Why Surv gets no love?

There aren’t even “quite a few” players in rated PvP in general. Do you realise how stupid it is to pretend a spec being popular in rated PvP balances out the spec being unpopular everywhere else? You’re typically looking at low hundreds for each class for 1800+. Arenamate tracks 225 Survival Hunters in 3v3 putting it at 15th place and it’s similar for 2v2. It doesn’t even make it into the top 15 in 2v2, and in RBGs it’s actually below BM. Meanwhile, literally thousands of Hunters have killed Mythic N’zoth, the hardest PvE bosss. The amount of people participating in end-game PvE v.s. PvP is not in the same league.

Plus, if you’re looking to rated PvP, Survival was much, much more represented there the last time it was ranged.

Uh, no. It requires that we assume Blizzard didn’t intend the Hunter melee tookit to be as strong as the ranged toolkit which is a very safe assumption given everything they said and did about the class back then.

If you’re just going to dismiss classic now how come you brought it up in the first place? Remember, you’re the one who first talked about Hunters having melee in classic as some sort of precedent for a Hunter spec lacking a ranged weapon entirely.

Yes, it has changed. And that change was a giant mistake and should be reverted.

Threat was a big issue for Paladins back then because most of their threat came from holy damage abilities and most of their holy damage sources were either a) not on-demand (i.e. procs on melee attacks) or b) only worked against undead. They relied heavily on Consecration which was not in the Protection tree meaning it was costly to spec into it and at one point Blizzard actually made it even harder for Protection paladins to reach Consecration.

And even that gets replaced by Concussive Shot at level 13 for the ranged specs.

I think even Blizzard has given up on trying to make melee a mainstay in the core Hunter class and is rather going for the “compromise” approach where all of the class is ranged except for a token part of Survival’s toolkit that keeps it in melee range most of the time.

I know it’s probably hard to understand given your (evidently from your armory page) minimal investment in the class, but classes are meant to have a central identity for the specs to build on. If you start broadening what classes can be you can easily come to ridiculous conclusions like representing all of the Warlock fantasy via the Mage class or Paladins via the Priest class. Classes do actually need to be specific in what they do and what you’re trying to do is broaden Hunters to the most vague and abstract point that something like Headhunter, which pretty much lacks everything represented by this class, can be counted.

This also ignores the role Hunters had in having the class identity of the ranged attacker; all of the game’s ranged weapon representation was in the Hunter class. When you take away ranged specs to replace them with melee, while you might think you’re “evolving” the class to encompass “more of what a hunter actually is” (a completely ill-defined and subjective concept in the first place) you are sabotaging the game’s ability to explore ranged weapon archetypes.

And for what? Look at the audience of the current Survival spec v.s. what it used to be. Can you honestly argue that screwing so many players over was worth it? Oh, wait. I don’t know why I ask given the routine selfishness of Survival mains we see around here.

What Mage spec should be put on the chopping block to make it happen?

It would be a resourceful opportunist that makes creative use of tools to gain an advantage in combat, i.e. what Survival was in every single ranged iteration including the first. Enhanced projectiles are part of that.

No, I didn’t complain about this. What I did say was that Black Arrow was the least-fitting element of the toolkit and should have been rebranded into something that had the same mechanics but aesthetically fit better.

I’m not going to pretend having explosives and poisons in the same spec is something that doesn’t work. Not only was it like that for every iteration of Survival before ranged but it’s true of the current Survival too. If you want to take the “aesthetically incoherent” angle, feel free to explain to me how Serpent Sting and Wildfire Bomb fit in with a spec that’s also the melee skirmisher that fights alongside its pet.

You people have been saying this since Legion. Remember all the talk about the great “influx” of players when Method had an SV Hunter on their first Gul’dan kill? You can still go to that video and see the comments saying things like that. We hear it every time SV is buffed or ends up doing decent damage. It never holds up.

How do you even quantify “I’ve been seeing an increase!”. We are relying on your anecdote being true and accurate. I still routinely go into BGs and see multiple Hunters, up to 15 sometimes, with 0 Survival Hunters. Their representation in raids is as bad as ever and their rated PvP representation has actually gotten worse. But hey, I’m sure Azagorod will come soon to tell us that there are plenty of Survival Hunters out there hiding out in the world quests and Goldshire RP, right?

The problem is it wasn’t even laziness. Differentiating MM and SV as ranged specs would have been the “lazy” solution. It would have been the one that took much less effort and was much less of a risk. It would have also been more effective. I think it’s less laziness or even maliciousness and more an inherent preference of the developers for melee fantasies over ranged ones which meant they had trouble giving any thought or care to development of ranged specs in the Hunter class.

So basically an earlier, worse Hunter? Got it. I’d also love to learn about the part where we hunted mammoths with grenades.

Plus, this mostly misses the point of hunting in general. Spears? They were usually thrown. Being ranged was pretty much always preferable. It doesn’t make sense for Survival to be arbitrarily sticking to melee. It depends on a confusion on how hunting is usually done and what Survival’s identity was in the first place. Survival is meant to be an opportunist and an escape artist. I’d actually argue it only makes slightly more sense for Survival to be melee than Marksmanship.

