To be fair you could insert any other dps spec that isn’t a Rogue into this question and the answer would almost certainly be the same. That is as much an issue with Havoc as it is Survival. In terms of group utility, one has too much, the other too little.
1 Like
It should be telling that the creator of that post felt the need to open up with…
Despite this plea from the OP, the first 2 replies are requests for RSV instead of anything to do with the current iteration of Survival. But I’M proud of the rest of you for leaving it at that.
Why would it even make a difference to you, then, whether they keep this SV or bring back ranged SV? Judging by your alleged playstyle here if they made it ranged it would literally be better for you because the spec would then be playing into the strengths of the class and not actively going against it. Is this some product of irrational melee pride or something?
You have absolutely zero authority to be making statements like this. You have no competitive PvE or PvP experience to speak of. This is once again just an angry casual melee player demanding the entire game be catered to him. BM and SV’s full mobility NEVER broke the game and NEVER made them the go-to DPS for all raids. You would know this if you actually participated in the content you’re talking about.
You need to stop with this claim because absolutely no one is buying it and at this point it’s just sad. It’s not the burden of everyone else to prove your arguments for you. If you’re going to claim a statement was made, you’d better come up with the statement. Otherwise you’re just being flatly dishonest. No, I don’t “agree to disagree” on this. You’re wrong and lying.
Oh, what do you know. Hazzikostas today just commented on why they made SV melee. And there wasn’t a single mention of ranged mobility.
As much as you melee lovers would like it to be swept under the rug I’m not going to comply with that. If I can never play ranged Survival again the very least I can do is make sure that its removal is front-and-centre in every single SV discussion. Maybe they shouldn’t have done it if they didn’t want to hear complaints about it for years.
There’s not much to say about this other than the fact that it’s one of the most reaching attempts at explaining SV’s identity I’ve ever seen.
If Survival were resourceful, which it was always meant to be, it wouldn’t be arbitrarily avoiding the use of a ranged weapon. As a Hunter, being melee and being resourceful/opportunistic are mutually exclusive concepts.
Uh, no. I do not agree that SV is good. Having the same utility as the ranged specs means it is NOT good because those specs are, you know, RANGED, and SV is not. The standards for ranged and melee utility are different. Good utility for a ranged spec isn’t automatically good enough for a melee spec. The tuning just compounds the issue. Even earlier in the expansion when BM had not scaled so far ahead SV was still undesirable in all PvE content.
Is your entire purpose on this forum to act as the Baghdad Bob of Survival?
There are other ways to balance full mobility, and this is evident because full mobility has literally never made Hunters overpowered in raid content. We should not be catering ranged specs towards petty, selfish melee players.
3 Likes
But it’s still easymode compared to other ranged specs.
Why does it matter? Ask them to add more engaging mechanics to BM if it’s such an issue to you. I’ll repeat that full movement has never made Hunters OP. In ANY raid.
It’s good to have at least some ranged DPS in the game that aren’t the same old glass cannon immobile turret.
5 Likes
You are truly a lost cause if you don’t see how full mobility is an advantage over classes who have to hardcast… especially in m+
2 Likes
BM is well represented this expansion due to the Rapid Reload + Primal Instincts madness and how we scale with stats as a result. In every prior season it was actually beaten out in M+ by at least 1 other ranged spec that wasn’t fully mobile, and that’s not to mention the Legion situation where it was often behind Marksmanship in M+ and raids.
So, basically, their current strength doesn’t depend on their mobility at all and if BM had a movement penalty this entire time its patch-by-patch representation would look almost exactly the same.
I’ll repeat that full movement has never, ever made BM overpowered. Nor ranged Survival for that matter.
2 Likes
Need I say more?
1 Like
Yes, there are exceptions to every rule. Just because Bepples wants to do something, doesn’t mean we’re all doing it, so don’t be an obtuse jerk making provably wrong claims.
1 Like
I just provided you with multiple examples that support the claim. No, it doesn’t mean all of you are doing it, but you can’t argue that there are those who do. This quite literally means that the claim can not be wrong. I’m not sure what else to tell you.
