There have been points when Survival was at or near the top. A prime example is Uldir in bfa, and it was still basically ignored.
Sooo… they created more ranged options by making a melee spec…
And those have always been a tiny, tiny portion of the player base. Even now it’s a tiny portion of the player base that played survival.
Druids and paladins could tank or dps in Vanilla. They weren’t great at it no, but they could do it. Yes they were mostly forced to be healers, but there were exceptions. Starting in BC, their tank and dps options were made better.
The hunter class was designed to be a ranged class. As I pointed out earlier, the melee in the hunter class was never intended to be a playstyle for hunters. It was added as a weakness to counter balance hunters being a ranged mobile class, because WoW was developed in the earlier 00s when devs had a more RPG mindset for MMOs.
You’re right 1 single ability a spec does not make. Fortunately there was a lot more to RSV than just black arrow. You’d know that if you actually played prior to Legion. RSV and MM played as differently from each other as Affliction and Destruction locks.
Oh boy - we have a vanilla melee hunter truther. Yeah, there definitely was a market for melee survival hunters in vanilla, and I’m sure if all 10 of those guys are still playing, they’re really jazzed about being bottom of the barrel right now. They were largely laughed at back then because it was never intended and didn’t really work. Survival had more melee to survive melee closing the gap so they could trade some blows, then Wyvern Sting and run for the hills where they belong and get back to shooting. This notion that there were massive swathes of melee hunters in vanilla is mandala effect in action.
Furthermore, the fantasy of hunter up to Legion was a 100% ranged class. That was reduced by 33%. Nothing grew there - it straight shrank. This new alternative fantasy was created and it’s basis was largely on the inside joke that was a vanilla melee hunter. It’s practically an example of April Fools patch notes becoming reality. I say that as someone that more or less enjoys the spec, but I didn’t roll a hunter way back when to melee. Sorry. Regardless, I don’t think disenfranchising the base you have to satisfy a smaller portion of outliers is a winning strategy, but nobody is asking me.
Most reasonable people aren’t asking for the spec to be deleted, just to be clear. I don’t mind if it stays. There’s a fantasy to be head about fighting up close and personal with your pet (even though if any of the specs had to be melee, BM would have made the most sense).
Mechanically, SV did play differently than the other two specs. If it didn’t, there’s no reason to believe blizz could not have fleshed it out more going into Legion.
I want the fantasy of playing an arcane archer and infusing magic into my shots back, something that I had for years. A 4th spec literally hurts no one here. We can have our cake and eat it too.
Lets say any of those four specs are underperforming and need a revamp going into the next expansion. The mechanics just arent working so they need to go in a new direction. Where do they start? What is the fantasy filter they apply to the new set of abilities that they have given to the revamped spec? I think thats the problem.
It has nothing to do with pressing 1 and 3 before you press 2, or if you spam 5 until 1 procs.
Aside from the fact that the mechanics of each spec worked just fine? RSV worked perfectly fine, it’s problem was being nerfed literally into the ground.
But let’s see
You have a sniper
quick shot marksman
magical archer
dual wielding pistols
Hawkeye/Green Arrow (Basically a bunch of different arrow types for different situations. A munitions expert if it’s more pleasing to your sensibilities)(This is what RSV was closest too. They could very easily have taken inspiration from the Hawkeye/Green Arrow comics.)(Yes I know, marvel vs DC, get over it.)
And these are just the ranged options concerning bows/guns that I can think of off the top of my head.
Edit: Also Quick Draw expert.
Edit 2: Also what exactly is the thematic difference in each warlock spec? Or each mage spec for that matter? A warlock is a warlock. Summoning demons, cursing people, and using destructive spells are all common things that warlocks do. Each lock spec really isn’t it’s own theme, it’s just doubling down on specific aspects of being a lock.
Again same thing for mages. arcane, fire, and frost are just spell types. Almost every mage in existence can cast a fire bolt or a frost bolt or magic(arcane) missile. Mage specs are just a doubling down of specific spell types within the mage theme.
