Blizzard fanboys will really drop arguments like “they made a spec bad on purpose so players would play something else” with a straight face and think that’s a normal and healthy philosophy for game design.
Little Designer is an imbecile who threw away a low-maintenance and widely-enjoyed spec in favour of an expensive rework into a high-maintenance and scarcely-enjoyed spec. Little Designer shouldn’t be allowed near class design again. Only Blizzard rewards this sort of egregious design failure.
So you’re holding onto the position that blizzard wants and expects SV to be one of the most popular specs in the game but just couldn’t figure it out or be bothered to make any major changes in the last decade? Going down with that ship?
Anyways, thanks for trying Bepples. I know how taxing critical thought can be for you.
No, I’m not assuming their motivations are whether people like the spec or not. I’ve long since stopped believing Blizzard is aiming to design a game people actually like. I’m saying that their true motivations are bad for the game.
You evidently expected a certain response from me so you’re responding to that instead of what I actually said.
Do you think it’s good game design if 90% of people play one class? (Don’t get hung up on numbers, they are made up)
And if you think that’s problematic, which is easier and most cost effective to correct the issue?
redesign combat and improve mob ai / group encounters
make ALL the other classes more appealing
make the super popular class slightly less appealing
I think if pressed, I could get you to agree that manipulating class population balance through design is not intently evil (and in fact quite common). Then it’s just a matter of HOW to manipulate design…
You just didn’t like the choice Blizzard made.
According to you, melee hunter is fundamentally flawed and could NEVER be successful (from a population standpoint). I think the numbers prove that out. Blizzard must have known this as well (and I would agree, though I wouldn’t go so far as saying fundamentally flawed … I think the idea is just controversial or polarizing). So if they knew fewer people would play SV and they did it anyways… It’s a fair extrapolation to make that it was intended. So y’all can stop pointing it out. That’s all.
No you could not get me to agree that manipulating class population balance through design is a good idea because it’s not. They should make better classes. Besides it’s not like SV was game-breaking or anything. It was just reliably very popular.
Only an SV player could argue that deliberately making a spec worse is good.
wall of text didnt read - and whatever u said is probably right as surv does suck m+ right now.
but for 3 dps spec classes, if u have at least 1 spec that is doing well, blizz simply dont care about you.
rets got their rework because its the only dps spec for that class, same with havoc - a spec that has never been in a bad spot due to being the only dps spec in a class that already only has 2 specs.
hunters at least have bm right now while not super meta, is still pretty viable for m+.
wouldn’t get ur hopes up on fixing surv any time soon.
Shortly after Legion launched, Ion did an interview with a magazine. Others can help dig up the link later. But the important thing is that Ion said (paraphrased),
“We knew when making SV melee that the Hunter mains will not play the spec. We wanted to encourage other classes to reroll and try out the Hunter melee spec, since the long-time Hunters will not.”
If we believe that survival being ranged is the best way to fix the spec, than we should be allowed to voice that opinion. Post after post after post keeps asking how do we fix survival, well, to a majority of players, it’s to make it ranged again. And again, there is a difference between something being played less due to it having less damage etc as opposed to it being because it’s entire role was changed which alienated the majority of players - you don’t even have to take my word for it, Ion said something along those lines when they made that change, they literally knew it was not going to be popular or go over well and they did it anyway.
But this wouldn’t fix it. What do you even mean “fix it”. Would more people play it? Maybe, who’s to say.
Its design space would almost overlap entirely with BM has a very mobile ranged damage dealer. Based on Evoker being 25y and being mobile I’m sure they don’t think a fully mobile 40y class is good for the game anymore.
Genuine question, how do you see RSV existing in current WoW? you keep dodging that discussion and I’m not sure why.
I don’t think that would be very helpful for the all important spec-play metrics you’re concerned about. If it was a non-mobile DoT spec not only would it compete against BM (good mobility, good damage) and MM (the same thing), it would also be competing against other ranged DoT-focused specs (Shadow, Affliction, Balance kind of) that ALSO have powerful utility that Hunter just doesn’t bring.
