They’ve removed and/or altered how almost every spell in the game either works or interacts, but you think the dps abilities of RSV wouldn’t have been touched for the last decade?
Also, there wasn’t a push for people to claim the game needed a melee with a pet. So melee didn’t spawn from this group of voices asking for a “melee with a pet” so that argument is moot. Since we have it, people play it, and they want the best for it like others want for their spec. The talent trees allow marksman to play an elemental style if you want like the RSV of old, so play it, you’re whining about nothing. You’re also fooling yourself if you think the abilities would have been untouched.
No build of MM plays anything remotely close to what ranged SV plays like, but I suspect you know that already and you’re just opting to be facetious.
So Explosive Shot going from a 6 second signature ability and proc interation that’s central to the spec’s playstyle and identity to a fixed 30 second cooldown that interacts with nothing else is “essentially the same ability”?
I choose to believe you aren’t being sincere instead of genuinely failing to understand the difference. This goes beyond normal “things change” class differences over time. Not to mention all the MM mechanics like Aimed Shot that never fit ranged SV.
They wouldn’t have stayed exactly the same, but extent matters. This is like breaking someone’s leg and saying “oh well you would have probably stubbed your toe anyway”. Ignoring all extent and equivocating changes of vastly different scale is an overdone and lazy approach to design discussions.
You’re right. It wasn’t in demand, and judging by its perpetually low representation it still isn’t. So why continue to devote an entire third of the class to it at the expense of something far more interesting and broadly appealing?
We do not have the option to play an elemental ranged weapon user/munitions expert. We have a couple half-assed talents in the general tree that interact with nothing and that’s it.
People want a spec that fully immerses itself with special munitions including explosives, poisons and beyond; a spec that brings a unique profile of ranged damage such as multidotting and funneling. They do not want watered-down munitions elements awkwardly crammed into the base tree and having to co-exist alongside Aimed Shot and Rapid Fire. They’re different archetypes and they deserve their own tree.
No one advocates for Destruction and Affliction to become one spec, or Arms and Fury, or Subtlety and Assassination. Yet when it comes to Hunters people happily apply a double standard.
because sub & assrogue, arms & fury, and destro and aff are pretty clear cut in what they do differently from eachother both aesthetically and mechanically vs just being a lesser beastmaster and having different element attacks
Except being okay with the consolidation of two specs into one isn’t only explainable by a double-standard. It’s equally explainable by there being a threshold of similarity between any two specs of the same class for which those specs fell on one side and WoD-era MM and RSV fell on another, and/or a threshold for additional themes made possible if the two were consolidated to make room for a new tree (if/when a 4th spec is for whatever [terrible] reason disallowed), for which those classes fell on one side and Hunter fell on another.
You attempt to pass “double-standards” off as an absolute necessity, but it’s more likely a matter of estimated net gain vs. estimated labor — in a similar sense to how it wouldn’t be a “double-standard” for a ranged spec to have less Armor or mobility than a melee one, or for caster to have a tighter burst window available to it than a Beast Master would.
That Legion Hunter revisions went poorly does not tightly indicate intent to sabotage the class. Nor does some Hunters preferring the idea of supporting more than just the original three themes across its three specs, perhaps allowing for a couple sub-themes into each that could then leverage a spectrum that was already central to the spec but thus far supplied only narrowly, indicate a “double-standard”.
...
The reason you don’t see requests for Fury-Arms consolidations or Destro-Afflict consolidations is because the low-hanging fruit in sub-themes that could be added to each would readily fit into those specs already. A more ‘tactics-minded’ or ‘Siege-breaker’/‘Shock Tactics’ weapon-master or greatsworder would already logically fit within Arms, just as a more devotedly SMF-styled Wild-Striking barbarian or even return of a daggers-SD build would already plentifully well within Fury; now that Sudden Death is a class-wide aspect, there’s no need to merge Arms and Fury to leverage themes in Fury and Arms both that’d in turn leverage it.
Want a Warlock that’s able to ride upon and directly puppet a giant demon? There’s hardly any that’d be more iconic for that than than Infernal, property of Destro, and while that direct puppeting would seem Demonology-esque, so long as you’d in turn give back that spec its option of Metamorphasis Demonic Manifestation and continue to offer similarly cycled spec bleeds from each spec into the others, that trio makes sense and between the three of them you can find a good place for nearly every fan-favorite head-canon build possible short of warlock weapon-compacts a la Hexblades.
That last theme in turn allows you two choices: combine with the current Hex/Curse holder, Affliction, or make something of its own. The best choice between those depends on how many nodes it takes to enjoyably diversify builds mechanically and stylistically and whether those two sub-themes form a sort of spectrum between them or bleed into each other only as much as the original three specs each do. In the latter case, you make a 4th spec, but if they could each compliment each other, you instead de-bloat Affliction, add choice nodes to its top, and allow players to leverage both of the complimentary themes within the same tree.
