It’s not a matter of if you know how to play at all, it is a matter of numbers and healing and some fights being more ranged dependent. Like if it was a mythic you’d maybe have 7 melee dps and 7 ranged dps, most folks want you to fill the ranged DPS slot (these are not hard numbers). I think you didn’t understand the point of the argument.
Are you saying that, based on your personal point of view, how you feel that they are the same?
Or are you saying that, based on an objective comparison of the respective abilities?
Like Spinner said…
Example:
Explosive Shot doesn’t work, or look, anything like Mongoose Bite. They aren’t even in the same realm when it comes to similarities(as far as it goes when comparing damaging abilities).
By all means, tell me where I should head off to, in order to find the old RSV spec we had from the end of WotLK up until the end of WoD…
Yeah…
You also forgot to compare the amount of work required to re-create Classic vs re-creating a single “class spec”.
To quote someone else:
5 Likes
Who says it has to be RSV? You wont know if you dont look for it. Could be a new class you never played, a different MMORPG, a different genre of game, a sport, something else.
Comparing “Jupiter” with an Apple. A new game and modifying/adding something to a game. The new game also brings more incoming.
It’s a bit like a political add on TV. Propaganda at its finest.
I do. That’s why I am posting here. Therefore telling me to play something else is irrelevant to the discussion. It is a completely reasonable position to give feedback to Blizzard that says that we want back a spec that they deleted for no reason.
9 Likes
Lying again? You may not like the reason that Blizzard changed SV, but they’ve clearly explained why they did it.
No, it aint irrelevant, its just get sad that you prevent yourself from having any sort of fun because of a change… thats just hurting yourself and not moving on.
Keep it that way and you’ll always feel terrible / sad.
You can state any opinion you want Mr Troll, but dont stay in the past… move on to something you can have fun on it. Dont wait for it, it wont come to you… you have to get it yourself.
PS. No spec was deleted.
2 Likes
I’ve explained this many times already. Perhaps you missed it. Blizzard could just as easily have added a new melee Hunter spec without deleting the old ranged SV spec. Therefore there was no reason to delete ranged SV.
I’m having plenty of fun in classic. I just want to have fun in retail again too. That’s why I am providing the feedback to Blizzard that would be a universally positive change for the Hunter class in retail.
6 Likes
First, it wasn’t deleted. Quit lying. Second, you can keep calling a 4th spec universally positive, but that isn’t true either.
This seems like a semantics argument, since the only thing that didn’t change was the name of the spec.
I am curious as to what you think the drawbacks of adding a 4th spec would be. I don’t enjoy the current survival, but i wouldn’t want it removed because those type of subtractive changes obviously cause players to feel bad about the game. I wouldn’t want current survival hunters to have to deal with that disappointment again. Black arrow, lock n load, and explosive shot were fun abilities. What is the problem with giving players back a playstyle that they enjoyed for most of the games history? Seems like a reasonable solution, even if it causes blizzard to balance 1 more spec. Not trying to bait anyone, just trying to understand the perspective here.
7 Likes
Blizzard has finite resources… at least in the sense they are only going to expend but so much on class development. This means any new specs/classes will take away from said resources. You can go to pretty much every class forum right now and find people complaining about specs in their respective classes. Adding yet another spec that requires developer time only makes this worse.
And before he bothers, yes I am well aware Blizz is a multi-billion dollar company, and they COULD choose to hire as many developers as they want. However, practice shows that this isn’t reality. So we can continue arguing over theoretical “universally positive” changes or discuss the actual reality that class balance is borked and more specs will only make this worse.
2 Likes
I get that perspective. I guess my counter point would be that blizzard should balance those resources in a way that brings the most enjoyment to the players. There are a lot of class complaints and I think that those complaints are the major source of frustration in the game. To me , improving the current class gameplay should be a top priority since that is the core of what we are engaging with. I wouldn’t mind them spending those resources on expanding certain classes to improve gameplay. But I could see why someone wouldn’t want that too. Perhaps an expansion without so many borrowed powers would leave room for them to work on our classes more.
