Check the link timmy, they didnt lost that much compared to others. Only going BFA they did, and Survival change was already done.
Edit: Well darn. I made the mistake of reading your big reply… too much big nonsense on it… how do you even think ? How does your brain process these numbers and all ? You are ignoring so many factors just because its not exclusive to hunter? wtf…
Seriously… you are lost. You really need to step back and re-evaluate how you process this.
I did check the link, and your numbers are highly (and likely deliberately) misleading. Hunters went down 2.8% compared to the next highest with DKs going down 1.7%. Rearranging the data to say that Hunters lost 22% of their players with Rogues losing 21.6% is lying with statistics. Hunters had way more players to begin with compared to Rogues, so them losing 22% of their players is a much larger loss than Rogues losing 21.6%.
Assuming 11 million total players, that 22% that Hunters lost would have been ~308,000 players, while the 21.6% loss for Rogues would have been ~176,000 players. Hunters lost 1.75 times more players than Rogues did, and Rogues lost the third highest number of players, just behind Death Knights (which, again, is explained by the fact that Rogues, DKs and Locks were the most similar existing classes to Demon Hunters).
More baseless derision. If you can’t show how my numbers are off, then stop claiming that they are off.
Oh did many times, but you always ignore them, always deny them, always reject them. You are set to one tone… and will never change. Keep on rolling on it then, keep on rolling. Maybe you’ll realize how way off you are one day.
Quote yourself where you explained how my numbers were wrong. Keep in mind that saying “You’re not considering every factor” doesn’t count, because that isn’t an actual explanation of how the numbers are off. It is just vague grasping at straws.
As has been explained numerous times, you cannot explain the huge loss of Hunter players with reasoning that applies equally or similarly to all classes. Your attempted explanations only involve alternatives that can apply equally or similarly to all classes, and that is why your alternatives are no good. Provide an alternative explanation that is exclusive to the Hunter class please.
It’s interesting that all these conversations come down to:
As frustrating as it is, Azagord serves a purpose. He helps keep the conversation going.
By playing devil’s advocate he allows us to explain, in the most rudimentary way possible, why MSV was such a terrible decision, and why not returning RSV is even worse.
Thank you Azagord. <3
Indeed, like I explained to another probably Night Elf in another thread. They serve the purpose of always allowing the ranged SV discussion to go on, and to allow us to post the facts and numbers behind it over and over and over again. Makes it much harder for Blizzard to miss.
You vastly under estimate Blizz’s ability to ignore you.
I haven’t seen anyone stating that SV is the best spec ever. I say SV because currently the spec is Melee. I have however seen people state, like myself, that they do enjoy it, but it’s not perfect. It gives another option and people like options, just like you like RSV. There’s nothing wrong with that.
You say that people hate on you because you want RSV back, but you’re hating on SV players as well… The only difference is they currently have what they want in game. It will probably change, just like RSV did.
Are you serious?
And you accuse us of “manipulating the data”…
You can’t take the percentage value for each class from the Legion-caption and then divide that individual number with it’s corresponding number from the caption back in WoD.
Or I mean, you can. But it certainly won’t be an accurate interpretation of the statistics/data which it’s based on.
As explained by Spinnerdh…
What you, Az, did was basically:
Hunter - 9.9 is equal to 78% of 12.7
Rogue - 5.8 is equal to 78.4% of 7.4
And yes, looking at those numbers without context, they are entirely correct.
But…since 12.7 isn’t the same as 7.4, and 9.9 isn’t the same as 5.8, saying that both saw a drop of ~22% from one expansion to the next is nothing but an inaccurate interpretation/presentation.
So, in short…
…stop projecting.
The best thing to do would be to somewhat fuse MM and old Ranged SV. It could create something really fun.
Ok, let’s run with that. What aspects of old Surv could be rolled into MM? I had no interest in old Surv but raided with someone who mained it all through wrath, so all I have to go by is observation, and I remember Serpent Sting, Arcane Shot and a lot of Explosive Shot. In fact, the only reason I could even recognize Surv hunters back then was seeing Explosive Shot. 
Why do people keep saying “let’s fuse old RSV into MM!” Why?
First: Blizzard tried this in Legion, and they failed miserably because they didn’t realize how different RSV and MM were.
Second: what gives you non-MM players the right to take away MM from longtime MM players… again?
Third: cramming two specs into one spec? That is incredibly dumb.
Please. Please stop saying “we can put RSV into MM, no problem!” No, you CANNOT. These two specs are two separate specs!
Aside: sorry if I’m grumpy. I just woke up like 5 minutes ago and I’m already seeing this idea get brought up again. I hate this idea. It’s what gave us Legion MM. It’s one thing to like Legion, but you have to admit: Legion MM was nothing like Vanilla-WoD MM.
And I don’t want to be forced to lose my spec again. One that I’ve played since Vanilla. (Even if I sympathize with RSV players. I really do.)
EDIT: oh, wow. I really was grumpy when I made this post. 
I apologize, everybody.
Preach it.
