There seem to be more people defending melee SV than coming up with this “point of its existence” crap and trying to bring back a spec from several years ago lol
1 Like
If those “many” people would actually show up in the game to play the spec, it wouldnt be the, or one of the, least played specs in the game for three expansions straight.
At this point you would have to be very, very biased to not come to the conclusion that the vast majority of hunters just doesnt want to play melee. MSV was shunned when it was weak, it was shunned when it was strong. It was shunned when it had flawed design, it is still shunned now that people are falling over themselfes to tell you how fun it is to play. RSV was very popular when it was strong, it was still more played when it was weak and the only notable change that happened between those instances was them making the spec melee. People were criticising this change at that time for exactly this reason. The forums were full of people begging Blizzard to not make it melee. At some point, you have to face the truth.
Of course you can demand that there needs to be 100%, no doubt, iron-clad, undeniable, mathematically sound, double-blind, peer-reviewed proof of it and you could forever be in doubt about it, but most people already know.
5 Likes
There is no melee hunter in the game right now. All there is, is a ranged hunter, a ranged hunter with a pet, and a hybrid hunter with a pet that needs to be in melee range in dungeon encounters to optimize DPS.
Now, there are a few issues with that statement if we dissect it, but for the purposes of this discussion Im going to continue as though those statements are basically true.
One of the problems with SV, is that PvE hunters who don’t like melee, don’t enjoy the spec because PvE encounters are not designed to make the hunter-like aspects of the spec shine. Another problem with SV is that people who enjoy melee DPS may find that SV doesnt actually provide the melee DPS experience. It is nothing like fury warrior. It’s nothing like Frost or Unholy. It shares some similarities with rogue… but mostly how squishy it feels. It doesnt appeal to melee players or ranged players. It appeals to people who like a more hectic and hybrid style of play.
Those people are failed not by the spec, but by PvE encounter design. And I think most people would agree that the PvE gameplay loop isnt going to change. So RSV proponents are kind of right… RSV should come back.
Where I disagree with RSV proponents is on a number of key arguments.
1, that MSV is some failed experiment. It is unpopular (the argument goes) which proves that hunters do not want melee weapons and that melee players do not want hunters. This just cannot be determined by the evidence. It is a non-causa. And while that very well may be the case, it would take a much larger experiment or data collection effort to determine it. Participation numbers cant prove the above statement alone.
2, that the previous iteration of RSV is the only acceptable version of RSV. Any arguments, which include giving current SV design any influence over a future ranged iteration would be unacceptable, are shortsighted and closeminded. The argument that only MOP SV is acceptable is a tantrum so childish. It shuts down the conversation and does nothing for the cause.
And 3, that supporting a 4th spec solution is morally superior to desiring a full reversion. I dont have time to discuss this with people who are unwilling to compromise. 4th spec is not compromise. It’s agreeing to disagree. Which is the same thing as stubbornly standing your ground. There is no moral or philosophical superiority to saying “Your spec sucks and robbed me of my spec, but since Im better than you I would grant your spec mercy, as long as mine comes back.” It’s just virtue signalling. Any version of that statement is unnecessary in an argument about why 4 specs for hunter would be better.
If RSV truly is fundamentally superior in both theme and function (as most of the same people argue) then there is no reason to make a 4th spec. The poor, ignorant MSV fans would eventually come around and thank you for it, or (better yet if you ask some) go back to their stinking melee classes, because they aren’t real hunters. More realistically however, the hunter class as a whole was lacking something prior to Legion, and it is lacking something now. I think both sides could find a reasonable compromise, or rather, a decent developer could find a compromise that would satisfy both sides, and the class would be better for it. Giving the class a third ranged spec as a fourth spec wouldnt be good design… it would be pandering. If the hunter needs a 3rd ranged spec, because MSV failed, it doesnt need MSV.
I think that’s probably true… ish. But I said most people, not just most current hunters. You would need so much data to determine if any kind of melee using hunter wouldnt appeal to most current and former and possible future WoW players.
The problem with this, is that your argument blurs the line between what is the “intent of the design” with that of “method of playing”. I’ve said this before.
MSV IS a melee spec. There’s no argument that supports it being otherwise. Some love to argue that “it’s a hybrid, etc. etc. because PvP”, but any that do so, they don’t consider the fact that the reason you step away from melee range as SV isn’t because it’s favorable in terms of damage, it’s because it favors survivability, because that can often/sometimes be what you want more than damage.
