Overall, was Survival a failure?

[ydraw]

I think the fantasy and spell effects are fun and good. Also the melee hunter fantasy is great. Remember Frostfire Ridge quest chain? All these Gronn orc hunters, that was cool and exciting.
If the numbers were better yo think ppl wouldn't play it? Lol.
And you say "why play melee if u can play ranged?" Well, if you want to play ranged go for it. Wanna play melee surv hunter - go for it, whats the problem.
.

The problem is that there are 17 other melee specs in the game and no guild needs melee DPS, whereas every guild needs ranged DPS.

I play a hunter because they are ranged. No interest whatsoever in melee. If they wanted to give hunters a melee spec they should have made a 4th spec rather than take away one of the few ranged DPS specs the game has.

[threads]

damn if this thread's still going after almost a year then maybe they'll actually give ranged back in 8.0.

kind of gave up at this point and haven't played hunter since EN.

[Karzakk]

Spec is hard to play, it will continue to get shit until it is dumbed down to the levels of the other two specs. Even if it was ranged with the current rotation and playstyle people would still be mad about it. The spec is too complex for the ordinary hunter to play or even slightly wrap their mind around it.

[ydraw]

I think you're really talking out of your ass here.
Lots of people love the gameplay behind Survival, even if parses say it isn't competitive.

Define "lots". Survival is by far the least played spec in the entire game.

[Ealyssa]

It was performing fairly well in SV and was still incredibly unpopular though.

Fairly well mean shit with how powerful BM was. And now MM too.

Survival was really good in arena at legion start. And guess what ? It was the most played spec at high ratings for hunters.

That's not rocket science in wow. The best specs are played more.

The only real problem SV have today is : bad damage and really akward trap mecanics. Get rid of the last one entirely (as blizz said in the AMA while the classe fantasy of using trap may sound interesting. The gameplay isn't) and buff the first. SV fix completed.

[lazypeon100]

Fairly well mean shit with how powerful BM was. And now MM too.

Survival was really good in arena at legion start. And guess what ? It was the most played spec at high ratings for hunters.

That's not rocket science in wow. The best specs are played more.

The only real problem SV have today is : bad damage and really akward trap mecanics. Get rid of the last one entirely (as blizz said in the AMA while the classe fantasy of using trap may sound interesting. The gameplay isn't) and buff the first. SV fix completed.

Cool, so we're going to skip over the fact that it had higher damage when played well? I mean, IIRC that's why guilds started using SV hunters for mythic guldan.

Start of legion both BM and MM were garbage in arena. People won't play a garbage spec and you are correct, they will tend towards whatever is doing the best. The moment anythimg starts to get remotely close (looking at you, Nighthold) then people play what they want outside of the highest progression guilds.

SV is unpopular. It needs help if it's to actually see more play. Damage fixes will only help so much same with changing how the traps work. Mechanically, the spec is fine. This thread is a good example of people who will never touch the spec because one of their favorite specs was outright removed from the game.

Until that's brought back in some form (MM talents like blizz promised or a fourth spec), you're not going to be seeing many SV hunters overall. Class has been rsnged for twelve years, people aren't going to suddenly swap to melee, especially after one of our specs was removed.

If the new SV was implemented differently, threads like this wouldn't be popping up (or at least the context of said threads would be vastly different).

[Shuken]

I was making a statement in this expansion not picking surv talents, not putting points in the artifact... unfortunately bliz made it so I had to get concordance to get a mount and I'm a mount collector. Otherwise I would never have put points in this abortion of a spec that never had a reason for being.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the fantasy and spell effects are fun and good. Also the melee hunter fantasy is great. Remember Frostfire Ridge quest chain? All these Gronn orc hunters, that was cool and exciting.
If the numbers were better yo think ppl wouldn't play it? Lol.
And you say "why play melee if u can play ranged?" Well, if you want to play ranged go for it. Wanna play melee surv hunter - go for it, whats the problem.
Tho playing MM hunter is a cancer, can't believe I am saying this but bm is so much more appealing, lol.


Now, hate me.

lol fantasy. The developpers selling to the mass that fantasy > gameplay and practicality is one of the greatest scam in this game IMO.

[sirheimer]

I think introducing melee Hunter was a success.

However, I also think they tried to mix 2 strong concepts into 1 spec.

On one hand, you have the concept of Survival - poisons, explpsives, traps.
On the other hand, you have melee hunter - animal inspired attacks, aspects, etc.

Mongoose Fury and everything related to it is pretty fun.
However, everything else in the Spec feels out of place.
None of it seems to work "together", instead working "despite" everything else.

If they were mixing Traps with Melee, I would expect there to be some sort of interaction, like your Bleeds and/or Attacks dealing additional Fire damage against targets affected by your Explosive Trap, etc.