No surprise Survival appeals to the Warrior types. Let’s be honest: that’s the purpose of melee Survival in the first place: a welcome mat for Warriors in the Hunter class.

It did more damage than BM for much of Uldir. It barely made a difference.

It really is because most Hunters don’t like melee. Even Blizzard agrees to this.

15 Likes

Your archaic idea that the hunter class identity solely revolves around ranged damage and pets is just flat out obsolete. Just because blizzard presented you with a build of the hunter class in the past that fit that specific niche archetype, doesn’t mean that they cant expand on it in the future.

I can understand that you are upset about MSV being a thing, and that you miss the glory days of MoP RSV, but i honestly don’t see them reverting MSV back to RSV. Blizzard made the choice to expand upon the hunter class identity by making MSV. and imo it was a step in the right direction. Even if mechanically the spec isn’t perfect, it provides a more unique spec and playstyle than RSV ever did, seeing as how the core mechanical differences between RSV and MM in MoP (not counting passives) was literally 2 buttons.

P.S. A little tip. Try to sound less smug with your posting. People generally tend to listen and ponder others arguments more when they are not attempting to insult them or claim a false sense of superiority.

1 Like

Listen… I think Blizz hit the jackpot with Wildfire bomb. All they have to do is change of survival back to a purely range spec. Instead of using a bow they would still use their two handed or dual wield weapons, but they would throw bombs all types of bombs.

Just like BM/MM USE a gun or a bow and shoot directly at the target, Survival would lock onto a Target and then throw a whole rotation of dps bombs with all types of cool visual effects (a resource builder bomb and then spenders). That would look really cool. They could even bring back the old graphic for explosive shot (best spell effect this game has ever seen) and turn it into a explosive bomb.

Serpent sting could become serpent bomb have the same effect of nature DOT. Traps would be thrown directly at the target instead of aimed, and activate immediately (survival perk). Have traps be instant so we could throw the freezing/tar trap directly at an opponent to cc them.

Stings could take on a whole different meaning. Have 3 different type of stings with 45 second CDs on each and 15 second duration, that way you have to cycle through and keep one sting up always for optimal performance (only one sting can be active at a time. Overwrites) . These stings buff the attacks of ur pet on the target in various ways. 1. Stacking bleeds from attacks, 2. increases pet crit chance moderately 3. Buffs pets haste significantly.

This let’s survival be mostly ranged with good pet damage directly controlled by the hunter. Survival would still use a two hander and if you happen to get into Melee… Well a stacking mongoose bite is still there with the obvious down side of ramptime and burst window so u would want to disengage and back to Bombs over Baghdad baby.

So… your solution isn’t a ranged survival spec… it’s a grenadier spec

1 Like

Ummm Grenadier is fine… I actually like that. But yeah… It’s still ranged. I.E is not melee. Ranged Grenadier.

You’re not going to satisfy the people who want rsv with a grenadier spec

6 Likes

What melee attacks use venom, explosives, or traps?

You know this line here really caught my eye.

Even as someone who actually mained SV through most of my time in WoW including Legion and BfA… I can’t for the life of me understand why MSV mains are so adamant about ignoring the pleas of countless RSV players who lost their favorite spec literally overnight.

I understand their fear that MSV would be “deleted” just like RSV… but the difference would be that MSV hasn’t had the entire history of WoW up to Legion to be mechanically built up, and mained by countless players. The playerbase is low and the mechanics are simple; MSV can actually be retained through a dozen different ways and there is far more people that will be happy with RSV’s return than there will be those that suffer.

It’s an exchange that results in more happiness overall.

11 Likes

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” is something many people may agree with in principle (it’s literally utilitarianism, one of the most common modes of ethical thinking), but for most people, it’s a lot harder to stomach when they’re the “few”. The greater good is a poor consolation when you’re the one getting the short end of the stick to fuel said greater good.

So I get it. I understand why those that enjoy MSV are so adamantly against RSV. I can’t even really blame them for it. One may call it selfishness, but it’s purely pragmatism. Everyone is seeking to improve or get rid of what they dislike and retain what they like.

It’s Blizzard’s job to determine the relative merits of the two positions. Realistically, that decision should be based on two questions:

  1. Which of the two is likely to be more popular and enjoyable with players (or more shrewdly, which is more likely to retain players)?
  2. Which has the most distinctive playstyle compared to other classes and specs (or to put it another way, which is the least similar to other specs out there)?

For the first one, I’d say that it would be difficult to argue that RSV is likely to be more popular. More enjoyable is relative, however, and retention is an open question, given that RSV would almost certainly leech from MM and BM. It’s unclear what bringing back RSV would do to the overall hunter population, or to player retention average as a whole.