Even Ion himself has admitted that this is in fact the case, that the vast majority of hunters are not interested in melee. He said as much in that interview which Bepples has linked to multiple times. In that very answer, he more or less said that SV(melee) was not necessarily made for then-current hunters, but for new players, or players of other classes that are in fact interested in melee-combat.
The data shows that this is true, and the devs themselves have said as much. Arguing otherwise is a matter of ignorance/denial.
I mean, this part depends entirely on what anyone wants. People are arguing for the return of RSV because they want RSV(the playstyle) back. You might think that it would be better to merge/combine certain elements of the two, but that’s generally not what people are asking for.
Most people who do in fact argue in favor of RSV’s return, they don’t argue that “only MoP SV is acceptable”…
Sure, they also aren’t arguing that RSV should be brought back and merged to become some melee/ranged hybrid, though the reason for that was never a big secret. In short, if you/anyone wants to argue in favor of melee-combat(even as a complementary feature), for the most part, the hunter class is the wrong one to use as a base to support said argument.
People are unwilling to compromise because there’s no need to compromise. A 4th spec is perfectly doable, and is, by all accounts, the ideal solution for everyone to get what they want.
I mean, you can argue in favor of a 4th spec option without it being like what you said there. Like I said above, I argue in favor of a 4th spec because it would be the ideal solution for everyone to get/keep what they want.
Again, you speak as if it either has to be a compromise of sorts, or there can only be the one(or the other). This just isn’t the case.
2 Likes
There is a clear spectrum of casual to hardcore within the MMORPG playerbase so trying to minimalise that because “casual gamers aren’t playing MMORPGS” is completely pointless and removes a real and helpful distinction from the discussion.
This is one hell of a reach considering how widely praised the changes/removal of those parts were at the time and how the popularity of the Hunter class reached peaks long after those changes. It’s true that some people liked those things but the idea that people were drawn to the class specifically because of them is a dubious claim at best. It’s certainly unproveable, and given that you spent the rest of the thread talking about how we can’t know for sure if the reason most Hunters avoid SV is because it’s melee I think you know how unproveable it is.
You’re reframing again. We didn’t lose capability when we no longer had to feed pets or get ammo. In fact independence from those mechanics was arguably gaining capability. This is in contrast to losing the ranged weapon which stood as a major change to everything about SV and its relation to its class, and ultimately having to be in melee range to achieve full damage potential is less capable than being able to deal full damage potential at any point up to 40 yards.
If it needs to be in melee range to optimise DPS it’s a melee spec; end of story.
Yes, it has a lot of ranged capability. All melee specs have some level of ranged capability. SV happens to have the most. It’s still a melee spec, though.
This is true to an extent; you can’t know exactly why every Hunter isn’t playing it and while the evidence is strong that dislike of melee is the root cause it still comes down to interpretation. However it’s worth noting that according to Hazzikostas, if he’s to be believed (a big “if” when it comes to Hazzikostas, I admit), most Hunters don’t want to play melee and this is why SV’s representation is low.
I agree. The most sensible roadmap for ranged SV is one that’s based on MoP/WoD SV but not a replica. It’s not possible to replicate it 1:1. For example: MoP SV didn’t have its own talents because back then all talents were shared across specs (true for every class, in fact); we would need to create 4 spec-specific SV tiers that didn’t exist before. MoP SV had a baseline 1 second GCD while the class currently has a 1.5 sec GCD with haste scaling. It lacked a spec-specific cooldown. I would also argue that there were flaws that needed addressing, like Black Arrow not being a good thematic fit or Serpent Sting having no interaction with the main Black Arrow > Lock and Load > Explosive Shot loop.
An ideal modern ranged SV would take key elements from MoP and WoD as well as certain elements of melee Survival that fit. Imagine ranged SV but with Wildfire Bomb instead of Black Arrow, as well as talents such as Caltrops, Wildfire Infusion, and Guerilla Tactics alongside older ones like Thrill of the Hunt and Exotic Munitions.
This is a really good point. I’m generally not a fan of a 4th spec solution. It sweeps all the problems with melee SV under the rug and the chances of them having 4 DPS specs in one class are nil. I seriously think having 2 specs in the class is more likely than having 4.
This is why I’ve been advocating for the BM talent solution: all 3 specs are ranged baseline, BM can talent into being melee in exchange for a damage boost. It fixes a lot of problems at once with a reasonable level of effort.
