Overall, was Survival a failure?

[Felthorn]

Absolute failure. Game needed another melee dps class like it needed more RNG. :P The *only* way this would've made sense is if it had been a Tank spec it could've been awesome. The game always needs tanks, another hybrid class would be excellent; everyone wins. It was a great opportunity that our myopic devs missed. I'm really quite surprised at how badly they're failing with the hunter class. Truly stunning.

[Mcbenchpress]

Well I think it's great. Everyone knew MM would be wildly more popular, but SV is fun and unique. The complexity is probably the best part about it. It's a spec that you actually have to practice and learn.

[Bepples]

I say this every Survival thread and I'll say it here:

They took a very popular spec and turned it into a very niche spec.

Fewer people like Survival now than before.

Yes, 7.0 Survival is a failure.

https://cynwise.wordpress.com/2014/0...r-patch-5-4-2/

Survival was consistently either the most popular hunter spec, or 2nd-place (shortly behind BM) for the majority of MoP. Even in the first tier of WoD, where it was shortly behind the other specs in capability in Highmaul and far behind BM in Blackrock Foundry, it remained a popular spec.

Then the inexcusable mess of 6.2 happened. They literally forced everyone out of Survival for PvE with one of the largest nerfs any spec has ever received in a single patch. They never said why they did it, but considering the other big nerf that patch was to Demonology and their reasoning was literally "because we don't want you to play demonology", the inference is clear.

So people like me who loved survival but couldn't feasibly play it just resolved to waiting out a patch cycle. The problem, though, was that a) that patch lasted for 14 months and b) the spec was deleted entirely, being replaced with a melee meme spec that almost no one asked for and almost no one is willing to play. They gave it the lion's share of Hunter's attention during the beta and now they are pampering it with buffs, but it clearly doesn't matter and is not making people want to play it. The idea is just inherently flawed; you cannot take a popular ranged spec and switch it to melee just because you thought it would be a cool idea and then just expect everything to work out. Even if you insert 14 months of not being able to play that spec.

So maybe, instead of selling this "class fantasy" snake oil to everyone and intentionally breaking specs on a whim, the developers should focus on making fun-to-play specs that are as balanced as possible, just like the better class developers (*cough* Greg Street) did in Cataclysm and Mists of Pandaria.

A lot of those "WoD clowns" have been around since Wrath of the Lich King. Widely considered one of the best expansions yet.

They didn't have as much sway back then. Chad Nervig, for example, has been at Blizzard since 2011 (which was Cataclysm, mind you). He only became active on the class forums in late 2013, coincidentally around the same time Greg Street left. It's also around the same time class design started to go down the shitter ("shamans are OP and they don't even know it" and other nonsense from WoD beta in 2014).

You're going to see more of them in time. It takes time to adjust to the rotation, and BM and MM is stronger and easier.

It's been 3 months since 7.0 and they are still just as deeply unpopular as they were when we started. We already heard you people arguing about how Artifacts would save the spec, or how the various major buffs would. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

I still don't see the downside of hunters getting melee spec. They already have 2 ranged. Did we need more melee? No, but it's fun to play. Switching back to hunter because of it.

"I don't see the problem" or any variation inevitably indicates being wilfully blind to obvious issues. They removed a ranged spec that way, way more people liked. You know very well that this is the case but you are stalling the thread with nonsense.

Was his idea in this example a great idea? Yes.
Did it fail to sell. Yes.

So what is the real answer here? Is the idea bad because it didn't sell well enough?

YES, because anyone with half a brain could have told you that it wasn't going to sell. And people did. Survival being melee is a BAD IDEA because you are forcing a playstyle on a class that is not only unfamilar but also in many cases actively hostile towards that playstyle. People did not pick Hunters to play melee, period. And people who are interested in melee are already playing one of the many other BETTER melee classes. That's a stupid idea, just like all the other stupid ideas coming out of the class design group at Blizzard in the past 3 years. People like you keep doing damage control on their behalf and pretending that there's some hidden genius there, but they blunder time and time again and it's pretty clear that they don't have a clue.

