a constrained range and alternate advantages given in compensation, also called "Melee" in more common usage).
1 Like
Wrong. If it should do anything it should provide the devs with some level of embarrassment and produce a better product. If they are saying that then they need to find a new job.
1 Like
/smh
This is just… so crossed-purpose / out of place / out of touch.
It takes only about 5% of a spec being wrong for it to feel potentially fettered, stunted, or even outright awful.
Coming out of Shadowlands, there was maybe 10% of the spec’s overall design responsible for it falling well short of what cohesion and engagement it could/should have reached.
If you were among those who said, “No, it’s just all bad!” (especially if doing so while championing mechanics like Mad Bombardier that reduced coherency and cohesion of the spec), you are among the voice(s) that encouraged, also, the changes for the worse.
You’ve effectively asked for a full mulligan, but I suspect you hadn’t considered…
- that the points not otherwise being complained about concretely were themselves largely the results of players asking for this over that — i.e., much more iterated upon than any “fresh” idea, and
- that “new” ideas aren’t going to be inherently better; they’re only definitely less iterated upon and, depending on how “new” is defined, likely to avoid common sense.
Broad-strokes critique (if it can even be rightly called “critique” at that point) without a trace of guidelines or criteria does no one any favors. No matter how well much it may satisfy your mood to, effectively, inform the devs only that they should get bent, it does nothing —or may even harm— the rest of us by drowning out actionable feedback.
1 Like
I mean I know why forums are mostly ignored because all the Feedback forums lack feedback that isnt
- change it completely is sucks this is my vision ideal theme. 2. its almost good too many 3 point talents and make survival range. 3. I have no feedback but will bash others feedback.
and anyone who suggest small quality of life changes are ether drowned out or told bah thats dumb its not enough. And that what i feel like thats only thing Blizzard is willing to listen to is small suggestions that are quality of life changes to talents that are on easier side to implement.
Yes, have your big ideas and make a forum about it see if it gets support. But sadly people feel need to attack without giving alternative suggestion its all deconstructive critism hardly any prof anyone has a better idea besides some one going. Um no that stupid I don’t like it but i agree with you but thats not how you do it but im not going tell you my brilliant plan.
Here is a small ideas
add Chakrams to survival to compete with Butchery and make carve baseline.
Make Ruthless maurader 2 point
make ranger and explosive expert and sharp edge and bloody claws 1 point nodes with the same value as 2 point version
add in 1 point node upgrade to Aspect of Eagle that kill command resets reduce the cooldown of Aspect of Eagle by 1 sec
3 Likes
To be fair, we do usually feel more comfortable critiquing the beginnings of a forum idea (hopefully over their fundamentals) than we do (unselectively) critiquing something in-game that already has some good parts, since there’s so much less risk of breaking it (as it’s, well, it’s not even in the game).
But yeah, there’s a lot we could/should get better at.
As for the ideas you added in edit:
Chakrams in this example would not alter Carve in any way, right?
I’d prefer to add a bit more oomph and play to Carve itself to better compete against Butchery, but this seems better than how Carve sits presently.
To me, this would be an improvement, but not ideal. Note, though, that my qualms are more subjectively based.
Consider tuning first and separately. If Ruthless Marauder is not powerful enough per point, simply increase its power to an appropriate level first.
Next, does it affect gameplay sufficiently per point to be an interesting talent (again, per point)? If not, siphon non-gameplay-affecting throughput from the talent’s effects towards gameplay-affecting sources of power.
Following that, however, a high-point node has no problems related specifically to its point maximum if it limits/gates (i.e., if it has no children).
Assuming appropriate value per point, removing the third point from Ruthless Marauder would only trim the AoE capacity and synergy available to bomb builds.
While “what cost 3 points now costs 2” sounds nice, unless the talent was hugely underpowered, you’ll essentially have done only two things:
- nerfed the degree to which those who really like Fury of the Eagle can specialize towards it, and
- reduced the AoE performance and synergetic effects available to left-side builds (and bomb builds more generally).
This one is therefore a “Pass” for me.