Lots of Talents seem to be there because they couldn't come up with anything else that fits the spec - A Murder of Crows, Mortal Wounds, Dragonsfire Grenade, Spitting Cobra.
Most abilities are non-interactive and have nearly NO scaling - Traps, Bleeds and Poisons ignore 2 of your Stats (Haste & Mastery).

They did a great job with Mongoose Fury gameplay.
But they could've done WAY better with the Survival theme overall.
Instead they salvaged Survival for parts that were distributed as shadows (in some cases mockeries) of their former selves between the new Survival and Marksmanship.

This pretty much nails it. My problem with Mongoose Fury is it's so unforgiving. You are fighting for that magical 6th stack, then you've got the small window. If you have to move for any reason at all you lose all the stacks you worked hard to get, and pretty much start over. I'd like to see Mongoose Fury at least slightly extendable, with at least one ability that you could use on the move, then come back and at least get in a strike or two.

I know the other abilities should get used here, but they honestly need to have their uptime extended, even if the dps per tick is dropped. You often end up with too much to manage.

All of that said, I love Survival. When everything comes together it's a hoot.

[Shuken]

False what the man said is completely accurate. The vast majority of players don't like the spec as is. Shit he didnt even say don't want to play the spec because it's melee simply just "how it is". Which is accurate. The vast majority of hunters would also rather survival be some sort of range spec too. Yeah I'm aware of those 13 players that love that survival is melee and think the spec is rad, but most people would rather have survival be a 3rd ranged option. And I speak for the majority of hunters since they elected me their leader.

I voted for you sir !

[Ariktu]

I think the two biggest problems for Survival Hunter is that the vast majority of Hunters picked the class because it was a ranged class. So Blizzard needed to convince players to switch from Ranged to melee.

If that did not work they needed to address the other big problem which is convincing other melee to switch to Survival Hunter.

Why would someone who has been playing a melee class before Legion switch to Hunter? Sure Blizzard could buff the damage to high levels to try and get people to switch, but if the damage is the same or close why not stay with the class you have been playing.

Blizzard simply overestimated how many existing hunters wanted to play at melee. A very small group wanted a melee option whereas most hunters picked Hunters because they were a ranged class.

So now you have a small niche spec that most hunters are obviously not playing.

Heck I did not even unlock my survival weapon at all since I know I do not want to play melee. Frankly if I did I would play a Rogue who have a ton of ways to stay alive.

[Bepples]

I think the two biggest problems for Survival Hunter is that the vast majority of Hunters picked the class because it was a ranged class. So Blizzard needed to convince players to switch from Ranged to melee.

If that did not work they needed to address the other big problem which is convincing other melee to switch to Survival Hunter.

Why would someone who has been playing a melee class before Legion switch to Hunter? Sure Blizzard could buff the damage to high levels to try and get people to switch, but if the damage is the same or close why not stay with the class you have been playing.

Blizzard simply overestimated how many existing hunters wanted to play at melee. A very small group wanted a melee option whereas most hunters picked Hunters because they were a ranged class.

So now you have a small niche spec that most hunters are obviously not playing.

Heck I did not even unlock my survival weapon at all since I know I do not want to play melee. Frankly if I did I would play a Rogue who have a ton of ways to stay alive.

This nails it. Survival has nothing more than extremely niche appeal, and that inherently stems from it being melee.

That's why all the people in this thread who copy/paste some variation of "It was a good idea, it just needs polish" are full of it. The idea was flawed to its core. It was guaranteed to piss some people off, and it was guaranteed to be extremely unpopular, simply due to the fact of it being melee for a class that has been fully ranged for over a decade.

And this was VERY predictable. The only reason Blizzard and the playerbase seemed to be taken by surprise by Survival faceplanting right from 7.0 launch is because they got caught up in the hype and were desperate for a new direction for the game after WoD, and therefore were dismissive of any and all criticism. Same with Artifact Power, Legendaries, Titanforging, and all the other design fuck ups this expansion brought on. The flaws could be seen from a mile away, but people chose to ignore them until it's just too late now.

[Hammerfest]

I don't know that it is a "failure" so much as simply a "work in progress." I know people who LOVE the spec. I've tried it and it just doesn't have enough spectacular, unique things in it yet for me.

[Eapoe]

This nails it. Survival has nothing more than extremely niche appeal, and that inherently stems from it being melee.

That's why all the people in this thread who copy/paste some variation of "It was a good idea, it just needs polish" are full of it. The idea was flawed to its core. It was guaranteed to piss some people off, and it was guaranteed to be extremely unpopular, simply due to the fact of it being melee for a class that has been fully ranged for over a decade.