But putting that aside. The spec is the most fun of the three.

Do you think that's because it's melee? Do you think it couldn't possibly be better as a ranged spec?

It's pretty easy to make Survival the most engaging spec when they gave it pretty much all of their attention throughout beta, while BM was mostly left in its early alpha state and Marksman got a bunch of shitty talent changes.

- - - Updated - - -

SV is fun and unique

It was fun and unique from 3.0 to 6.2 as a ranged spec, and it was much more popular in that period (barring 6.2's gutting of survival). That makes the new version not great.

[Shibito]

Love survival so much more fun than shitty hunter rangeretardation. But yea when its damage is way below mm and bm people wont play it, its simple really people will always play whats on the top not what is fun.

[Mcbenchpress]

Are you really going to sit there and tell us we're wrong for enjoying a spec? I happen to like the idea of playing some goofy Orc version Captain Ahab, with harpoons, nets and grenades.

[aysatsana]

Yes,

I thought at first it would be a fun leveling spec, but we don't even have misdirection so fuck that.

It isn't necessarily a boring spec, actually I find the rotation pretty fun compared to the other two specs, however it isn't rewarding. I mean it's a lot harder to pull a perfect rotation as survival than BM/MM, but you don't even get rewarded with better dps. Also if you fuck up with your stacks you are pretty much fucked, it's almost impossible to fuck up like that in MM/BM. Also the whole range vs melee thing.

I would've preferred if it was a range dot spec, maybe with trap launcher explosive trap which could be part of our rotation, something like that. With serpent sting, black arrow etc dots, I mean it was like that before, kinda. Maybe a spear thrower? Throwing poison stings, lol idk. I like harpoon though!

I also wish every spec had their traps back, but maybe survival could get an extra trap that would be used in the rotation.

I think right now it's pretty much a pvp spec, although I'd rather play other specs for bgs/arenas. I remember playing survival in bgs and it wasn't bad per say... but then I could just switch to MM and it was simply better (this is in legion pre patch so idk now). I know some top hunters like dillypoo are making it work in arenas, but I think he just plays it because he likes it.

[Rosinante]

Failure is question of Point of View, cause numbers isn't the only thing that matters.

We see people that didn't like the Survival big change, but in contrast the players who choose this way, even with this big downsides of our spec, create a really strong realtion with it and a strong identity of what is beeing a Survival Hunter.

I've been playing Surv since the Pre-Patch and loving it. I <3 Surv.

[willtron]

Was Survival a failure? No, because why is now some arbitrary deadline for class performance? Is Survival currently a failure? Yes.

Some quality of life changes and some changes to the rotation and it'll be fine.

If Blizzard asked me how to fix it I would:

- Reduce Mongoose Fury damage per stack. (50% to 40%)
- Increase Mongoose Fury stacks. (6 to 8)
- Increase the base proc chance from mastery and hunting companion.
- Either remove Raptor Strike, or allow it to grant Focus.

[Trapped]

Love survival so much more fun than shitty hunter rangeretardation. But yea when its damage is way below mm and bm people wont play it, its simple really people will always play whats on the top not what is fun.

Even if it was better than MM, or hell, what if it was the top spec overall. Do you think that would be enough to get hunter mains to swap to it? Or even other classes to swap to it? I think the answer is a resounding 'no'.

[Nocturnalypso]

I recently came back to WoW after quitting right before MoP. Previously I had an Enhancement Shaman as my main. I leveled up to 110 as that Shaman when Legion launched, but wanted to start playing with friends from work who were on different faction and on a different server. Wanting to try something different, I've taken a Survival hunter from 1-110.

It's definitely not as polished as Enhancement, and it's got a lot more buttons but I'm finding it's a blast to play. I love the flavor and flying into an enemy attached to the pointy end of my harpoon while my pet charges in is something that's extremely satisfying. It also feels good to play -- mainly because of the effect knowing the rotation has on DPS. If you play well, it's rewarding, if you play poorly, you get punished.

