Never understood the desire to express low testosterone levels on a video game forum but they been at it like champs for this long.
Dude. Low T is no joke. And the wow demographic is getting older.
2 Likes
Oh, look. SV was killing it in PvP during WoD when it was a ranged spec. As was BM in the same expansion. And MM in the expansion before it.
Guess you’re just wrong again. Don’t worry: we don’t expect any better from you at this point.
Do note how 100% of your posts here are some weak rebuttal that never holds up along with an attempted grandiose statement about how whoever you’re arging against is a terrible and/or stupid person. You might think it adds impact to your posts but it never works when you’re always wrong.
Throughout S2 you were gimping yourself playing BM if you wanted to push higher keys. Yet the majority of Hunters were playing BM in keys.
Of course, if you filtered to 20+ it was more MM Hunters. But then you’re looking at something like 10% of the amount of Hunters v.s. the unfiltered numbers. At 25+ it’s a tiny fraction. Even still: at 25+, where SV was arguably a much better spec, BM was still much more represented.
I think SV will see more representation than BM at that level this patch. It might even pull ahead of MM as well. But that will be out of something like 500-1000 Hunters out of ~200k in all M+. MM and even BM will still likely be what most Hunters are playing not considering any key level cutoff.
As a matter of fact, high keys are niche content. This is just as I mentioned in my last post: throughout BFA SV was the most represented Hunter spec by a large margin in 1800+ rated PvP. The problem is that was out of about 300 Hunters. Most Hunters just opted to avoid rated PvP. Every time SV becomes strong and its fans rejoice that this time the stigma will be broken it never pans out that way. As it turns out, performance is not the main reason why Hunters are avoiding Survival. Maybe if developers and self-centred and entitled melee players ask a few Hunter mains how they feel they would understand better.
Of course it does. It replaced an existing, highly successful spec with, to be blunt, a dumpster fire. I’m not sure any spec in WoW’s history has required so much maintenance for so little reward and they’re still calling for extensive tweaks and reworks. Changing Survival to melee wasn’t a one-time “ripping off the bandaid” cost. It’s a continual burden of the class. This was especially apparent in Legion and BFA; in both expansions MM and BM talents were largely neglected because the developers spent most of their Hunter development efforts in those test cycles on tweaking Survival. Thankfully Survival was largely ignored in the SL beta, but now in 9.2 we see Survival’s set bonus requiring extensive tweaking while BM goes live with no tweak at all to their awful set bonus.
Enough is enough. Hunters by and large did not ask for Survival to be made melee. What we had was more than fine and what we have now is just a black hole of time, effort, and attention. All to please that tiny overlap in the Venn diagram of people who like Hunters and enjoy melee combat. Even just forgetting the old ranged Survival and converting the existing gameplay to ranged (i.e. converting the grand total of 2 melee abilities to ranged) would be better than wasting any more effort on the melee version. It’s sure as hell a better solution than throwing in buggy, rushed, overtuned borrowed powers that won’t exist in a few months time in an attempt to bribe people to play it.
You never thought much of anything of value when it comes to Hunters so that’s no surprise.
What does melee SV bring to the table? Being a Hunter but worse? I can fight in melee as BM and MM just fine. Why do I need a spec that’s limited to melee? Hunters are all about having no such restrictions.
Yes: it can stay in the era of WoW that’s near universally viewed as laterally better than the current version with many times the subscribers and a far better representation, while melee Survival can remain a dying spec in a dying game. Good point.
Yes because you’re a melee main who doesn’t know any better.
If it were far more interesting and enjoyable it wouldn’t consistently be one of the least played specs in the game. You should take note of how the primary audience of the spec is melee mains with little interest in Hunters. That’s not just me saying it, either. Aside from the infamous Hazzikostas quote, here’s Limit Max saying it on stream the other day.
4 Likes
First, if you think that link supports high representation you have serious issues beyond the idiocy you normally show.
