Do you always start discussions you intend to be productive with a complete dismissal of the other side’s position, in bold and italics no less?
5 Likes
Grats sherlock, I dont dispute this.
I said hes being picky because the dead zone isnt the point i was making and it isnt important. I said it to refer to when the hunter couldnt use ranged attacks.
Anyway, have fun in law school.
I apologize. It’s difficult to tell whether you were mentioning it based on simply being misinformed, or trying to make some other point. A large part of that is because from your own posts earlier, you already seem to be misinformed or having double standards towards SV.
It’s not uncommon to see people legitimately feel that melee was the deadzone.
6 Likes
This is what you said about the dead zone. In addition to being completely false (melee was never a large part of the class), the implication here is that melee and dead zone had some interaction with one another. This is not the case.
Further, Hunter melee was unchanged from 1.0 through 3.3, so for half of TBC and all of Wrath, there was literally the same melee toolkit as Vanilla and early TBC but without a deadzone.
In Cata, the melee toolkit was changed up a bit, with Raptor Strike becoming a standard instant attack rather than on-next-swing. It was still just as irrelevant to gameplay other than forced melee encounters in PvP. Even worse, because it was now an instant (and thus on the GCD), you couldn’t use it simultaneously with Wing Clip, and given the choice between hitting a mediocre Raptor Strike and being stuck in melee for an extra GCD vs hitting Wing Clip and getting away faster, any Hunter worth their salt opted for Wing Clip.
You are spouting revisionist history of a class that by all indications, you either didn’t play back then or don’t remember accurately. If you don’t want your misinformation called out as such, maybe do some research on how the class actually played back then.
6 Likes
Also notice that he will sweep 90% of a discussion under the rug and only respond to specific points.
10 Likes
Except people seem to frequently forget that the only reason melee existed in hunters in the first place was to be a weakness. WoW was developed in the early 00’s. Back in a time when developers had a more RPG mindset for MMOs and strengths had to be counterbalanced by weaknesses. Melee was the weakness to counter balance hunters being a mobile ranged class. It was never intended to be a large, or meaningful style of play.
In short melee in vanilla’s only purpose was “Here is your weakness, good luck.”
9 Likes
Honestly, I can’t bring myself to blame him or others who are misinformed entirely. Ion was the biggest source of misinformation going into Legion. Citing SV as being too similar to MM which was ridiculous to most everyone who played either spec at the time. Or how he cited melee being a return to SV’s roots. Even though (and classic makes it incredibly clear) that SV was never a melee spec despite the talents that enhanced melee.
Clearly, Ion isn’t super concerned about whether a spec is thematically too similar anyway given how SV is currently working under a design that takes things that used to be unique to BM and steps on its identity.
Ion has been the biggest source of misinformation, it’s insulting honestly.
12 Likes
I can.
We’ve had this exact discussion how many dozens of times on this forum now? With the same bad takes and revisionist history brought up (and corrected by longtime Hunters) every single time?
At a certain point, people like what they like, and rather than find facts to support their opinion or advocate for a solution where everyone gets what they want (and not even a compromise solution - a 4th spec takes literally nothing away from anyone and only adds another option), they try to trash the opposition with whatever nonsense they can come up with.
This much I agree with 100%.
11 Likes
Translation : If you don’t agree with my point of view you are a bully and should be ignored .
9 Likes
I understand what you mean. I’m not saying they are blameless. They still hold fault and should be held accountable for helping to spread misinformation.
But my point was, a lot of people who may not come to the forums frequently but believe what the devs have said and found themselves enjoying the game more than ever are going to spread that misinformation. It’s Ion being completely irresponsible to justify their decision that helps propagate lies throughout the community.
I cannot express how much he frustrates me.
5 Likes
That they do yes, I completely agree.
Congratulations on completely missing the point here…
Listen, it’s blatantly obvious that you have some massive double-standards in terms of how you judge different class/specs and their respective designs/themes.
As soon as you start to defend for example Mages or locks/rogues etc, you immediately point towards specific elements and features.
But with hunters, you seem to never look any further than the most general things, such as: ranged vs melee or pet vs no pet.
Those are only base features that have next to nothing to do with specific concepts and themes involving core specs. Ranged vs melee or pet vs no pet = the foundation of the base class. Specs are designed to further build on that base concept.
Until you actually start to look past the most superficial stuff, your arguments are completely irrelevant and matters for nothing.
I’m not going to spend X time on this particular reply in order to add more context or background or analysis of what you’ve said because it’s also apparent from the others here that you tend to ignore most of what’s being said anyway.
Instead you just stick to your own mindset and refuse to look at the facts as presented.
