In both cases they represent spell casting, with Priests using a more holy-themed one. In fact the Mage one is the Staff of Jordan while the Priest one is Benediction, both iconic weapons of their classes.
The Hunter one is a bow because a bow is a ranged weapon and that’s the most recognisable and iconic part of the class. If the pet were more iconic, the icon would be a beast instead.
You seem to be adopting the position that the icons are arbitrary, which is nonsense. The icons are simple and easily-recognisable representations of their classes. That’s what makes a good icon. So when the Hunter one is a ranged weapon instead of a pet, that should hint to you that to Blizzard the ranged weapon was the more iconic part in the literal sense of the word “iconic”.
Of course, you could just ignore the icon and note that Blizzard’s first description of the class along with all the following for over 10 years explicitly labelled the ranged weapon as the iconic part of the class. If you don’t like that, you can focus on how petless Hunter is represented via one talent while melee Hunter required a ground-up spec remake, or how Hunters still to this day start with a ranged weapon and a pet but not a melee weapon.
You like to single each argument out and attack it individually, usually with a reduction to absurdity, but it doesn’t work given the totality of all the reasoning that shows the ranged weapon is the most important part.
OK so it’s a worse Hunter.
I don’t believe our ancestors fought with grenades, either.
If it fit more Hunters would be on board with it.
The melee weapons aren’t even the most iconic part of Rexxar; the pet is, and that was his contribution of the class. Besides, it’s not like modern Survival is anywhere close to a good representation of Rexxar. I don’t see Rexxar using a spear and grenades.
Please tell me what this means for the game in 2023.
Don’t pull a muscle reaching that hard. So the Hunter icon is a bow because a ranged weapon is important, and the Mage/Priest ones are Staves because they represent a spell casting concept? Why isn’t the Warlock weapon a staff? Why is the Shaman icon Bloodlust?
This is such a stupid point. Warriors start with a Shield. We’ve been over this. Does this mean you think Arms/Fury aren’t “real specs”?
Remember when I said “You like to single each argument out and attack it individually, usually with a reduction to absurdity, but it doesn’t work given the totality of all the reasoning that shows the ranged weapon is the most important part.”
Look what you did again.
In any case they still design Hunters as if ranged weapons are the central part. Our base tree is full of abilities that are ranged weapon themed, and they had to add a jarring animation-only ranged weapon to SV just to make it make sense.
Because staves are often used by casters to improve their magic?
The shaman icon is a tribal mask which is a good representation of that concept.
The warlock one is a shadowy hand, a good representation of the concept of that class as well.
The Hunter one is a bow because, like the others, it’s a good terse representation of what the class does.
So what you’re saying is the entry level Hunter experience is weighted and significant to the design of the entire class but that does not extend to the rest of the classes in the game? pretty weird and specific argument.
I think it’s really funny the things you make up to have importance and then the way you circle-back to try to explain how it’s significant. You say Hunter class icon is a weapon because they’re meant to use the weapon and it’s important for the identity in the most objective way possible.
Other class icons actually represent class themes to you because it backs up your argument?
It’s just kind of nonsense really. Evoker’s main identity is their claws? Or what does this represent in your loop-de-loop thought process?
There are just as many pet abilities in the base tree lol
The totality is irrelevant if each individual point is stupid. What you’re saying is the merit of each point is irrelevant if u can come up with enough absurd reaches to justify your point. A giant turd is still a turd.
so if we take this at face value then it looks like SV truly is the “resourceful” spec you cry about it since it can also use tranq shot and conc shot?
That they don’t matter to in game spec identity and gameplay yes?
I guess the same reason they picked a staff instead of a fire ball?
This doesn’t answer my point at all. Why is a hunter starting with a bow significant to you, but a warrior starting with a shield not significant?
I don’t really understand what you mean by that, its a Hunter? All there is to it.
And neither do I
Most people aren’t on board with it because its visually boring and isn’t cohesive at all. It’s like spinning 7 dinner plates all at once.
