Page 32 of 43 FirstFirst ...
22
30
31
32
33
34
42
... LastLast
  1. #621
    Quote Originally Posted by FpicEail View Post
    I'm sure there were people who ran around as rogues casting Shoot all the time too, but that was neither a very common thing nor was it very smart. Yes, 99% of the population doesn't count as "not everyone" but it can be pretty well approximated to "everyone".

    Consider it this way to make it more clear: maybe people didn't roll hunters specifically for ranged, but they CERTAINLY didn't roll hunters specifically for melee. Which means that turning one of the specs to melee is a high-risk-low-reward endeavour: you need to convince people who didn't pick the class to play a melee spec when they didn't pick this class expecting a melee spec, you need to convince the people that stuck to the old ranged survival that it was worth it, and you need to bring in plenty of people from other classes. None of that happened in Legion.
    I think it was worth it. So far SV has been a lot of fun this xpac as it takes a modicum of intelligence to play optimally (let's be serious, it's not that difficult but it is more involved than the other 2 specs). Honestly feel it would have been a better idea to just make a 4th spec as I do miss old SV, even though I am enjoying the new as much as I am (always was my favorite of the 3 specs even when it underperformed and I had to switch to MM/BM for progression). They could have left SV alone and just made a 4th spec with the new abilities and traps, but they made a pretty bold decision and stuck with it. So far, for those that have stuck with it and are enjoying it, it seems to be pretty rewarding. That's not to say other melee don't do it better, but as Blizzard keeps fine tuning things it is slowly finding a spot with the other classes. With the addition of DH's and how bad SV started, as well as the stigma of "overly complicated," I agree that so far they have failed to bring new people to the class that already have melee as a main or are thinking of refilling rdps to mdps; however, if you can get the hang of it and Blizz keeps up with the buffs and tweaking of the spec it will definitely be worth the try by those with even a tiny fraction of interest in the spec.

  2. #622
    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    I think it was worth it. So far SV has been a lot of fun this xpac as it takes a modicum of intelligence to play optimally (let's be serious, it's not that difficult but it is more involved than the other 2 specs). Honestly feel it would have been a better idea to just make a 4th spec as I do miss old SV, even though I am enjoying the new as much as I am (always was my favorite of the 3 specs even when it underperformed and I had to switch to MM/BM for progression). They could have left SV alone and just made a 4th spec with the new abilities and traps, but they made a pretty bold decision and stuck with it. So far, for those that have stuck with it and are enjoying it, it seems to be pretty rewarding. That's not to say other melee don't do it better, but as Blizzard keeps fine tuning things it is slowly finding a spot with the other classes. With the addition of DH's and how bad SV started, as well as the stigma of "overly complicated," I agree that so far they have failed to bring new people to the class that already have melee as a main or are thinking of refilling rdps to mdps; however, if you can get the hang of it and Blizz keeps up with the buffs and tweaking of the spec it will definitely be worth the try by those with even a tiny fraction of interest in the spec.
    There was nothing precluding Survival from being complex and rewarding as a ranged spec. It is, however, precluded from being at all popular as a melee spec. So the spec being complex/polished/rewarding is not a positive argument for it being melee. It is those things in spite of it being melee, not because of it. It also doesn't make the transition to melee worth it. Considering the amount of effort they put into it only for it to turn out to be despised by the rest of its class and ignored by the rest of the classes, that actually makes it very much NOT worth it. Especially considering all that attention given to Survival certainly detracted from the other two specs. It would have taken far less effort to expand on the ranged iteration of Survival and it would certainly have resulted in a more popular spec and a better class in general.

    It's also laughable how people like you praise Blizzard for being "bold" here. Blizzard stole a spec right from under thousands of players without hearing ANY input from the players, nor do they confront any criticism of the issue. They will also inevitably double down on the decision despite the obvious total failure of it. The only time they have mentioned Survival's unpopularity was during Celestalon's Blizzcon interview where he said "the fantasy of a Survival Hunter may not have been sold well at launch", which is just the standard deflection of blame to the player that Blizzard ALWAYS pulls these days so that they never have to admit fault. "It's not directly our fault that Survival ended up like this; the players are just too dumb to understand it and we didn't think to help them out!". That's not bold at all. That's actually all pretty cowardly.

