Page 33 of 43 FirstFirst ...
23
31
32
33
34
35
... LastLast
  1. #641
    Quote Originally Posted by xZerocidex View Post
    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.
    As I said, SV wasn't nerfed, it was changed. They took Kill Shot from the spec in WoD. WoD was released and that was the only change from MoP to WoD. Again, that was a change. To compensate for it, it peaked (damage) at heroic dungeon gear and scaled poorly from then on. Blizzard never nerfed the spec in WoD to suddenly make it bad. By the same token, they never buffed it either to make up for the damage it lost due to removal of KS and weapon damage scaling you get from MM.
    SoO was actually in MoP, the xpac before WoD. To elaborate further, I was also mistaken about SV in SoO in thinking it was the best spec, but it was actually outdone by BM hunters (especially when it came down to mythic raiding).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Uriel View Post
    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.
    As I've stated previously, I also enjoyed SV thru all xpacs, but that doesn't change the popularity of the spec thru it's history of the game. Popularity is decided based on what is played (pertaining to this forum), and based off of what was played thru 95% of WoD, most of Wrath/Cata, and the end of MoP, SV has remained one of the least popular specs (as far as what was played for progression raiding). Since that's the basis of most of this thread, it stands to be pointed out.
    Trust me, I miss old SV, and have even said I wish they would have just made a 4th spec for the class to be melee. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy the new SV. I am having a lot of fun with it, find it rewarding and fun to play, and most of my posting is pointing out the stigma new SV is receiving and the flaws in thinking about it, as well as stating that if it stays melee and becomes a commonly played melee spec over time, then all of the naysaying in this thread is pointless. Not saying that's what will happen, but determining it as a failure is something that can not be determined this early in the xpac.

  2. #642
    In nearly 10 years this is the first time I've had my hunter specced into and played as Survival for more than a day, so I don't think so. I find current SV really fun and I enjoy it.

  3. #643
    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    As I said, SV wasn't nerfed, it was changed. They took Kill Shot from the spec in WoD. WoD was released and that was the only change from MoP to WoD. Again, that was a change. To compensate for it, it peaked (damage) at heroic dungeon gear and scaled poorly from then on. Blizzard never nerfed the spec in WoD to suddenly make it bad. By the same token, they never buffed it either to make up for the damage it lost due to removal of KS and weapon damage scaling you get from MM.
    SoO was actually in MoP, the xpac before WoD. To elaborate further, I was also mistaken about SV in SoO in thinking it was the best spec, but it was actually outdone by BM hunters (especially when it came down to mythic raiding).

    - - - Updated - - -



    As I've stated previously, I also enjoyed SV thru all xpacs, but that doesn't change the popularity of the spec thru it's history of the game. Popularity is decided based on what is played (pertaining to this forum), and based off of what was played thru 95% of WoD, most of Wrath/Cata, and the end of MoP, SV has remained one of the least popular specs (as far as what was played for progression raiding). Since that's the basis of most of this thread, it stands to be pointed out.
    Trust me, I miss old SV, and have even said I wish they would have just made a 4th spec for the class to be melee. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy the new SV. I am having a lot of fun with it, find it rewarding and fun to play, and most of my posting is pointing out the stigma new SV is receiving and the flaws in thinking about it, as well as stating that if it stays melee and becomes a commonly played melee spec over time, then all of the naysaying in this thread is pointless. Not saying that's what will happen, but determining it as a failure is something that can not be determined this early in the xpac.
    SV and BM both had Kill Shot during WoD... What are you talking about? They also baked SS into Arcane Shot, I'm convinced you don't know what you're talking about because let me repeat it again. There was zero reason to play SV late in PvE or PvP, SV was one of the best specs to play as in MoP bc of it's 4pc

  4. #644
    Quote Originally Posted by xZerocidex View Post
    SV and BM both had Kill Shot during WoD... What are you talking about? They also baked SS into Arcane Shot, I'm convinced you don't know what you're talking about because let me repeat it again. There was zero reason to play SV late in PvE or PvP, SV was one of the best specs to play as in MoP bc of it's 4pc
    wth are you talking about. sv didn't have kill shot in wod. pretty sure most pvpers still played it til the end aswell.