Except they could’ve done the same to RSV as they did to all other specs, going into Legion. Heck, they could’ve done absolutely nothing to RSV, while making MM into what they did in Legion, and their respective playstyles would’ve been miles apart, mechanically.
Pretty ironic considering how they made SV into the “beast companion guy”, their own words. This being how they described BM since the start…
To the people still whining survival isnt ranged:
Move on, its just sad now. Survival is fun and does well when you know what you’re doing, clearly ranged hunters are so lazy that the moment they have to press more then 3 buttons and have some cd’s theyre mad. Boohoo.
Yeah that is definitively what they don’t like, not the fact that their ranged spec suddenly went melee. Some people just prefer ranged. I am one of them.
Again, I think MSV is wasteful in that regard that it leverages too little of its unique tools, is misnamed given those unique tools, and bleeds unevenly into its adjacent specs. I’m not arguing that it was somehow the best possible way to use a third spec, let alone that the attempt situated itself decently first; I’ve argued otherwise since MSV’s inception.
But, the idea that people can only ever arrive at a given opinion through a “double-standard” is simply false.
Two things seeing different outcomes isn’t only possible through a difference in intent; only if the difference in outcome far differs from the perceived differences in the nature of those things and/or their contexts would “It’s hypocrisy/conspiracy!” become at all reasonable.
And there is more than enough room to make the argument that, yes, those natures and contexts could look sufficiently different to nonetheless informed and reasonable people.
I’m not arguing against Bepples take that the differences in outcome outstrip the differences in nature or context. That seems reasonable to me. Depending on the criteria for similarity and what else a given player might want to see on Hunter, that seems wholly arguable.
What I’m arguing against is the idea that if a player does not agree with him on that highly subjective take (that ranged technique and ranged technologies could never logically share a tree or that there are not enough themes to warrant another tree if adding it would at all crowd those specifically ranged themes), then that player must be hypocritical / applying a double-standard.
Agreed; that is, after all, a point I’ve already made multiple times since Legion’s release.
Not everyone played that iteration, or care to see it. Clearly whining on the forums has some impact on them reverting it to ranged in the future. Till then, enjoy the other two easy specs.
And I would love that. Bake RSV in MM tree and it would fix the ranged issue. Its much easier to do then to rework SV once again to that extend
I was looking for Beppe boy , but you’re the same if not even worse. Sup bud? Long time no see here discussing on hunter forums with your little lockie. You still call 10% hunter base majority??
P.S never mind I found him in the comments section together with that “EU” hunter
but you are 100% right here. If anything beast master is someone who can control beast in general by some fantasy definition. Would be silly to argue about someone’s fantasy. We are not in Bing bang theory. Nevertheless like I said Beast master is someone who can control beast , while fighting in companion is different.
Companion on the other hand is someone you pick and it picks you, and sv can’t tame/pick exotic beast means he is by fantasy limited to basic choices which are 90% of pets. Sounds silly but when I hear word beast master I imagine someone who can control all beast and he/she is their master. When someone says has a companion its more like two are together.
90% of BM damage comes from pets. They can even have multiple pets so what was blizzard thinking its just baffling to me
Not playing a spec doesn’t make you not prefer ranged over melee. Further, most don’t care to see MSV as evidenced by its abysmal representation. I get that some people enjoy MSV and I am not saying we have to remove it, I am just saying that I want RSV back. Also, how is discussion whining? All I said was that some people prefer ranged over melee, the reverse is also true to be fair, but no specs have been changed from melee to ranged so I didn’t get into that.
I don’t think that would be the case, I think it would make a lot more sense to have one side of the survival tree buff your melee abilities and one side buff your ranged while the middle buffs things like traps etc.
Im not adding anything new to this discussion so pardon me, however;
I just hit 70 on the hunter and main a warrior and it is COMPLETELY different. Before gearing up some the hunter literally struggled downing ONE rare elite, while my warrior, comparatively geared, could pull a room of elitres and spear/bladestorm while still popping defensives during. Hunters are CRAZY squishy, i have had an easier time with a mages toolkit even in cloth armor. What gives?
The damage nerfs dont bother me as much as how fast I die. I still pump enough damage to drop normal mobs sometimes in three hits or so, but if combat is extended by a health pool/ kit of certain elites, its like a brick wall. Never expected it to be this bad.
Alright…so, im an idiot. Ive been running m+ and just questing in the between times, and ive never taken off Lone Wolf and therefore never used my pets. This is my first pet class too. So, yeah, I imagine getting my bear out changes things!! Ill take that L, my bad.