Multiple? You provided one example of a person saying they would do something…
So please, stop being intellectually dishonest.
I mean come on…
Those 1st two posts were people asking for RSV as a 4th spec. Something pro-MSV are stubbornly against with no real reason other than “But then everyone would have to get a 4th spec”.
- No they wouldn’t. Sure it’s not splitting two roles like druids but it is giving back a spec that was removed. (Yes it was removed, no amount of mental gymnastics will change that fact that RSV was removed and replaced with MSV)
- Even if they have to give everyone a 4th spec, why is that a bad thing? Why are more options for players a bad thing? Why can Blizz balance the game around 36 specs, but 37+ is too much for them?
And finally…
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
4 Likes
So these…
…don’t count because you try to rationalize them away? Tell us more about being intellectually dishonest.
Choice is great. Unfortunately right now Blizz is struggling to balance what they have. Maybe when they step away from borrowed power and excessive systems that take up so much of the dev’s attention than can finally move in this direction.
1 Like
No, they don’t count because you’re trying to say all pro-RSV players do is come in and derail and troll every pro-MSV thread. Two people saying MSV can stay but we’d like RSV as a 4th spec, in a thread called “SURVIVAL suggestions mega thread” is not exactly off topic is it?
Hence your intellectual dishonesty.
Never said they weren’t. But still doesn’t answer, why can they balance 36 specs, but 37 is the tipping point where basically everything would fall apart? What if they add a new class down the line? Are you going to suggest 39 specs are just fine for what they can manage and 40 specs is too much?
1 Like
The post was clearly aimed at garnering ideas for the current iteration of Survival. The poster pleaded with the Hunter community to check the RSV baggage at the door for the sake of productive discussion. Those 2 people chose to ignore it. Thankfully that was the end of it. But as a discussion about improving current Survival, yes, they absolutely were off topic and yes, those are two perfectly valid examples of my earlier point.
The line is already drawn. It has been for years. You know they can’t just add another 4th spec without opening the floodgate of tears from every other class. Eventually, we might get another class. We might even get 4th specs for everyone. But now is not that time while systems play such a major role in class design.
Really has it? Because this is just more dodging the question. Why can they manage 36 specs, but 37 would basically make the game fail because they just couldn’t handle it?
2 Likes
Please read.
More dodging the question.
3 Likes
How am I dodging the question? I gave an answer that could not be any more direct and then reiterated that direct answer for clarification. Let me try again.
They struggle to manage 36 specs. Adding another spec isn’t a great idea, but in and of itself would not break the game. But Blizz knows that if after all these years they open up a 4th spec to another class, especially a dps spec to a class with nothing but dps specs, the entire player base will lose their minds if they don’t also receive a 4th.
DHs don’t even have a 3rd spec yet. I think filling that gap would be a higher priority than adding a 4th spec to a class with nothing but dps specs.
Claiming other classes would cry if hunters got a 4th spec is dodging the question.
Do you know this? Or do you assume that they do because it’s not perfectly balanced?
They literally already had this with druids. Most people didn’t care. Most people won’t care again because this is a case where they would be giving back a playstyle they removed. You can claim “but druids were different” all you want, this is also a unique case. No other spec in the game has gone from being ranged to being melee, vice versa, or anything else of the sort.
Totally for DHs getting a 3rd spec. Not sure what it would be, beyond just mostly copying Destro locks, but hey, if they can make something that works, all for it.
2 Likes
Because most people understood that Druids had a dps spec and a tank spec crammed into a single talent tree.
You can’t possibly be this naive. You think Warlocks wouldn’t jump all over this in an effort to get Meta back? Or Shadow Priests for an option without Void Form? Or Warriors to get a sword and board dps style back?
Holy Paladins went from standing around casting heals with the ranged to playing like a melee dps while they heal. You are not a snowflake.
If you’re really going to sit there and try to question whether or not Blizz struggles to balance 36 specs in an effort to justify getting what you want then there is no hope in trying to reason with you.
2 Likes