I gave up the hunter in Legion because I couldn’t stand the changed legion made to MM. Let’s not go down that route again. Don’t complain about RSV being deleted and then try to delete MM so you can have your spec back even partially.
Kindwolf says it a lot. I found a half dozen places that match that verbatum.
Uh. Where? Maybe it’s another post. I can’t say I remember saying this. I have said that they troll us. I admit to returning the troll in this post.
There are a few other differences:
“Stripped” is the correct word and describes exactly how it felt with they “changed” the spec.
BTW, this post falls between “Time to move on” and “You didn’t really lose anything.” It adds a touch of “nobody says that” and “let’s change the subject” which probably should have made the list.
Worst part of this whole thing was blizz saying SV felt like MM with different shots, then they keep pushing the spec farther and farther away from what SV was.
Its all different depending on the PoV. Now youre saying I manipulate data, I only set up a basic template… thats all. Or are you saying others cant manipulate data but you guys can?
I guess Crusader Timmy tried to find the most broken way to take it and try to make it sound worst for hunters only.
Yes obviously there’s “maybe” more players with hunters compared to rogues.
But im comparing on a base class representation, since going with how many players were in each class % is utterly dumb. 1 player alone could be worth 10 points in hunter, another 3 points in it and 1 in each other class , or another could simply just be 1 point in hunter.
Since it doesn’t track “Alts” , “Banks” , “Characters leveled just for fotm chances and/or achievement” , etc. Hunters always been told to be the easiest class to level, on almost every threads about it hunter comes up first. So it wouldn’t be surprising that more players leveled one. (Speculation since no valid data available.) and by using that “speculation” you could easily determinate that people would stop going for hunter and aim for DH due to the level they start.
In what way are we manipulating data? You didn’t just set up a basic template, you said:
Which was false. Again, Hunters lost way more than all other classes. You are manipulating the data to make a false claim.
What on earth are you talking about? The heck do you mean by ‘points’? Are you saying that the number of players lost doesn’t matter at all, and all that matters is the percentage lost from the original total? So if one class had 500,000 players and lost 10% of them, and another class had 1000 players and lost 20% of them, the latter class would be worse off because it lost a higher percentage? That is what it means to manipulate data.
But this same reasoning also works for why people would main hunter. Furthermore, if lots of people alt Hunter then your position is even worse because Hunters are still the easiest class to level, meaning that the Hunter numbers are still being padded by alts and what not. This makes the loss of Hunter players even more substantial, because it means that the total amount of Hunter mains in WoD are even lower than the stats suggest. There was an even smaller pool of Hunter mains, meaning that the Hunters that did quit represent a larger portion of the Hunter playerbase.
Uhm…no, incorrect.
I mean yeah sure, maybe that was your intent with it. But your “template” was, in it’s basic structure, wrong.
You literally took the correct percentage values and jumbled them around, applied the math in the wrong way, ending up with a result so far off that it doesn’t even remotely apply to the argument made of class max level representation(or loss thereof), which is being/has been discussed here for all this time.
Meanwhile, you accuse us of things like…
…while still failing to provide any sort of proof or example of how we are doing so.
How are we tampering with/manipulating the data? HOW?
And yes, if you’re the guy who accuses others of doing something like that, you actually also have to show how…
This refers to…what?
What?
So this is actually you arguing that, for example, Rogues who held a rep of 7.4% of all max level characters at the time of the caption in WoD, that it was “worth” as much as the 12.7% that made for the Hunter class at the time, when counting towards how much each class lost, going into Legion.
I hate to break it to you but, considering both percentage values were based on the same total amount of characters, 7.4% isn’t anywhere near 12.7%.
Yeah…the Hunter is still the easiest class to level. It was in Legion as well…
What im saying is because of how that data is taken lets say:
There’s 10 players on WoW.
1- has a rogue, a warlock and a priest
2- has warrior and a mage
3- has a hunter and a warlock
4- has a shaman and 2 hunters
5- has 3 paladins
6- has 3 hunters, 1 priest, 2 warlock
7- has 1 of each
8- has a demon hunter
9- has 2 hunters, 2 rogues, 1 druid
10- has a hunter
Overall we have:
Rogue : 4
Hunter : 11
Mage : 2
Shaman : 2
DH : 2
Druid : 2
Paladin : 4
Priest: 3
Warlock : 5
So there’s 35 max level characters for 10 players only. So you see hunters has 30ish % of class representation there. Dont you see how off that is ? How inaccurate it is? Those could simply be class that got level to cap and arent played at all.
If your argument is that people get Hunter alts to level cap because they are easy to level, then that argument still applies to retail because Hunters are still the easiest to level. Therefore the relative number of “People leveling Hunters because they are easy to level” wouldn’t go down. So this metric is irrelevant because Hunters have been the easiest class to level since before WoD, heck probably since the beginning of Vanilla.
Aimed Shot really don’t have, and would scarcely benefit from being castable while moving.
Get rid of the charges. Focus cost will be enough to choke it back, along with the stationary use. But focus plus charges plus stationary? damn…