Update Hunter Pls

Classes Hunter
21

TL;DR:

There were several unique elements/parts of the intended design, even back then. But what you’re arguing, wasn’t even meant to exist at the time. And it didn’t.

Long version:

I don’t recall you mentioning this the last time you brought up the argument of RSV just being MM 2. Perhaps you did and I just missed it.

But either way, this explains so much as for why you bring this argument up.

It also highlights how you don’t really know what it is that we’re after.

Just to make it perfectly clear…looking at a brief summary of the evolution of talent- and spec-design over the expansions. For the Hunter class.

During Vanilla - WotLK, we did not even have specs. The spec differentiation you’re talking about/looking for, wasn’t even meant to exist at the time(and it didn’t).

The only thing we had during this period, were Talent Categories. Yes, they held the same names as the specs we have today. But Talent Categories have NEVER been designed with the idea of a completely unique and defined playstyle in mind. At least not on their own.

Talents/talent categories have always revolved around the idea of further exploring what your preferred part of the class was. Even in the beginning.

In Vanilla and TBC, there was only the core playstyle of the class which consisted mostly of ranged abilities for your core gameplay. Talents at the time only added to that core. There was no intended design to allow for you to opt into a completely unique playstyle.

In WotLK, they added some defining abilities at the end of each talent category(reachable once you got to a higher level). These abilities and effects served as the first step taken towards allowing for us to further define our playstyle on a more “tangible” level.

Going into Cata, this was when they first added what we today know of as “Core Specializations”.
The thing about them for the class back in Cata though, was that they still did not intend for you to opt into a completely unique playstyle. What you could get from for example Survival(the spec) in Cata, was basically the same things that you could get from the Survival talent category we had in WotLK. Just that some of those abilities and effects were now mandatory. Not optional.

And if we look at MoP/WoD, they even removed the idea of having talents that focused specifically on further exploring your chosen Core Specialization.
Talents for us Hunters, were meant for the class as a whole. For the most part(WoD).

The actual Core Specs themselves which we had back then, they were different. They focused on different themes, abilities and effects; different mechanics.

But the argument of saying that they weren’t completely unique(like what we see with Specs nowadays) in terms of how the class played overall does not hold up as, they weren’t supposed to.

In fact, it wasn’t until Legion that they decided that Specs should completely define your entire playstyle.

7 Likes
22

Beaupeep will just flee the thread and never respond like they always do. They always drop nonsense about ranged SV like that and then avoid any confrontation afterwards.

6 Likes
23

As opposed to using bad data to try and support their claims like you do? I’ll make a deal, show me, with support mind you, how many people were playing SV before the melee change because they liked it versus those who were playing it because it was the highest performing spec (bonus of not including terrible pet pathing needs of BM), and I won’t post in another SV thread.

2 Likes
24

Already been over this. In Siege of Orgrimmar BM was better than SV but more people played SV. We can never know exactly how many people played either spec or for what reasons, but that fact alone means at least quite a few were raiding with the spec because they enjoyed it.

Yes, you did indeed argue that BM was somehow not viable in Siege of Orgrimmar because of bad pet AI. I responded with an article outlining the best spec options for each fight in Siege of Orgrimmar with BM winning out on at least half of them including many of the later, harder bosses. Here’s a video of Method’s world first Garrosh kill:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jQYObKTIG8

The Hunters in this video were playing BM. I don’t believe you gave an adequate response to this back then. I mean, maybe you did post something but it was probably a weak and forgettable argument like 100% of your posts on this forum.

3 Likes
25

I never said BM wasn’t viable. I said that it had bad pathing, which was completely true. Some people didn’t want to deal with the pathing, meaning they would play SV even though BM could perform or they preferred it. In short, you could just say I can’t prove it and it’s nothing more than my opinion and moved on. I’ll highlight the only relevant part of your response for you…

It’s also comical that you use Method’s kills as justification. This isn’t you per say, but a large portion of these forums erupted earlier in BfA due to BM supposedly being dumpster, even though Rogerbrown and/or Gingi was playing it in world first kills.

2 Likes
26

I went heavy into the survival tree in vanilla and played ranged survival as my primary for as long as it existed.

It did have a unique feel vs marksman. Blizzard could have preserved that play style in MM via talents. I recall Blizz even indicating that was intended.However, they didn’t…

I don’t hate melee SV, I don’t hate the concept of a spear hunter. It’s not what I want with my hunter but ok whatever.

I do hate that my preferred playstyle for years and years and years was completely and suddenly erased from the game to make it happen.

I’m not alone in that last bit and this topic will probably never go away for that reason.

16 Likes
27

I don’t recall whether you specifically said that but either way…

They key word there being “some”.

All specs had to deal with pets during MoP(and before that as well).
BM has to deal with pets/pet pathing today and it’s massively more popular than both MM and MSV in raids. Even during the periods where the spec’s levels of performance were close to one another.

You claim that we, when we post data showing spec representation, are relying on invalid data/grounds for our arguments. But somehow you feel comfortable using the basis of “pet pathing” as an argument for why SV was more popular than BM during Siege, despite BM performing better at the time.

Where is your data supporting that claim?
How do you know that this was the reason?

Note that SV had almost double the representation of BM during most of SoO.

Or do you claim that the pet pathing was particularly bad during SoO?

2 Likes
28

You’re flat out lying if you’re trying to imply that pathing wasn’t significantly worse back then (back then being relative to the past, not a specific time or SoO in specific), which put BM at a disadvantage for the normal player.

