Why should the ONLY class in game that can use physical ranged weapons not just be a ranged class???
It was that way for over a decade and people played all 3 specs… now we are mostly limited to 1 unless you are dedicated to the bm play style.
The real reason melee sv will never really be played is because it’s a terrible design. Unholy DKs are literally better at everything that sv does.
Fire doesnt have to manage their mana, arcane does…its the most basic premise of arcane. If you mess up your mana management you are done. On the other hand, fire literally does not use mana other than for spell stealing.
Fire is highly mobile, arcane is not. Fire has a complex AoE rotation, Arcane has a simple one. Arcane (otherwise known as the melee mage) has to get very close to AoE…Fire, does not.
Honestly, I think every class should have very contrasting specs to make the classes more dynamic and to give the players more options to find and play their class fantasy. I guess you could argue that Death Knight Unholy is a melee pet spec, but hunter does it much better.
Also, lets not forget the hunters melee roots that go all the way back to vanilla and the very first iteration of the hunter. While being 100% melee was never very viable, melee was a large part of the class …particularly when the dead zone still existed and it was the survival spec that had the most melee talents. So it really isnt a stretch to allow that to blossom when you have 2 other ranged specs that are basically the same as survival was or at the very least you can find most of the elements of.
Again this is wrong. I have never found the play style of RSV in either BM or MM. When black arrow ticked it triggered explosive shot. You then reacted to press explosive shot twice. You then spread cleaved dots to maximize damage. It was a fully mobile DOT spec. MM is a less mobile big hit spec. They continue to attempt at forcing RSV talents into MM at the expense of MM. Since they take away the core focus of the spec. Again the management was in keeping dots up. In the same vain as affliction or feral. There is a huge following on these boards for this play style to return. Obviously people felt it was different. I don’t care if they keep melee hunter. I just want RSV back.
You posted a highly controversial topic about a DPS spec that was deleted ostensibly due to its similarity to another spec… and didn’t expect it to turn out like this? What exactly did you expect then; everyone cheering you on, amazed at your enlightened and original opinion?
I have to admire your insistence in totally missing the point.
Yes, those specs are all meaningfully different. The point is, in your effort to make all the Hunter specs seem similar, you boiled it down to the two most basic elements: the ranged weapon, and the pet. You ignored absolutely everything built on top of that, argued that any Hunter spec had to be built on some configuration of those two variables, and concluded that the only way to have 3 meaningfully distinct specs in this class was to have one of them be melee. Given that you’re posting from a class with 3 ranged specs, of course people will take your ignorant logic and apply it to your own class. If you can understand why it’s absurd for the class you do play, maybe then you can sympathize with people from classes you very clearly DON’T play.
Ok? And Ranged Survival was very popular yet melee Survival is very unpopular. You argued that melee Survival would bring people to the game yet it’s perpetually one of the least played specs. I’m noticing a pattern, here:
Ranged Survival didn’t have to manage Sniper Training, Chimera Shot cleave, and Careful Aim windows. Marksmanship didn’t have to manage Lock and Load procs or any sort of DoT uptime including Serpent Spread AoE. Survival was highly mobile, Marksmanship was not. Survival focuses on rot damage and better utility i.e. CC, Marksmanship focuses on extreme range and hardcasted burst.
To you, absolutely none of the above mattered when declaring that Survival was the same thing as MM or even BM.
Cool story. So which specs should we axe? Who are we going to tell to sod off because the specs they currently like are declared to be redundant and their opinions irrelevant? What core class features are we going to take away from those specs to make them “unique”?
Does it? Because Unholy DK is a well-established spec with a large following and is valued in all levels of content, and none of that can be said about Survival.
Ok, let’s go look at how the Vanilla class designers defined the Hunter class.
Original manual from 2004:
“The hunter is a unique class in World of Warcraft because it is primarily a ranged attacker”
“…whereas [rogues and warriors] rely on melee attacks, the hunter relies on ranged power”
Would you look at that. The ranged weapon really was the central, unifying element of the class. Yes, there was melee in the class. But it was situational. Deliberately putting aside the ranged weapon and charging into melee was never an intended way to play Hunter. There are no roots for a Hunter spec that does not primarily use a ranged weapon. It is a huge stretch that depends on revisionist history and general cluelessness.
No, I can’t find “most of the elements” of ranged Survival in the other specs. I can’t find the spec that focuses on exotic munitions, utility, high mobility, and rot damage. Neither of the other specs have Lock and Load charges, an easily-spreadible Serpent Sting for AoE, trap enhancements, or fire and poison themed abilities. One focuses on companionship with a pet and the other focuses on hard-casted physical damage bursts, neither of which were parts of ranged Survival or compatible with its identity and playstyle.