  5. #645
    Quote Originally Posted by threadz View Post
    wth are you talking about. sv didn't have kill shot in wod. pretty sure most pvpers still played it til the end aswell.
    You're right, my apologies, that was an oversight on my end.
    Last edited by xZerocidex; 2017-01-31 at 10:45 PM.

  6. #646
    Quote Originally Posted by threadz View Post
    wth are you talking about. sv didn't have kill shot in wod. pretty sure most pvpers still played it til the end aswell.
    Easy to play spec with powerfull cc almost unstoppable and independent playstyle, so yeah pretty much the go to spec in PvP

  7. #647
    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.
    Nothing says "fast paced" like a 1.5 sec GCD and 40% downtime.
    And while BM has the best mobility of any ranged spec, it currently suffers massive issues with pet AI and pathing. At least if your pet fucked up as old Surv you wouldn't lose over 50% of your DPS.
    And honestly a lot of the former Surv players would be happy with BM if it were more like its MoP/WoD incarnation but it ISN'T. It's far worse....partially due to the amount of attention they had to devote to Survival.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    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.
    Survival wasn't dead until Blizzard killed it in 6.2.
    In 6.0 and 6.1, it was very popular. In fact, it was more popular than MM despite doing less DPS. THAT is telling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    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.
    But there is now less diversity among ranged. Also, diversity isn't the end-all to class design. In fact, in pursuing "uniqueness" and "identity", they produced a far worse product (7.0 hunters) that far fewer people enjoy and receive well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    The changes to SV aren't largely unwelcome, they are largely unknown as well as largely underplayed. That doesn't mean they are bad.
    What? Absolutely everyone knows that Survival went melee. It is now a far less popular spec than it used to be, despite a series of buffs and playstyle improvements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    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 .
    At best, part of the decision is bold. But like I said, what makes it NOT bold in my eyes is that they ignored all player input and essentially pretended that the massive issues aren't there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    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.
    None of those changes are comparable to making a ranged spec melee. In fact, most of those changes served to improve their class. Yes, there will be some contingent of people against any change, but the goal is to discern how positive/negative the over-all reaction is. You didn't see a large decrease in Protection Paladin population after all the revamps. You did, however, with Hunters in general Especially Survival.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    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.
    Don't you dare call me out on making mistakes when you clearly have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Protection paladins were in the game from the BEGINNING and were ALWAYS intended to be a tank spec. It was in Vanilla where they were unviable because threat was only buffed for holy damage and all of their holy damage abilities were a) scaling with Spell Damage not Strength and b) mostly only worked against undead/demons. In BC they were actually viable and used mainly on AoE stuff like heroic dungeons and Mount Hyjal.

    You are making 2 logical fallacies here: one is the false equivalency. You are trying to say that two non-equivalent situations are equivalent. Survival hunters switched roles from ranged to melee. Protection never switched roles. Protection went from being an unviable tank spec to a viable tank spec. There was no previous Protection iteration to compare to: it started badly and got improved. Survival DOES have previous iterations to compare to, and unfortunately for Blizzard those iterations were popular and fondly remembered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    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.
    7.0 Survival is not 6.0 Survival with some polish: it is a brand new spec built on the grave of 6.0 Survival. Once again, not comparable to any other spec in the game. There has never been a role switch like this. Every ranged spec has been ranged since the beginning. Same for every melee spec, every tank, every healer. Survival is the ONLY exception.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    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.
    I literally said "implicit", which is the opposite of "explicit".

    Regardless of intent, "we didn't sell it well enough" is a weak excuse because it's saying that they could have literally left the spec as it was but talked about it differently at gamescom/blizzcon/interviews and somehow that would have solved all its problems. That therefore implies that the problems are superficial and mostly due to perception rather than reality. This is the exact excuse they are currently using for Brewmaster, actually, where they blame the spec's unpopularity on some false perception of underpoweredness rather than the deeply unpopular playstyle.

    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?
    http://thebrewhall.com/2015/04/14/pa...ed-on-the-ptr/

    Linked: "Changed, not nerfed".

    No, Survival was nerfed. You are trying to convince people that Survival was unpopular for all of WoD which was not the case. It was popular in the first tear but unpopular in the second tier due to the above nerfs. If you think the nerfs weren't that bad, read this article. So you are either lying or ignorant. Pick one.

    - - - Updated - - -

    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.
    Ignorant it is, then.