And this was VERY predictable. The only reason Blizzard and the playerbase seemed to be taken by surprise by Survival faceplanting right from 7.0 launch is because they got caught up in the hype and were desperate for a new direction for the game after WoD, and therefore were dismissive of any and all criticism. Same with Artifact Power, Legendaries, Titanforging, and all the other design fuck ups this expansion brought on. The flaws could be seen from a mile away, but people chose to ignore them until it's just too late now.

What a load of crap. Your points only have merit if you are treating the game as never having had new players come into it and that everyone playing are the same people that have been since day 1 WoW released. The only thing that has merit that you just said is that it was guaranteed to piss SOME people off.
There are many reasons why SV is not doing well, and they've been gone over. To say it was guaranteed to fail is a gross exaggeration.
Just to recap: Demon Hunter was released the same xpac as SV going melee. That right there is a huge reason it was received poorly. Why play a new melee in a class that has been around forever when you can play the "brand new shiny thing" that people have been hyped for and craved since BC? Veteran players know how blizzard handles new classes, and that's usually to make them OP as fuck, especially when they are branded as the new "hero class."
Also, you have the reviews and previews of how each class handled. From day 1, Demon Hunters were lauded as being amazing and fun to play, while SV got hyped up as a complicated spec with more buttons than any other class. It's strengths were never fully discussed, just it's shortcomings, which makes a spec appear very underwhelming for veteran players and new players alike. Add on to that the familiarity of every other spec, and it's small wonder people are reluctant to try it out.
Let's not forget veteran Hunters. Whether their opinion is more or less valued, as you've said, the class has been strictly rdps since it was created, and most veterans picked Hunter to play rdps. Very few veterans will want to switch to a melee, as they want to play ranged.
There's an existing stigma associated with Hunters, and that is that "Hunters ARE ranged." Even before it was released and discussed at all, people were calling it a joke and a meme, and some guilds outright banned the spec.
The spec is flawed. It has a lot of great ideas surrounding it, but has been poorly implemented. Tack on that the damage output is behind "easier" melee specs, and you have no progression raiders playing the spec. Regardless of how players feel about the "elite," the elite have a lot of sway over what is played, especially when the playerbase starts seeing those numbers.
All in all, what this boils down to are a few things: poor timing, stigma, and bad discussions about the spec regarding how it was handled by Blizzard and the playerbase.
I will agree it is not popular now, but if this change had been done during WoD or even waited until next xpac with no new class release and a focus on polishing SV as a whole, the outcome may be entirely different.

[Deleted]

What a load of crap. Your points only have merit if you are treating the game as never having had new players come into it and that everyone playing are the same people that have been since day 1 WoW released. The only thing that has merit that you just said is that it was guaranteed to piss SOME people off.

Its a matter of perspective. im a mythic raider and i have to agree with him. for me sv is a failure basically removing one of my speccs. if i wanted to play a melee ild pick a class with at least 2 melee specs because of power fluctuation or encounter adaptation. therefor im stuck with a class whose speccs have very similar strenghts and weaknesses.

[Eapoe]

Its a matter of perspective. im a mythic raider and i have to agree with him. for me sv is a failure basically removing one of my speccs. if i wanted to play a melee ild pick a class with at least 2 melee specs because of power fluctuation or encounter adaptation. therefor im stuck with a class whose speccs have very similar strenghts and weaknesses.

Read my full post and you'll see part of that was addressed. Not the specific side of 2 melee specs, but by your current logic, you would never play a Paladin, DH, or Druid. Now, your advising it's a failure because a spec you like is gone, and that's a matter of opinion, which you have complete justification for your opinion; however, if you're trying to say that part of the reason it's a failure is because it has 1 melee spec then you have to count the other classes I listed as failure as well.

[lazypeon100]

Read my full post and you'll see part of that was addressed. Not the specific side of 2 melee specs, but by your current logic, you would never play a Paladin, DH, or Druid. Now, your advising it's a failure because a spec you like is gone, and that's a matter of opinion, which you have complete justification for your opinion; however, if you're trying to say that part of the reason it's a failure is because it has 1 melee spec then you have to count the other classes I listed as failure as well.

I personally don't think the current SV is a complete failure. The play style is unique and it has its own sort of appeal to it. I think it needs help currently, and part of that help needs to be fixing the community perception towards the spec.

People's views on it won't change until the old SV is brought back in some manner. I think if that were to happen, you'd see more players open to the idea of melee SV.

The implementation of the spec (from my perspective) was an absolute failure and was largely predictable.

[Nurvus]

False what the man said is completely accurate. The vast majority of players don't like the spec as is. Shit he didnt even say don't want to play the spec because it's melee simply just "how it is". Which is accurate. The vast majority of hunters would also rather survival be some sort of range spec too. Yeah I'm aware of those 13 players that love that survival is melee and think the spec is rad, but most people would rather have survival be a 3rd ranged option. And I speak for the majority of hunters since they elected me their leader.

