I feel like the ease of performance is a far better explanation than it being “enjoyable to play in spite of its simplicity”, but hey, the appeal of SNES-level gameplay may just be lost on me. I didn’t much care for Vanilla-TBC BM gameplay, either, after all.
And yet specs like BM remain popular even when their performance is not that great
Having some melee abilities =/= being a melee spec though, most of hunter’s melee abilities were made to get us back into ranged / get the target out of our dead zone (man I do not miss that mechanic)
It is relevant, you guys are stuck on one patch proving something but again, if one patches performance is all it takes for you to think that a spec’s theme needs changing than you should have been calling for msv’s theme to undergo changes starting in Legion
People are all over the forums complaining that melee is the most viable spec, even in SoD people prefer to play ranged hunters. Melee hunter is also just one button spam but hey if you enjoy that, power to you, it’s not for me though
But they were though, they had a spec built into them for melee damage, they were built to be more turrety and take more hits, hunters were made to get out of melee
Again, I am not arguing against it’s theme, just that people (based on available data) preferred it when it was a ranged spec vs a melee one
It doesn’t have to be played more, just played by a decent amount. MSV routinely has less than 1% representation, no other hunter spec has that issue and it’s been that way since it went melee in Legion
Again, you are trying to use one patch versus the many many patches where msv was the least popular spec
you mean the only spec in the game that has full mobility at max range is highly played? woah!
is this a genuine sentence? you know hunters also had a spec built into them for melee damage? back in 2016?
and once again MM is played even less than the “historically least played spec in the game”. must be a reason, maybe people dont like archers
And again, you are trying to use just a few months to say something needs changing which I never disagreed with btw, while ignoring the many years that something has been even less popular
Into a class that did not initially have melee built into it (minus a few abilities) and was never given tools etc like other classes have to make up for suddenly having a melee spec
You guys are the ones that said specs only get played if they do tons more damage, I was simply pointing out that isn’t always the case.
you know shaman didnt have a melee spec until it did too, right? it doesn’t matter when it was added lol it has a melee spec, just like hunters.
?? I am saying that in the contexts of hunter specs. if your options for DPS as a hunter are
- a spec that has full range and full mobility
- a spec that has full range and limited mobility
- a spec that has melee range and melee mobility
and all have same/similar damage, and all have the same/similar utility, are you really shocked people stick with the safest spec that has a fool proof gameplay loop?
kind of crazy a spec fantasy (archer) can be so disdained it’s played even less than a spec that was the least played spec for years. they should probaby just turn MM into RSV right?
No… 1out of the 4 melee or melee-buffing skills were. A mere 25%.
Three-quarters were for damage.
- Raptor? Just for damage.
- Beast? For damage.
- Mongoose? For damage, and generally required a decently long time in melee range of the enemy to even see available use.
They had a spec built into them for making use of their buffs. Had those buffs been any different —e.g.,
-
Earthskin Weapon - Increases your resistance to physical attacks by 20% and your maximum HP by 20% of your Spell Power. Your attacks briefly increase your Spell Power by 20% of damage and healing dealt, fading over 5 seconds.
-
Maelstrom Weapon - Your Healing Wave and Lightning Bolt each reduce the cast time of your next Chain Heal and Chain Lightning by 20%, stacking up to 5 times, and vice versa. Consuming stacks of Maelstrom Weapon reduces the cast time of your Lava Burst by 20%, stacking up to 5 times.
-
Windfury Weapon - Your special attacks have a chance to strike an additional [Unruly Weapon: three] times for [30% of Attack/Spell Power] damage or healing. Windfury attacks cannot consume effects which empower your next use of a given action.
— then there would have been only 4 talents aiding melee skills, melee weapons, or melee damage in Enhancement. Which is the same number as are in Survival.
Exactly, why would you pick a melee hunter when bm / mm can do everything it can but better?
Again, one patch versus 8 years. MSV has been wildly unpopular for 8 years, MM has been unpopular for a few months if you cannot see the difference there than I don’t know what else to say about it.
Shaman as a class were designed with melee from the get go, hunters were not. Shamans were built more like turrets, hunter were built to get away.