  3. #623
    Quote Originally Posted by FpicEail View Post
    Hahaha. Making it melee was already a catastrophically stupid idea, let alone making it a tank spec.

    I guess it was not enough for you that they pissed off everyone who rolled the class to play a ranged DPS spec and you think they should have just pissed off everyone who rolled for a DPS spec.
    You have 2 ranged specs , what's the problem with having the 3rd one be melee? More options = better. Plus judging from this thread , quite a lot of people actually enjoy it

    - - - Updated - - -

    P.s. Love all the posters talking on the behalf of both all of the hunters, and the whole of the WoW population . Who would've known we have such people on these forums

    Thx to Isilrien for the awesome sig

  4. #624
    Quote Originally Posted by FpicEail View Post
    There was nothing precluding Survival from being complex and rewarding as a ranged spec. It is, however, precluded from being at all popular as a melee spec. So the spec being complex/polished/rewarding is not a positive argument for it being melee. It is those things in spite of it being melee, not because of it. It also doesn't make the transition to melee worth it. Considering the amount of effort they put into it only for it to turn out to be despised by the rest of its class and ignored by the rest of the classes, that actually makes it very much NOT worth it. Especially considering all that attention given to Survival certainly detracted from the other two specs. It would have taken far less effort to expand on the ranged iteration of Survival and it would certainly have resulted in a more popular spec and a better class in general.

    It's also laughable how people like you praise Blizzard for being "bold" here. Blizzard stole a spec right from under thousands of players without hearing ANY input from the players, nor do they confront any criticism of the issue. They will also inevitably double down on the decision despite the obvious total failure of it. The only time they have mentioned Survival's unpopularity was during Celestalon's Blizzcon interview where he said "the fantasy of a Survival Hunter may not have been sold well at launch", which is just the standard deflection of blame to the player that Blizzard ALWAYS pulls these days so that they never have to admit fault. "It's not directly our fault that Survival ended up like this; the players are just too dumb to understand it and we didn't think to help them out!". That's not bold at all. That's actually all pretty cowardly.
    Well it's also funny how people like you read something and interpret it differently from what was said, as most of my post agreed with yours on many topics you stated; yet, still went on to talk about the ideal of the spec and how it is actually very fun to play. I also did not praise Blizzard for making the decision, it simply stated fact in that what they did was, in fact, a bold decision to completely redesign a spec. I also touched on why it is not currently popular, which a lot has to do with a new melee class brought out at the same time, bad reviews on the PTR for "overly complicated," as well as the stigma that "Hunters are rdps." Given time and polish, the specs popularity can indeed grow over time (read: can, not for sure will) in which all of your points become moot and nothing more than downcasting something at its current iteration, much like Prot Paladins in BC and how bad they were. I'm sure that if social media was as big then as it is today many people would have said the same things about that class as a whole as SV hunters are now.
    You also interpret Celestalon as "blaming the player," when most others would see his comment as blaming the producers/developers of the game, as "not being sold well at launch" is more talking about the people doing the selling, not the buying.
    Last edited by Eapoe; 2017-01-30 at 11:41 PM.

  5. #625
    Quote Originally Posted by Amerikanec View Post
    You have 2 ranged specs , what's the problem with having the 3rd one be melee? More options = better. Plus judging from this thread , quite a lot of people actually enjoy it

    - - - Updated - - -

    P.s. Love all the posters talking on the behalf of both all of the hunters, and the whole of the WoW population . Who would've known we have such people on these forums
    The problem is Blizzard scrap an established spec that was loved for years and made it melee, regardless if we do have 2 more specs that's range.

  6. #626
    Here's how I see it, and you can take from it how you will.

    I enjoy the spec, therefore I will keep playing Survival because it is fun to me. Period.

  7. #627
    Quote Originally Posted by LordOtaku666 View Post
    Here's how I see it, and you can take from it how you will.

    I enjoy the spec, therefore I will keep playing Survival because it is fun to me. Period.
    Pretty much this. My hunter was always survival spec when it was ranged and I was sad to see it go but this melee spec is fun and I like it.

