yeah, but game balance took precedent—and each year they go more into that. they really don’t want ranged dps specs to be fully mobile as it takes away the one downside range DPS has
Idk… I struggle to stomach the idea “balance is more important” for two reasons. First, if all I’m preoccupied by is balance, where is the rest of the game? I need more than numbers tuning to justify engagement, especially in the long-term. Second, balance isn’t directly solvable. I don’t think it’s better today either, just different.
While I agree the “eternal kite” can be an issue, almost every class is overkitted to deal with it. Charge has two charges and is useable in combat along with Leap and a ranged Storm Bolt. If mobility is the strength, there should be other weaknesses. For example, a lower burst profile and lower quality defensives (which characterized rsv and hunter until craven). Approaching complex balance problems one-dimensionally is part of the over-optimization that brought us here, and why I say the dark side of QoL. Too much of a good thing, and we start to feel the cracks.
I find myself asking, While it might have been true for Activision, would it have been and should it be true for Blizzard?
melee specs have mobility purely because they cannot attack at range that’s really all there is to it
yes, that is why the most recent rnaged DPS is fairly mobile but also has limited (25y) range
ironically melee SV doesn’t see any significant play at all
4 Likes
Maybe you don’t understand what ironic means? When the devs switched SV to melee, they specifically accounted for the fact it would likely by a niche spec that wouldn’t have a large population. Nothing ironic about it.
My opinion is correct.
Can you fight with full performance at 40 yards?
When coming up with terse representations of class themes, Blizzard chose a ranged weapon for Hunters and not a pet.
It’s just one item in a list of reasons why the ranged weapon is the most important part of the Hunter identity, not the pet.
A fiery magical staff is a pretty good spec-agnostic representation of a spell caster.
Because it’s the only class with a ranged weapon. That’s a fundamentally different capability to using a melee weapon.
A melee user with a shield is still a melee user.
10 years ago in Siege of Orgrimmar the highest damage Hunter spec was Beast Mastery but still many Hunters played SV instead. In fact SV had higher representation for most of the tier.
See above. Ranged SV usually saw very good representation while it wasn’t always the top performing spec. The only times it saw bad representation was in 6.2 when they gutted it and before 3.0 when all 3 Hunter specs were more or less the same with only passive differences.
To say Ranged SV was “always the least played Hunter spec” is dishonest particularly when you debunk it yourself in the very next sentence.
So they correctly predicted that it would have a bad outcome. That doesn’t make it not a bad decision. In fact it makes it worse because now there’s no excuse.
2 Likes
Not how opinions work bud. Again, what a delusional thing to say.
Can MM fight at full performance with constant movement?
If Icons are important, why is Survival’s an elf hiding in leaves? That doesn’t have anything to do with RSV or MSV. Do icons matter?
to you lol
but this doesn’t have anything to do with your argument?
Hunter should only wield ranged weapons and ranged weapons are the focus because the class starts with a ranged weapon
Warrior should only use a shield and 1-handed weapons and shields are the focus because the class starts with a shield
You can’t just change your logic like that mid discussion that’s insane lol
This is the same thing you meme on jackals for by the way
Survival has been a melee spec for 10 out of the 20 years the game has been out. 2 years of Vanilla and 8 years since legion came out. Stop tying to make survival a half baked range class with no clear identity.
You want a shadow hunter spec with black arrow, poisons to fulfil, ask blizz to make a 4th spec, dont push them to take away something that they have so much time iterating on.
lacerate only lasted a few months of vanilla bc it was bad and lame and then it became a ranged spec until legion (which was only 7 years ago not 8 btw). and now we also have 4 years of ranged glory thanks to classic wow. so ranged SV still king with a total of 15 years. give it up for ranged SV !!
1 Like
so the RSV people can play classic wow and stop derailing all retail threads 
1 Like
it is necessary when the rails are bad and misinformed
2 Likes
Lmao no shot you’re counting classic as well 
another extremely reasonable take from an RSV fan! very on brand
Actually for my opinion that is how it works because I’m correct.
Lol what a weird deflection. Tell me which one more often excludes you from the raid group.
I’d say it represents SV being stealthy like a guerilla fighter because it’s Camoflauge’s stealth icon, but TBH I never thought it was a great icon.
Apparently to a lot of people given the play rates of BM and MM v.s. SV.
Because ranged weapons define the combat style and aesthetic of the Hunter class. Shields do not do that for Warriors.
Warriors have always had shields for one spec and 2-handers for the others. It’s something that neatly fits into that class’s identity as a weapons master.
For the record, I think it should be the other way around. You get a 2-hander at level 1, and you get given a weapon and shield at 10 if you pick Protection. Because Protection is more about giving you the capability to fully make use of a shield.
SV is about taking away your capability to use the ranged weapon that otherwise defines the class.
The difference is my opinion is correct.
For real, though: the difference is jackalswind has delusions about how skilled and proficient he is at the game. When I make judgements on SV I don’t base them on nothing. As you can see I have many reasons for asserting the ranged weapon as the central part of the Hunter class, and that holds up as the core reason people don’t play SV. Hunters just don’t identify well with it.
Survival was a ranged spec in classic.
Survival as a ranged spec held up a hell of a lot better than a melee spec. In fact now it’s a half baked melee class with no clear identity.
They spent a bunch of time iterating on ranged SV before removing it. Why should melee SV be removed? A hell of a lot more people played ranged SV, you know.
1 Like
Based on what metric? Warcraft logs? Then I must hate current SV because I raided way more as SV during WotLK - MoP than Legion - BFA (I’m 100% casual now btw).
Pretty sure it sees more play in PvP and among casual players.
They would have to remake the spec from scrap because “RSV” never existed in modern WoW, figure out what to do with the artifact weapon and the lore they created in Legion, and on top of that it would make a whole new generation of Bepples. Making a 4th spec would be less effort. Or giving more options within MM, like oldschool ES being a replacement for aimed shot etc…
But yeha all you care about is removing current SV iteration anyway.
I’ve seen you say this over the years, but no matter how many times you regurgitate this lie it simply isn’t true. SV was always the least played hunter spec, by a wide margin. It was only played a lot when it was the highest damaging hunter spec. Your revisionist history cannot change simple facts.
The only time it was significantly less played than the other specs was 6.2, when they gutted it.
Otherwise, it had generally good representation. Like I already told you, 5.4 was a time where it had good representation despite not being top. You didn’t respond to that part so I assume you have no good argument.
Don’t project your revisionism on to me. I post proof of my claims. Here’s an example:
If you want to argue otherwise… prove it!
Damn, so I guess everyone who likes SV simultaneously became casual and doesn’t participate in any content where their representation can be tracked? What an unfortunate coincidence.
Removing the current one is a plus, but in an alternate timeline where melee SV exists alongside the other specs without replacing them I’d tread it the same way I treat Augmentation: call it a stupid idea and move on.
2 Likes
You can keep linking absolutely garbage data, but it will always be absolutely garbage data. It’s rather sad that you don’t get it after all of these years. SV was never popular except for one brief stint when it was the top performed by a lot.
source = i made it up
2 Likes