This, too, should be done with care, as an overpowered node causes more harm than an underpowered one, especially if that underpowered node has no unique children (nodes further down accessible only from the underpowered node).
- A significantly underpowered terminal node reduces competitive build choices by a single node.
- A significantly overpowered node reduced competitive build choices by all nodes that do not lead to that overpowered node, plus the cost of taking said node (since it becomes obligatory).
That said, there are three additional considerations here:
- Does the added power expand the talent’s selection case?
- Even an overpowered Bloody Claws will almost certainly be avoided in especially AoE-heavy content because the 3-point sum of Spear Talon (2) plus Bloody Claws (now 1) will still likely not be efficient enough to compete with left-side options.
- Presently, it would take a huge leap in tuning for Sharp Edges to see use outside of Fury of the Eagle builds. If tuned to be decent elsewhere, it’d likely become too good to pass up for FotE builds, thus reducing the complexity available to them.
- Much the same could be said for bomb builds and Explosive Expert.
- How much additional spec power is permitted by freeing up the point to be spent elsewhere?
- I.e., by making Bloody Claws cost one fewer point, you’re not particularly buffing single-target —as any build that would have taken Bloody Claws would already have exhausted its single-target points available— but rather the general or AoE-focused talents available to a Mongoose Bite build. Which is rather attractive, in this case.
- Would reducing the talent point cap diminish the gameplay-shaping intent of the talent?
- This typically comes down simply to whether the given talent in meant to complicate gameplay or to be a spending option specifically to avoid complicating gameplay.
- Given how little crit synergy Survival has outside access to of Fury of the Eagle and Master Marksman (a comparatively wasteful choice due to how Viper’s Venom conflicts with Serpent Sting and its augmenters), we can pretty well say that Sharp Edges is meant to avoid complicating gameplay. The more talent points you take away from it, then, the less it can serve that function.
Granted, if you were to say that “Hey, complication-avoiding nodes should never block the way to complicating nodes” or that “complication-avoiding nodes should never compete with complicating nodes in their pathing,” yeah, I’d have to agree, but that takes changing the pathing itself instead of simply cutting point maxima.
This one’s a therefore a “Maybe” for me.
I suspect this would be quite a “feelsbad” talent for anyone in a fight who felt forced to take it. You’d likely have to cut costs elsewhere to support it.
Moreover, it creates synergies with Beast Master, Improved Kill Command, Alpha Predator, Killer Command, Bloody Claws, and Wildfire Infusions (and thus a relative penalty for not taking those talents) that you may not wish for.
I’d recommend considering first:
- For what (kinds of) raid fights or M+ scenarios is Survival uniquely and uncomfortably screwed over by Aspect of the Eagle’s cooldown being too long?
- Is this a problem that can be met through other means, such as increased direct mobility (as opposed to the indirect mobility of added range)?
- How much actual cooldown reduction would you need? Keep in mind it’s already just a 90-second cooldown at base.
- What, if any, enjoyable gameplay loops would be lost in just giving that cooldown reduction directly?
- Assume this talent competes with meaningful throughput. How much added value can you give to the spec as a whole through AotE CDR and/or effects that would be seemignly fitting if bundled with this talent for this point to be worthwhile?
This one’s probably a “Pass” for me.
Overall Countersuggestions:
- Reduce throughput points available across the Entry Tier from 9 points to 7 points rather than Tier 2 nodes from 20 to 18.
- This would allow one among either Aspect of the Eagle or Harpoon not to compete with throughput even in AoE builds (who wouldn’t necessarily have to take Mongoose Bite).
- You can do this by making Flanker’s Advantage baseline and switching Ferocity to Mid-Tier and Lunge to Entry-Tier.
- Switching Top of the Spear to Ferocity’s location and move Harpoon up to Row 2 and Terms of Engagement to Row 3, moving up the diagonal. One would then be required to take either among Aspect of the Eagle or Terms of Engagement to precede to Mongoose Bite, reducing the burden of throughput upon relative mobility.
- Rework or replace Viper’s Venom to be a more reliable applicator of Serpent Sting.