2 Likes
This is where communications from Blizzard would be helpful. If their resources are that limited, what was the logic behind making a new spec for the hunter class? Surely that takes more effort then refining what was already there. And on top of that, by thier own admission they expected it to be ‘niche’ and to not appeal to existing hunters.
So they took thier limited resources, allocated a lot of them to create something new that they expected to not be widely popular, or to appeal to those who had already selected the class.
- if resources are that tight, why add a new spec?
- if resources aren’t that tight, why not bring back RSV?
9 Likes
Another good question is “Why is 36 specs the limit of Blizz’s resources when it comes to balancing and adding new classes/specs but 37 is tipping the scale too far?”
7 Likes
Because that’s what I’ve been asking for??
No other class in WoW is themed around the use of a ranged weapon…
Not interested in other MMOs
…
So would that 4th spec for Hunters.
Yes, RSV was.
3 Likes
You’re absolutely correct. They would probably see an up-tick in MSV Hunters too.
The only problem is that MSV really doesn’t fit the Class Identity of Hunters. That’s the reason they are having so much trouble fitting class abilities into the MSV spec. MSV was the poster-child of spec identity.
3 Likes
Why does this topic always have to lead to same arguments? For everyone who likes MSV it a simple fact that Blizzard is not removing it,
Ion : “Representation doesn’t necessarily matter as much, I think. We knew with Survival Hunter that we were making a niche spec. It is a melee spec for a class that has traditionally being range. I think that a lot of existing hunters, they are all hunters because they want to be a range class, and so we don’t necessarily expect them or want them to feel like they should be changing; but for new players picking up that class, it is an intriguing option; and we have seen a lot of Survival Hunters doing extremely well at very high levels of play. So the fact that they are not playing as often, I don’t think reflects upon their potential so much as it just does where the audience is at right now. That’s not much of a problem.”
Blizzard was aware of what would come with the change and still has stuck by them. They may have reworked MSV but it never stopped being melee.
If some players want to blow off some steam by discussing about hating the changes, or giving ideas about a 4th spec just let them. Everyone that looks for post about MSV to just reply “they all need to move on” just leads to same fighting back and forth.
Blizzard never gives any weight to what players have to say on the forums, so there is not one player here that can take MSV away even if they wanted it to be removed. Even if you do not like another poster has to say it is easier to just ignore as replying back brings the topic back up. If you want to stop see the same topic then just let it be buried under all the other posts, or just not even click on the discussion.
If you want to express your love for a spec or hate then you have all that right to do so. To simply look for a discussion so they can start the same long winded fight to the point of conflict will never lead to anything constructive. No individual has ever come out on top by having a fight on the forums, there is always some other player who will tell you how wrong you are and how they know more about the topic. People who constantly argue seek control and power over others. You cannot reason with them, so it’s best to withdraw from an argument than try to prove them wrong.
There is no argument to have in defending MSV Blizzard has already made that decision for everyone. If you love MSV then go play there is no one that can stop that, but for all those who have lost RSV try to understand that they lost a play-style they loved and are hurt. They simply want to find a place that they can express that feeling with others who feel the same.
1 Like
Yes it was. Everything that was unique to SV no longer exists in game, unless you count the name alone. Now I’m no programmer, but in computer language, that’s called being deleted.
I’m giving significant reasoning as to why it would be universally positive, and you’ve provided zero reasoning as to why it wouldn’t be positive. Quit lying.
Any positive addition to a game takes developer resources. But if the profit/gains outweigh those resources, then the resource expenditure was a net positive. I’ve already laid out exactly why the reintroduction of ranged SV can only be profitable for Blizzard. I’m sure you’ve seen yet. So unless you want to admit that deleting ranged SV and adding melee SV was a non-profitable failure, then you must admit that reintroducing ranged SV as a fourth spec would be guaranteed profitable. Unless you want to actually back up your arguments and explain why my points are wrong (and “It’s not that simple” doesn’t count. Give actual arguments with actual reasoning), then your only argument against reintroducing ranged SV is dead on arrival.
4 Likes
yes it was you’re just being annoying.
7 Likes
In another life I was probably a dictator <3