I would fix a few things though. I don't like the mastery at all. It's lackluster. It should probably do something outside just affecting Mongoose Bite cooldowns. I also don't like that it locks you into one of three pets, unless you want to play sub-optimally, which kills some of the class fantasy. Why should I HAVE to use a Riverbeast or Scorpid as Survival?

I don't think it's a failure though. I think it's an experiment that needs time to mature. I can see that people who played it as a ranged spec probably aren't happy with Survival, but as someone who just started playing it, I love it, and I am excited to see where Blizz takes it.

[Trapped]

Was Survival a failure? No, because why is now some arbitrary deadline for class performance? Is Survival currently a failure? Yes.

Some quality of life changes and some changes to the rotation and it'll be fine.

If Blizzard asked me how to fix it I would:

- Reduce Mongoose Fury damage per stack. (50% to 40%)
- Increase Mongoose Fury stacks. (6 to 8)
- Increase the base proc chance from mastery and hunting companion.
- Either remove Raptor Strike, or allow it to grant Focus.

The issue isn't with the mechanics of how SV plays, is it? And why would it matter if we're looking at the success/failure of Survival now, versus some other time down the line? Its not going to change miraculously anytime soon. It is a melee spec on a class that has 2 ranged specs, both of which that are performing better than Survival.

Do you think your proposed changes to Survival are going to make it THAT much better to make it more attractive over a ranged spec?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you really going to sit there and tell us we're wrong for enjoying a spec? I happen to like the idea of playing some goofy Orc version Captain Ahab, with harpoons, nets and grenades.

No, but if a few (and I really mean a few) people like a spec, does that make it a success?

[McFrotton]

you know what is a bigger failure than most of the legion specs? we trusting the wod clowns to deliver a good and well designed classes/expansion.

Well it is pretty good thus far. It not wod. It is pretty, fun and engaging, i really like it.

[Smorelax]

It's been 3 months since 7.0 and they are still just as deeply unpopular as they were when we started. We already heard you people arguing about how Artifacts would save the spec, or how the various major buffs would. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

Not really. I'm seeing more and more people play them outside instances and bg, and in some rare cases in raids. Never argued for hunters to have melee and I never argued what artifacts would or would not save.

"I don't see the problem" or any variation inevitably indicates being wilfully blind to obvious issues. They removed a ranged spec that way, way more people liked. You know very well that this is the case but you are stalling the thread with nonsense.

Blind to what issues? That it's not performing as well as the other specs? Because that's the only one that matters to me. they removed a spec that alot of people liked best. Including me! But after the changes they made to it. I don't miss it one bit. As of now SV is my favourite one. Cheer up. At least I'm happy.

[Spl4sh3r]

I feel the only issue with Survival is the Mongoose Bite part. It was a nice idea, but it takes too long to reach max stacks. If you have the talent it takes 6 seconds to reach max stacks and damage that leaves 6 seconds only to get extra Mongoose Bite attacks off. Also if you add to it that you keep getting too much Focus while doing so, it is such a waste.

[Felthorn]

Are you really going to sit there and tell us we're wrong for enjoying a spec? I happen to like the idea of playing some goofy Orc version Captain Ahab, with harpoons, nets and grenades.

If a movie gets mostly negative reviews, and a couple of positive...is it a failure? Depends on the box office...the numbers. The numbers point to Survival being a failure in that very few hunters are playing it. That doesn't mean that some people aren't enjoying the spec. In fact, some people are (seems to be a lot of people like that enhance shaman (MELEE) who switched to try it out). The people who play hunter...have played hunter...pick it for the range spec. If we want melee, we roll a rogue, DH, DK, Paladin, Warrior, Shaman or druid. The main point is, the game did not need another melee dps...and creating one at the expense of a ranged spec was a total failure. Had they added a melee spec, and kept the 3 ranged? OK, sure that'd be fine.

