Overall, was Survival a failure?

[xZerocidex]

Just to be clear.. to which "OLD Surv." are you referring to?

"OLD-OLD Surv." Vanilla/BC survival - melee/ranged hybrid.
"NEW-OLD Surv." LK/Cata/MoP/Wod survival - ranged spec.

As someone whos Vanilla player - well they did bring OLD Surv. back.

On side note i would also like to see that they bring back DW blood tanking, DW Unholy tanking, Old Combat Rogues, Old warrior stances... and much more..

But "bring back the old" is not gonna happen as Blizz has its own vision of classes that differ from ours, right?

Pure example of what i was talking about so many times. Marking survival as "failed" solely because it went melee.
To be clear.. Im not judging you in any way, i call it more as Blizzards mistake and ignorance ignoring ALL feedback that we gave during beta, mainly pointing out that its epic mistake taking a ranged spec and making it melee. Druid have 4 specs, why cant hunter have it too? "Ranger?" or "Tracker?"
Yet, they ignored all of our feedback and how it end up? As we said.. majority of hunter community will have negative opinion on it for just being a melee spec and refuse to play it because they rolled hunter to be ranged, not a melee.

I guess the part where he stated LnL procs and black arrow being a thing flew right over your head when he referred to those as "old SV".

Also, I can't speak for no one else but I wouldn't have given a rat's ass if the melee spec was added as a forth spec to the class. Removing Range SV for this melee version was insulting. The argument "You got 2 other range specs to play as" is an sorry excuse for the removal of range SV.

And half the time these types of comment come from ppl who play melee classes only and have never invested time in a hunter.

Imagine if one of the warrior specs or rogue specs went range I could guarantee you there would be an uproar.

[Riistov]

It's got amazing representation in pvp right now. Survival is basically the defacto pvp spec as BM and MM are both mediocre at the moment.

[Khrux]

Something to consider, is that just because survival is melee doesn't mean it can't be the #1 dps spec for hunters or that every hunter would have to play melee if Survival was #1.

Look at shaman and druids, they have both melee and ranged dps specs yet people don't all play the top performer. Plenty of people play Feral and Elemental(@mythic raid level) even though its not the top spec for dps in either class. Feral is far superior single target over Boomer, while enhance is far superior single target over Elemental.

Proof - https://www.warcraftlogs.com/statist...metric=bossdps (boss only damage)

There is nothing stopping Survival from becoming a #1 dps spec for hunters, if you fill a ranged role you'll play a ranged spec and if you fill a melee role you'll play a melee. You know you all have guilds where people play Ele/Moonkin and could do more playing the melee specs in those classes but they don't and are not expected to respec.... so don't make claims that this would be expected of hunters if Survival became good.

[Deleted]

I just got Frizzo's Fingertrap legendary for my Survival Hunter and I'm really surprised that the legendary's effect isn't baseline for the spec.

It actually feels like it's fulfilling one of the problems I had with Survival Hunter. Lacerate is a singular and boring DoT and Carve is a singular boring AoE attack.
With the ring however, both actually feels a ton more fun due to the synergy between them. You want Lacerate onto the target and Carve em' to spread whilst worrying about Energy regeneration etc.

Number-wise I don't even feel like it would be too OP to be baseline for the spec. It feels like a gameplay element that shouldn't be locked behind a Legendary.
I guess it's semi redundant with the Lacerate changes, although you're still saving a lot of gcd's not casting lacerate on every target.

[Dahkeus]

I just got Frizzo's Fingertrap legendary for my Survival Hunter and I'm really surprised that the legendary's effect isn't baseline for the spec.

It actually feels like it's fulfilling one of the problems I had with Survival Hunter. Lacerate is a singular and boring DoT and Carve is a singular boring AoE attack.
With the ring however, both actually feels a ton more fun due to the synergy between them. You want Lacerate onto the target and Carve em' to spread whilst worrying about Energy regeneration etc.

Number-wise I don't even feel like it would be too OP to be baseline for the spec. It feels like a gameplay element that shouldn't be locked behind a Legendary.
I guess it's semi redundant with the Lacerate changes, although you're still saving a lot of gcd's not casting lacerate on every target.

Yea, I definitely hope they consider that because one of my biggest problems with the spec is that there's so many attack abilities, but several of them feel unnecessary as separate skills. Carve is an example of this as it's relatively dull on it's own and almost feels like it should be combined with Flanking Strike, which is a more interesting skill. Working with Lacerate as it does with the Fingertrap at least justifies its existence more.

Raptor Strike also feels like this. I mean, there are talents and such that make it more interesting, but it's pretty bland without the talents and it also feels like the talents should just be integrated with one of the other skills instead.