Second, I bet several people you would link WoD SV and some kind of proof. It was easy to know you’d go and cherry pick a time when SV was ridiculously overtuned. Thanks for making me 100k gold.
Third, you haven’t disproven anything I post. Note how 100% of your posts are you trying to pass your opinions off as fact, and when you get called on it you post multi-paragraph responses full of drivel, which is also all just your opinion.
Fact, SV is melee.
Fact, the book you continuously link proves the class was originally designed to use melee.
Fact, the only time you can link to SV being popular is when it was overtuned by a large margin.
And the last fact, you bringing up BM as representation for anything is you grasping at straws. BM has ALWAYS been one of if not the highest represented spec due to the ease of play. You ignore this simple fact whenever you want to try and pass it off as support for your drivel.
The next few years with you still whining like a toddler will be nothing if not enjoyable.
3 Likes
Yeah that’s a great example of personal bias but the issue is that the game isn’t yours, it’s Blizzard’s.
You do realize that ranged SV hasn’t been in the game for 3 expansions right lol it may be time to let go
3 Likes
First, Bears.
Second, Beets.
Third, Battlestar Galactica.
Fact, Black Bears are the best Bears.
Fact, Bears eat Beets.
2 Likes
But that about how MSV still is. You’re spamming bombs and shooting a Serpent Sting in between. If you take Bloodseek or Mongoose Bite that two more dots you added. Then if you have Flayed Shot you now have another dot.
MSV is still just as dot spammer as it was when it was range.
1 Like
This is an interesting point that shouldnt be overlooked. One of the problems for melee enthusiasts (according to some responders to my inquiry on the melee forums) is the other two specs. For a melee enthusiast to main SV, they have to be commited to a class with only one melee spec, when there are other melee classes with 3 melee specs or 2 melee dps and one melee tank, or a melee dps, a tank and a healer. SV cant really compete with that.
In fact, a graph showing high representation across the 2 expansions it still represents before SV melee supports the fact that the Hunter class was capable of high representation in PvP.
In case you forgot how we got here: I said that Hunter rated PvP representation was extremely low in BFA. That’s because the ranged specs were gimped in rated PvP and not many Hunters wanted to play the melee spec, so even though the melee spec was tuned high in rated PvP most Hunters just didn’t engage in it. Your response was some revisionist equivocating, arguing that Hunters have always had low representation. Evidently that’s not true.
I’ll add this to the list of things that definitely happened.
Since you evidently failed to comprehend what was posted, I’ll copy paste what I said and bold the important part you missed:
“Oh, look. SV was killing it in PvP during WoD when it was a ranged spec. As was BM in the same expansion. And MM in the expansion before it.”
Remember, you weren’t arguing about SV specifically. You said “Hunters have historically had low representation in rated pvp”. We were talking about Hunter representation, after all. And I linked the data that shows that it wasn’t true; both SV and BM had high representation throughout WoD, and in the expansion before it (MoP) BM and MM had their turns at high representation. Whether or not SV during WoD in particular was overtuned(and I’d argue it really wasn’t, especially after 6.2) is irrelevant. BFA’s poor representation for the class was not normal. It was a result of Hunters being generally unwilling to go melee. There’s the point; try not to miss it this time.
This is just handwaving and there’s no actual argument here. I actually referred to several factual statistics in my post that supported the argument that Hunters are unwilling to play melee.
Yes, and there’s no clear reason why it’s melee. It’s a major drawback for the spec that offers no clear benefit and has no reason to still exist. You just complained about people passing off opinions as fact. Wait until you see every single ostensible reason they made Survival melee in the first place.
Fact, the book clearly states that Hunters are primarily a ranged class and they are distinguished from melee classes by their use of ranged attacks. Your melee brain is fixated on the section that lists what weapons they can use which includes melee weapons and you leap from there to concluding that a Hunter without a ranged weapon at all is somehow representative of the roots of the Hunter class, which is, to everyone else without chronic melee brain syndrome, obviously fallacious.