Why do hunter specs have to meet some individual fantasy theme when other classes have specs that are just that, specializations into specific areas of a theme? Why is a mechanical theme not enough? A different playstyle not enough?
There ARE so many ways they can go with. I am a huge proponent of having more ranged weapon specs in the game. Each spec needs its own theme though or just go back to open talent trees. Honestly, lone wolf mandatory for mm would have been enough to distinguish the two. But they needed to be distinguished in a way that goes beyond how quickly the damage is delivered.
Exactly! This is the point I was trying to make… not that hunter was fine, but that warlock and other classes have a similar problem. Whataboutism can take a hike. Of course, after the reception of MSV, blizz needs to be very careful how they go about solving those issues. (Fixing MSV would be a good start, even if it means just reverting to RSV).
Why though? Why is DoT was direct damage a good enough distinction for Warlocks but not Hunters?
To be clear, I think applying curses that slowly deal damage over time vs direct damage shadow magic IS enough of a distinction, both mechanically and thematically. I think that a marksman using slower direct hits that hit harder vs a ranger that uses trick arrows, poisoned arrows, and magically imbued arrows is also enough of a distinction, both thematically and mechanically.
Which is why I argue if a spec had to be melee, BM would have made the most sense. Rexxar is the beast master. Currently, SV steals thematic identity and abilities from BM.
Which honestly, I don’t think overall is that big of a deal for the spec, but it makes it obvious there’s some hypocrisy concerning the reason why it was reworked in the first place.
Old SV should be brought back as a 4th spec. There’s enough thematic room within the hunter class to satisfy both crowds.
A melee Warlock using weapons imbued with curses would also be a lot more distinctive than simply casting those curses at enemies, and the idea of cursed weapons has long been present in lore, both those cursed by death magic (Frostmourne and other runeblades) and those cursed by demonic magic (most notably the giant sword sticking out of Silithus right now, but also including the Warglaives of Azzinoth, both DH artifacts, and many, MANY others over the years).
I notice you don’t call for Affliction to be turned into a melee spec.
Blizzard is never going to add 4th specs with the current skeleton crew that maintains this game. They cant remotely balance 3 specs and anything more than a simple flat% buff has to be pushed to the next expansion or major patch.
It would take a mass exodus of players to cause corporate to wake up and allocate the funds to increase the development team to whats needed to run this game in anything more than maintenance mode+.
I don’t think balance is a great argument about whether something should or be should be added to be honest. That argument has never held up to convince blizzard not to introduce new classes, and it wouldn’t be the first time for them to decide a 4th spec was necessary.
Additionally, it’s in the interests of both those who like melee sv and those who want the old sv back to both advocate for a fourth spec. The current precedent is that long standing specs can be remove and entirely rework specs if they think it makes sense to.
Currently SV is safe. But as it is, until blizz acknowledges how the current spec was implemented was a mistake and work to rectify that via 4th spec, there is nothing preventing the same happening to current SV down the line. The spec also won’t be living under the shadow of its predecessor and might lead to it becoming something more respected within the community at large.
For the specs longevity, a 4th spec is the best path forward and we should convince Blizzard of that.
In spite of what everyone has told you about the history of Surv hunter in the game you still going to stubbornly hold on that you are right and everyone else is wrong .
Add that to the fact that you can’t see that there was a distinct difference between all 3 specs but you can with all the other 3 pure dps classes .
Wonder what shade of purple with pink polka dots the sky in your world is.
Ive played this game since it was in open beta. You cant “tell” me your version of its history…i played through it.
Regardless of how you feel, there can be no question that 1/3 hunter spec being melee gives the class a much larger audience to attract. The class is fuller and more well rounded this way.
If this were true, I think we’d reasonably see more SV hunters than we ever have since the rework. Next to no one plays it. Nothing wrong for those who do, but I don’t think it’s attracting more players by any measure to the class.
Additionally, plenty of us have been around since classic. So, sort of a moot point.