- Spitball Rework:
Generate a stack of Viper’s Venom every 20 seconds, stacking up to two times. Viper’s Venom augments your next Raptor Strike or Mongoose Bite to afflict the target with Serpent Sting. Your [Serpent Sting,] Raptor Strike, Mongoose Bite, Carve, and Butchery each have a 30% chance to generate a stack of Viper’s Venom.
If you have also taken the Serpent Sting talent, consuming Viper’s Venom will also instantly deal {16.5% of Attack Power} Nature damage instantly.
* 16.5% of AP is the current direct damage of Dragonflight’s Serpent Sting. This way taking Serpent Sting despite having another applicator of the effect is increased direct damage with each application.
* If Hydra’s Bite is taken, the Serpent Sting application and its bonus direct damage will also strike two nearby enemies, prioritizing those not already afflicted more than 3 seconds of Serpent Sting.
- Buff Sharp Edges, Bloody Claws, Ranger, and Explosives Expert as appropriate. If any of their existing effects are or would be significantly more synergetic with their typical complementing build choices than the others would be with theirs, siphon part of their power towards new, less synergetic effects until of roughly equal synergy.
- This is preferable to raising the synergy of each of these talents because, when each talent has only a single effect, that cannot be done without excessively increasing the talent’s power.
1 Like
And thats your personal opinion. Just dont use it… you have the rest of the tree to pick and have fun> Blockquote
As you can tell I pretty much don’t do number crunching but these are talents that impression wise after reading them compared to talents in the same tier seem weak or too expensive for the end tier because if you look…
If you min-max you get 10 points to spend on 3rd tier talents and out the 3 rows for 3 main talents to pick up all synergizing talents of Furry of Eagle, Coordinated Assualt and spearhead or talents you have to pick up to get to it.
You have 7 nodes for FoE, you have 6 nodes to pick up CA and get to bombardier or bird of prey, and you need at least 7 for spearhead and deadly duo.
Ideally, id feel like it is a better design to have each cost 5 points so a player can choose 2 rows out of 3 if they min max on talents that be strongest for their build or cost 4 points each to attain and allowing users to consider side grades like ranger and explosive expert.
So I agree with you that there needs to be more cost to value tunning either making a talent cheaper or buffing it to be more valuable at 2 or 3 points. Nothing you said felt wrong and I appreciate the above and beyond to explain to me instead of going ha that dumb never work.
I’m pretty much the definition of a casual player all I can offer is I guess an impressions insight into the talents I’m curious about how close was I to identifying the weak talents or expensive to value talents without crunching any numbers. Pretty much i just pointed at the ones that don’t look good compared to the neighbor talents on why would i go that way over the right or left path.
Look, this is a public forum. The internet has been around long enough for ppl to know that posts in public forums are open to criticism in its various forms. If ppl are too sensitive accept criticism, they probably should not post in public forums.
Do things get “toxic” from time to time? Yes. Do things get heated when ppl feel passionate about topics? Yes. I think the point should be is ideas, good or bad, need to be aired so they can be debated on. Just remember that wow is a video game and don’t take it personally.
2 Likes
True that. but I’ve been reading the forums for almost a year now mostly just watching and sometimes posting.
The only thing I’m really disappointed with is the “I’m tearing this idea down” but not going weigh in they just say your idea is dumb but doesn’t elaborate if they have a better idea or if the topic is fine in its current state. Im sad that half comments have no real feedback just big No’s with no elaborations or complete derailments when comes to survival spec cant even talk about small fixes and iterations without someone going to scrap it all survival should be this its all bad and it need complete redone and i won’t help cause I want this iteration to burn.
I feel this way also. I think part of the problem is I assume others understand implicit changes are necessary for certain suggestions. When I say MW should be on Hunters Mark as an option in the class tree, the response (for example) would be “BUT PETS HAVE IT ALREADY”, ignoring the logical implication that pets would NOT have it because it’s in the class tree. Then you have to make another post explaining that.
Logical progressions are lost on some people, or they are being purposely obtuse to troll. Either way, it’s tiresome.
