Why exactly is it a bad idea? I think having more options and play styles is beneficial to the overall health of the game and enjoyment for players. I don’t think taking options away (which is what happened, as I mentioned I used to be able to play an archer that focused on magic damage for years but it was removed) is good game design. I think judging by SV’s lack of popularity and community discontent, I’m not really alone in that train of thought.
I really do think SV should be buffed and given a proper look at. I also think trying to make old SV fit into MM will only end up hurting MM as it effectively removes talent choices for them (don’t want to play old SV or have a build that thematically clashes with itself by mixing talents? You’re out of luck). More over, I don’t think Blizz knows of a good way to make that work regardless.
They tried briefly during Legion but it didn’t work out. Part of the reason is because contrary to what Ion said, SV and MM did play differently.
Anyway, I sincerely don’t see the issue with a 4th spec. Balance shouldn’t be a concern (balance is always sought after, perfect balance is pretty much never obtained and it has never stopped blizz or any company worth their salt from adding new content, namely classes before) and it would help make a lot of players happy. Not to mention it would help set right the current precedent, there really is zero guarantee melee SV will stay with how things are. Or any spec for that matter. Current precedent is that a spec can and will be removed if blizz wants to do it for whatever reason. And that’s a terrible precedent to have, regardless on whether people like SV or not.
I agree, there are parts of MSV that are a bit of a mess, and while It’s a ton of fun, it does have a bit of a Platypus vibe to it right now (especially now with the re-work where specs are meant to build upon the lvl 10 basic kit - which is almost entirely useless for MSV).
The problem I keep running into is finding enough individuality to make 3 (let alone 4) Hunter specs work.
Maybe it’s revisiting BM to make it more melee-oriented (so Rexxar’s version of BM becomes a reality) freeing up Surv to become more Tinkerer-oriented (and pushing MM to really stay with lone-wolf/sharpshooter orientation). Where I get stuck though is taking the entire hunter kit and cutting it into four pieces that still feel unique, full and rewarding.
It’s like when people ask for Time-based Mages - I can’t see a way to make it cool enough and different enough from Arcane without changing roles (most often comes across as a healer spec). I think in making two different Surv specs, you’ll get diluted versions of each, like a more severe DH/Demo situation and no one will be happy. Or they’ll be too similar (and one will be better) and force everyone into one spec anyways.
Honestly, I think Blizz is at somewhat of an impasse in general in new specs/classes. If I were them, I would probably focus on support roles for existing classes first (rogue Tank, Sham Tank, Mage Healer, etc) to help fill groups faster and provide more streamlining.
Maybe it’s because you’re biased and refuse to look past your own biases.
Let me ask you a serious question. You think they can make 3 unique rogue specs, 3 unique warlock specs, 3 unique mage specs, etc. All in all 13 unique melee specs, 9 unique caster specs, 6 unique healers, 6 unique tanks, but they can’t make more than 2 unique bow/gun users?
Adding more tank and healer classes is not going to make more people want to play tanks and healers… well at least it won’t make more people want to pug groups as tanks/healers. The problem isn’t the number of tank/healer classes. The problem is, to put it generally, pugging.
This honestly confuses me since we already had 3 bow specs that were different from one another. I don’t think the role needs to be changed to continue to accomplish that while leaving current SV in.
Which also brings up another problem, actually. According to Ion, they didn’t see MM and SV being different enough from one another. I disagree with that assessment but fine, whatever. What then becomes incredibly frustrating is when they then make the melee version rip long standing abilities / talents from BM since vanilla to carve out a new identity for the spec since it was incredibly unpopular in Legion. The rework steps on the toes of BM’s thematic identity. So now not only has it removed something many players loved, but it never solved the thematic issues to begin with. I’d say we’re back at square one, but we’re actually further behind than where we started.
The rework also didn’t help it become any less of an outcast either. It’s still incredibly unpopular and hasn’t been received well by the community at large outside of its dedicated fans. Which I again, fully support as there is room in the hunter identity to have a melee spec that fights side by side with your pet and I believe more options that make players happy is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if the spec got another major revamp next expansion. It got left alone going from BGA into Shadowlands when it already wasn’t in a good place. Which could either be good or bad for the spec going forward.
As for how could you differentiate a reworked ranged survival? I’d personally give it a new name. Arcane Archer, Munitions Expert, etc. Base gameplay would focus on DoTs and fast paced reactive gameplay, which can be enhanced further in talents. Could even carve out different elements to focus on infusing your shots with. Could have a poison shot that leaves a trail of avid on the target or makes a puddle on the ground for AOE damage, or infuse your shots with fire that needs to be timed to react with your other dots like serpent sting or black arrow. Hell, they could even keep the current version of explosive shot if they wanted making it so you have to time your procs properly to not overlap ES.
I think there really are a number of ways where you can both carve out a thematic identity and a gameplay idetentity that is entirely unique from BM and MM while updating it for the modern game. I don’t want a wrath or cata era SV back (though I’d still enjoy those quite frankly), I would want an updated version that can grow with the rest of the game.