I answered considering his whole post, and across his post, he made the correlation between failure of the spec, melee and returning of the spec as Ranged.
I disagree with that thought process.
The spec failed competitively. Period.
The gameplay has potential, being melee has potential, it simply wasn't tuned properly or designed well enough to feel complete.

Survival has always been poorly designed since Vanilla.
Black Arrow is the best example of how shitty its design is - they don't know wtf to do with the spec.
And it's ironic because it has a super strong fantasy and flavour - it should be an easy job.

I don't think returning Survival to Ranged is the correct mentality.
Adding a 4th spec should be the way to go - for various classes, actually - but properly separating the concepts.
Survival should stick to Traps, poisons, explosives.
Melee Hunter should be focused on animal inspired attacks and aspects (perhaps going back to aspects working like stances).

- - - Updated - - -

This pretty much nails it. My problem with Mongoose Fury is it's so unforgiving. You are fighting for that magical 6th stack, then you've got the small window. If you have to move for any reason at all you lose all the stacks you worked hard to get, and pretty much start over. I'd like to see Mongoose Fury at least slightly extendable, with at least one ability that you could use on the move, then come back and at least get in a strike or two.

I know the other abilities should get used here, but they honestly need to have their uptime extended, even if the dps per tick is dropped. You often end up with too much to manage.

All of that said, I love Survival. When everything comes together it's a hoot.

In my opinion a lot of the Talents like Murder of Crows and whatnot should just be replaced with stuff that actually interacts with the base abilities.
Your DoTs should do more than just DoT.
Raptor Strike interacts with one talent. Not enough.
Butchery could for example replace both Raptor Strike and Cleave, and benefit from Talents and Traits that affect either, for some interesting stuff.
Lots of things could be done to spice it up.
Harpoon should be ground targeted like Outlaw's Grappling Hook, and it should not replace Disengage - perhaps sharing cooldowns instead.
It could then have Eagle Dive for a proper charge and interaction with the various talents, traits and legendaries Harpoon currently interacts with.

[Eapoe]

I personally don't think the current SV is a complete failure. The play style is unique and it has its own sort of appeal to it. I think it needs help currently, and part of that help needs to be fixing the community perception towards the spec.

People's views on it won't change until the old SV is brought back in some manner. I think if that were to happen, you'd see more players open to the idea of melee SV.

The implementation of the spec (from my perspective) was an absolute failure and was largely predictable.

That was also part of my previous post. The implementation of it hurt it immensely, from the fact it was introduced at the same time as DH's to almost all advertising of the xpac focused on that class and very little about existing class changes to the immediate stigma reaction of a melee Hunter. It's a more complete explanation in my previous post.
I'll also add that previously in this thread I even stated it would have been better to just give us a 4th spec to include melee.
The main thing to expect from this thread will be coming over the next few months in ToS because the balancing changes and tier have put SV at a huge dps disadvantage from other classes, and as of last week (might have changed since then but I don't think so) tier 19 is better than tier 20 for the spec. Add on the lack of polish and the spec suffers for it and will have even less playing it. I completely expect to see the "I told you how bad it was!" to start up again very shortly.

[threads]

Read my full post and you'll see part of that was addressed. Not the specific side of 2 melee specs, but by your current logic, you would never play a Paladin, DH, or Druid. Now, your advising it's a failure because a spec you like is gone, and that's a matter of opinion, which you have complete justification for your opinion; however, if you're trying to say that part of the reason it's a failure is because it has 1 melee spec then you have to count the other classes I listed as failure as well.

idk if that's a valid comparison. If ret sucks then oh well try next tier, but if SV is the lowest hunter spec then you have the option of 2 other dps specs that are ranged. Most guilds don't want someone swapping between roles when space is limited and if you already have two ranged choices then why even bother with melee.

[Eapoe]

idk if that's a valid comparison. If ret sucks then oh well try next tier, but if SV is the lowest hunter spec then you have the option of 2 other dps specs that are ranged. Most guilds don't want someone swapping between roles when space is limited and if you already have two ranged choices then why even bother with melee.

The comparison was made because the person I responded to made comments about how if they play a melee spec, they would choose to play one with 2 melee specs because of the pendulum swing tier to tier. I was simply pointing out that those other 3 classes are off the table for him/her to play due to having 1 melee spec. I also didn't understand if they were saying SV was a failure because it only had 1 melee spec instead of multiple, so I referred back to those classes.
As far as the range vs melee issue in 1 class, I always refer back to "why play feral when you have boomkin?" For that matter, why play Hunter at all when there's other rdps that's outdo them? Obviously pendulums swing, but when presented with questions like that, the others I mentioned have to be brought up as well.