Perhaps not if you look at it solely within the scope of potential strengths/weaknesses.
But in terms of a thematic presentation of an archetype found in the game and the RPG, the conclusion might turn out differently.
This is the statement you quoted. The one you had a problem with. I realize you are not a native speaker of the English language, but this isnt saying anything besides challenging the “No true scotsman” fallacy.
That quote was in response to Dawnspirit, who chimed in on my conversation with Bepples, about the possibility that someone can like everything about hunters without being a fan of ranged DPS. That its not oddly specific nor very rare. That the people who play SV are true hunters even though they may not like ranged.
Respond of you want but Im done with this conversation. I dont think I need to say anything more about this basic, fundamental truth.
It’s a weakness because Hunters are defined around the ranged weapon. To make it not a weakness v.s. the base class they would have to rework the base class to not be centred on the ranged weapon, and at that point they have to ask themselves if it’s worth the time and effort for a spec like Survival.
2 Likes
That quote was basically midway through our conversation. Plus it’s not as if this particular conversation started with this thread either…
Anyway…
To explain it further then so you understand why I had a problem with what you said there…
Note that my reply to that quote, wasn’t solely focused on that quote alone, but essentially as a summary of what you’ve said throughout multiple previous replies as well.
For all your arguments and all your attempts to discredit what others are saying, with the basis of the “no true scotsman” -thing, you keep ignoring why people are so adamantly arguing in favor of the ranged part of the hunter class.
It’s not “ranged” in itself, it’s specifically about ranged combat designed around using ranged weapons. I tried to point towards this in an earlier reply to you but you turned that one into “but the weapons themselves don’t matter” plus “they can just design abilities to make it look like(SrS for MSV) you’re using a ranged weapon” etc. etc.
This is also why I criticized what you said, based on that you don’t really care about the fantasy and immersion behind the use of said ranged weapons. This is why I said that they aren’t important to you.
My criticism wasn’t pointing towards what you said about one having to like ranged dps in order to be a true hunter. Not at all.
I can agree with this. I admit my choice of words in the reply earlier wasn’t the best.
But in short, if you base that argument on the class itself and it’s history in this game, then you are right. Melee-combat as a primary focus of a playstyle has never before been a part of the class. And any attempts they(devs) or others make at trying to portray it differently, do not hold up on that end.
However…
If you look at the Hunter class as a concept of fantasy, as you find certain archetypes and representations in the game and the RPG, then the idea of a melee-oriented hunter does very much hold up.
Does any of this justify the removal of what the class was designed around prior to Legion? No, not at all. Why? Because here we’re still talking about the class itself and not the general hunter-fantasy(-ies) in the RPG
5 Likes
Ranged Survival was a joke and crack spec that had very little identity. Survival in general needs a good rework but not in the ranged department.
the ranged spec that needed no reworks and was popular for 4 xpacs was a joke, but not the melee spec that had 2 reworks in a row and is still dead. hmm
6 Likes
Melee Survival has so little identity it has to steal from BM.
Gotta love the “SV is fine but needs a full rework” attitude from your posts.
5 Likes
Really then why from Cata-up to WoD patch 6.2 it was one of the most popular specs. It was a good mobile hunter spec for kiting , it was an excellent dot spec . It was great for add control.
Anyone who thinks rsurv had very little identity at the time , probably didn’t play it and I think all rogues have very little identity and they need to make one a range spec
10 Likes
Just as different as affliction and destruction.
1 Like
Maybe we should remove Survival and allocate the development time to the real hunter specs Marks and BM; like back in the good ole days.
Way things are going now that feels like what bliz is doing.
I mean, sort of…
Although in all honesty, it feels as if it’s not just SV that’s getting not enough attention. While they did focus a bit on MM for SL, outside of that, not a whole lot was done for the class and it’s various issues whether they are spec-specific or class-wide.
What’s actually the real problem?
They are spending too much time developing temporary systems with the intent that they should be scrapped in a not-to-distant future.
I still recall the old Glyph-system we had that wasn’t only a cosmetic feature. It wasn’t perfect ofc, but a system such as that at least had the potential to be one that could be developed further and carried with us into more expansions in the future. It had a design that allowed for variations that catered to differing types of content and ways of playing the game, be it PvP or PvE or X. It did/had this without there being a need for everything in it to be balanced and/or designed to work perfectly for all types of content.
Why? Because individual glyphs/elements were specifically designed for different types of content and gameplay.
The base classes/specs, the tier sets or PvP sets + something like a glyph-system with perhaps even more done to it.
Do this, scrap much of the rest we’ve seen since and actually focus on putting more time into the base classes/specs we have.
3 Likes
Crafted legendaries are basically glyphs by another name.
1 Like
Can’t speak for other classes but most of what is available to us through crafted legendaries is complete dogsXXX.
The biggest flaw I find with these Legendaries is that they utterly fail to provide the feeling of being just that, “Legendary”. Some of them certainly hold effects that are on the same level as Glyphs were. But the difference is that these aren’t Glyphs. The intent by theme and design portrays these as being so much more than what they have actually turned out to be.
2 Likes
I agree.
MM’s best legendary doesn’t feel anywhere close to legendary. SST is boring AF at best, and super aggravating at worst. I mean seriously… if I can completely forget that it’s even there, how is that legendary?
2 Likes
Exactly.
BM legendaries?
- More passive crit damage during BW
- Random chance on use of Cobra Shot to take away the Focus cost of your next Kill Command
- Random chance on use of Kill Command to summon a Dire Beast(which does pretty much nothing)
- When using Barbed Shot, reduce the remaining CD of Kill Command by 5 sec
How…exciting…
1 Like
I gotta disagree with this since Glyphs actually tended to last a bit longer than just an expansion and weren’t tied to gear at all.
I actually wish they would go back to how legendaries used to be. Exceedingly rare and requiring a questline to obtain. It would make legendaries feel, well, legendary again rather than your class feeling incomplete without one.
3 Likes
Well said.
3 Likes
Hey, in this one’s defense it actually changes the rotation up a bit. I actually really enjoyed that one in Legion.
Direcommand would be boring, but I like summoning animals. And a lot of them are bugged and spawn in T-rex sized for some reason which is kind of comical at least.
I think flamewalker’s needs a redesign honestly. BM isn’t focused starved at all, making a legendary that lets us sometimes ignore focus for kill command is pretty meh overall and Rylak’s is also just super boring.
I seriously hope they take a look at BM legendaries. Or at least buff KC or mastery which will in turn help some of these legendaries be more impactful.