  8. #628
    Quote Originally Posted by shade3891 View Post
    I wish it was a tank spec, giving it some unique tanking opportunities since you could divide damage between you and your pet. Or let your pet taunt a pack while you go off grap a stray mob.
    Probably better if you did the taunting while you shared HP with your pet instead. Having a larger healthpool would probably mean less mitigation though.

  9. #629
    Deleted
    Honestly, very few things are outright failures, I'd say this was a learning experience for Blizzard.

    I feel like Blizzard should've kept Survival ranged, but work on the thematics of it, keep the damage over time aspects of it and make it a Dark Ranger kind of spec.

    I applaud Blizzard for trying to differentiate the Hunter specs, because to be honest, the class really needed it, and it still does, nothing about the class is really all that exciting.

    You've got spear spec, 2 pets spec, and archer spec.

    Holy fucking shit calm down Blizzard, I can't handle it.
    Last edited by mmocb78b2e29a3; 2017-01-31 at 02:28 AM.

  10. #630
    Quote Originally Posted by bargh View Post
    Survi shouldnt be another meele spec.

    Ranged will always be favoured over meele, especially when they have solid aoe.

    What would save Survi is if it was tank spec for hunter. Would be especially nice, considering there are no other mail wearing specs.
    I've been saying this since Wrath of the Lich King. I've been a hunter from the beginning and I always thought it would make sense for a spec called "Survival" to actually play as if they are trying to survive something. At the moment Survival hunters are just spearfishers who bring their bear along to give them some tips on how to catch the best highmountain salmon. Plus, I play hunter because I prefer to deal damage from afar, but if I could tank with it sometimes, then it would be a nice option.

  11. #631
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalanoree View Post
    I've been saying this since Wrath of the Lich King. I've been a hunter from the beginning and I always thought it would make sense for a spec called "Survival" to actually play as if they are trying to survive something. At the moment Survival hunters are just spearfishers who bring their bear along to give them some tips on how to catch the best highmountain salmon. Plus, I play hunter because I prefer to deal damage from afar, but if I could tank with it sometimes, then it would be a nice option.
    I do agree with that. It would make sense for Survival to be a tanking spec tbh.

  12. #632
    Quote Originally Posted by Amerikanec View Post
    You have 2 ranged specs , what's the problem with having the 3rd one be melee? More options = better. Plus judging from this thread , quite a lot of people actually enjoy it

    - - - Updated - - -

    P.s. Love all the posters talking on the behalf of both all of the hunters, and the whole of the WoW population . Who would've known we have such people on these forums
    As someone who preferred the fast-paced, mobile, archer-focused spec of Survival before 7.0, I no longer have that option.

    Also, it's more diversity in the class itself but less diversity in the game as a whole. We went from 3 physical-ranged specs to 2, but we went from 12 melee specs to 13. If Survival stayed range, we would have 12 ranged specs and 12 melee specs: a perfect balance. However, not only did we remove a ranged spec, we removed one from the even smaller pool of physical ranged (i.e. archer/gunman).

    You can harp on about class diversity and options all you want, but this option (Survival) is largely unwelcome for the whole class. Most of the class isn't thinking "wow, I know have an extra new option", they're thinking "damn, now I basically have a 2-spec class".

    Also, deriving that conclusion from this thread is pretty interesting since this thread has been largely negative towards Survival and most of the few people here defending it play Survival on an alt or are very recent hunter mains, which is very telling about the state of Survival.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    Well it's also funny how people like you read something and interpret it differently from what was said, as most of my post agreed with yours on many topics you stated; yet, still went on to talk about the ideal of the spec and how it is actually very fun to play. I also did not praise Blizzard for making the decision, it simply stated fact in that what they did was, in fact, a bold decision to completely redesign a spec. I also touched on why it is not currently popular, which a lot has to do with a new melee class brought out at the same time, bad reviews on the PTR for "overly complicated," as well as the stigma that "Hunters are rdps." Given time and polish, the specs popularity can indeed grow over time (read: can, not for sure will) in which all of your points become moot and nothing more than downcasting something at its current iteration, much like Prot Paladins in BC and how bad they were. I'm sure that if social media was as big then as it is today many people would have said the same things about that class as a whole as SV hunters are now.
    You also interpret Celestalon as "blaming the player," when most others would see his comment as blaming the producers/developers of the game, as "not being sold well at launch" is more talking about the people doing the selling, not the buying.
    No, it was not a bold decision to sleight the players like they did while ignoring all input. Even if it were bold, it doesn't make it any less stupid or negative.