    Don't base an argument entirely off a premise which you already know to be shaky at best. Check first.

    Also, lack of execute and poor scaling is also a tuning issue that is easily solved. Making it melee and remaking everything was a high-effort-low-reward solution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    As I said, SV wasn't nerfed, it was changed. They took Kill Shot from the spec in WoD.
    > "spec wasn't nerfed"
    > immediately says spec was nerfed

    Removing Kill Shot from the spec WAS A NERF. But it was not the one that killed Survival.

    You've repeated that "changed, not nerfed" phrase a few times now so it seems you've deluded yourself into thinking that's a good one-liner argument. "Changed" is not mutually exclusive with "nerfed". In fact, every nerf is itself a change. Plus, as I've already highlighted above, you're full of shit because the spec was in fact nerfed. Not only was it nerfed, it received one of the largest, if not THE largest, single nerf in the history of hunters (the serpent sting "bug fix" amounted to a 20% nerf on single target, more on AoE).

    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    As I've stated previously, I also enjoyed SV thru all xpacs, but that doesn't change the popularity of the spec thru it's history of the game. Popularity is decided based on what is played (pertaining to this forum), and based off of what was played thru 95% of WoD, most of Wrath/Cata, and the end of MoP, SV has remained one of the least popular specs (as far as what was played for progression raiding). Since that's the basis of most of this thread, it stands to be pointed out.
    Here's a tip: when you feel compelled to pull false facts out of your ass like you have done several times in this thread, instead stop typing your post and go google to verify what you're saying instead.

    I don't have any data for pre-4.3, but this website has data for 4.3, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4:

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



    As you can see, Survival competed with BM for most of MoP. It was actually the most popular spec at the end of that expansion. Additionally, it was the most popular in 4.3, although it was also by far the most powerful in that patch. You ARE right about BM being more powerful in SoO, which makes it even more remarkable that SV ended up pulling ahead towards the end of that tier.

    As for WoD, you can look at the warcraftlogs parse count:

    https://www.warcraftlogs.com/statistics/6
    https://www.warcraftlogs.com/statistics/7

    Survival was ahead of MM in both of the first tier raids despite being less powerful than MM. This is all for progression raiding, too, so your statement that it was one of the least popular specs is complete shit.

    You see the big popularity drop-off in 6.2, which is clearly linked to the massive nerf I linked above. There was NO CHOICE but MM for hunters in 6.2 due to Blizzard's tuning failures. I know I was forced into MM having been a SV/BM player. I begrudged it then but I thought "at least it would probably get better next patch". How fucking wrong was I.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    Trust me, I miss old SV, and have even said I wish they would have just made a 4th spec for the class to be melee. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy the new SV. I am having a lot of fun with it, find it rewarding and fun to play, and most of my posting is pointing out the stigma new SV is receiving and the flaws in thinking about it, as well as stating that if it stays melee and becomes a commonly played melee spec over time, then all of the naysaying in this thread is pointless. Not saying that's what will happen, but determining it as a failure is something that can not be determined this early in the xpac.
    I really don't care for the half-assed diplomacy on your part here. The new SV will ALWAYS have stigma attached to it since it's a stolen spec, and as long as those people from whom it was stolen still play the game they will continue to despise that spec. If SV ever becomes accepted, it will take many expansions. We are now 6 months into Legion and SV is barely ahead of where it started in terms of popularity, despite all of the attention it received from the beginning of alpha until now, despite all the forced publicity about it being a "fun new spec", and despite the constant stream of tuning buffs. It would have been far less effort for a far better and more popular product if they kept it as a ranged spec. That's what makes it a failure. Whether or not it MIGHT stop being a pariah in several years makes no difference to that fact.

  8. #648
    You know, in a way you can consider BM to be a melee spec.

    ~85% of your damage is dealt from melee range(pet/direbeast). Its like if a warlock stood in melee and his pet is shooting from range, thats the BM analogy. Your a warlock pet providing incidental damage from the back of the room.

    Your fully mobile, like a melee class. Your damage drops off completely when your pet isn't on target or has to travel to targets, like a melee class. Your damage(pets) can be kited, like a melee class.

    The BM spec is like playing an RTS, controlling your units from afar. Its pretty funny to think of it like that, you have all the pros of being melee and only some of the cons. I don't see why a melee spec should feel foreign to anyone, the only difference between it and BM is your distance from the boss. Functionally its as close to a melee spec as it can be already.