The idea of an archer who can infuse magic into their shots isn’t a wild or unwarranted idea. We had it for over a decade in WoW. I can get it in freaking D&D even! I don’t really agree with the assessment that it can’t be made different enough from the other two ranged specs. Especially as Dawn pointed out;
Dude everyone is biased, that’s the nature of arguing - we all have a side (esp online).
And to be honest, I think that yeah, Blizz doesn’t really know what to do with Hunters and rarely really have. It’s why Hunters so often end up near the bottom of PVP and PVE ladders (because every time they get built up to the top, it ends up being crazy-scaled in some way - unmitigated damage, no ramp up, ignores LoS, pet/remote-based, etc until public outcry makes it get over-nerfed and then it settles back to the bottom again).
Because it’s not just making unique gun/bow specs, it’s making unique caster specs (MM is lumped into ranged in general tbh). A full dot Gun/Bow spec should also be different enough than Aff to make having both around make sense. A pet-based ranged spec should be different enough than Demo to warrant both.
It’s not unique to Hunters either. Shaman also keep getting re-worked, and until really SL, have almost always been bad (at least the DPS specs). Demo lost a chunk of it’s purpose and individuality when DH was made. Feral up until SL was almost only ever a poor man’s Rogue and Outlaw a poor man’s Fury/WW/FDK (outside of M+). Half the Tanks in SL are borderline worthless in pushing content in PVE or PVP and the Meta in both PVP and PVE really caters to only a few specs in each role.
So yeah, when class/spec balance is already a crazy mess and constant issue, I get worried about adding another spec that functionally and thematically may be very similar to existing ones - especially if the goal is take old Surv, new Surv and flesh them into two completely separate specs that also don’t bite into other existing ranged classes.
Thematic differences are kind of a big deal on their own btw. Not even getting into how you can make them play differently, but the game is a rpg first. I don’t particularly care about the meta. I care about playing my ideal fantasy character.
Yes, but there is a difference between being biased, and setting your biases aside and trying to understand the point of view of the other person.
And you think that’s not possible? Affliction is a caster. It’s not very mobile at the start of a fight. It’s gotta stand there and get it’s casts off. RSV, being a bow/gun user had a lot of instant cast abilities and dots making it very mobile. Now admittedly I haven’t tried affliction in some time, but RSVs dots didn’t just auto spread like afflictions do. That alone is two pretty big distinctions. Affliction is also just throw all your dots up and then cast whatever it is their filler dps is. RSV’s Black Arrow allowed RSV to get it’s main nuke off more often via procs. So in short, there is plenty of difference between Affliction and RSV to differentiate them on just a mechanical level. Not to mention thematically/fantasy wise being completely different. A master of curses is thematically and fantasy wise very, very different from an archer who uses magic, poisons, and explosives.
Is there a point here? Shaman have always been their own thing. Whether they were bad or not, shaman always had their own playstyle, that Blizzard has iterated on, while trying to remain true to the core for shaman.
You only assume it would be functionally or thematically similar to an existing spec.
Ok how about sliding MSV into Rogue, making it leather-based and lean further into poisons. Then you could move RSV more into a Tinkerer type class, imbuing effects onto shots (and making things like explosive shots make sense). You could even technically go the other way since moving RSV into Rogue would finally give another class proper ranged weapons, and you could pull Poison, Bleed and Shadow damage into embues pretty easily.
I dunno dude, it just seems like you’re mad in general, miss RSV and don’t really know aff that well lol. I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t agree with you. If you think that makes me unreasonably biased why do you keep arguing brosef. Besides, we already moved on to using Rogues’ affinity to house one of the specs.
No. You did. Beyond treading on Rogue’s identity and hunter identity, I also simply don’t think I should have to change characters to get back a playstyle I already had. A 4th spec makes much more sense on multiple levels.
I don’t. I never have. I’ve been MM since Vanilla.
What makes me think you are unreasonably biased is the fact that you think that:
RSV shouldn’t exist because you think it can’t be different enough from the other ranged hunter specs like their are only 2 options for physical ranged specs. Sniper or pet user.
Even if it could be differentiated from the other ranged hunter specs, it shouldn’t exist because it wouldn’t/couldn’t be different enough from affliction.
No you did. Anyway, why should rogues have to give up one of their playstyles to house a hunter playstyle? Makes no sense when you could just have a 4th hunter spec.
Ok guys good luck with heralding a 4th spec then; if nothing else it at least gives you purpose! I’ll be rooting for you when 10.0 gets announced. In the interim, I’ll catch you in the stabby-harpoon-bomb blast-pew pew train. It’s all gas and no brakes!
We can disagree without trying to get a rise out of one another, no?
We can be very opinionated and still disagree with one another while being civil. Or you can just mock the idea of a 4th spec outright after we’ve had a fairly civil discussion before hand too, I suppose.
