Your lack of knewledge about lore is worse than i thought.
All Wardens are hunters, Maiev lore (warcraft 3) was all about hunting. Melee, poisoning from distance.
One of the strongest (maybe the strongest) characters of warcraft is a survival hunter. Huln.
Headhunters are hunters, most of them are melee.
Voljin, Tyrande, Nathanos, Rexxar all of them are extremely talented as melee.
All of this against “wut? rexxar melee? hunters are not melee haha!!!”
Bruh they just took a random Warrior from lore, redefined him as a Hunter, and wrote a ridiculous deus ex machina story surrounding him to try to market Survival and you fell for it.
You seem hyper-fixated on lore characters. Did you fail to notice that no lore character neatly fits into the playable characters? None of those examples you mentioned are well-represented by in-game Survival. Not even Rexxar. It’s not enough for a lore character to just “be generally recognised as a Hunter and also have used a melee weapon at least once ever” and it’s certainly not enough to justify removing a popular ranged spec and replacing it with the most infamous failure of all of class design. If they gave Hunters baseline Wing Clip, a cosmetic melee weapon slot, and an optional talented melee stance within BM, that would be a far better way of approaching it than this mess they’ve created.
Lore = objective
Your opinion = subjective
Are you telling me your opinion is worth more than lore?
“they wrote a ridiculous lore just to make room for hunter survival, so hunter survival is invalid”
-Genius Bepples 2022
You’re arguing that a stupid over-the-top character that was the product of retconning after they decided SV should go melee is justification for SV being melee. It’s nonsense. They could just as easily retconned someone in the lore to be the most Mary Sue exotic munitions expert to justify a ranged SV. You think Huln Highmountain is a clincher argument here when it just isn’t.
Your post here is just confused, anyway. The lore is entirely ad hoc and, to be honest, an unapproachable mess. It’s all just hastily-crafted plot device one after the other. To describe that as “objective” is a farce.
official lore = nonsense
bepples opinion “Bruh they just took a random Warrior from lore, redefined him as a Hunter, and wrote a ridiculous deus ex machina” i want hulm as a warrior!!! = makes sense
That’s the wowpedia article from before Legion was announced.
Yes they absolutely retconned up a Survival Hunter deus ex machina to try to make melee SV look good.
Considering how much is written here, it sounds more like an expansion of his story rather than a retcon.
Rexxar is the OG melee hunter and what it should’ve been.
Bad move on Blizz, but I like melee SV playstyle.
Make in it an optional stance for BM would be cool. Because honestly, range BM seems boring to me, I don’t get it. I cannot connect with the spec. I like MM though.
It’s probably because BM is a ranged spec but doesn’t actually interact with the ranged weapon too much. It could be a melee spec with more or less exactly the same playstyle. If they swapped it to a melee weapon and changed the few ranged weapon shots to melee equivalents (e.g. Cobra Shot to Raptor Strike) while keeping Kill Command as it is it would be a melee spec that would actually make sense.
The problem is, of course, the vast majority of the Hunter playerbase doesn’t want BM to be melee and would see going from being able to DPS fully on the move from 40 yards to only being able to DPS from up close as nothing more than a massive nerf. If someone doesn’t specifically derive enjoyment from being up close in melee, it’s just a matter of “would I rather be able to attack from far away or be unable”, and that’s a pretty easy choice.
Like specs in the past who tried to do multiple things at once worked so well in the past?
Isn’t this what ranged SV was famous for?
Isn’t melee with high ranged capability and a pet what Unholy DK is famous for?
As it turns out there’s more to a spec than just its damage profile and mobility. It’s not like we have 24 totally distinct modes of dealing damage in the game. In the case of Hunters SV was largely independent of a pet, dealt primarily magic damage, and focused more on sustained rot damage rather than burst. This was actually a meaningful difference. Siege of Orgrimmar was a good example of how it played out: BM was slightly ahead in damage on a dummy but there were fights where BM was preferred and others where SV was preferred based on the different designs of the specs.
Not really no.
How hard could it be? If I’m not mistaken, most of BM dmg is done by the pet.
Then a melee stance could give BM more stamina or something to make it a bit more tanky for being in melee.
The only ranged abilities BM have that interact with the ranged weapon are Barbed shot, Multishot and Cobra shot, yet everything is about the pet. You have no pet you do no dmg.
