make survival a tank spec!
1 Like
I think for Survival it should be an adapt theme and they should be able to use anything as a weapon from ranged to melee and there should be talents that fit both play styles. I picture a Survival hunter using traps and a melee weapon just as I can see them using throwing weapons and ranged weapons. Really they should be the most versatile spec/class in terms of usage of weapons in being able to make use of anything.
Beastmaster should be more focused on a support class for the pet. Add more to the pet and allow the BM to be more effective support. I don’t really care if it’s melee or ranged I just want to see it more as a support and the pet be the main focus.
Ah yes, can’t wait to get solo’d even harder by an AI beast in arenas.
I’m gonna disagree here and say the reason why people dislike current survival is because it feels wonky in PvE (which is the majority played activity) and could use a little love to be a bit smoother of a spec. S’about it.
1 Like
Leave my BM alone please!
3 Likes
Could maybe make the pet a bit more controllable for the enemy then for player combat to balance it. I don’t Arena so IDC what they do in Arena. Have something set for Arena in PVP talents that help with he pet and then something outside of it for all I care. My point of interest is that he current way pets are built up just feels too basic and there’s not enough there to feel satisfying as a BM. You should bring the most out of your pets in skills/abilities that support the pets and more pet customization in how it’s trained. The BM hunter itself would perhaps be less powerful as support and so that’s a weakness that can be exploited compared to other Hunters.
This isn’t a hypothetical anymore. We are 5 years into melee SV consistently being the game’s most controversial and most avoided spec. It’s clearly a problem. Survival is set up to be skipped over by most players because it’s thematically positioned as “Hunter but worse”.
The first line here outlines why Shaman and Druid aren’t comparable: Feral and Enhancement were established as melee from the start. More importantly: neither of their classes are thematically rooted in ranged combat. They both equip melee weapons and have suitable themes and mechanics built right from level 1.
In contrast, Survival always had a ranged weapon and preferred to fight at range before Legion when it was abruptly changed… Survival exists in a class which starts at level 1 with a ranged weapon and has most of its outwardly-recognisable theme and aesthetic based around use of bows and guns. Even the icon of the class is a bow.
When Survival asks you at level 10 to throw that ranged weapon away it’s effectively established itself as a handicapped Hunter. It’s like making a Rogue spec without Stealth. Some people might like the idea of that but it can’t be ignored that it’s just a reduced version of the baseline class.
There are other reasons why Feral and Enhancement are in a better position. Both of them have much more broadly-appealing and focused thematic directions whereas Survival is a directionless blend of multiple competing themes (consider how it’s often portrayed as the true companion of beasts that fights side-by-side with its pet yet it’s upcoming tier set bonus is entirely centred around the grenade throwing it just happens to do). Both of them are up against one ranged spec while Survival is up against two. Even with all these advantages it’s still difficult to get people to play them v.s. their ranged equivalents so where’s the sense in forcing a Hunter spec to be melee 12 years late?
It is the issue. Survival will never be a widely accepted and enjoyed spec as melee. This was obvious from the day it was announced and was no surprise to anyone paying attention.
This talk about “hybrids” is a distraction. There’s not really such a thing in WoW. If a spec has to be in melee range to do its full damage potential it’s a melee spec. Every melee spec has ranged capability and it varies from spec to spec. Survival happens to have the most but it’s still a melee spec. Its ranged capability is only relevant in small PvP encounters and while it’s often portrayed as a unique strength of the spec it’s not like the spec would be worse off if it were just completely ranged like BM and MM; in fact it would be much better off.
There’s no sense in tinkering with the exact implementation of a “hybrid”. There’s pretty much no reason for a “hybrid” to exist at all except for token uniqueness i.e. being unique for the sake of unique, and while uniqueness is important in spec design it’s not so important that you would sacrifice everything else to achieve it. Again, a Rogue without Stealth would be unique but it would be a lot worse off and most Rogues would avoid it.
That’s the thing: we never needed a melee spec. The class was doing perfectly well as a ranged-centric class. In fact we went 2 expansions without having melee weapons at all and we saw the class’s peak popularity in that time. There really aren’t that many people specifically interested in a melee Hunter. There certainly aren’t enough for an entire 1/3 of the class to be devoted to it when we could just make a sensible compromise like having a talented melee option within BM.
