Oh yeah, I absolutely care about a class thematically, simply stating others may not.
Ultimately, yes, who could disagree with a 4th spec being the best option?
I would love to see many new classes and specs added but I just don’t forsee them doing that…yet.
I think at some point if and when they need to draw attention back into the game, they will go on a spree adding all of that stuff in.
I would argue in theory anyways. Adding a fourth hunter spec to the game could be good of the overall health of the game. The reason being like you said more people would request the theme they want to play! With the return of RSV as a fourth spec that becomes a possibility. Players will believe there favorite theme could enter the game one day. Nothing wrong with a little hope in the game. It also shows the dev’s listen to those most passionate about the state and quality of the game!
I’m not in your Discord, but I’ve been playing SV for all my world quests, Callings, running around the Maw, etc., as a fun change of pace.
My dungeon/raid spec. was always SV back when it was ranged (back in prehistoric times – I haven’t raided in a long time and hardly do dungeons anymore). It took me until the end of BFA before I talked myself into giving melee a try.
Still using BM in Torghast (though last night, it was only technically BM. Did that Chorus of Souls thing, which was kinda fun.)
I’m actually kind of loving melee SV. At this point I wouldn’t want it removed. If Ranged SV came back as a fourth spec., I’d probably use that in preference to MM, if they were at all close, which was the case back in Wrath: MM with an Armor Pen build simmed better than SV at endgame, but in actual practice, they were neck and neck for typical players.
Clearly you have never played a Warlock.
The question of tuning/balancing hasn’t been an absolute deterrent in the past, so why should it be one now?
There will always be those who do this, no matter what is done to the game. It’s a meaningless thing to take into consideration.
With this, I mean in terms of it serving as a reason not to do something.
Granted you’re saying “you think…” so that statement is based on your personal knowledge and experience, but honestly, if this is what you actually think, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Neither with the specs themselves, nor what the actual goals/intentions were with class/spec design in the past.
This is essentially why people tend to frown upon others that make suggestions on a class/spec with a core design and theme which they themselves aren’t all that interested nor invested in.
So, in other words, it’s confirmed…
MSV was an easy win in terms of reaching the goals set for Legion; “double down on individual spec identity no matter the cost/outcome. No matter what the majority of players actually wanted from the class”
That’s the definition of a bad attitude towards class and spec design, and what it should provide.
As evident by data and statistics, it failed spectacularly to achieve what was intended.
There is only one way they(the specs) should’ve been judged, based on the criteria set for past expansions and their intentions towards class and spec design in general.
What individual players thought of their diversity, matters for less.
And no, I’m not saying that people don’t have a right to their opinions. I’m saying that if they should judge something, as with the case above, they should judge it based on the right criteria, not just their own beliefs.
This doesn’t exactly put you in a better light…
Nor does it validate your claims.
Well said.
You’d be surprised…
But yeah, I very much agree. Bring in that 4th spec option and be done with it really.
Only sort of related, but figured I’d share with you since I know you’ve posted your own idea for a 4th spec before.
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/4th-spec-rsv-munitions-expert/871855
Yep, I’ve read it through. Want to go through it some more though before commenting^^
You say validate my claims like my experience playing a video game needs to be validated.
I gave my opinion, and didn’t state much of anything as fact because I know my experience doesn’t mean objective truth across the board.
I hold to what I said. Someones opinion is not less valid because they don’t have the same perspective as you do.
I dont have to dump hours a day for months on end to know if I enjoy one class/spec to another. My opinion that one is more fun than the other isn’t wrong.
It really is simple.
I dont play a whole hell of a lot of hunter. I also prefer my experience with msv much more than I did with rsv. I am allowed to state that and you are allowed to combat what I say.
But let’s not pretend someone’s opinion isn’t valid because they don’t have the same quality or quantity of experiences. That is completely nonsensical.
I’ve never really been one for telling others whether they’re “valid” or not.
