Admittedly I have not read the entire thread and I may be missing some context here, but…
When it comes to lore, any game should remain it’s own and unique.
When it comes to innovation of systems and gameplay that could offer new, unique or fun experiences for the playerbase, ignoring a good idea just because someone else had it first is kind of arrogant. Preferably Blizzard would take such an idea and put their own stamp on it lore-wise.
There are games I would -love- Blizzard to implement systems from.
When it comes to wow class design(specific classes), I definitely agree. Also when it comes to story and general game design.
However, if there are certain systemic functions that are objectively ‘better’ elsewhere, perhaps those could somehow inspire WoW as well. But yeah, broadly speaking, WoW should be WoW.
I said that the history of the class, and the lore, points to this being the likely scenario. Do note though that it could be either procuring the actual arrows/bullets with the infusion already made, or seeking out someone to do it on arrows/bullets that you brought with you. In the same way as the example I gave earlier, from the new starting zone, and the intro hunter quest chain, the part involving crafting traps.
You made it appear as if I said that you as the hunter weren’t doing anything on your own, but everything is just bought from vendors. I never said that.
Again, I based what I said on the past history and description of the class. What is, or isn’t mentioned/done. You extending that outside of magic, is not supported through lore or in-game.
Certain parts yes, but not everything. And still, the practical intent of Specializations is to portray how we(our characters) choose to focus more on one aspect of the class. RSVs theme was that of a munitions expert and trapper – you choose to rely more on what can be done through ammunition/arrows etc, over for example being a master sharpshooter, etc. What we had in-game, supported that, but nothing supported the idea that we actually infused the magic on our own. Not the descriptions, not lore, no animations, etc.
How is it even relevant if a “hunter” fantasy in another game or universe is capable of melee combat? The title of this thread is “Survival vote”, but a new vote isnt necessary. Hunters have clearly voted for 3 expansions straight that they overwhelmingly dont want to play melee.
It seems crazy to say that a spec should be kept just because players of a different game like the spec, when it is abandoned by the player base in this game.
Crazy is whining about a decision made in a video game 6 years ago. And when white knight betty makes blatantly false statements. Alas, we can look forward to another couple of years when SV remains melee.
You made the case for an magic ammo vendor. If I made it seem like you said something else, I apologize. That wasn’t my intention. I didn’t think it was that big of a stretch for a vendor to have all types of exotic ammo. Is there something specific that explains the source of serpent sting and explosive shot?
Maybe that should change. Blizzard had a hard time, according to them, differentiating between MM and RSV. Imo, magic could be the difference.
What if RSV could canonically craft all their own exotic ammo and traps. As in they have the magical skill to do so without any help.
Other hunters wouldn’t have that kind of advantage. That kind of investment.
Edit:
Or, if pure magic is too far. They could do it Monster Hunter style.
Like we wouldn’t stop at snake venom. We could hunt specific monsters for their powers. We could hunt something like a Thunder Lizard and make Lightning arrows.
Hunter has never struck me as needing to outsource its magic to use abilities. That seems more like headcanon, which is fine if that’s how someone wants to view their Hunter, I just don’t see it as fact.
Not really. I made the case for how we seek help from other ‘people’ in the world, people with knowledge and experience of how to harness X type of magic. Whether that is through payment or not, it could be either or really.
In lore, hunters are attuned to the spiritual elements of the land, much like druids, just with a more direct approach to maintaining the balance of life. As such, any spells cast by hunters that somehow are based on magic, would also adhere to said elements. Black Arrow(Shadow, and, if you are to base it in the version from Dark Rangers, using unholy magic with a focus on necromancy) or Arcane Shot, these aren’t part of such elements. In-game, there are no descriptions for our shots, nor are there animations, that show otherwise.
As I recall, not directly. Other than that Stings are based on animal venom. But since hunters are described as maintaining the balance of life, when hunting wild beasts, etc. I would assume that the idea of extracting venom from a fallen creature isn’t a big stretch. Could it come “someone else”? I suppose, although I would find that less likely to be true, again based on the nature of hunters.
Explosive shot? Again, not sure.
Some would probably want this. Again though, I would prefer if they brought out another class that was directly designed with magic in mind, with a fantasy suiting what we’ve talked about.
Looking at what they’ve said on the matter, it’s obvious that this wasn’t the main issue. Rather that they just are/were of the mindset that any 2 hunter specs which focus primarily on the use of the ranged weapon, no matter how it was/is done, would be too similar to one another.
Which, again, would equate to someone saying that “you can’t have 2 specs where both focus primarily on casting spells, or they would be too similar to one another”.
The hypocritical nature of such comparisons/standards is especially ironic(and sad) when you consider how they have since sought to make SV into BM, but also with melee attacks + a bomb.
I mean…still, that shouldn’t be used as motivation to vastly redefine the core fantasy and design of the class, or its history.
It’s a wondrous world with lots of wild beasts/creatures in it. I would be up for this, depending on how it’s done.