It was the most popular Hunter spec for most of that time but not the most popular spec in the game outside of a couple months in Highmaul. But yes, this does mean that at the time the internal discussions were happening and they decided on making SV melee in the expansion after the next one (i.e. after the up-and-coming WoD) SV was the most popular Hunter spec. This is a really bad look.
A big part of this is the general perception that melee SV is the downtrodden underdog that’s never been given a chance. People like cheering on an underdog. The fact that you get a large contingent of people defending it on the forums but still not actually playing it isn’t the bullish sign for melee SV you think it is.
There’s also the fact that a lot of people are more willing to go along with Blizzard doubling down on all decisions, good or bad. A good example of this is Preach: he’s praised melee Survival’s playstyle and offered constructive feedback while also saying at other times that he never wants to main SV and wishes they just kept ranged SV. Limit Max is another example of this. A lot of people prefer ranged SV but don’t think Blizzard will ever change it back so they figure that they might as well try to salvage melee SV.
I don’t even think Blizzard will ever change their minds. The difference is I don’t think that means we should just go along with it and indulge Blizzard’s stubbornness. They made a bad decision and they need to know it.
5 Likes
This is not true
It’s because the idea of bringing back Ranged SV isn’t practical and people can see that
I have little argument against anything in your post, could peobably argue semantics, or nitpick about stuff Ive already said regarding fallacies, but I won’t.
Im particularly fond of this.
I couldn’t agree more. Though Id personally like to keep harpoon and rs around for mobility and that hybrid feel in PvP, I cant make the argument that the spec would be better for it, and not something else that better matches the purely ranged iteration.
But you may note that I also said, “… and melee players dont want hunters”.
You can take the hunter numbers and determine the one, but it doesnt explain the second part of the conditional. Why dont melee players want a melee hunter? Do they hate nature? Maybe they dont like pets. What’s the matter? They dont like pets? Whats wrong with melee players?
There is more to the spec… more that is holding it back than just being melee.
Yep, true. Most hunter players aren’t interested in melee, while playing as hunters. Meanwhile, most players of other classes, that are interested in melee combat, they also prefer others specs to that of SV. Why? There are many reasons for this.
Could there possibly be a version that more players would like? Perhaps. But again, why should this…experiment…cause a lot of players to lose what has been proven to be successful, widely enjoyed, and well established throughout many expansions(RSV)? Again, if they wanted to try the waters, to see if enough players are out there that are interested in a melee hunter style, without any real indication for this being true, wouldn’t it then have been better to do so in a way that wasn’t as destructive?
It really comes back to change for the sake of change, in a place where change isn’t going to succeed, at least not that type of change. They said they knew that this was going to be the case beforehand, before they even announced it.
2 Likes
Thats the thing though, its a proven concept that has existed in media since the dawn of medeival fantasy. It has existed in WoW in one shape or another since the beginning. (Spears are as iconic a part of Ironforge mountaineer aesthetic as bear pets). It has been a part of almost every game that had ranger/hunter. It existed in GW2 hunter successfully since launch. It was an experiment… but there was solid data that suggested success.
I dont think anyone predicted prior to this what a mob mentality the community has.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that this is what most people want when it comes to the Hunter class. As proven in-game.
Like you said, there are probably many reasons for why that is. And again, none of it adequately motivates the removal of an existing playstyle with a different identity and theme. Especially not if you consider the philosophies of modern class and spec design.
Well, WoW isn’t the same as those games. Nor are the different classes. Sure, there may be similarities to a certain degree. But that’s no guarantee for success.
Now something like this devs need to check and as well community council to suggest the devs. Amazing suggestion, and something new tbh. Drives from 4th spec and “we want RSV back Karen’s”
1 Like
I know it’s hard for someone completely infatuated with melee combat to imagine, but melee isn’t God’s gift to class design and melee specs are not unique. Every DPS spec added to the game post launch has been melee. In fact since Vanilla we are +5 melee DPS specs and -1 ranged DPS spec.
In the same expansion melee Survival was made they also made a brand new melee hero class, Demon Hunter, and everyone went to play that instead. Because Demon Hunter was actually unique and interesting while Survival was nothing special; it’s a Hunter but worse.
Remaking SV into a different form of melee will be the 3rd rework of melee Survival; another round of wasted time and effort on an idea that will never pan out. How about this: melee mains can stick to their own classes and we should stop tinkering with Hunter specs to try to make them appeal to those people.