However, I will readily admit that I tend listen less to pro-MSV players, who by their own admission, have never liked the ranged Hunter gameplay. (This doesn’t apply to the pro-MSV players who also enjoy the ranged specs.)
The whole point of what the others are trying to say, I think, that the MSV spec is intentionally designed for non-Hunters. This is not a point of debate; Ion outright admitted this during Legion.
The real issue is that the non-Hunter spec came at the cost of a Hunter spec.
THAT is why you have a large number of Hunter players who hate MSV. That’s why some of us say that Blizzard did this the worst way possible. That’s why some of us want RSV back as a 4th spec — we know what it’s like to lose a spec, and we don’t want to force that onto anybody else.
It really IS a pity. I love welcoming new Hunters, but I DO wince when a MSV-only player comes in and start talking smack about ranged Hunter specs. Hunters are a ranged class, period. Even Blizzard has admitted that (albeit indirectly).
Like I said, you ofc have a right to your opinion.
But when you make statements and claims towards a specific class and it’s design, AND what it/that class should be like, based solely on your opinion without even considering the actual core concept of the class…
This is the problem. Not the fact that you yourself prefer a particular spec over others.
I never said that your opinion wasn’t valid.
I said that your suggestions/claims which you make without considering the actual class’ intended historical design and gameplay goals, aren’t valid.
And then your opinions are based upon an archaic view of the class from a game thats almost what? 20 years old?
So the standard is your only allowed to speak on it if you support the outlook on the specs and classes circa 2004?
No obviously not. People and ideas change and evolve. Your opinions may not change with time, but that doesn’t validate your opinions vs someone who’s opinions evolve with time.
Also, I never said anything should be a certain way in a finite manner. I gave my opinions on what I think. You can combat that.
But telling someone they can’t speak on it isn’t combating ideas. Its an elitist attitude that tries to shut others out of a conversation on baseless grounds of supposed inferiority. All because I dont have as much experience in a certain aspect of a certain video game.
Its utterly ridiculous.
What archaic view; that specs should be based on taking parts of the base class and building on them rather than removing parts of the base class? That we shouldn’t be deleting long-established, effective, and popular spec options in favour of experimental, niche options? That a class should generally be designed with the people who play the class first in mind?
It’s just the way blizz implemented the spec that frustrates people. you said you didn’t enjoy hunter until msv. i didn’t enjoy bm or MM and then one day the only spec i enjoyed was removed. now you have people saying the only spec i enjoyed for years wasn’t good enough and their new spec is.
Like others here have already answered, noone is saying that change is always bad.
But when decisions with the design and development of a class are taking away what the class is actually about, either partially(big part) or completely, in favor of something that has never been anything but a minor niche/situational aspect to take place, when decisions are made which are contrary to the preferences of those who actually play said class, on fundamental levels, that’s in no way a good thing.
No “but flavor”-excuse can justify such decisions.
Not what I said. Nor would it be limited to just 2004.
Heck, the spec which people are asking for, didn’t even exist as a Core Spec until Cataclysm. No specs existed before Cata.
The playstyle started to take shape in WotLK, which was when the devs first started to focus more on individual fantasies and themes.
Way to twist something so that it fits your narrative…
Which I did.
But you also flat out stated that you’re not really interested in the class’ core focus. So why should anyone consider your arguments for or against something that relates to the class in question?
You flat out said that the only reason you now have any interest in the class is because of something that goes straight against the very core and the major features. On top of that, and most importantly, you also question the thought of giving people back what they want, based only on your personal bias against/lack of interest in the ranged aspects of the class.
There have been some good arguments made for why RSV should exist, and I believe that my favorite melee themes can be included or optional in a vintage SV spec without effecting the gameplay nor feeling out of place.
I am opposed to a 4th spec conditionally. Assuming they don’t have a team right now discussing 4th spec ideas for every class, I dont think 4th specs are a good trend. Guardian Druid is a feral druid who likes to tank, but its just stretching that RP theme too far. Few desired 4th specs are any different. Fistweaver for monk is just a mistweaver playstyle. Shaman tanking is just an abandoned enh option. Cutting these things out of the spec they started in may be easier from a developmental point of view, with less hard decisions, but like the movie Stuck On You, these conjoined twins are more than the sum of thier parts.