2 Likes
I am so not looking forward to DF survival. Heck, i’d rather prefer the abysmal “rotation” we have now with tier sets…
It feels like they have spent the last 3 expansions experimenting on how to make a spec that somehow please everyone. You want dots? You want explosives? you want pet but also hunter damage? You want to spam one single ability? Oh, now you want to spam another single ability to be able to press one (!!) other ability every once in a while. And now here we are… expansion #4 and… we’re going back to the mind-numbingly boring and bad build of either Mongoose spam 24/7 (my finger hurts just thinking about it) or… or spamming bombs for an abysmal “AoE” build… The circle is complete and oh boy, is it a bad circle.
Their complete and obvious lack of any idea what “survival hunter” is hurting the spec, and is the reason a fraction of the wow community even touch it. You can’t have a spec that is both melee And ranged at the same time and both a dot spec And a direct damage spec etc. The survival hunter spec is so barebones and poorly implemented it makes old BM hunter (the one people for majority of the games life have branded as the “braindead spec”) look amazing and complex.
Blizzard needs to accept they can’t make old RSV and new MSV fans happy, just need to pick what they actually want to make, make it and then make it good. If no one plays it? Well then you are out of touch with your players, but at least you made a cohesive spec that people dislike. Hard to like something that no one knows what the frakk it is.
3 Likes
It’s a personal opinion that we can see a lot of hunters agree with. The damage from SV was fine when mongoose spam was the go to. It was good even. Yet it was still the least played spec in the game for an entire expansion. I would wager that isn’t for any other reason than it wasn’t fun to play.
If you make it fun people will play it 70% of your damage coming from one ability you have to break your hand spamming isn’t fun. That isn’t an objective opinion. That is a history lesson from games in general.
Also the ‘just don’t play it’ argument is weak. I want it to be fun. I suppose I can just keep my mouth shut but you could also just not read my opinion if it bothers you so much.
1 Like
The thing is survival fits a lot of Asian fantasy skills. Wield a staff or spear or sword like a martial hero with a flurry of blows and energy strikes with the sword. Chain grappling and bombs and poison hidden weapons. And a tamed beast companion. Swift movements and leaping great distances in a short time.
Its identity is cohesive just not implemented as well as it could be but since most western audiences aren’t familiar with the Wuxia-type hero or hermit often being hunters or woodsmen in deep wood surviving in a harsh environment becoming stronger in nature with only a beast as a friend.
1 Like
I’m not a super-huge fan of Wuxia, but I know enough about it to say that SV doesn’t exactly follow suit. In my interpretation of that, you would exhibit enough gung fu with a particular weapon (spear, chain whip, broadsword, etc.) that you don’t need other tricks to accomplish your ends. In fact, the defining factor in big budget Wuxia is often a character with only one weapon, but they are the absolute master of it. I would NOT classify SV in this way.
SV is more like that ding dong in the Soul Society arc of Bleach, Ganju Shiba.
2 Likes
hahaha, maybe but I’m more talking about side characters or teachers not really styled after the main protagonist. Too me its styled after the crazy strong characters that you meet in the woods that go from wanting to kill you to changing there mind and make you learn their weird martial arts until you can escape or become best friends XD.
1 Like
At least it’s not legion mastery with you having a small chance to reset Mongoose Bite that way. Legion mastery was so bad.
To everyone who hates this version or melee version of SV hunter , I advise to check different topics on forums. There is a reason we have 3 specs so everyone can enjoy what they like. It’s not our fault people wanna play only meta and therefore need more than 1 spec tu fulfill that need.
Does survival could use some improvements ? Seriously what class does not? So yes it could use some rework. I agree with allot of people with suggestion and ideas how sv should work, even with ranged fanatics, but whatever devs decide it will be my main and I will play it. I’ll find a way to make it fun to me.
But all these “ it was better like this, it should be like this ”, “ I hate it because it’s melee and you should hate it as well because you’re wrong post should just stop and find a different place to ruin someone’s experience.