Again, the irony of someone who calls others out for “not having an open mind”.
6 Likes
If they do, that should be fixed. If they dont have unique themes that should be fixed.
DOT is not a theme. Its a damage type. Its also easy to screw up as Serpent sting demonstrated in BfA.
And hunters were in no way unique in having muddy themes between specs. Staying where we are and spinning our wheels shouldnt be the answer. The specs should continue to be expanded into their own thematic niches IMO, otherwise just go back to talent trees and no specs.
Just look at the unpruning, it was a joke across all classes. The “core class abilities” dont fit and shouldnt fit across all specs. Because there are no core classes anymore. The classes that had the least hilarious unpruning need the most thematic development.
Mechanically speaking, rot is considerably different from burst or sustained pressure or cleave or whatever else.
Thematically, RSV’s focus was on imbued arrows, whether they be poisoned, imbued with dark magic, have a stick of dynamite duct taped to them, whatever. SV was Hawkeye, vs MM’s Legolas, vs BM’s Rexxar.
4 Likes
Legolas was a dual knife melee ranger with a bow.
Legolas was a distance archer who had daggers for close combat where needed. Look at any of the fight scenes in any of the LotR movies, he starts with the bow at extreme range, far beyond what any of the other (non-Elf) characters can hit, and only uses his melee weapons when forced.
1 Like
A common criticism when the movie came out. It just so happens that the movies are a visual spectacle and Legolas was a great tool for adding some robinhood-style archery swashbuckling to the cinematic experience.
Funny thing, I typically open my sv encounters with ranged attacks, either jumping into melee or being advanced upon by my enemies and switching to melee attacks. When the situation becomes dangerous I disengage, retreating to a position from which I can safely launch ranged attacks.
This is what has always been at the core of ranger/hunter fantasy. The ranged attacks DO play a role in that, but it’s mobility, tactics, battlefield control. The pets and the traps existed to that end, but when melee weapons were removed from the class and everyone was able to shoot the ogre in the eyes at point blank range, we lost our real theme.
1 Like
Ok well I’m talking about Legolas in the movies. I’m aware he uses his daggers more in the books. Aragorn also uses a bow more in the books, but if you were to translate him to a WoW class based on the movies, he’s clearly an Arms Warrior.
Both would be classic D&D Rangers, but that’s a class that doesn’t exist in WoW.
4 Likes
I’ve thought about this some more and as someone that is superficially interested in survival, I think it’s mostly a flop at this point even though I enjoy it. It isn’t like the plastic surgery they performed on combat when they turned it into outlaw. Combat to Outlaw was mostly superficial with a few mechanics changes, many of which were walked back going into SL. Folks that pick up hunters though or invested in that class years ago have the reasonable expectation that the fantasy here is a ranged class that flings arrows and bullets and traps, and not fireballs and all of a sudden the sandbox for that fantasy shrunk by 33%.
By sticking Survival in an already crowded melee space, Blizzard is in a bit of a no win scenario. If Survival tops meters, oh how quickly people would forget how many times they called it a meme pvp spec and invite it to their M+ pushes. Meanwhile other dedicated melee only classes would scream bloody murder that this half-a-melee meme spec is smoking them, and still gets the benefits of ranged options. Then of course if it under performs, we’ve seen how that goes.
This all from the same people that once changed the weapons certain specs use because they’re under served on loot tables (see: frost death knight and going to 1H’s). Nevermind there is now one less spec using a weapon that already might as well have been made class specific, like glaives.
I enjoy survival for what it is, which is a nice weekend vacation from the spec that gets all the heavy lifting done and that frankly I created a hunter for in the first place. That’s all it is though - a novelty. It’s a comedian opening for an old big name band past it’s relevance, and there are some in the crowd laughing, but most are chanting for Whitesnake.
5 Likes
When a spec is designed to primarily focus on and deal damage through the use of DoTs, that IS the definition of a theme(in this case, a mechanical theme).
It’s not the same thing as when talking about “themes” on a fantasy/rpg-level.
The term “theme” can apply to many things.
Example:
- RSV’s fantasy-theme was that of a Munitions Expert and Trapper.
- RSV’s mechanical theme mostly involved on DoTs.
2 Likes
Because those elements or features greatly change how the spec plays.
I do not see Black Arrow being a great change in how survival played and neither did blizzard.
And it grew by 33% to allow melee pet hunters…
There have been people, since vanilla, that have wanted a melee playstyle to be viable with the hunter and the melee skills and talents it was designed with.
Just like Druids that wanted to tank in bear form or paladins to tank or dps…
Many classes were not fleshed out in vanilla and over time were adjusted so that they could actually fulfill the roles they had skills for,