In the case of RSV/MSV, the one seemed to be a vestigial twin, useless extra flesh, and it was removed and assumed that it would not be missed, but we underestimated the amount of weight melee added to SVs character. Like a rhinoplasty ruining an actors ability to play great roles. Conversely, we used some twisted and imperfect necromancy to raise melee hunter from the grave, but sacrificed RSV to get it back, like Full Metal Alchemist. The voice of RSV echoing from within an empty transmog.
I dont think hunter should be full melee. I dont think most people who wanted more melee wanted full melee. But I want some melee. Mechanically, SV accomplishes this to an extent, but in a not completely satisfying way. Keeping it around in an attempt to be all things to all people is bound to disappoint. Thats something any grandpa could tell you. You can’t be all things to all people.
But Ion didnt say its going to stay around. What Ion said (and I think its the best way to go) is that “Melee will be a part of survival going forward.”
Old school SV with wingclip and raptor strike would be fine.
This is once again someone saying that they like hunter because MSV is an option and some gatekeeper pretending that the MSV fan doesnt really like hunter because “hunter” apparently really means “archer”. C’mon, man.
Problem here is Blizz’s idea of evolving Surv turned it from a semi modern archer/ modern gun hunter to a primitive cave man /small 3rd world tribal spear hunter .
Before they ever took away ranged survival, they took away melee weapons from the hunter class. Now, I dont mean that to pretend that melee weapons were equally important to hunter fantasy, but the natural polarization of our culture has pushed this argument into a sort of “hunters are essentially ranged weapons experts” vs. “Hunters can also be melee”. The reality is that melee weapons were a part of the hunter fantasy. They weren’t removed from one spec but all specs. Warriors got to keep thrown weapons in the form of abilities, mages got to keep their melee weapons. Rogues got to keep thrown weapons just like warriors, but hunters got turned into pokemon trainers and archers (with a wilderness theme). That doesnt matter to some people. Admittedly, a lot of people probably chose hunter to play an “archer” character. But the fact remains that melee weapons were removed first and an element of the hunter fantasy went with it. That’s when this all started. Every crap solution that they have come up with since has been an attempt to remedy that mistake.
The thing is it’s really not a “mistake”. It’s only problematic to a small number of people and the Hunter class generally did quite well not just from a competitive standpoint but also in terms of its reputation and appeal in the two expansions where there was no melee whatsoever, MoP and WoD. Trying to portray melee Survival as a solution to a pre-existing problem comes across as marketing; it certainly didn’t feel like there was some pressing issue with the lack of melee in those expansions yet Survival is the most problematic spec in the game as a result of the melee rework. It sure does look like some developers at Blizzard massively over-inflated the importance of an obsolete and long-removed part of the class.
Im sure it didnt feel that way to you. And to many other people. Probably the majority of people. But in spite of the fact that MoP was probably the best, most WoW expansion, with the most coherent class design (generally) and a fondly remembered PvP gear system and enchanting world… membership was declining. People complained that the game was beginning to feel too watered down. Too generic. Being “better” isnt necessarily better. Removing melee from the hunter class was a very logical solution to one of the problems, which once solved created a less immersive game.
And, though there likely would have still been people who wanted more melee in the class, not removing melee in the first place, likely would have saved us from this solution.
I am not trying to be contrary about MSV, its inherent weaknesses, nor the ability to salvage it. Im not a fourth speccer, nor am I a RSV shouldnt exister. I am just think that the other features of the hunter class fantasy add up to more than ranged weapons do alone. I think the removal of any of those elements is like removing ingredients from a recipe. Now, ranged weapons might be like flour, and melee weapons might be like salt for chocolate chip cookies. You wont have anything resembling a cookie without flour, but the flavor is way off without salt… many people might not even know why.