The Harpooning action, reading your posts about it made me recall the WoD item, the Thunderlord Grapple.
Stated use reads: Use a grappling hook to pull yourself toward an enemy target. Only usable in Frostfire Ridge. 1min. cool-down.
Fun, but needed a “Pull yourself away” function. Generally, it would get me too close, resulting in melee damage I could have avoided.
You said MM and RSV were “essentially the same play style”. I posted “NO”, they played different, the abilities were different. They were played differently, as their approach was different. You posted the devs agree with you. I told you “Prove it”. You say, “there’s this video.” And, here and there, every post you address to me, actually, you’re rude and disparaging.
“Your dumb, there’s this video”.IMOHO, pretty weak defence/defense(take your pick). …Still…“We felt the two Classes were too thematically similar” …your proof… You and the Devs are in lockstep. Too thick to see the difference.
Lol, I like you.
No, I think it is more likely they would quit the Class all together than switch to the new Surv. spec.
I am assuming now, that these people and me think somewhat alike.
I couldn’t, wouldn’t play any Hunter spec all through Legion.
It wasn’t that I hated the specs, it was that I HATED what was done to MY spec, Marksman, when the Devs tried to cram what was left of RSV in with the MM spec. To me, to play any kind of Hunter would be condoning what they did. It was an easy choice. I gave up my Main, my only character at max level. Idano, maybe RSV felt some of the same things.
With BfA, I could recognize my spec again, and my Hunter rose from the dead. RSV is hoping for their own miracle
When they can recognize their spec again is when they will return.
Because the players of those games and the players of this game have a LOT of overlap. Its not the melee hunter fantasy that fails to attract players. Its something specifically about this melee hunter implementation.
People in the melee forums have given a number of reasons. Only one person in the melee forums said that they dont play SV because hunters should be ranged. A few people have said they dont play it because it isnt melee enough.
And whether hunter type heroes in the WoW universe are capable of melee combat has never been in question. The only argument is (weirdly) whether melee abilities on the hunter class in the earlier expansions were a valuable part of the fantasy, or some necessary evil, an artifact of this unfortunate minimum range restriction.
I always saw each tree as representing an core area of Hunters, (BM) was to improve your pets, (MM) was for range damage, and (SV) was to strengthen your melee abilities and traps. You had builds and the more points you put into the area you were labeled as that spec.
When playing a Hunter for the first 10 levels, you do not have your pet that means enemies will enter your deadzone, rendering you unable to do ranged attacks on them. You stand as far back as you can then auto shot keeping distance by kiting backwards between shots, but eventually, they will reach you. Once they do, you must finish them off with melee auto-attacks. The early leveling concept of Hunters was that they were a range and melee hybrid. They were best at range but still could hold their own in melee combat if they had to.
The survival specialization was known as “outdoorsmanship” and marksmanship was known as “ranged combat” because it was the only specialization actually focused on ranged combat, and Outdoorsmanship just means that you engage in regular outdoor activity, think Theodore Roosevelt. The name change was cause Outdoorsmanship is too large of and area, but a part of being an outdoorsman is being able to survive in the wilderness. Since a part of hunter survival is using traps and melee they had Survival cover that area. Blizzard need a tree that improved melee abilities and the name was just added after.
Did the class designer also write the manual or was it explained to the company that published the manual by a Blizzard representative? If this was directly take for word by a designer than it was the intention of the class; however, if this was just explain by someone who was not on the design team then they could of been going off of anyone’s word.
This is why there are melee Hunters since the redesign was made by someone who was not on the original team, and simply just made decisions off of what they saw.
Throughout BFA SV Hunter was the only viable Hunter spec in rated PvP. It wasn’t even close. In response most Hunters just avoided rated PvP.
In M+ MM is still very strong so Hunters will likely play it. Even in 9.1.5 MM and SV were stronger than BM yet there were still more BM Hunters. So it’s safe to assume most people will take the damage deficit stick to BM and MM. There may be more SV beyond the +22 mark, but a) that’s a very small amount of players in general and b) you won’t see many Hunters at that level even as Survival because the survivability of our class is abysmal and there are much better classes to stack even considering Survival’s set bonus.
P.S. Regular reminder that high performance does not justify melee SV.
Hunters have historically had low representation in rated pvp, well before SV became melee. It’s always telling how you’re willing to ignore facts when you go on your little tirades, and then turn around screaming like a toddler when you want to use them for your argument.
Unsurprisingly another thread filled with whining, glad to see you few never change, I enjoy the occasional entertainment. Has Bepples and crew really been on the job for 6 years?
More on topic, I never thought RSV brought anything uniquely interesting to the table as a hunter spec, basically an insta cast affliction lock disguised as a hunter. As far as I’m concerned it can stay in the past where it belongs, the current survival spec is more interesting and enjoyable than spamming dots ever was. That’s just my opinion though. Cant’t wait for the angry replies though.