    The only negatives in this entire thread have been one liners saying "i prefer old survival" or "it shouldn't be melee" from people who never return to the thread and then one soapbox hero named FpicEail that writes novels about Survival in 5.X with his ruby glasses on.

    Overall, Survival is a viable spec on live and thus not a failure. It has high sustained ST, burst priority damage, burst aoe and great in fight mobility. It works exceptionally well in NH for those who invested in it.
    Popularity of the spec is not a measure of success. It was dumpster tier dps at the start of the xpac, in an xpac where respecs are massively discouraged by AP/Legendarys so its clearly most peoples distant 3rd spec. In norm/LFR parses Survivals parses are much higher, most likely due to people trying the spec out there, where their lack of legendarys and/or shit traits isn't a big deal. You'll notice that Sub is 2nd lowest popularity there also, despite properly geared Sub being the strongest rogue spec, because it was peoples 3rd spec and unless you invested early your not gona catch up now.
    Last edited by Khrux; 2017-02-01 at 10:15 AM.

  9. #649
    Deleted
    Survival shoulda been a tank spec!!! :P

  10. #650
    Quote Originally Posted by Shrewtheimmortal View Post
    Survival shoulda been a tank spec!!! :P
    i really really agree with you!!
    - The Hunter's Creed -
    "This is my pet. There are many others like him, but this one is mine. He is my best friend. He is my life. I must master him as I master my life. My pet, without me, is useless. Without my pet, I am useless."

  11. #651
    Quote Originally Posted by Khrux View Post
    The only negatives in this entire thread have been one liners saying "i prefer old survival" or "it shouldn't be melee" from people who never return to the thread and then one soapbox hero named FpicEail that writes novels about Survival in 5.X with his ruby glasses on.
    The only positives in this thread are people dropping in to say "I played Survival during levelling on my 4th alt who's a hunter and it seemed fun so I don't know what you are all on about!". Seriously, do a count of the amount of people in this thread who voice positive opinions about Survival, then count how many of those play hunters on/off as an alt or something, i.e. people who have never cared to invest any time in the class before.

    Also, it's funny how you talk about "ruby glasses" here. Not only can I refer to my own experience or even look at old guides/videos showing how the spec played, I can also load up a private server and play the old iterations of Survival directly. I've done that, and what a surprise: it's just as good as I remember it and the modern specs are just as shit compared to them as I perceived at the start of this expansion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khrux View Post
    Overall, Survival is a viable spec on live and thus not a failure. It has high sustained ST, burst priority damage, burst aoe and great in fight mobility. It works exceptionally well in NH for those who invested in it.
    Lol? They can take ANY spec and tune its damage to the point of viability. They could make a spec that casts just one spell every 5 seconds which does 2.5 million damage. That's 500k dps which is pretty viable. Maybe throw in some splash damage for AoE. But when people inevitably don't play it due to how mind-numbingly shit it is, its viability doesn't make it any less of a failure. In fact, that spec would be less of a failure than Survival because at least Blizzard wouldn't have wasted any time and effort developing it only for people not to play it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khrux View Post
    Popularity of the spec is not a measure of success. It was dumpster tier dps at the start of the xpac, in an xpac where respecs are massively discouraged by AP/Legendarys so its clearly most peoples distant 3rd spec. In norm/LFR parses Survivals parses are much higher, most likely due to people trying the spec out there, where their lack of legendarys and/or shit traits isn't a big deal. You'll notice that Sub is 2nd lowest popularity there also, despite properly geared Sub being the strongest rogue spec, because it was peoples 3rd spec and unless you invested early your not gona catch up now.
    Popularity isn't a measure, but viability is. Ok.

    Actually, popularity is a pretty good measure. When you first had lots of people playing the spec, and now after a design overhaul (the primary goal of which, may I remind you, is to make a spec more appealing) you have far less people even after all the time and effort spent (ESPECIALLY since that detracts from the other two specs), that's a failure. You seem to think that naming a different reason for it's failure somehow makes it NOT a failure after all. Even if you are right you are just deflecting blame to another major Blizzard design flaw, or rather one that greatly complemented the first.

  12. #652
    The reason I don't accept popularity as a measure of success is because not all classes/specs can be equally popular, however each class/spec can be equally viable in game content through balancing. So you can measure success by how effective the class/spec is at actually playing the game.