But they weren’t built different, you’re arguing a maybe vs a fact. They also had abilities like rockbiter weapon, fire nova totem (was a melee range totem), flametongue weapon, stoneskin totem (which made you take less melee damage) etc
1 Like
Why pick MM if BM can do everything it can but better? Should MM be removed?
I think you’re not reading my comments on purpose. If MM is such a widely disliked spec it’s even less popular than SV, that must mean people really think MM doesn’t fit on the class.
oh when was raptor strike and mongoose bite added? I could have sworn even in beta the “outdoorsmanship” capstone talent was a melee bleed…
surely you aren’t lying?
3 Likes
Until Trap Launcher, Explosive Trap was… an equivalent melee range AoE, not so different from Fire Nova Totem. Every trap was melee. If you want to include totems as “melee” skills for Shaman, then you’d have to add another 4 melee skills to early Hunter’s list.
You’re listing the same things you just dismissed.
Shaman had a “melee spec” only because they decided to make a particular iconic tool require melee weapon to leverage.
But by that same token, especially given that traps originally could not be set range, improving one’s ability to leverage a similar portion of Hunter’s iconic tools —melee skills and traps— would make Survival a “melee spec”. They filled the same function for their respective classes, so why the difference in label?
That Survival didn’t result in that —or anything remotely competitive until it was completely rehauled into the eclectic weaponry spec or again into a more yet primal take on the Survivalist (back to its roots and then further still)— is merely a matter of individual skill tuning and Hunter getting only 1 melee AP from Agility and Strength, both, whereas every other physical class could take a stat granting 2 melee AP per primary stat.
As for what Survival’s very first design originally intended… having initially more distinctly melee talents than Enhancement and even a melee capstone seems pretty clear.
some people, lol. They represent a fraction of a fraction.
Same thing applies to warlocks, there are dozens of threads about being annoyed that demonology is the “best” spec yet again while affliction is left in the dust. And it so happens that demonology / destro are heavily more populated than affliction locks, due to 2 things - performance, and a hatred for Malefic Rapture.
People who are any kind of serious about content will gravitate to the best performing spec, this is proven time and time again and I’m not sure why you’re arguing against that lol
Er, it does prove something. When SV is better than MM, people will play SV, regardless of feelings. Not really that complicated. Coming back to that point of mine again 
When Assassin rogue was performing super well after the rework, it had a strong population. Now that outlaw is performing super well, assassination has dwindled after the nerfs. Even people who’s fave rogue spec is Sin, dropped it for outlaw regardless of whether they liked the theme, or gameplay. Tale as old as WoW itself.
And I’m quite happy with SV theme, SV is my fave hunter spec so… why would I argue to change it?
2 Likes
I am reading them, my point is that MM is only recently less popular than msv, meanwhile msv has been the least popular spec since it’s inception (with few exceptions) so if you are arguing that mm being the least popular for one patch means it does not fit the class, than msv really does not fit as it was the least popular for years and years and years.
MM historically did certain things better than BM, be it single target etc
There is a difference between a few abilities being melee and an entire spec dedicated to it.
Survival was initially designed to increase survivability, hence the name. It’s talents improved things like parry, dodge, agility, hit chance etc but it still had a ranged weapon as it’s main source of damage, even it’s capstone ability was ranged.
Like the same amount of people that argue for msv
No, because it is one single patch. There have been many times where msv was better than mm / bm damage wise and it was still the least played spec which completely refutes your argument
That’s great, but based on msv’s continued unpopularity, it is not enjoyed by many. However, I continue to push for either a 4th spec or a choice node etc so that msv and rsv can win and yet msv enjoyers still wanna argue with me.
2 Likes
yes, and if MM is even MORE unpopular than SV, that should say something to you.
so MM needs to be broken in comparison to BM for it to be played more? I thought we don’t like that design choice
how many melee abilities did shaman have in vanilla?
I have said many many times that MM also needs some love right now
I’m not pushing for MM to be played more than BM. I have repeatedly said that when a spec routinely has less than 1% representation, there is obviously something going on to make it so unpopular, and msv has been that way since Legion
It’s also the trees, survival made you more survivable, enhancement buffed your melee damage more than anything else
1 Like
but I thought low player count means the spec just doesn’t belong on the class?