Feral tried to be dps and a tank spec, it was eventually split
They tried adding a stance for prot warriors to let em do more dps, it got removed
In wotlk all dk specs could either tank or dps, that got removed too.
What makes you think this would be any different?
That is completely different, they were trying to put two rolls within one spec.
BM going melee, is not. It’s just dps.
im pretty sure it was going to be the third dh spec, but i have no concrete evidence to this particularly other than hunches
and then they ran into a deadline and hamfisted the concept onto survival for some reason
Is it really?
Mdps and rdps while both being dps are still 2 different roles since there are mechanics that target mdps, there are mechanics that target rdps.
And unless the melee stance got some sort of big boost, it would be a dead talent since ranged is simply just easier to play all around.
This constant bickering back and forth about MSV and RSV is for sure not helping the class or the community. It’s like, shall we perhaps accept that Blizzard owns the IP and do as they wish? And instead give them serious and mature feedback about the changes they make? 6 years of bickering hasn’t really made Blizzard take the hunter community seriously, I’d imagine.
I like MSV and I like RSV. I personally think it was a big missed opportunity to not add MSV as a fourth spec. Considering how much MSV steal/borrow from other specs/classes it’s not like there isn’t room for both?
With that said it does seem like Survival will be going forward as melee and what we should do is advocate to get Back RSV in some form. And to give feedback about how horribly bad the Survival tree is. I spent some good 60 minutes today trying to get any sense of a build for survival. But the closest I get is “take all melee/trap options in class tree and go for all KC/RS talents in survival” or the “take all the shots and ranged attacks in class tree and pick up KC/WFB in survival tree” giving me 2 “builds”, one ranged/AoE and one Melee. And neither of these “builds” or different variations of them feel even remotely good!
Taking aside that we have a horrific amount of 2-3 point talents and that we have a horribly large pool of X% damage or X CDR talents we still have NO synergy between anything in the tree more or less. Things are connected yes, but all those connections is about Main ability A getting 5 talents all boosting it’s damage or shortening it’s CD. There is no rotation and no synergy. This saddens me greatly because this is Exactly what Survival have been struggling with. It’s a spec completely lacking identity, core or synergy. It is just bad. And if they made a good MSV I’d be perfectly fine with playing that… even if RSV is missed. I was really hoping they’d finally take this expansion (which core focus is to get back to the core gameplay and get rid of borrowed powers etc) and use the resources to get a good, functioning well thought-out survival hunter into the game. So far I am not convinced.
TL;DR Stop the bickering already, it’s been years and years of you guys cluttering the forums to the point that most I know won’t even go here. Just to argue about RSV/MSV. A decision you have zero say in. Let’s spend our energy into actually advocating for a good Spec, however it is. Please.
The talent giving a DPS boost would be a given. It would then be up to tuning it so it would be a decent trade off without either being so undertuned as to be a dead pick or so overtuned as to be a necessary pick.
If they can’t keep it balanced having it more on the undertuned side would be preferable so as not to force the majority of BM Hunters who don’t want to be melee to have to pick melee to compete.
Notice this is the exact same design dilemma as what we face with melee being available via an entirely separate spec.
The ONLY valuable feedback for SV is to make it ranged. Everything else is a waste of time that feeds into Blizzard’s delusion.
Bepples for the love of god, this is becoming ridiculous. You take my whole post about how the “adamant blind-eyed ignore every other opinion than mine” approach is really tiresome to everyone else and how it’s bad for the community and class and you throw back “my feedback is the only valuable feedback”?
If you really feel like it is and that god be damned it’s ultimatum and it’s your ultimatum or may the class and the world burn, could you please keep it to threads Only pertaining to the very exact subject of “survival hunter melee or ranged?” please? Because it’s spilling into pretty much every single damn post and it’s sucking the life out of the community. People just want to play a good/fun class. And if it changes or if their taste changes they change with it.
P.S. I know this thread is specifically about survival being melee so I guess go ahead and bicker here. But You and toxiktraktor and your respective posses have been having the same immature arguments about RSV/MSV in pretty much every single thread I’ve read the last week. And pretty much none of them are about the MSV/RSV subject. Please keep it where it should be, if you want to argue ad nauseam.