    Having said that, I think the success/failure result can be split out into a number of areas. It can be a success in one aspect and a failure in another, such as viability in end game content versus acceptance by the game and/or hunter community.

    I'm don't disagree that popularity wise Survival didn't hit the mark, they failed to market it to the hunter community and would always have gotten negativity from a community expectant of 3 ranged specs. On spec viability they took their time but have it in a good place now, on actual playability I think its still lacking polish.

    In alot of ways Survival in its current form is an analogue of Feral, its not a popular spec, its considered one of the most difficult specs to play well and its underperforming for the most part this Xpac. Yet those who like Feral are diehards who will defend their spec zealously but alot of people who play it casually want it to be dumbed down and more accessible. Whereas for Survival you have casuals who like it and the diehards absolute hate it and want it gone.

    Would you consider Feral a failure because its unpopular, unwieldy and underperforming?
    Would you consider Frost mage a failure because its unpopular and underperforming?
    Would you consider Sub rogue a failure because its unpopular and unwieldy?
    Would you consider Survival a failure because its unpopular and unwieldy?

    If you can only answer yes to the Survival question, then your only measure of success for Survival is whether its ranged or melee....

  13. #653
    Here is the big issue with people debating Survival: it all depends which xpack you started playing them and how you evolved with the spec.
    I have always played Survival on my Hunter, all the way back in 1.5, where it was the first ever char I rolled. (This was even his name before I had to change it on server transfer)
    Surv in vanilla, tBC & WotLK was very similar to MM, except with a focus on more consistent over-time damage rather than the big Aimed Shot hits. It was also stronger in melee, because at the very least, you had generic talents (+Agi etc.) that also worked on your melee damage. Remember that ranged abilities had a min range back then. Especially in vanilla & tBC, surv had the stigma of melee Hunter (because they had Lacerate as their 31-pointer up to 1.6) even though its damage was actually competitive if you took 5 minutes to actually make the effort and try it.
    When they implemented the spec choices, they tried to diversify more, but to me, most of those changes felt as if they were trying to make MM 2.0; different, but similar. I missed being able to handle a lose add myself, being able to do decent damage farming stuff without having to rely on tanking pets (that then died in 3 hits) and feeling I was equipped to deal with a myriad of situations, rather than having a focus on a specific part of the class (pet, ranged damage) and ignoring the rest.

    This is why I like the new Survival, it's finally different again. It has its focus, feels like you have more control again.
    Sure, Lacerate is still a useless upkeep with no interaction, traps are still a weird part of the rotation (but atleast not as weird as FD-trap used to be) and several talents could do with a rework, but with Mongoose Strikes & Flanking Strike, it's a very good step towards feeling more tactical and I think the future of Survival lies there. Add interaction to Lacerate and Mongoose/Flanking, maybe add talents for Focus regen/procs so you don't feel as starved, allow Surv to auto-throw traps to opponents in combat and you've got yourself a really good spec to play.
    Yes, it'll be different but that doesn't need to be a bad thing.

    As for the failure in Survival, it's Blizzard's timing and 'carefulness' that have had a bigger impact on Survival player numbers than the actual spec performance.
    They were far too conservative with damage numbers throughout the development process, making the spec feel unrewarded. Especially with a large change like this, they should have given Survival slightly higher numbers during beta, as it would atleast make the testers feel as if learning this new more complex class is worth the effort. They could then have toned it down before 7.1 as they would have more meta data on where exactly the increased power in the spec lies. This is very similar to how they have designed new classes and they should have done the same for Survival, rather than developing it like a spec with a new direction/flavour.
    Secondly, they changed this at the same time they brought out a new melee class. (Actually, all hero classes are melee/tank classes so far) Most players that wanted something new to play, probably gravitated towards Demon Hunter as the new melee, because it seemed easier to play and performed better. Players were forced to make a choice and I dont' blame people for trying out DH first, probably because they already had a Hunter, or their 'alt set' had their Hunter being a ranged DPS with another class being their go-to melee already.
    But this does not take away from what the spec is now and we shouldn't be hung up on the bad timing forever. Bashing on Survival does nothing to aid the issues it has, playing it in alt runs or farm content and just try to have fun with new builds might provide the logs and metadata needed to make it better and who knows, you might actually like it.