For the second one, it’s also tricky, but less reliant on data we don’t really have. MSV, mechanically, plays fairly similar to Enhancement, with a rotation balanced between CD-metered abilities and resource-metered abilities. One could also argue that it plays somewhat similarly to Frost DK, with a mix of passive and active resource regen, and the rune CD mimicking the short ability CDs found in SV. Thematically, SV honestly feels remarkably similar to BM, and that’s actually one of the chief complaints about it (though swapping Kill Command out for something like Flanking Strike would definitely help that issue).

For RSV, the only obvious comparison is MM. With MM’s renewed focus on Aimed Shot hardcasts since Legion, and its lack of a large nuke like Windburst or WoD-era CS (SL CS does not count, it barely beats unbonused Arcane Shot for damage), and its completely lack of any baseline DoTs, I feel like RSV, especially if it were built similar to WoD RSV, would be plenty distinct enough. RSV would be based around maintaining Serpent Sting and Black Arrow, and getting in regular Explosive Shots, with Lock and Lock back-to-back Explosive Shots to spice it up. It would probably need an additional mechanic beyond those to keep things interesting, but almost the entire rotation would be based around DoTs, which is a rather significant difference from MM. It arguably starts edging towards other DoT classes, though.

As I’ve pointed out in prior posts, MSV, to me, does not appear to have a cohesive theme, but rather a pile of abilities with little tying them together. Most specs can have their theme and core mechanic described relatively succinctly and identifiably. “Fishes for critical strikes to set up large Pyroblast nukes”, “Builds Maelstrom to unleash as huge Earth Shock hits”, “Funnels soul shards into generating a horde of demons”, “Applies Festering Wounds, and then bursts them for heavy damage”.

SV seems to lack this. Their core kit is a grenade, a weapon strike, a poisoned crossbow bolt, and a pet attack, which are all wildly different from each other thematically. Raptor Strike and Wildfire Bomb don’t interact at all without Wildfire Infusion. Serpent Sting interacts with nothing at all without Latent Poison. Mongoose Bite directly fights against Serpent Sting, making it not worth refreshing the latter while Mongoose Fury is active.

RSV at least had a relatively cohesive theme: DoTs. Everything was about DoTs. Black Arrow fueled Explosive Shot via Lock and Load, Steady Shot extended Serpent Sting, and Multi-Shot applied Serpent Sting in an AoE. From that perspective, RSV at least makes a bit more sense, and functions as more of a cohesive whole.

8 Likes

Hah, I appreciate the long post!

I agree with pretty much everything you just said. It’s like you entered my skull and wrote down my thoughts - minus maybe the part about pragmatism and MSV players, but I do agree with that too now that I’ve heard it.

I don’t have much to add to all of that. I can only hope Blizzard and other SV players read it for themselves as well.

No, it’s selfishness. When pro-RSV people suggest RSV as a 4th spec, MSV players are against it in many cases… for no real reason that they seem to be able to articulate beyond Blizzard isn’t going to give us a 4th spec.

5 Likes

a petless melee hunter is not unique it’s just a warrior with worse transmog.

melee SV has had the same problem since it went melee, all the random bombs and mash of themes give it no identity. either go back ranged with all the dot arrows like it was or fully commit to the spear hunter + pet theme.

6 Likes

To be fair, Blizzard definitely will not give anyone an additional spec unless they’ve got the bandwidth and design space to give everyone a new one (except maybe druids, but they’d have to give druids something equally cool to compensate). That’s simply logical, Blizzard cannot give one class a fourth spec without the other classes starting a revolution over the “favoritism”.

I was more talking about MSV proponents fighting against the idea of shifting SV back over to ranged, as they would mean the death of their preferred spec and playstyle. I can sympathize with that position, even if I don’t hold it myself (and in fact hold the opposite).

Blizzard already gave druids a 4th spec. They have literally already opened this pandora’s box, regardless of how you want to justify it.

Is it though? You ever notice how more than half of the pro-MSV people don’t even post on a hunter?

1 Like

This was a unique case that has already been discussed to death…

What Taiger said.

It’s a unique case because they had to separate the melee DPS from the tank after the removal of the original talent trees. It was a case that required a 4th spec due to an internal redesign.

Plus a 4th dps spec on a class with 3 other dps specs just sounds ridiculous. You could really only argue a 4th spec for hybrid classes that could use a 2nd dps spec, but on a Hunter? Absolutely not.

1 Like

You could say that SV Hunter is a very unique case.

1 Like

As much as my heart wishes it was so…
It isn’t.

as a melee main it feels a bit awkward to play compared to other melee dps specs. the way it’s implemented just feels weird. it feels almost sort of like a final fantasy job. in that (most) melees have a dot to keep up, have a builder, spender, but in wow, it just feels off somehow. it’s really hard to explain. and while i am aware of other melees having their own dots to keep up like warrior bleeds, these aren’t baked into their rotation (and in fact Rend for arms warrior is one of the less competitive talents of the row it’s available on). i dunno. just feels weird to me.

Ive seen no MSV saying no to 4th spec. What is being said its that it ain’t a realistic solution and would cause more problem to the community. None said “No, dont want rsv as 4th spec”

1 Like