Not sure if youre dumb or what but M+ damage is like the only thing survival excels at.
I think thats exactly who you tell. If your spec is redundant, its redundant. Reacting to a proc on a skill is not a major difference in playstyle, melee vs ranged is…pet vs no pet is.
Sure and watch more people leave the game. The only people in a paid service you listen to are the people paying for the service. Deleting specs was an abject failure for Warlocks, Rouges and Hunters.
Please stop spreading lies. Literally no one here agrees with this sentiment. Neither BM or MM offer me the ability to play a magic focused archer that revolves around dots and fast paced reactive gameplay. Neither of them have ever offered that.
I find it absolutely ironic you’re telling others to be open minded, yet you’ve blatantly ignored or missed points people have made numerous times explaining why you’re wrong. SV was not similar to the other ranged specs, period. Making it melee was a mistake.
Hell, SV steals both major abilities and themes from BM, so even if we agreed the specs were too similar, I don’t see how the same literally wouldn’t apply to SV right now.
Keep melee at this point. But Blizz has acknowledged they went too far in some aspects during Legion. The best thing they can do going forward is recreate a modern ranged SV as a 4th spec.
Cool, so we can expect your full support when we ask Blizz to change the following:
Mage - 2 specs, one ranged one melee
Warlock - 2 specs, one ranged one melee
Rogue - 2 specs, one ranged one melee
Warrior - 3 specs, tank, ranged dps, melee dps
That will get rid of redundant specs, and allow for major differences in playstyles for those classes. I’m sure it will be good for the game…
Can you square this circle for me?
You say Assassination and Subtlety are nothing of the sort and then say melee vs ranged is how you determine major differences in playstyle…
The spec was created from whole cloth at the end of WoD because some Blizzard leadership who couldn’t be bothered to take the time to play both specs thought that MM and SV were too similar because both were focused on dealing damage via ranged weapons. To suggest anything else is revisionist history at best.
Oh responding to procs isn’t important? Got it guess we have to delete frost mages then.
Except more would play rsurv then melee surv .
Maybe 30 to 40 % of both MM and BM (just a guestimate ) would go back to rsurv because of the overwhelming popularity it had in the past.
Why don’t they fix Msurv ? Because they know hardly anyone plays it . So why work on what is the least played DPS spec in the game when you can focus on those that are played . Msurv is at 17.6 % and the only spec lower is guardian druid . Rsurv when it was active was much higher then that , more like a 25 to 30 % of the hunters played it .
Cool so then mages don’t need 3 range specs . No significant difference between casting fire , arcane or frost .
Mage
[1] Cast arcane
[1] Cast fire
[1] Cast frost
Yeah pretty much all the same .
Hey Blizz can we get a mage spec turned into melee and while you are at it how about a lock spec and come to think of it rogues don’t need 3 melee specs make one ranged .
Not sure if this toon is the correct toon or the one for when i click on your armory is (MSurv hunter)
So if the armory is right then Sod off your spec is redundant . It brings nothing that any other melee spec can’t bring or bring better.
I’ll do one better, single line reply:
Delete the failed melee survival experiment.
Not really, you are just trying to be Penelope PickyPants.
When melee classes were in the hunters dead zone (and anywhere closer then that) hunters used melee … wing clip, raptor strike, mongoose bite or traps to regain the distance to use ranged attacks again.
When you can converse like a pleasant person, feel free to post again.
No, the dead zone was specifically an area where the Hunter could use neither melee nor ranged attacks. Certain classes like Mages and Druids could exploit this by using a root (Entangling Roots or Frost Nova) and stepping into that area where they could cast without any fear of reprisal whatsoever.
Hunters could melee from 0-5yd, same as any other melee class. They could use ranged from 8-35yd (41yd if specced for it). All other ranged characters could cast their spells from 0-35yd.
This 5yd-8yd deadzone was present throughout Vanilla and the beginning of TBC, and was removed in patch 2.3 by lowering the minimum range for ranged weapon attacks to 5yd.
Terms have meanings, and if you don’t understand them, you shouldn’t use them.
ok, carry on tough guy. Its clear you dont want a discussion, you just want to bully your point through.
No. The dead zone is exactly what Adreaver has outlined. The melee for hunters later on was often (wrongly) referred to as a deadzone by newer hunters. The dead zone was the area where hunters couldn’t perform ranged or melee at all though.