  14. #654
    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.
    In what universe is BM a fast paced archer spec? I can't think of any spec with more downtime. It's kinda fast paced when you have heroism and aspect of the wild active with Killer Cobra talented, but outside of that it plays like a slow turd.

    SV was dead the last expansion because it was underperforming. The complete lack of any decent cooldowns to stack with the legendary ring basically sealed it's fate in that department. With the WoD transition they also changed some mechanics that seemed small but had some major implications. The removal of Improved Serpent Sting gutted the spec's AoE, without those ISS ticks you were left with a weak MS hit and a DoT slowly doing ticks. Cobra shot no longer refreshing Serpent Sting made it almost impossible to keep it up on spread out targets. I'm pretty sure they reworked focus costs going into WoD and you always felt focus starved. They also made Black Arrow the sole trigger for TNT procs and you could no longer guarantee a proc using traps.
    What was left was a spec that did mediocre damage, had lackluster AoE, had no on demand burst and wasn't smooth to play.

  15. #655
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Delaios View Post

    SV was dead the last expansion because it was underperforming. The complete lack of any decent cooldowns to stack with the legendary ring basically sealed it's fate in that department. With the WoD transition they also changed some mechanics that seemed small but had some major implications. The removal of Improved Serpent Sting gutted the spec's AoE, without those ISS ticks you were left with a weak MS hit and a DoT slowly doing ticks. Cobra shot no longer refreshing Serpent Sting made it almost impossible to keep it up on spread out targets. I'm pretty sure they reworked focus costs going into WoD and you always felt focus starved. They also made Black Arrow the sole trigger for TNT procs and you could no longer guarantee a proc using traps.
    What was left was a spec that did mediocre damage, had lackluster AoE, had no on demand burst and wasn't smooth to play.
    Not sure what kind of SV you played in WoD.
    The only thing that ruined WoD-SV was the removal of the multistrike SS refreshing-ticks "bug", or whatever you want to call it.
    After *that* the spec became unplayable.

    And that's literally the only thing. The lack of CDs wasn't *that* important.
    It had the best spread target cleave and also extremely potent AoE too.
    You had burst due to multistrike trinkets too, even though you didn't have anything to go along with it.

    And you were not freaking focus starved as SV, lol. It was by far the most focus-spender-spamy spec Hunter had. Considering we had a 1.0 GCD(?) in WoD and we aren't having that now, it's actually amazing how that was even possible.

    SV was ruined with 6.2, not 6.0.
    Last edited by mmoc96d9238e4b; 2017-02-02 at 02:16 PM.

  16. #656
    Quote Originally Posted by Guran View Post
    Especially in vanilla & tBC, surv had the stigma of melee Hunter (because they had Lacerate as their 31-pointer up to 1.6) even though its damage was actually competitive if you took 5 minutes to actually make the effort and try it.
    Lacerate did 103 damage at level 60 over 23 seconds and did not scale with any stats.

    Serpent sting did 140 damage over 15 seconds and did scale with stats...
    ...At rank 4 out of 9 (level 26).


    What level of effort does it take to make that piece of shit better than a rank of serpent sting that you get before you even hit Scarlet Monastery?

    Perhaps the amount of effort to took to force yourself into such a delusion where the class designers of 1.0 weren't utterly incompetent and lacerate was somehow good at anything?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Delaios View Post
    SV was dead the last expansion because it was underperforming. The complete lack of any decent cooldowns to stack with the legendary ring basically sealed it's fate in that department. With the WoD transition they also changed some mechanics that seemed small but had some major implications. The removal of Improved Serpent Sting gutted the spec's AoE, without those ISS ticks you were left with a weak MS hit and a DoT slowly doing ticks. Cobra shot no longer refreshing Serpent Sting made it almost impossible to keep it up on spread out targets. I'm pretty sure they reworked focus costs going into WoD and you always felt focus starved. They also made Black Arrow the sole trigger for TNT procs and you could no longer guarantee a proc using traps.
    What was left was a spec that did mediocre damage, had lackluster AoE, had no on demand burst and wasn't smooth to play.
    As KrayZee said, this is very inaccurate. Survival was nerfed over-all in 6.0 but not by a catastrophic amount. It still had decent representation in raids (it was actually ahead of Marksmanship in that factor).