No one denies that Hunters had melee weapons in Vanilla and they had a melee weapon that they had to use when stuck up close. The point of discussion is whether it makes sense in modern WoW to have a Hunter spec that lacks a ranged weapon, has a melee weapon, and prefers to stick to melee range as much as possible. It sure as hell isn’t representative of the roots of the class since all iterations of every Hunter spec before Legion had a ranged weapon and preferred to fight at range as much as possible (yes, even SV before the 1.7 review when it still had Lacerate as an end talent). Believing that modern SV is at all representative of classic SV has always depended on a chronic and fundamental misunderstanding of what classic Hunter was. That’s why I link the manual page: it clearly explains the vision of the class and that vision is ranged combat.
It was consistently popular all the way from 3.0 WotLK to WoD 6.2, a period of about 7 years. Do you believe it was overtuned by a large margin that entire time?
In any case, at least when ranged SV does good damage it sees a lot of play. Melee SV has done good and even great damage at many points and it still remains underplayed all the time. Only people with terminal melee brain see this as a good thing.
This… doesn’t actually refute what I said? You’re really bad at reading comprehension. The whole point of that line of discussion is that even with SV being the best spec in M+ it’s still unlikely to be the most represented Hunter spec in M+.
Yes, thank you for observation. In a literal sense Blizzard is permitted to make stupid decisions in their game and double down on them. I’m glad we discovered this revelation. However, in the interest of making a good game, Blizzard should make well-thought-out changes and discuss their design decisions with the playerbase. That’s what good developers do, including Blizzard in the past. Now WoW is a dying game so it’s a bit odd to stake pride in Blizzard’s continually self-destructive habit of bad decision making and aversion to any player feedback whatsoever.
As I explained in the post, melee Survival continues to be a cost and a burden for the class. There is always pressing reason to make Survival ranged, even if it were melee for 10 expansions.
7 Likes
Hunters have never had high representation. It takes a special level of stupid to not understand this having played a hunter since launch. Eliminate the brief spurts which were entirely due to being overtuned, hunters have ALWAYS been routinely near the bottom of rated pvp representation.
Note, thanks for proving my point. Several paragraphs of you trying to pass your opinions off as fact. You’re so predictable it’s kind of sad.
You keep dismissing all references/data, all links showing what it actually was like.
This must mean that you have references(links to such data) of your own, to support your claim?
7 Likes
This. At this point I’m tired of being baited into doing the work in finding all the actual data and facts. I want to see what they have to offer (we all know it’s nothing).
5 Likes
None of this is true though
Of all hills to die on are you sure you want to spend your life fighting for a playstyle removed from a video game several years ago that no one really cares about
3 Likes
You said it yourself. Considering the intense discussions throughout the years, clearly that statement isn’t true.
6 Likes
My bad lol
4 people care
1 Like
Again, it takes a special level of stupid to claim hunters had high representation in rated pvp. This isn’t new, it’s been this way for a very, very long time. But I’m not surprised that the both of you would try to play dumb and spout your revisionist drivel.
Hunter was NEVER highly represented in rated pvp.
2 Likes
Again, post something that supports your claim. If you’re going to dismiss any and all other links/data, then provide some of your own, to show that Hunters were in fact “NEVER highly represented in PvP”.
7 Likes
We’ve already shown you evidence of the contrary. You’re now repeating your argument over and over because you think your word is worth something. At this point it’s worth less than nothing. If you’re making an argument about something objective such as representation in rated PvP you’d better post proof of what you’re saying. Because the evidence shows that the Hunter class routinely had good representation in PvP outside of BFA.
5 Likes
You’re delusional. The amount of lying you do to try and prove a point is hilarious. Hunters were never highly represented in rated pvp, because they were historically never that good in rated pvp. Try hard more, it’s comical at this point.
1 Like
You say this like your weird arguments for RSV mean anything lol
When 10.0 drops, Survival will still be melee
1 Like