To me personally the most iconic part of Rexxar is his primal thematic with his dual axes. Misha and his other pets just amp that up even more, that he’s learned how to communicate with beasts and befriend them.
And thank you for proving my point even further that WfB needs removed.
the problem is ppl wanted rexxar but he’s more like a fury warrior with a pet. instead we got a weird spec that uses a spear, throws bombs, and shoots a tiny crossbow.
They do matter to the in game identity in that they’re derived from it.
They’re meant to be simple representations that invoke the identity and theme of each of the classes in the most brief manner possible. And it’s telling that for Hunters they chose a ranged weapon.
Look; since you’re going around in circles pretending various representations of class identity don’t count, here’s a better argument for you: stick to arguing that the central element used to be ranged weapons, and then in Legion they decided that it should be pets instead. After all, that class icon was created long before Legion. I still think that doesn’t work, but it’s a hell of a lot more defensible than pretending the ranged weapon was never considered to be the central element.
But a staff invokes the image of a Dalaran archmage. The staff in the icon even resembles the one Jaina is depicted with from Warcraft 3. It’s a good catch-all icon for “magic user”.
Because the shield use is nowhere near as critical to early Warriors as using a ranged weapon is to Hunters. Ranged to melee weapon is a fundamental difference in class capability.
If it’s meant to be representative of an earlier Hunter before people invented bows… that’s a worse Hunter.
Most people aren’t on board because it’s melee in an otherwise ranged class full of people who want to play ranged. It really is that simple.
Cool take but the pets are absolutely the main focus. Go look at the Warcraft 3 beastmaster toolkit. It’s all pet-based abilities.
It’s true that WFB doesn’t fit melee, but melee is the problem that needs to be removed; not WFB. The bomb is actually a cool and unique ability; it’s just fettered to the corpse that is melee SV.
Ironically SV was always the least played hunter spec when it was ranged. It only saw significant play when it was the top performing spec, but your revisionist, cherry-picked history always seems to ignore that simple fact. It’s also telling that I didn’t respond to you, yet you responded. Telling…
It’s Kill Shot is stronger than BM’s, same with Explosive Shot.
What a resourceful and versatile spec!
You’re the one going in circles bringing up absolutely nonsense things to “prove” your point. Class icons? Seriously? Not only that, you’re picking and choosing what’s a concrete representation and what’s a thematic representation only to try to prove your ridiculous reach.
Hunter icon = concrete weapon identity
Mage icon = actually you see it represents a specific item that some Dalarn archmages use, please don’t look into this further.
Again, your argument falls apart with any sort of scrutiny lol. Why is hunter the only spec in the game to you that’s starting equipment has any sort of weight on the class identity? that’s ridiculous, biased, and very on-brand for your exhausting nonsense
Twenty days late, but because the game enforced the same hand/feel for all melee specs since they slowly crept toward every melee class being a combat rogue in different armor types. See also: Holy Power.
If you think Backstab Combat Classic feels like Sub or Sin Retail, I have bad news… Everything is Combat Swords now, more or less. You mash your GCDs every time the wheel resets.
I personally would enjoy a melee BM spec, but that’s also because I have enjoyed melee ranger in several other fantasy games and played a Beastlord in EverQuest prior to playing WoW – a fantasy WoW has only managed to come close to capturing in Vanilla/Classic. I could pretend msv is that fantasy, but the pet is not the powerhouse I would be fighting with, merely another implement. There is also no DW option for msv, only (in aesthetic) polearms.
Agree. With changes to armor over the years, pen dam (bonus damage vs cloth, less damage vs plate) doesn’t mean anything for MM anymore. Unfortunately, that being true doesn’t make it less tragic–the dark side of too much QoL. I do think you saw a big difference to how any mage felt and how rsv felt though, given the lack of stationary abilities (customary for wizards). It was a lightfooted elemental archer, which felt pretty unique.