Either way, it's not a major gripe, but just my 2 copper in feedback. I'm still very much enjoying the spec.

[Derian]

Yea, I definitely hope they consider that because one of my biggest problems with the spec is that there's so many attack abilities, but several of them feel unnecessary as separate skills. Carve is an example of this as it's relatively dull on it's own and almost feels like it should be combined with Flanking Strike, which is a more interesting skill. Working with Lacerate as it does with the Fingertrap at least justifies its existence more.

I dunno, can't say I'm fond of the thought of adding aoe to a core ST skill; I'd rather have some form of choice to either spend focus cleaving or spend it on ST stuff. Mindless aoe skills you still use on one target like barrage, bladestorm, wod-whirlwind, and sidewinders are huge arguments against playing those specs (at least for me).

I'm honestly not even a huge fan of explosive trap, I'd rather have a higher-damage immolation trap for ST and explosive for AOE.

[Deleted]

I'm honestly not even a huge fan of explosive trap, I'd rather have a higher-damage immolation trap for ST and explosive for AOE.

Hence the existence of Steel Trap. With all the changes coming for Explosive Trap, we may have to spec into this talent for ST fights (even though we might also take Caltrops for stationary ST fight like Nythendra, dunno).

[DeicideUH]

I'm honestly not even a huge fan of explosive trap, I'd rather have a higher-damage immolation trap for ST and explosive for AOE.

I really don't like using Traps as part of the rotation. Be it Explosive Trap, Caltrops or whatever, it feels cluncky for a melee (specially in PvP, but also during constant movement fights in PvE). In live Explosive Trap at least is thrown right in front of you, but once 7.1.5 arrives, having to target the ground will be bothersome.

[Nayami]

I really don't like using Traps as part of the rotation. Be it Explosive Trap, Caltrops or whatever, it feels cluncky for a melee (specially in PvP, but also during constant movement fights in PvE). In live Explosive Trap at least is thrown right in front of you, but once 7.1.5 arrives, having to target the ground will be bothersome.

You could try using the new macro conditionals added in 7.1 to quick-cast your traps.

https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20749888175

[DeicideUH]

You could try using the new macro conditionals added in 7.1 to quick-cast your traps.

https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20749888175

That's interesting. I've heard about @cursor, but didn't know @Player worked now.

[Bepples]

I still believe that they should have turned either assassination or subtlety into a ranged assassin spec to counterbalance the fact that one archer spec would be turned into melee, rogues would suit it well and energy could be a great resource for a rapid fire type archer.

You really don't give a fuck about people who have settled into a class they like, do you?

I feel like people are picking on survival for reasons that are not survivals fault, its a great spec thats interesting, thematically rich and fun to play, but it did replace a spec many players like and it is melee on a class that everyone took for granted as ranged, so there is some unfair backlash against it due to that. In a vacuum i imagine there wouldnt be so much hatred for it.

How is that unfair? A spec people liked was removed and replace with a spec that barely anyone likes. You have NO better argument for this other than "it makes the class more unique". Fuck that: for most hunters it's now a 2 spec class. It also makes the whole GAME less unique because we lost 1 spec of an under-used theme (archer) to gain 1 spec of an over-used theme (melee). So, as usual, your argument is full of shit. Do you ever get tired of that?

- - - Updated - - -

Just to be clear.. to which "OLD Surv." are you referring to?

"OLD-OLD Surv." Vanilla/BC survival - melee/ranged hybrid.
"NEW-OLD Surv." LK/Cata/MoP/Wod survival - ranged spec.

As someone whos Vanilla player - well they did bring OLD Surv. back.

Well, no they didn't because the new spec is not a hybrid. It's exclusively melee.

But "bring back the old" is not gonna happen as Blizz has its own vision of classes that differ from ours, right?

Good game designers accomodate their design standards to the expectations of the customers, instead of forcing their vision on everyone without compromise, welcome or not. That's what makes the people on the class design team BAD game designers.

Guys.. please.. I know that you are pissed for losing most fun ranged spec that you had by switching it to melee, but deeming it as "FAILED" simply because of that is something.. OLD and we knew since beta that THIS version of survival WONT STICK with hunter community, this is the topic about NEW Survival and talk about it, not OLD one.
Saying "bring back OLD Surv." or "FAILED cause of melee" wont help much, its flaming up topic thats already being made for flaming in the first place and its not constructive in any way, some blue maybe spends some time here too.

It has far fewer people enjoying it now than before and that's largely because it went melee. So no, you won't stop hearing "it failed because it went melee" because that's pretty much exactly what happened.