This is why the notion of the class being anything less than 2 fully ranged specs is a horrific idea. To be honest, all 3 should be ranged in their baseline (again, with a talented melee option within BM at most). The people like those earlier in the thread suggesting for BM to be completely melee and SV to be “partly” melee (whatever that means) should never be listened to. Their priorities are totally desynced with those of most of the Hunter playerbase and the SV experiment ought to have taught us that chasing the interests of that sort of person at the expense of everyone else is a bad idea.
4 Likes
The problem here is that this “versatility” is strictly in theme only and results in less versatility in game. This is for the simple fact that ranged weapons are limitless; they can be used at full effectiveness from 0 to 40 yards. It doesn’t get more versatile than that. Some people (including, most bafflingly, the Hunter Wowpedia page), say Survival is the most versatile spec because it’s “strong in both melee and range”. What does that mean? As a BM or MM Hunter I can do 100% of my damage from anywhere within 40 yards while SV is 100% when in melee and something like 50-70% when at range. That makes Survival the least versatile spec; so much so that it still gets excluded from all sorts of content for being melee in an otherwise ranged class.
Yes, that’s a gameplay and mechanics issue while you were talking about theme, but the in game reality can’t be so at odds with the intended theme otherwise it just amounts to empty PR/marketing.
The reason people dislike it is because it’s melee. Every major issue with Survival stems from there. It’s either Survival being a melee spec or Survival being a widely-enjoyed spec but not both.
3 Likes
Well, TECHNICALLY back in Vanilla, the idea was Survival was more melee based. Melee and traps, that was Survival. You ducked into that tree for the Raptor Strike/Mongoose Bite crit increases, or the various “You deal more damage to things” abilities. Nothing in there helped you at range, just general survivability and melee damage stuff
Except, well. No one went 31 points Survival. No one wanted Lacerate, the worst talent in the entire game. Your rank 4 Serpent Sting dealt more damage than Lacerate, and you could launch that at range. Survival was intended as melee from day 1, but it failed at that. That’s why Wyvern Sting exists, they needed something, anything, to actually be useful in that tree.
The intent was always melee, its just, unfortunately, the most compelling Survival ever was, was when it didn’t focus on melee at all. I miss the days of Lock n’ Load, but unfortunately, the intention was always melee.
1 Like
I can tell you right now, everyone does not share that input. Are there some people? Sure. However, I don’t, and I play survival. I have zero issue with survival being melee. I take issue with a couple of nuances with the spec, such as it being more pet dependent than BM. I do not have a problem, nor do I dislike it because it is melee.
1 Like
Yeah. I’m talking more about theme and how it should/could be implemented than what’s currently in place. If I remember correctly there used to be a distance where if an enemy got in that range it switched to melee range. That theme might fit more in that implementation but even in this current implementation though just from the Hunter’s roleplay and immersion having the most versatility when it comes to the use of weapons and play style makes sense.
There’s different ways of looking at versatility, your example of BM is versatile in some ways and it’s not versatile in some ways depending how you look at it. True versatility on Hunter the way I see it is in play style being able to use different weapon types and different methods/styles of attack in melee/short range/long range.
What I was suggesting is overhauling current implementation of Survival and BM. I want to see BM as more of a support class to the pet with versatility coming in in all three areas of melee/medium/long range and perhaps leaning almost toward a caster/healer’s play style in longer range. Survival as I mentioned more of an adaptive Hunter closer to what the BM is now but with more emphasis on the melee and then marksman remaining stimilar to what it is with specialization in longer distance.
Melee Survival is fine, its one of my favorite specs.
Could it use some love, yes. I think all specs deserve some attention.
However, Survival Spec is the least of concerns for Blizzard.
Besides how many different ways can you shoot an arrow?
Make it a range spec that just throws things. Campfires, meat, pets, bags, mounts, gear.
I’d play hunter if they removed the pets.
#DeleteBM
I think they should just make it so that survival can also use throwing weapons instead. Or maybe a glyph that transforms serpent’s sting/kill shot to a throwing weapon instead of a mini crossbow.
And also Surv should be able to dual wield.
Let’s not
That doesn’t sound like something a hunter would do. That sounds more like a rogue thing. Hunters aren’t ninjas
No we don’t, you know why you don’t play it. But you have no idea as to why someone else might not like it. I personally like survival being melee. It helps distinguish it from Marksman.