And since you two insist on playing the SoO card, MM was the hunter spec for Highmaul Imperator world first. People play what performs well at the time. I’ll give you the same challenge I gave Bepples, go ahead and tell me how many people were playing SV because it was performing so well versus those playing it because they enjoyed it.

In short, you can’t so quit pretending you can and trying to pass off your opinion as fact.

p.s. Quit trying to set up a strawman. All I was doing was pointing out just one of the factors that could be involved in why someone would play SV over BM. I’m not the one arguing from a position of “authority” trying to claim the reason SV was played was because so many people enjoyed it. That would be you.

29

How was it significantly worse back then?

And no btw, that wasn’t what I was implying.

But yeah now that you mention it, I’ve played a hunter since Vanilla and I have never had so many issues with pet pathing as I do nowadays.

Technically the “pathing” itself could’ve been worse back then, but it’s actually just as big of an issue in modern day, to say the least. Every other boss you go up against in raids or pretty much every single dungeon we have today contains areas/mechanics where our pets get stuck in some way, etc. etc.

Okay. And?

Bepples have already pointed out multiple times that MM was equal to RSV on several encounters during Highmaul. On some, even better.

Show me one single time where I’ve “tried to pass off my opinion as a fact.”

I’ll wait.

I guess you here just forgot to mention how it was “just one of the factors” ?

I’ve never claimed to be an “authority”.

All I’ve done is mentioning how RSV was generally a decently popular spec in the past, sometimes even when it wasn’t the top performer.

Does that mean that the only reason people played it was because it was so much fun? No, ofc not. And I’ve never claimed that to have been the case either.

And it did manage to be the most represented specs on several occasions. And yes, those times it reached that level most likely due to also performing very well. Not denying that.

3 Likes
30

Yes, actually, you do… You both like to claim SV was so well represented, implying that it was incredibly popular while ignoring the fact you cannot in any way, shape, or form account for those who played it because it performed well.

If you want to play semantics and pretend you aren’t implying that, I’m not the one. It’s fairly clear it’s what you’ve been implying for months at this point. A lot of rogues hate outlaw. Guess what? They still play it, especially in mythic plus because it performs so well. You speak in opinion, but yet you try to pass them off as fact. That’s speaking from authority when you don’t have any.

3 Likes
31

No that’s just your distaste for RSV and for players like us who are opting for it’s return to the game.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

And again, show me one time when I’ve “tried to pass off my opinion as facts”.

3 Likes
32

Have you not even been paying attention? Look at class representation. Hunters used to be the most popular class in the game, for very long periods of time. Now we’re down to #5.

You can’t write that off to “Well its cuz hunters aint dps viable” because we’ve been unviable in the past as well, but our numbers didn’t dwindle to the point where they are at now. The shift happened going into legion. What else could it have been? No other class experienced such a huge drop in representation. People left the class because they didn’t like it anymore, and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that that would happen if you deleted one of their specs.

What do you think would happen to the warrior population if they deleted Fury and replaced it with Arcane?

4 Likes
33

I’ll give you a hint… they’re called demon hunters.

1 Like
34

You completely missed his point. He didn’t say “What if they took fury and arcane and made a whole new class with it.”

I’ll explain what he asked.

He asked, what if they took the fury spec of warriors, deleted it completely, then replaced it a ranged caster spec and left warriors with 2 melee specs and a caster spec.

How many warriors do you think would appreciate losing their spec to have something they didn’t ask for?

6 Likes
35

Try reading it again without your bias. He is attempting to say hunters lost so many players because if the change to SV. While I’m sure some people left because of it, I’m also sure there are other reasons. Unless you’d like to sit here and pretend all of the people who picked up demon hunters in legion were all brand new players… Where do you think they came from? One class would be hunter…

p.s. and let me just point out that the percentage difference between the most played class and the fifth most played class is tiny, and yet he’s trying to make it seem as if it’s some huge disparity. WoW in general lost players with Legion, yet dumbo is trying to attribute every player lost to the SV change.

2 Likes
36

Try turning off the condescension. You completely misconstrue the question he asked, and then act like that’s not what you did when it’s pointed out. Is surv going melee the only reason hunters lost players? No, not at all, but it was one of many problems with hunters in legion. I know people who liked melee surv, I know people who hated it.

No one in this thread that I can tell is arguing melee is the sole reason people left hunters in legion. The argument is that it’s a major factor as far as surv hunters are concerned. To my recollection I did not see or hear a lot of people who liked melee suddenly being surv and they wanted ranged surv back.

4 Likes
37

Are you daft? He’s been arguing for days that the reason so many hunters supposedly left the class going into legion was due to it becoming melee…

His entire point above for the “mass exodus” was that SV became melee…

1 Like
38

Do you know how to read?

Read that last sentence you quoted. “People left the class because they didn’t like it anymore, and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that that would happen if you deleted on of their spec.”

Just read it.

“People left the class because they didn’t like it anymore.” This is a broad statement about the class. If the argument was “people only stopped playing hunters because they made surv melee.” There is a more direct way to say that, because look, I just said that.

You seem to have a need for their argument to be what you want it to be. That’s not good argumentation, that’s called a strawman.

2 Likes
39

The change going into legion was SV becoming melee. You lack basic comprehension if you somehow can’t figure out what he is saying.

1 Like
40

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, if you think that was the only change they made to hunters going into legion, I can’t help you.

2 Likes