[bloodmoth13]

You really don't give a fuck about people who have settled into a class they like, do you?



How is that unfair? A spec people liked was removed and replace with a spec that barely anyone likes. You have NO better argument for this other than "it makes the class more unique". Fuck that: for most hunters it's now a 2 spec class. It also makes the whole GAME less unique because we lost 1 spec of an under-used theme (archer) to gain 1 spec of an over-used theme (melee). So, as usual, your argument is full of shit. Do you ever get tired of that?

Its unfair because they say Survival is bad based on the fact that it replaced another spec, not based on the specs merits, and that truly is unfair.

Its not that i dont care for those players, its just that pre-legion assassination and sub had very little distinction, they had mostly the exact same utility and minor rotational differences.

I think the difference was perhaps 5 or so spells, something that is EASILY addressed by talents.

Ideally, once merged, you could recreate either specs playstyle through talents.

Thats not a bad idea, thematically they were near identical so merging them made alot of sense, ranged rogues make sense, we need more archer specs etc etc.

I dont see this as removing anything players like, only adding something new.

[Nazrark]

The way it is seen by a lot of people.

Hunter mains*: It's removing an option for a different spec and replacing it with a melee. Originally people who mained Hunter didn't want to play melee. It also happens to be that the current two ranged specs are boring (BM) and broken (MM having no real talent options).

Hunter alts: For this was a large portion of people who didn't mind the change. It gave them another avenue to play an alt. I have an Hunter alt that is Survival/BM. I primarily use Survival because it's so much more enjoyable compared to the other two. I get a lot of flak for playing the spec, but it still competes with the other two specs.

They aren't going to remove Survival. Considering it is a success of a spec for people who don't main a hunter. For those who do main a hunter, they've got two options and neither of them are very engaging.

* This group primarily consists of people who have played it as a main for several expansions. Not any of the ones who are picking it up for Legion.

[Gurg]

Good game designers accomodate their design standards to the expectations of the customers, instead of forcing their vision on everyone without compromise, welcome or not. That's what makes the people on the class design team BAD game designers.
It has far fewer people enjoying it now than before and that's largely because it went melee. So no, you won't stop hearing "it failed because it went melee" because that's pretty much exactly what happened.

I can work with this. Im no found of new Survival and its quite limiting in so many ways. Its a good...ish.. gameplay redesign done to a wrong class, so.. when you take the all the shite's that came out after Legion rework.. personally for melee Survival plays the best, or atleast im enjoying it waaay more than others melee that u used to play during past expansions and now they are collecting dust.

I also dont think that survival is a failure, because i for once enjoy it. Its a personal opinion, not a fact. As a melee it plays good.
Now, the thing that im trying to say that even since early beta we kept giving feedback stating that IT WILL NOT WORK SINCE YOURE MAKING A WELL ESTABLISHED RANGED SPEC ON RANGED CLASS MELEE. So we kept repeating that. And kept repeating. To no avail apparently.
Its done, as i said in other topic, Blizz will probably see their mistake, if they see it as such, and maybe roll survival back to being ranged.
Now.. second issue arises here.. what about people that actually mained Survival like me? What will happen with all the progress?
So, in any case Survival is bound to be debated and argued on for a long time.
Next.. following, Blizzard stated that .5 patches are planned to be minor reworks of specs fixing issues that are there. So, during patch cycle they experiment with classes further so they could.. probably.. have some base to work on in 8.0.
With that being said.. Survival aint going ranged atleast till next expansion.

How i see it. You ranged guys lost a spec. Probably most fun spec that you had and i understand that. On other side we, melee, got a new spec that is most fun to play of all melees (excluding Enhance again), which puts us in a spot where youre limited to two and we on one spec. Thats unfair to both sides. Blizzard should have think this trough far better, or atleast read god damn feedback, but obviously they didnt.
The way Blizzard thinks was quite obvious with Waylay passive that survival got, its previous version where you NEED to coord with your tanks to do maximum damage possible. You need to ask your tank to move boss in your traps. Well.. just from top of your mind.. in a online multiplayer game, how good idea is actually to force someone to coord with different person to do maximum performance risking unnecessary attack that can hit the raid?
Would it ever look like a good idea?