    Also, why bother redesigning a spec and spending all that effort to make a new spec that MAYBE becomes popular after a long period of time when they already had a working ranged spec that was popular (barring periods of massive unviability like 6.2)? That doesn't help your argument at all. This is not at all the same as prot paladins, which were always intended to be a tank spec but just got caught on the wrong side of Blizzard's early incompetence and was unable to tank in Vanilla due to a total lack of threat-generating capability. It wasn't a spec that previously had a popular, successful iteration and suddenly did not. That's what Survival is now.

    Excuses along the lines of "we didn't sell/explain it well enough" are implicit deflections of blame to the player in the event of developer fault. This is the excuse EA pulls every time they make a shitty decision everyone hates. This is actually the same excuse that the Fine Bros used during that whole React copyright fiasco last year. It's weak, cowardly, and pathetic.

  13. #633
    Quote Originally Posted by FpicEail View Post
    As someone who preferred the fast-paced, mobile, archer-focused spec of Survival before 7.0, I no longer have that option.

    Also, it's more diversity in the class itself but less diversity in the game as a whole. We went from 3 physical-ranged specs to 2, but we went from 12 melee specs to 13. If Survival stayed range, we would have 12 ranged specs and 12 melee specs: a perfect balance. However, not only did we remove a ranged spec, we removed one from the even smaller pool of physical ranged (i.e. archer/gunman).

    You can harp on about class diversity and options all you want, but this option (Survival) is largely unwelcome for the whole class. Most of the class isn't thinking "wow, I know have an extra new option", they're thinking "damn, now I basically have a 2-spec class".

    Also, deriving that conclusion from this thread is pretty interesting since this thread has been largely negative towards Survival and most of the few people here defending it play Survival on an alt or are very recent hunter mains, which is very telling about the state of Survival.

    - - - Updated - - -



    No, it was not a bold decision to sleight the players like they did while ignoring all input. Even if it were bold, it doesn't make it any less stupid or negative.

    Also, why bother redesigning a spec and spending all that effort to make a new spec that MAYBE becomes popular after a long period of time when they already had a working ranged spec that was popular (barring periods of massive unviability like 6.2)? That doesn't help your argument at all. This is not at all the same as prot paladins, which were always intended to be a tank spec but just got caught on the wrong side of Blizzard's early incompetence and was unable to tank in Vanilla due to a total lack of threat-generating capability. It wasn't a spec that previously had a popular, successful iteration and suddenly did not. That's what Survival is now.