3 Likes
I think it isnt that its “not fun” i think the playstyle just doesnt appeal to people that would traditionally pick the hunter class. I personally find it the most fun spec in the game, but I mostly pvp. Ive noticed its a spec that performs very lowkey, when it does damage and kills people it isnt immediately obvious why or how and leaves people scratching their head. Whereas the death knight or warrior its very obvious when theyre using cool downs or bursting.
I think people that pick hunter are going for a specific gun/bow fantasy and either dont want to expiriment surv or take the time to figure it out and reject it. Its kind of just a ‘weird’ spec but thats because its completely different than others in its go in an burst playstyle. That being said I dont think theres anything wrong with it being weird or not immediately appealing to others. I personally find marks and bm very boring, but it was hard for me to finally pick up hunter despite surv appealing to me to much. I didnt wanna be bound to one spec. Its just in a very strange spot with multiple factors contributing to it being low playrate.
I would enjoy it if that was more of what composed Survival as a spec, but… I can’t say I’ve ever gotten that impression.
I don’t agree with many others here that Survival has no idea what it is. It seems to me to be about as cohesive as the likes of Assassination or Arms or Retribution, just with perhaps less consistency in color palette. It’s hard to put a single, pithy label on —true also, imo, for most specs for anything actually descriptive of gameplay— so it becomes far easier to say what we feel it isn’t (quite) than to say what it is.
The closest I can get to describing the feel I think it intended to convey is a sort of predatory mindset, one that alternates between deliberately preparing the division and slaying of an enemy and with being wrapped up and into that moment of actually executing upon that given plan, while leaving no resource wasted.
But alas, then we get stuff like Mad Bombardier, too few synergies, relatively little layered interaction in general that doesn’t amount to fluff (see Tip of the Spear, which is just a faintly constrained damage amp to Kill Command with ultimately zero gameplay effect aside from not wanting to use KC 4 times in the row even if it somehow wouldn’t overcap you), and buffs being placed in places and ways that ultimately reduce banking and/or player freedom (see Intense Focus), etc… Just, ugh.
P.S.
Back in the day, I really wanted a 4th spec for Mage that was more reminiscent of how Rhonin is depicted in the novels —a bit more Rogue-ish, resourceful, tricky, proficient with a staff as an actual weapon instead of an oversized wand, etc. Most mages appear to just stimulate magical response in the space around them rather than it being channeled through them (where it then tends to overlap a bit more with concepts of Ki, etc.); an Adept would be about half and half with an overall tricky and ecclectic feel. It’s the kind of spec that would blink in and unload a directed Arcane Explosion directly into someone’s chest to launch them back 20 yards while nuking them, but would also have some interesting constraints (channeling frost magic slowing them, too, or releasing it directly from themselves overheating themselves to sometimes-useful but always-painful effect, such that they had to keep their elemental usage balanced out).
Somehow the whole Wuxia conversation where I wouldn’t quite normally think of it applying reminded me of that. ¯\__(ツ)_/¯
Aye. I’ve certainly misunderstood the intent of, or progression being followed by, my share of suggestions here.
The most depressing thing imo, though, is that without the “I read the first 5% and want to nitpick X out of context” replies, so many of our threads just vanish right off the front page without even a single reply, so sometimes I can’t even be that ticked? Mad at myself if/when I do that, of course, but less so when it’s bumping my threads, as annoying as it will be. Idk; it’s a weird feeling.
Though I’m not sure I agree that it’s such a large a factor or difference, that’s a good point. I have to wonder to how many more players Survival might be attractive if it’s “go big” talents were a bit more… obvious or palpable in their gameplay.
Trueshot, for instance, will often feel so much more obvious and impactful than does Spearhead, despite Spearhead still being, performance-wise, a solid talent. Bestial Wrath with Killer Cobra? Same. Fury of the Eagle, while hardly a “big CD” at least has its then-and-only-then attack (as said attack is that CD), but it just doesn’t quite feel… interactive enough to feel more like a “big button” than a use-on-CD… used to accelerate other CDs. Coordinated Assault just feels like nothing without its augmenters.
What could make Survival more obviously feel like it’s about to “go in and burst,” even to those not staring at their Details bars, as it were?
2 Likes