Ultimately, you and a handful of people may enjoy the spec...but it is not popular (based on numbers) and thus is a failure in the sense that matters. That isn't even factoring in the mechanical failings of the class (which is also a failure, imo). it is like some Dev's kid wanted to play a certain way so it was like make-a-wish, or some shit. This is garbage

[Geran]

Even if it was better than MM, or hell, what if it was the top spec overall. Do you think that would be enough to get hunter mains to swap to it? Or even other classes to swap to it? I think the answer is a resounding 'no'.

Let's just say best dps in game do 100, if SV would do 150, yes, there would be a lot of players who would change to it (as it would be overpowered). But it would be a problem of balance. As this would alienate a lot of player base blizzard won't do it.

Corcerning just hunter specs MM is top right now (let assume 100) if SV would do (100) also, there would be some who would try, but as you are taking a melee spot (and normally raid build around a balance of ranged/melee) not a lot of raids would let you try it.

[Justank]

If a movie gets mostly negative reviews, and a couple of positive...is it a failure? Depends on the box office...the numbers. The numbers point to Survival being a failure in that very few hunters are playing it. That doesn't mean that some people aren't enjoying the spec. In fact, some people are (seems to be a lot of people like that enhance shaman (MELEE) who switched to try it out). The people who play hunter...have played hunter...pick it for the range spec. If we want melee, we roll a rogue, DH, DK, Paladin, Warrior, Shaman or druid. The main point is, the game did not need another melee dps...and creating one at the expense of a ranged spec was a total failure. Had they added a melee spec, and kept the 3 ranged? OK, sure that'd be fine.

Ultimately, you and a handful of people may enjoy the spec...but it is not popular (based on numbers) and thus is a failure in the sense that matters. That isn't even factoring in the mechanical failings of the class (which is also a failure, imo). it is like some Dev's kid wanted to play a certain way so it was like make-a-wish, or some shit. This is garbage

Numbers would have been quite different if Surv hadn't been showing as the weakest DPS wise of the three specs for quite some time. Maybe even still not a majority of Hunters, but it absolutely would have had a large proportion of Hunters playing it.

[Deleted]

Numbers would have been quite different if Surv hadn't been showing as the weakest DPS wise of the three specs for quite some time. Maybe even still not a majority of Hunters, but it absolutely would have had a large proportion of Hunters playing it.

how do you know? this is just getting ridiculous. if they wanted the biggest numbers they wouldve played fire mages. The problem with wow is that the old team left a legacy in the hands of a bunch of amateurs. And this is the result when they "test" idea's on live and create a game for themselves, without a proper evaluation. blizzard has lost any credibility. they dont make triple A games anymore. its like a bunch of interns took over the steering wheel and drove it into a fckin iceberg like the titanic. for them its just damage control, cash in with the least amount of effort and keep the communication at a very baseline acceptance level. you can get your proof of this by just reading all of their Q&A's.

They gutted the hunter class.

[splatomat]

Absolute failure. Game needed another melee dps class like it needed more RNG. :P The *only* way this would've made sense is if it had been a Tank spec it could've been awesome. The game always needs tanks, another hybrid class would be excellent; everyone wins. It was a great opportunity that our myopic devs missed. I'm really quite surprised at how badly they're failing with the hunter class. Truly stunning.

This. All of this. Tank + Polearm + Riding Pet Into Battle = Medieval Knight. I would LOVE to be able to get satchels on my hunter. Would love to have 5 second queues. Every single pure DPS should be hybridized to help fill the ETERNAL SHORTAGE of tanks (and to a lesser extent, heals).

Survival as melee is really pointless and I feel bad for the Survival-lovers out there who literally lost their spec/class.

[Peppered]

A lot of those "WoD clowns" have been around since Wrath of the Lich King. Widely considered one of the best expansions yet.

Hahahaha and who exactly said this horse shit? WotLK's best claim to the "best expansions" title would probably only be the fact that the period during which wow boasted its highest subscriber count ever occurred during it. Sub numbers aren't necessarily indicative of popularity, the game was still relatively fresh, and wow as a whole was in a state of rising popularity because of its novelty and the fact that there was less competition out there.