1 Like
I like the Survival playstyle, I just think their melee range should be extended when equipping polearms / staves to 8 yards and I really think they should be the beast master spec with the ability to tame exotic pets. Mending Bandage should be baseline and function like rogues’ Recuperate. Serpent Sting should be replaced with a similar ability called Poison Dart to make it fit better thematically. Also, the sound effects need to be more distinguishable and audible so it’s easier to tell when ablities like Raptor Strike / Mongoose Bite hit. Maybe even enchance visual effects so it’s not as dull. Terms of Engagement should swap places with Binding Shot on the talent tree.
how about we get a 4th melee spec so the players who picked a ranged class to play at range don’t have to lose the spec they love? also between the “BuT SuRv WaS AlWaYs MeLeE” crowd and the “BuT ReXxAr Is MeLeE BeAsTmAsTeR!” crowd, you’d think the entire class is supposed to be melee with MM as the odd man out.
edit; forgot about the ppl who never played ranged surv properly since they all just screech it was the same as MM.
6 Likes
Cool story, but the fact is that hardly anyone plays Survival and that’s been the case since it went melee regardless of tuning. Evidently it’s disliked by a lot of people; far moreso than any other spec. It’s common sense why that’s the case: the most iconic strength of the Hunter class is the use of ranged weapons and Survival doesn’t have them. You would have to really like melee to play Survival and those sorts of people tend to play one of the numerous other better-established melee specs.
So Survival has a niche audience; it’s greater than 0, but it doesn’t amount to much. That would be fine if it didn’t take up 1/3 of one of the most popular classes and if it didn’t replace a popular existing spec.
Beyond September of 2005 with the first Hunter revision it’s not an argument: Survival gets a thorough rework including Wyvern Sting instead of Lacerate and it’s clearly intended as a ranged spec. So the intent was not always melee for that fact alone.
The discussion before patch 1.7 is more interesting because of Lacerate. We would need to hear from developers who were designing the class at the time for a definite answer but there’s a big difference between an intention to stick to melee range v.s. better melee functionality for those times when a class with a >8 yard restriction on their ranged attacks is stuck in melee (after all, Survival kept some melee boosts all the way up until 5.0 even as it was using Explosive Shot and Black Arrow and was clearly a ranged spec). But here are the facts:
- The game manual from 2004 describes Hunters as a ranged class. It specifically says that Hunters are unique due to their use of ranged weapons and draws a direct contrast with classes that use melee weapons
- The class icon was always a bow
- The class started with a ranged weapon and a quiver from level 1
- All our set bonuses were ranged-centric
- Our main stat Agility gave 2 ranged attack power for every 1 melee attack power
I think it’s extremely unlikely that they set up the class like this and made a spec that intended to ignore all that and stick to melee. The aim of the original Survival was likely the same as that of post-1.7; you stay at range whenever possible but you can hold up better in melee when caught there.
Hey look, another melee main standing up for Survival.
3 specs using a ranged weapon is unworkable but 13 different varieties of swinging sticks around is fine.
Worst case of melee brain I’ve ever seen.
Stick to your own class, thanks.
Throwing weapons make sense as part of a spec’s toolkit, not the foundation of the entire thing. Neither this nor dual-wielding would solve anything.
Hunters aren’t Warriors either but here you are sticking up for melee Survival.
All three Rogue specs use dual-wielding and stealth. I guess we should remove Stealth from Outlaw to help distinguish it from Subtlety!
Stripping away core strengths of a class from one of its specs to distinguish it is a monumentally stupid idea. As it turns out, the weapon type isn’t the one and only thing that defines a spec and two specs aren’t interchangeable just because they use the same type. Marksmanship and ranged Survival were both different approaches to ranged weapon combat just as each of the three Rogue specs and both Warrior DPS specs are different approaches to their classes.
If Survival needed to be more distinguished from Marksmanship they should have just added more unique mechanics to either spec on top of what was already there because, let’s be honest, what they did was spend far more effort for a far worse result.
Hasn’t Survival stolen enough from BM? I love how making Survival melee was apparently this great move to forever make Survival distinguished and give it its own identity yet it has to imitate so much of what BM does to have any sort of direction at all.
6 Likes
Change it back to what it was, it was perfect. Ranged!
5 Likes