I see a pretty equal amount of damage talents on the SV tree. You seem to be moving the goal posts now.
“Enhancement was made to be melee and Survival wasn’t. Just ignore the quantity of melee abilities the specs had.”
and if MM is played even less than that, there’s obviously something going on to make it that terrible. I think people just don’t like archers. 
I don’t understand how you can say that because for one patch MM is less popular and yet ignore the tons and tons of patches where msv was the least popular which must mean that people just don’t like melee hunters
In vanilla? That’s what we were describing, and actually enhance was going to be a tank spec before it got changed so yes, enhance was designed from the ground up as a melee spec, survival hunter was no, it still used a ranged weapon, enhance did not
It means there is something fundamentally wrong (which again for mm is just recently vs msv being 8+ years now) with it in the eyes of the player base. MSV has been one of if not the least played specs in the game since Legion which coincidentally is when it went melee, so it is safe to assume that the player base prefers ranged hunters over melee ones considering that the population plummeted and never recovered when it changed from ranged to melee.
1 Like
I’m just using your logic. If a spec being unpopular means people don’t like the fantasy or theme, as MM is even MORE unpopular than SV, what do you think that means?
you know hunters used melee weapons in vanilla as well, right? you know enhancement shaman used ranged spells in vanilla, right?
wouldn’t MM be played more then if it was a preference?
But you are using only one patch and ignoring tons and tons of others. That’s my point. And I have agreed that MM needs work, also I have argued ranged / melee more than theme / fantasy.
Yes but not as their main weapon, warriors used guns, that didn’t make them a ranged dps class
Again you are focusing on one patch while ignoring tons of other ones that show the exact opposite
2 Likes
Time has progressed and it seems hunters dont like MM. Sorry you dont like seeing this.
So ignore the fact that hunters used melee weapons and had melee skills and a talent tree that enhanced melee abilities, it wasn’t made to be melee—unlike shaman with the same amount of melee abilities and talents that was made to be melee?
And the spec that has either been (in Legion) unpolished af and constrained beyond belief to get full damage out, of or (in BfA and onward) carries solely a net deficit in utility… doesn’t?
I’ll agree that MM currently suffers from obvious jank that SV and BM do not, and its problems are therefore more easily solved, but if we’re talking simple inequity… then MM’s not the one that’s had near to 8 years of overall inequity affecting its playrates.
- Note that it did not do poorly —despite requiring uniquely restrictive gearing and learning a new sub-role— when it actually had something to make up for being melee. Damage wasn’t a good place from which to fix that shortcoming, but regardless, it having enough damage to make up for its lost contextual-utility-inherent-to-being-ranged (let alone the cost of swapping) brought its playrates up to a plenty “healthy” level.
Again, Survival focused on survivalism, with equal parts selective/conditional (de)buffs, traps, melee skills, and survivability. It would not include melee damage, raw AP, nor later raid-(affecting-de)buffs if it was focused solely on survivability.
Enhancement focused on enhancements, with equal parts totems, “weapon” enchants, and actual weapon use simply because those enchants were attached to weapons and included the name “weapons”. Had we seen then the “~~~~ Weapon” skills made available later, it likely wouldn’t have been a melee spec.
- Just as, if Hunter had carried the same access to 2 mAP per Primary Stat point that Shaman had, Survival likely would have remained, as originally intended (judging from its originally more numerous melee talents and even a melee capstone), a melee spec.
One discrete melee ability, Stormstrike, a 20s CD…
…versus Hunter’s four or five: Raptor, Mongoose, Wing Clip, Counterstrike, and originally Lacerate.
If we include melee-range tools and buffs for one’s own melee attacks only, then we end up with 3-4 (add Flametongue, Windfury, and Earthbiter if tanking) vs. 8-9 (add in-combat use of traps, which were at the time melee range).
2 Likes
That would be amazing if survival could swap from melee and range
I do enjoy classic hunter being able to melee and use range, very cool also cool having a bow out and having blades at your sides
1 Like