Now @FpicEail Why am i saying that these topics are pointless any more? Well, for once we know that not much will change, not atleast till next expansion. Topics like these are directly putting us head-on, you guys who lost a spec, against us who actually enjoy playing it.
I see no point in constant arguing with you, or anyone else about flame question that is there to, intentionally or not, taunt both sides to clash.
You, as ranged, think that spec failed because of population numbers and because it went from ranged to melee, i on other hand think it didnt failed because of all melees specs survival is most fun to play, next to enhance shamans, BUT it has waaayyyy too much mechanic issues to be used anywhere pass Heroic's (thats the questionable too) and thats main reason, by me, why it has low presentation. Its fun but all the things you do every other melee can do better with far less fuss.
You are salty for losing a spec, im salty because im limited to that spec and cant cope the way blizz devs think.
As i said.. melee survival should be 4th hunter spec. But they obviously ignored feedback and went with it.
Bottom line is.. that we both think that survival is failing, but for a different reasons.

[Deleted]

Would have been nice to be able to try it properly.

However with all the effort needed to pump Artifact points into my main spec this just isn't possible.

[Niwes]

Overall, was Survival a failure ?

At this specific point, i would say yes, it was a failure.

Maybe, in a world without that much melees, and with a third hunter melee spec made a lot more creative and with more difference to other melee specs, and maybe done with a new class instead one that exists since vanilla, yes, than maybe i could see that as a good descission.

the only fact whats great with it, is that it is the first pure dps class who is able to choose between melee and range. thats a nice thing.

but, as i said, i would do that only with new classes (i.e. DH could have 1 melee and 1 range spec, instead of a tank/dps hybrid), and for sure not in Legion (where you gain nearly nothing for being adaptable to range/melee in various raid encounters, cause of AP system).

overall it MAY be a good descission in general to have a melee/range pure dps. but at this point, in this specific xpac ? it was a failure.

[xZerocidex]

Its unfair because they say Survival is bad based on the fact that it replaced another spec, not based on the specs merits, and that truly is unfair.

And it's unfair that talents should have to be compensated in order to play old sv, and they didn't even deliver on that.

As for your comment on Ranged rogue that would piss off the rogue community on a severe scale, and they would have every right to be pissed.

I dont see this as removing anything players like, only adding something new.

The people who played SV during MoP or early WoD would disagree.

At this specific point, i would say yes, it was a failure.

Maybe, in a world without that much melees, and with a third hunter melee spec made a lot more creative and with more difference to other melee specs, and maybe done with a new class instead one that exists since vanilla, yes, than maybe i could see that as a good descission.

the only fact whats great with it, is that it is the first pure dps class who is able to choose between melee and range. thats a nice thing.

but, as i said, i would do that only with new classes (i.e. DH could have 1 melee and 1 range spec, instead of a tank/dps hybrid), and for sure not in Legion (where you gain nearly nothing for being adaptable to range/melee in various raid encounters, cause of AP system).

overall it MAY be a good descission in general to have a melee/range pure dps. but at this point, in this specific xpac ? it was a failure.

This, ppl tend to forget when SV was a spec that had better melee tools in Vanilla there were no hero classes at the time. Over the years we now have more classes that are specifically melee.

[bloodmoth13]

And it's unfair that talents should have to be compensated in order to play old sv, and they didn't even deliver on that.

As for your comment on Ranged rogue that would piss off the rogue community on a severe scale, and they would have every right to be pissed.

The people who played SV during MoP or early WoD would disagree.

I play rogue and i disagree, not everyone would have been pissed, and if done correctly they wouldnt have any reason to complain

Also, they just flat out didnt merge the specs, it they did then nobody would have a good reason to complain! if they did well at merging the rogue specs then i cant see any good reason for players to actually be upset, same for MM/Survival, they did a shoddy job at merging the specs.

You cant say an idea is bad when you do a shit job at implementing it, the idea was solid the implementation wasnt

[xZerocidex]

I play rogue and i disagree, not everyone would have been pissed, and if done correctly they wouldnt have any reason to complain

Also, they just flat out didnt merge the specs, it they did then nobody would have a good reason to complain! if they did well at merging the rogue specs then i cant see any good reason for players to actually be upset, same for MM/Survival, they did a shoddy job at merging the specs.

You cant say an idea is bad when you do a shit job at implementing it, the idea was solid the implementation wasnt

Well let me rephrase my last statement on range rogues then.

Majority of them would've been pissed if Sin or Sub went range regardless of how well it was done. Now if they wanna to add another spec that makes them range DPS then have at it.

[Kwaai]

I play rogue and i disagree, not everyone would have been pissed, and if done correctly they wouldnt have any reason to complain

Also, they just flat out didnt merge the specs, it they did then nobody would have a good reason to complain! if they did well at merging the rogue specs then i cant see any good reason for players to actually be upset, same for MM/Survival, they did a shoddy job at merging the specs.

You cant say an idea is bad when you do a shit job at implementing it, the idea was solid the implementation wasnt

In other words, it was a failure?