1 Like
They share players. We were talking about what players want.
To a degree, sure. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the players want to do the same thing in all of those games. Some do, obviously, but it’s not a guarantee.
Just because there’s a certain theme that can be found in multiple games, and just because said theme is fairly popular in game X and Y, does not automatically mean that the version found in game Z, will be a success.
Ok… you keep stating the obvious while ignoring other obvious points. Yes, the results showed you are correct. People didnt seem to want a melee hunter in WoW. Presumably the same people that did want a melee hunter in GW2 or Neverwinter, or LOTR, or every other medeival fantasy ever.
Why? How does pointing out the results in retrospect support the position that the devs should have known a melee hunter would be this unpopular? How could anyone predict that, given history? Because ranged dps die hards said it would suck? Clearly that’s not the target audience and as such their opinion isnt that valuable. And the question I keep asking, how can we say that melee is the problem with SV when it isnt even a problem with any other melee in this game or other games?
Well, first off, this is an assumption, not a proven fact. Ofc you have some overlap in the playerbase(s), where certain people play more than 1 game, but we have no real indication of the relative size of said overlap. I can’t say much about those particular games you mentioned though as I’ve never tried them myself.
What do you mean when you say “the same people that did want a melee hunter in…those games”? Are you saying that there were a large amount of people that wanted that fantasy to be added after the initial launch of those games, or were those fantasies part of the initial launch, and said people chose it/them from the start?
Anyway…
Can all of it be due to a singular reason? Probably not.
Can one, or a select few reasons make up for why most people (would) stay away from it? Yes.
Some examples may be:
Survival/MSV was a “non-feature”, in relation to the core focus of the expansion it came with. It was implemented at the same time as an entirely new class, which was heavily marketed with the playerbase, a class that also brought with it a damage oriented melee spec. A class that also happened to provide the playerbase with mostly, an entirely new core fantasy. A core fantasy that was further hyped by fitting the expansion-wide theme(Legion) as a whole. Survival itself, simply could not relate much to the expansion, and its main story.
Furthermore, Survival was a rework of an already existing spec, a spec that was well established, and was proven successful over the course of multiple expansions. Despite how the reworked SV did bring a partial new focus – melee-combat, as a primary function, you still had the majority of the existing class fantasy(Hunter) serving as part of it. Any players not already a part of the class, not already invested in it, if they aren’t interested in the general class fantasy of hunters, that new spec addition most likely wouldn’t change much for them.
At the same time, prior to Legion, the core class fantasy of Hunters, was very much focused on ranged combat, using ranged weapons. That naturally attracts players who enjoy such a fantasy/theme. Ofc you also had/have things such as Pets, and traps, etc. But, when ranged weapon-combat makes up for such a big part of the core class fantasy, equal to pets, or in some regards, even more, then it speaks for itself as to why the vast majority of the existing players of the class have, most likely, picked it because of its particular focus on ranged combat. This can be argued to be especially true due to how long the hunter class has remained focused on ranged weapon-combat, as it’s primary function of combat.
In short, the longer things stay a certain way, the less likely it is that a change/rework such as SV will be successful. Especially when it wasn’t an established part of the fantasy in any way, at any point prior to the change, again, as a primary focus.
On top of that, you also have the fact that any players outside of the hunter class, will have had over a decade to invest in other classes and specs. Even if, for some of them, this new partial fantasy does provide for an attractive choice, like in the case above, it will be less likely that they decide to “migrate” over to the hunter class as a result. We can see this being the case for many, as an example, on this forum. A lot of MSV players mention how they play it as a “main alt” or an “alt”, despite how they often also describe it as being a very fun/the most fun spec to play.
Fans of medeival fantasy MMORPGs are a demographic. We can call them Fantasy MMO players. They tend to be extremely favorable to melee hunter/rangers… except in WoW. The same demographic would be the core of all the same games, even if they choose only to play one.
Okay sure.
Though, core game fantasy/theme, core game design, and core game structure, should also be taken into account here. Nothing says that the nature of WoW as an overarching game/world necessarily clicks with said people. Sure, they might favor the melee hunter/ranger combat style, but nothing says that they favor how it’s done in WoW, or that they favor the general style of WoW as a whole.
I’m not saying that this has to be the main reason, just saying that it can be a reason.