    Excuses along the lines of "we didn't sell/explain it well enough" are implicit deflections of blame to the player in the event of developer fault. This is the excuse EA pulls every time they make a shitty decision everyone hates. This is actually the same excuse that the Fine Bros used during that whole React copyright fiasco last year. It's weak, cowardly, and pathetic.
    But you do have the option of being a fast paced, mobile spec'd archer in the form of BM, albeit with a stronger focus on the pet than the archer. The last xpac SV was mostly dead as it was thenand the only people playing it were alts or new players, which was also very telling of the spec at the time.
    You may not have as much diversity from rdps to mdps now, but there is still diversity between all melee classes as well as diversity in the Hunter class between specs.
    The changes to SV aren't largely unwelcome, they are largely unknown as well as largely underplayed. That doesn't mean they are bad.
    Bold doesn't mean it has to be good or bad, or even stupid or not stupid, it just means that it was a bold decision to change something . You trying to demean it doesn't change anything. If Blizz didn't try changes we'd still be playing shit Pally tanks, DK's that can tank/dps in any spec, Hunters with a min range they have to be away from the boss to shoot, and everything else that has happened thru the years. Almost every change has been met with bad criticism and naysayers and a lot of these changes have played out really well.
    Prot Paladins also weren't introduced until BC, but overlooking that as a simple mistake, they were almost completely useless and unplayable at the time yet still filled a role and were a necessity for Hyjal. This means that even though they worked, they were extremely unpopular at the time and had problems, but as Blizz worked on the spec and focused it into working well for all situations it has grown to be one of, if not the most, popular tank in the game. The comparison wasn't about what something was always intended to be or not to be, but that over time views change on something when it starts becoming a more polished machine as well as people giving it time to become used to.
    How is that explicit deflection of blame to the playerbase? If you want to take a psychological approach to the issue, then I can see what you are getting at, but the same approach can be taken to get right back to the root of the statement putting blame right back on the devs/producers. To say this holds true every time the phrase is stated is just asinine and belief that people are always trying to sell you something. Even EA's "shitty" statements hasn't detracted from them selling products and making extremely popular games. Sometimes the fault is on the players, as that is a topic where the truth of the matter is found out over time. Again, if SV remains melee and becomes a highly played class over the next .5-3 years, then everyone in this forum saying it failed is then proven wrong, where if that doesn't happen then they are all proven right.

  14. #634
    Brewmaster Uriel's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,419
    In WOD surv wasn't played a lot because they nerfed it to oblivion, not because nobody liked it

  15. #635
    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    But you do have the option of being a fast paced, mobile spec'd archer in the form of BM, albeit with a stronger focus on the pet than the archer. The last xpac SV was mostly dead as it was thenand the only people playing it were alts or new players, which was also very telling of the spec at the time.
    You may not have as much diversity from rdps to mdps now, but there is still diversity between all melee classes as well as diversity in the Hunter class between specs.
    The changes to SV aren't largely unwelcome, they are largely unknown as well as largely underplayed. That doesn't mean they are bad.
    Bold doesn't mean it has to be good or bad, or even stupid or not stupid, it just means that it was a bold decision to change something . You trying to demean it doesn't change anything. If Blizz didn't try changes we'd still be playing shit Pally tanks, DK's that can tank/dps in any spec, Hunters with a min range they have to be away from the boss to shoot, and everything else that has happened thru the years. Almost every change has been met with bad criticism and naysayers and a lot of these changes have played out really well.
    Prot Paladins also weren't introduced until BC, but overlooking that as a simple mistake, they were almost completely useless and unplayable at the time yet still filled a role and were a necessity for Hyjal. This means that even though they worked, they were extremely unpopular at the time and had problems, but as Blizz worked on the spec and focused it into working well for all situations it has grown to be one of, if not the most, popular tank in the game. The comparison wasn't about what something was always intended to be or not to be, but that over time views change on something when it starts becoming a more polished machine as well as people giving it time to become used to.
    How is that explicit deflection of blame to the playerbase? If you want to take a psychological approach to the issue, then I can see what you are getting at, but the same approach can be taken to get right back to the root of the statement putting blame right back on the devs/producers. To say this holds true every time the phrase is stated is just asinine and belief that people are always trying to sell you something. Even EA's "shitty" statements hasn't detracted from them selling products and making extremely popular games. Sometimes the fault is on the players, as that is a topic where the truth of the matter is found out over time. Again, if SV remains melee and becomes a highly played class over the next .5-3 years, then everyone in this forum saying it failed is then proven wrong, where if that doesn't happen then they are all proven right.
    BM damage come from pet, just bc they shoot arrows doesn't mean they are a mobile spec with emphasis on the usage of the bow like range SV was.

    And if that was the case black arrow and ES would've went to BM instead of MM.

    The only reason range SV wasn't played much because Blizz nerfed the spec to hell making it terrible in any scenario. Now they all of a sudden want to make adjustments to the spec giving it proper buffs, where the hell was that type of commitment for the spec was at in late WoD?
    Last edited by xZerocidex; 2017-01-31 at 07:33 PM.