    What killed Survival was the removal of the initial tick of Serpent Sting. More details here:

    http://www.thrillofthewild.com/2015/...-nerf-bat.html

    I'd also like to leave this here, courtesy of World of Wargraphs:


  17. #657
    Quote Originally Posted by FpicEail View Post
    Lacerate did 103 damage at level 60 over 23 seconds and did not scale with any stats.

    Serpent sting did 140 damage over 15 seconds and did scale with stats...
    ...At rank 4 out of 9 (level 26).


    What level of effort does it take to make that piece of shit better than a rank of serpent sting that you get before you even hit Scarlet Monastery?

    Perhaps the amount of effort to took to force yourself into such a delusion where the class designers of 1.0 weren't utterly incompetent and lacerate was somehow good at anything?

    - - - Updated - - -



    As KrayZee said, this is very inaccurate. Survival was nerfed over-all in 6.0 but not by a catastrophic amount. It still had decent representation in raids (it was actually ahead of Marksmanship in that factor).

    What killed Survival was the removal of the initial tick of Serpent Sting. More details here:

    http://www.thrillofthewild.com/2015/...-nerf-bat.html

    I'd also like to leave this here, courtesy of World of Wargraphs:

    Ppl are gonna still try to make up bullshit justifications as to why the spec wasn't being played much near the end of WoD thanks to the nerfs it received.

    The spec started out strong then got little to no care at all. Now they're dedicating their efforts to make melee SV viable with constant buffs.

  18. #658
    Quote Originally Posted by Guran View Post
    Especially in vanilla & tBC, surv had the stigma of melee Hunter (because they had Lacerate as their 31-pointer up to 1.6) even though its damage was actually competitive if you took 5 minutes to actually make the effort and try it.
    Quote Originally Posted by FpicEail View Post
    Lacerate did 103 damage at level 60 over 23 seconds and did not scale with any stats.

    Serpent sting did 140 damage over 15 seconds and did scale with stats...
    ...At rank 4 out of 9 (level 26).


    What level of effort does it take to make that piece of shit better than a rank of serpent sting that you get before you even hit Scarlet Monastery?
    I think you missread him, the competitiviness is of the spec, not the lacerate skill, SV did decent damage.

    I agree lacerate was crap, that is why so many SV builds were x/x/30 in vanilla (pre and post 1.7)

  19. #659
    Quote Originally Posted by Geran View Post
    I think you missread him, the competitiviness is of the spec, not the lacerate skill, SV did decent damage.

    I agree lacerate was crap, that is why so many SV builds were x/x/30 in vanilla (pre and post 1.7)
    No, he's arguing Survival was always a melee spec because it had lacerate. One of the most retarded arguments ever used to justify the train wreck that is melee survival.

  20. #660
    Quote Originally Posted by ydraw View Post
    No, he's arguing Survival was always a melee spec because it had lacerate. One of the most retarded arguments ever used to justify the train wreck that is melee survival.
    That's NOT what I was arguing.
    I said it always had the STIGMA of melee due to the talent (which was changed to Wyvern shot, a 2min CD, OOC-only 12s CD that left a dot if you broke it)
    Yet regardless of the stigma, it was competitive as euhm ... 5/11/30 I think it was.

    What I WAS trying to argue was that the majority of players back then looked down upon Survival as a melee spec, even though it was a viable ranged spec at the time. I regularly beat the MM Hunters on damage in raids while also being the marking & pet pulling Hunter 'officer'. As an extra, it was more suited to solo farm content at the time, because you had to either kite or melee mobs once they closed to 8y. But that part of the class history is something people starting in WotLK or later never noticed, so they probably feel as if Survival is and always has been a full ranged spec. This will make them disgruntled about melee Survival regardless of what the spec actually does, because they lost their favourite spec/playstyle and I understand that. But it does not take away from the fact that Surv right now is not a failure of a spec. Blizzard's communication and planning and its weak beta state were a failure when it comes to the implementation, but those issues are not an inherent part of the spec today.

    The question is, if a new player picked up the Hunter class, never having known any of the previous Survival iterations, will they be able to learn the spec in a decent manner and do competitive damage with it? My answer to that would be a) it still has flaws when it comes to interacting abilities/talents and b) yes, they can do good enough damage with it to compete for a melee spot.

Posting Permissions

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