there is no such thing as hybrid in pve. You either get targeted by melee mechanics or ranged. You can’t have both or none. So even if a class has both ranged and melee abilities, it is still melee.
1 Like
Based on his words, it sounds far more likely that it is a melee-centric class that has some ranged fillers for mobility or kiting situations. I would not hold my breath for a true hybrid. When mSV was initially announced I was hoping for a true hybrid, but I also support having a melee-focused build with some ranged skills. It works well with classes like Shaman (shocks) and DK (coil, blast, etc).
He’s correct and you are wrong. The fact that he also appears more intelligent than you is a non-sequitur
3 Likes
Also, the current dev team seems to be trying their damnest to murder anything that could be considered a true “hybrid” and trying to find ways to focus them into pure versions of their spec role. It is what is slowly killing specs like Ret.
1 Like
Oh wow! Now you’re piling on and name calling to boot. I never said the guy was wrong, I disagree with his assessment but he’s not completely wrong.
You bring nothing but name calling.
You said he was clever and I stated he APPEARED more intelligent than you. Where did I call you a name?
Lots of people are smarter than me. That doesn’t make me stupid.
Yes, yes I did.
So that would make me?? Come on. Get real. All you’ve done is slam me in 3 straight replies and I wasn’t even talking to you.
You should probably take a moment and reflect on yourself then.
This is what classifies as getting “slammed”? You’ve lived a charmed life, especially on the internet.
Also, you need to learn relativity and not to interpret everything in the most negative light.
Jeff Bezos is richer than Bill Gates. That statement DOESNT mean that Bill Gates is poor.
And here I was… hoping you put me on ignore. I do consider you my favorite forum stalker.
Teach the other guy, he’s trying too hard.
I think the melee survival is an amazing call. The up close and personal spec of hunter thematically is very interesting and has limitless potential to be more fun, unique and engaging than even ranged sv ever was. The execution of Bliz’s first attempt at it wasn’t amazing, however; but does that mean we throw it away in favor of briging back old sv back immediately?
I’d say no. We’ve seen what a bad SP looked like and how one rework can make a world of difference with taking one of the worst specs going into SL to arguably the best. The amount of possibilities Bliz could do, keyword: COULD, is amazing. I’d so rather they try the melee version out once more before anything else.
3 Likes
Bill Gates plays Survival confirmed.
2 Likes
Hence why I want(would prefer it if…) the discussion to head in a different direction. This is precisely my point really.
We have one side who wants RSV returned to the class.
One side who currently have MSV and are happy that it’s here.
And we also have everyone inbetween who play this class but have little interest in either.
Those who wants RSV back aren’t going to stop for the simple reason of - they want it back and there isn’t any other way to get to play something even remotely close to how RSV played.
Those who like MSV and are currently playing it will ofc advocate for it to remain as part of the class, for obvious reasons. I mean, who likes to have their prefered playstyle removed?
And then the rest, those who for example prefers to play BM or MM. Surely, they wouldn’t want their specs to be merged/changed in order for a different playstyle to be added.
Neither side will stop advocating for their preferences to remain as part of the class/to come back to the class. So again, why not go about this in a way which would allow each side to have what they want? /hint @wowdevs 
That is true, but also, RSV up until now has been the only spec(fully realized playstyle) to be completely removed in favor of something entirely different, to the point where not even the most fundamental elements remained.
None of the examples you provided in your previous reply, apart from RSV and to a degree even Combat, would amount to the justification for a 4th spec option. But rather, be returned as partial elements of their past specializations which they were once a part of.
Apart from the visual difference in animations, what would distinguish DW Unholy from 2h? Or DW Frost from 2h?
Would it actually be enough to warrant separate specializations altogether?
Again, I’m not saying that only hunters should be eligible for a 4th spec option. But those examples, while unique, when they were removed they were partial elements. Not fully realized specializations.
RSV when it was removed, was a fully realized and distinguished specialization.
In order to bring RSV back, you don’t have to create it from the ground up as, most of it’s base theme is already in the game. You could fairly easily adapt it’s gameplay and mechanics to meet all the necessary criteria for a 4th spec, incl the ones about how the new addition must bring new strengths and weaknesses to the class as a whole.
If you want to create something like that with only Lock Meta or the idea of using 2 weapons instead of 1 as a basis, it requires much more work.
I have no doubt that you could make enough distinction between Blood tank and UH or Frost tanks. Nor between their DPS counterparts.
My concern here would more be about how you would distinguish between Blood DPS and Blood tank. Or Unholy DPS vs. tank, or Frost DPS vs. tank.
There’s no such thing as perfect balance in a game such as WoW. And frankly, there shouldn’t be.
Having said that, I wouldn’t pick BfA as any indicator of how capable the devs are with balancing specs/classes. Especially, when it comes to partial elements such as talents.
In BfA, such work had to take a backseat position in favor of focusing on external systems catch-up, like with Azerite/Essences/Corruption.
In short, class balance is generally a fairly crappy excuse for not allowing players access to their prefered playstyles. Especially in the modern game where there’s still such a big focus on individual identities.
If anything, I would want them to focus on allowing MSV to have access to options for DW as well as using 2-handers, rather than any work to try to make SV some weird mix between a ranged spec(using a ranged weapon) and a melee one.
While true, I’d like to think that there is a much bigger chance of seeing more well thought out ideas on each respective spec/playstyle if we allowed them to co-exist. If we left the whole theoretical ranged vs. melee debate in favor of working on each of them as actual specs, in the game.
2 Likes
When it existed dw unholy was very different from 2h, it lasted a patch and it was basically the take full advantage of unholy presence 1 sec gcd rapid fire hit only one rune buttons and procs as they came up spec, while 2h unholy was more about good scourge strike usage and using the unholy tool kit. The shadowlands 2h frost v dw frost is looking to be two different builds that use different talents and are basically completely different in playstyle. Currently its looking that dw gets breath of sindragosa and 2h gets big meaty obliterates. I think being able to fit multiple playstyles into a spec is far healthier for the game over making another spec regardless.
I’m inclined to believe that msurv isn’t too far off of being a partial element spec though. In legion it had a bit more going for it, in that it had the artifact abillity and more maintenance buffs and buttons, but right now its pretty basic. My point in listing all of those potentials or maybe specs was that blizzard could have made a 4th spec for a lot of classes at many points, but in the current state of the game I just can’t see a pure dps getting a fourth spec instead of like a 3rd demon hunter spec or a new tank or healer being thrown into the mix.
Honestly this is one of the things that makes msurv unpalatable to me anyway. They pulled the two handed highmountain hunter out of no where and got rid of every core mechanic that was interesting in favor of various shifting maintenance buffs and mongoose bite. Melee survival not being dual wield was just a odd choice to begin with since the warcraft melee hunter archetype was represented by Rexxar.
However I wouldn’t really care if survival was ranged/melee or dw/2h if it kept they mechanics that defined survival for me, these being high mobility, movement having minimal to no effect on damage, magic damage being the significant portion of damage, lock and load procing something with trap synergies, and old explosive shot which should never be confused with the trash talent in the mm tree, and finally dotting potential. Of those survival has high mobility, and a azerite trait that enables dotting but not for the dot. As it stands sub and assassin rogue has more in common with that list then modern survival.
While that might be true I can’t imagine a Survival fix that doesn’t bring Survival back to what it was at least partially. The thing that makes the range/melee argument repeatedly pop up isn’t that we’re stuck with melee survival, its that we’ve been stuck with a dead melee survival for four years. Its insulting to the ranged survival players who lost their spec for effectively one of the least popular specs in the game. Its sad for the hunters who used to play three specs but are limited to two because its hard to justify survival over the other two in most cases out of pvp. Its awful for the melee survival fans because it should be better than it is right now. Its rough because at the end of the day this is Blizzard’s fault for breaking survival and leaving it broken. Its also hard to give good feedback without having even a inkling of what Blizzard has in mind for the spec, beyond neglect.
2 Likes
Regarding DK, those aren’t actual cases of fully realized playstyles(dedicated core spec options). It’s essentially a matter of picking specific elements all available within a single core spec(or in the past, a specific talent category). They all follow the same thematic approach within the class as well as accessing the same abilities. The only difference in terms of choices is tuning(numbers).
I would agree that it’s core is indeed lacking in a coherent theme. It has some pet focus, some melee focus, some ranged focus…and bombs.
Again, not saying that only Hunters should get an additional spec.
But if we stop with the whole comparison between multiple classes, and with haves and have-nots. If we look at the hunter class, what RSV would bring that isn’t already here.
Why wouldn’t it be justified?
We all have our preferences when it comes to what we want from the specs currently here.
I would just prefer if we stop redefining current specs so they become something entirely different.
Replacing MSV with RSV would not “fix” MSV.
If you have a faulty engine in your car, you repair/replace the part in the engine which isn’t working correctly. That’s how you fix that engine.
You don’t replace the whole engine and say that you’ve now fixed the engine…
(I know, analogies…)
I agree, especially considering their excuse for why RSV was deleted(due to it’s “similarities” to that of MM). Despite how MSV now shares more with BM than RSV ever shared with MM.
But still, my point from the previous reply stands.
Some seem to like it while others, less so.
But either way, how would a rework towards RSV fix that for those who still wants the M in MSV? Or just like MSV in general.
I would like to extend this to “the class as a whole”.
1 Like
I only bring in other classes as examples to say that a 4th spec is a unrealistic expectation. It happened once in wrath for a very specific case, its hard to say whether blizzard would even consider doing another one, doubly so because its hard to see value in one class getting 4 dps specs over some other class getting 3 specs or hybrid class getting second dps class or w/e.
Thats part of the problem though, msurvival did exactly this to rsurvival. One of the issues with msurvival at the moment is that it is lacking in depth. You have the mongoose bite to indefinitely keep coordinated assualt build that hits mongoose button like a arcane mage hits blast, and you have latent poison whack-a-mole with at least some interesting gameplay thanks to wiildfire infusion, and both of these are borrowed power reliant and won’t exist in the same way in shadowlands. And even then neither of these had a relevant niche that would make someone want to play or have a survival hunter in a group specifically over a similarly geared/skilled choice. It isn’t that they just replaced the rsurv engine with a new one, they replaced it with one with important parts missing and called it a day.
As Survival could really use a extra mechanic, or two, or three I would suggest that those mechanics be salvaged from rsurvival. That is mainly what I’m getting at. msurv or rsurv doesn’t matter as much as the things that defined survival, so if/when they finally fix the spec it should have some emphasis on dots and trap usage. If they gave back lock and load on a appropriately named dot, or even just serpent sting and had it proc a improved wildfire bomb or kill shot that wouldn’t have to be a ranged or melee specific thing. Perhaps they could make mongoose strike baseline and have kill shot, or some new ability, also apply and recieve the boost from mongoose stacks to give synergy. Maybe even give back that stabby move from the legion artifact because it was fun. The important thing is that survival can stand on its own as a relevant and desirable spec with a niche and gameplay to back it up.
You guys wonder why you get drama on the forums. Pigheaded statements like this are exactly why.
8 Likes
There’s a lot of ways to envision ranged survival returning, as a fourth spec, as a hybrid or subset of MM or MSV, and so on. I think the major impediment is Blizzard’s aversion to “exceptions” in their core paradigms. Even the SL unpruning has shown a fairly lackluster devotion to the class identity. There are still 3 core kits for each class centered around three specs and their common identity is created by overlap at the fringes. Basically, they’re still wedded to their spec identity, I bet in large part because it streamlines their borrowed power systems. Any RSV solution is going to create too much work for them, even the axe-handed solution of a complete reversion would still require coding the spec afresh, reintegrating all the legacy systems, and redesigning the SL conduits/legendaries/etc. More compromising solutions lead to even more work on their end.
I have a feeling the Hunter neglect, and the general class design neglect, is the team having other areas like the Covenant system eating up all their headspace. I don’t sympathize for them, they did this to themselves- but it’s always the players who suffer.
1 Like
Here I would like to replace the word “unrealistic” with “unlikely”.
Whether it’s unrealistic or not, is a matter of circumstance. It depends on what the background is to the matter in question. What the reasoning is behind such requests.
If you’re talking about druids, that happened going into MoP.
But either way, the point here, it’s that the devs here decided that rather than removing a major part of what defined druids and their various unique playstyles, they chose to keep and further develop all of them, even if that meant going against the original philosophies. Why? Because it was for the benefit of more players.
With Hunters, they did the exact opposite. With Hunters, they added something in contrary to the general opinion of what players wanted, at the time. So, you tell me, is it really such an “unrealistic” expectation for us to want something back which pretty much noone wanted gone, something many players enjoyed, especially when it can be done in a way that doesn’t really have much of a negative effect on others at all.
In WoW, if we only had classes that were designed as hybrids, all with 1 spec of each role then perhaps this could be true. But this is not the case.
We do have classes who vary in nature. Some are hybrids while others are “pures”. In the current game, it makes as much sense in giving a dps class another spec as it does, giving a hybrid class one. And while the individual number of specs pertaining to a specific class is not an insignificant matter, what matters more is: what the intended new spec/playstyle does or bring which the previous ones can’t already. And no, I’m not talking about combat roles here.
Yes it did, but how does reverting that decision “fix” anything? Sure, it makes a different group happier. While the opposing group, less so.
My point here is, if you actually want to “fix” the current issues, incl the void left behind with the removal of RSV, you have to stop with the whole philosophy that is “just replace everything”.
I can agree on this, but again, a full replacement of MSV in favor of something else, is not the same as"fixing" MSV.
This entirely depends on who you ask. Individual preferences and all that.
For me, it’s the exact opposite. Merging MSV and RSV is not a valid solution, IMO.
“Too much” is debatable. Especially as much of RSV and it’s intended theme/design is already done for.
But you’re right, a full rework of MSV will in some ways require more work than adding RSV in as a 4th spec.
I keep hoping that we can eventually go back to the paradigm of them(devs) allowing us to play our classes and not expansion-specific systems involving heavy focus on borrowed powers.
That’s not what I call good class design. It’s basically done to circumvent class design altogether.
Ok, explain then. Here goes the name-calling over my opinion that melee survival is/could be even more fun. I get you’re salty about the spec changing. Ok, and? All I said is the melee version is also exciting but could use a proper tune-up for sure. What’s the drama to have when I said I think thematically the melee hunter is cool? Throw an insult to me cause I dare disagree with ranged SV not being the most amazing thing in the entire world? Grow up. The only ‘drama’ from this community looks like it comes from the people who can’t get over the spec being changed. Instead of being helpful or optimistic about helping the melee version get some attention, you just complain about it endlessly and cry for the old version back.
3 Likes