  16. #636
    Quote Originally Posted by Uriel View Post
    In WOD surv wasn't played a lot because they nerfed it to oblivion, not because nobody liked it
    That brings up another issue now doesn't it? If SV was pulling 100-200k more than most melee, do you think it would be more popular than it is now? As it stands now, it is roughly just behind most, yet if it was a decent ways ahead would it still be as "bad" as most make it out to be?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by xZerocidex View Post
    BM damage come from pet, just bc they shoot arrows doesn't mean they are a mobile spec with emphasis on the usage of the bow like range SV was.

    And if that was the case black arrow and ES would've went to BM instead of MM.

    The only reason range SV wasn't played much because Blizz nerfed the spec to hell making it terrible in any scenario. Now they all of a sudden want to make adjustments to the spec giving it proper buffs, where the hell was that type of commitment for the spec was at in late WoD?
    The spec wasn't nerfed, it was changed. It was changed to a terrible iteration of what it used to be. Yet, even though it was such a "beloved" spec people make it out to be, it wasn't touched because the other 2 specs of the class outperformed it. That still made it unpopular in WoD, did it not?

  17. #637
    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    That brings up another issue now doesn't it? If SV was pulling 100-200k more than most melee, do you think it would be more popular than it is now? As it stands now, it is roughly just behind most, yet if it was a decent ways ahead would it still be as "bad" as most make it out to be?

    - - - Updated - - -



    The spec wasn't nerfed, it was changed. It was changed to a terrible iteration of what it used to be. Yet, even though it was such a "beloved" spec people make it out to be, it wasn't touched because the other 2 specs of the class outperformed it. That still made it unpopular in WoD, did it not?
    You are aware SV was the go to spec at the beginning of WoD right? It did better than MM for the time.

    Let's not pretend they didn't intentionally butcher the spec near the end of WoD.

    Better yet explain to me why SV went from viable at the start to nonviable towards the end because as far as I'm aware ppl were playing it.
    Last edited by xZerocidex; 2017-01-31 at 08:01 PM.

  18. #638
    Quote Originally Posted by xZerocidex View Post
    You are aware SV was the go to spec at the beginning of WoD right? It did better than MM for the time.

    Let's not pretend they didn't intentionally butcher the spec near the end of WoD.

    Better yet explain to me why SV went from viable at the start to nonviable towards the end because as far as I'm aware ppl were playing it.
    Yes, people played it at the beginning, as it peaked much faster than BM/MM from dungeon gear, but scaled very poorly after that. Most people were playing MM/BM (mostly MM from memory) when they got into mythic HM, and when tier came out with BRF SV was pretty much completely out. This has nothing to do with nerfs (again, memory but pretty sure most specs were virtually untouched thru the xpac) and more to do with SV's lack of execute and poor scaling.

  19. #639
    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    Yes, people played it at the beginning, as it peaked much faster than BM/MM from dungeon gear, but scaled very poorly after that. Most people were playing MM/BM (mostly MM from memory) when they got into mythic HM, and when tier came out with BRF SV was pretty much completely out. This has nothing to do with nerfs (again, memory but pretty sure most specs were virtually untouched thru the xpac) and more to do with SV's lack of execute and poor scaling.
    I'm sorry what? It has everything to do with nerfs, if ppl were (most like you claim) playing MM/BM then there was no reason to nerf SV at all.

    If that was the case SV would've been trash in SoO due to poor scaling, it had nothing to do with dungeon gear at all. There was zero reason to play as one in PvE or PvP.
    Last edited by xZerocidex; 2017-01-31 at 08:40 PM.

  20. #640
    Brewmaster Uriel's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post



    The spec wasn't nerfed, it was changed. It was changed to a terrible iteration of what it used to be. Yet, even though it was such a "beloved" spec people make it out to be, it wasn't touched because the other 2 specs of the class outperformed it. That still made it unpopular in WoD, did it not?
    I liked surv quite a bit in WoD. Before the prepatch of WoD I chose surv as my mainspec. The problem was that I had to go MM to be even considered by my raid team cause all of a sudden Blizzard decided to nerfed it so hard that the difference was too much, even for a casual guild.
    I didn't want to change specs rather I was forced to by blizzard. The question was: play a different spec or get benched.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •