Overall, was Survival a failure?

[Blackmist]

I really don't know why Blizzard thinks they should keep adding melee specs to the game. They've not added a single ranged spec since launch, unless you count Elemental Shaman for Alliance.

[Trapped]

And that is the point every hunter is making, SV has become an alt spec for other classes(mainly the ones who play melee as favorite choice), not a main choice for the already ones.

So.... from a veteran hunter point of view, it is a failure. (more if you were a SV).

Pretty much this, and I said that earlier in the thread. Survival has become a fun/alt/pvp? spec, and nothing more, therefore I consider it a failure. Also, hunters picked hunter because its a unique class that is ranged and, before Legion, had a melee feel to it (lots of instant casts, full mobility). Survival used to also be a favorite spec for many. The old black arrow, lock and load and explosive shot spec.

I feel the "Don't fix what isn't broken" phrase works well here.

The spec isnt a failure

But then you say:

1, most players that picked up a hunter wanted to play an archer. I personally think that we just need more archer specs on other classes as having a single class have the monopoly on 3 weapon types seems stupid to me.

2, we have a ton of melee already and a brand new class added to the game, meaning that there will be far less spots as it already stands for ranged players to go melee.

3, hunter player base is precious and hates change.

[/QUOTE]

You say SV isn't a failure yet you make 2 HUGE points about why its wasn't well received. Your 3rd point is just trollish, but I copied it anyway. Hunters DID pick the class because we wanted to play an 'archer' type and the game DOES already have a lot of melee options. Those 2 things alone should conclude that the new SV spec is a failure. A melee mage or warlock spec would probably get the same reaction.

[ydraw]

I really don't know why Blizzard thinks they should keep adding melee specs to the game. They've not added a single ranged spec since launch, unless you count Elemental Shaman for Alliance.

Agreed. And there's still only 1 class in the game that can both tank and ranged DPS.

Hunter is the only archer class in the game. There's more than enough demand for different types of archery to have kept survival a ranged spec.

[Bepples]

So was the DPS output. The difference and usefulness between the two was all about how they delivered their damage.

...and also the fact that people have just historically preferred Survival over MM before 6.2.


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

Makes no sense, you talk about how surival got played even though it was "weaker" but arcane/frost wasn't and isn't.

... Yeah, and a quick look through data from older patches shows that mages are more competitive; they will switch en masse to whichever spec is better even if the DPS difference is relatively minor. The MoP data shows this too:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...d4/edit#gid=17
Note the classes are referenced incorrectly. Arcane/Fire/Frost mage on that chart are Arms Warrior, Frost Death Knight, and Fury Warrior respectively.
The only big variance in hunters was going across an expansion: Cata->Mop (BM/MM/SV on the chart is Blood Death Knight/Mistweaver Monk/Unholy Deathknight). Arcane and Fire varied wildly throughout MoP with Frost being low in popularity most of the expansion. BM and SV would swap places but stay much closer to eachother, while MM remained the least popular ranged spec (whether or not that was due to it's DPS or its playstyle is up to you; I'm inclined to lean towards "playstyle" in Mists of Pandaria because during that expansion the specs were generally more balanced than they are now and you didn't have situations like Survival 6.2).

Even BM performs better than SV. SV has nothing to show for in it's current rotation and design form. BM is at least very good in M+, SV however isn't, because slow alone as utility is really weak. Given the fact that people commit to 1 or 2 artifacts, it's more likely to choose the 2 better specs.

Yeah, it sure is. You would expect fewer Survival hunters around, but not to this degree. They don't even show up in casual content where those sorts of differences don't matter as much to people, although its harder to get good data here. Online surveys on Reddit and the official forums like this one and this one also show abysmal numbers for Survival, and the 7.1 buffs (which actually bring Survival pretty close to the other two specs; definitely not nearly the situation you saw in 6.2) didn't appear to help its popularity. Also consider that BM is considered one of the worst ranged specs in the game in terms of enjoyability while most people praise SV's mechanics (when it suits them, apparently).

Doesn't matter, it explains why they are less parses for a spec. It's viability. Especially in Mythic.

Survival's viability problems in 6.2 were in a totally different leage to the situation now, not just because the spec itself was weak but also because pretty much every HFC boss sucked for Survival and the legendary ring was absolutely terrible for survival. Playing Survival now is noticeably less DPS on AoE encounters with competitive single target damage. Playing Survival then would literally hinder your raid progress due to the massive reduction in priority add burst v.s. MM. Extent matters; don't pretend that it doesn't.

What makes you say that, we have people vehemently defending BM and how cool it is here in the forum. That's just your opinion about BM, I'm pretty sure there are more than enough people that prefer BMs playstyle over MM. BM damage is not lacking either. It's delivered in a different way, just like it was in BRF.

BM is routinely panned on the forums for being a 3-button spec with atrocious downtime. Don't act like this isn't the case. Again with surveys; Reddit's community thinks that BM is one of the most unenjoyable specs in the game (far exceeding Survival, mind you). Mikepreachwow, as much as I despise him, thinks BM is the worst ranged spec in the game (I don't agree with him on that point, but the fact is that public perception of BM is obviously very negative). SV simply does not have the same negative press; most hunters just don't even bother with it.

You are not seeing the problem. It's not necessarily that SV is melee, it's the fact that people can't commit to three artifacts at the same time like they could before, whenever I didn't need specific burst, I'd switch to SV, because it's damage in BRF was extremely good, mobile, easy and also very good in AoE scenarios. Blackhand is/was a good example.

I love how when it comes to Blizzard's bad design decisions, the best people can do to defend them is deflect the blame to another bad design decision (Artifacts in this case). I also recall people insisting to me that Artifacts would save Survival after I pointed out that no one was playing it in the prepatch yet now apparently Artifacts are the thing keeping SV down, but I'll have to go through my post history to find examples of that.

Introducing the new SV at a time where you have to *choose* a spec for 90% of the content you do makes survival worse by default, because it's still a spec that's basically in alpha/beta status. It's incomplete

Top kek. SV is the most complete out of all three specs and received most of Blizzard's attention throughout the testing phase. BM is the most incomplete spec; it received pretty much nothing new coming over from WoD (OK, it got Titan's Thunder.....and a more involved Dire Beast) while it had a whole lot removed. SV was totally remade and was pampered with tons of new abilities. People have been falling over themselves here to praise the mechanical genius (lol) that is Survival until the argument turns to "why is no one playing Survival", at which point they all desperately look for any reason other than "it's melee", just as you are doing here.

it's competitively broken as was SV during HFC

Not even close to the same level.
http://www.simulationcraft.org/reports/Raid_T18M.html
In a single target environment, picking SV over MM was at a minimum a 22.6% DPS loss, and that's not even considering the difference in burst on priority adds. Using todays sims (the Hunter ones here), its more like 3% And newsflash: single target damage is the most important type. You must be out of your mind if you think that there's any amount of spin-doctoring that can make those situations look the same.

You can't even use SV in easy content properly (like HC or Mythic+0) right now, because stuff dies so fast, you can't even make use of your best AoE spell, FotE.

Well, if Blizzard wanted to sell an unsellable product, they could have at least started by making sensible design decisions that would have made the spec appealing. You should know very well that first impressions are important. And in a best-case scenario they just fucked the idea of Melee hunters for at least an entire expansion. What a great start! I'm sure it will get better for survival at some arbitrary point in the future (at least that's what every Survival fanboy keeps telling me).

The only thing you proof with these kind of statements is how ignorant and pathetic you are.

I do not read anecdotes and I don't consider them real arguments. I could have littered my posts with "I don't see any survival hunters in the world or in instances" and "every forum post I see which is negative about survival cites Melee as being a reason" even though both of those statements about my experiences are true...but I didn't because they don't mean anything. The fact that Survival is one of the game's least popular specs period is right there in the data.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty much this, and I said that earlier in the thread. Survival has become a fun/alt/pvp? spec, and nothing more, therefore I consider it a failure. Also, hunters picked hunter because its a unique class that is ranged and, before Legion, had a melee feel to it (lots of instant casts, full mobility). Survival used to also be a favorite spec for many. The old black arrow, lock and load and explosive shot spec.

Notice also how the argument here is shifted to "It's not a failure due to it being melee". They know very well that it's a failure, but they just point to other reasons. No matter how you look at it, though, Legion Survival is a failure.

- - - Updated - - -

And that is the point every hunter is making, SV has become a alt spec for other classes(mainly the ones who play melee as favorite choice), not a main choice for the already ones.

So.... from a veteran hunter point of view, it is a failure. (more if you were a SV).

Ding Ding Ding! The person you quoted is yet more evidence that Survival's changes were for the benefit of people who didn't play hunters.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't get the immature hate about survival and the supposed conspiracy that those who like survival now are paid by blizzard or "idiots". This is so retarded, especially that Epic dude. Keep on those subforums inner wars, will get you far in life lmao

What a stupid attempt at a strawman argument. No one here is arguing that Blizzard is paying people to play Survival, and I don't believe people who play Survival are idiots for doing so. I do think people defending it or saying that it being melee isn't a problem are idiots, though. Or "seriously deluded", to put it more nicely (but I'm not known to do that).

[ydraw]

BM is routinely panned on the forums for being a 3-button spec with atrocious downtime. Don't act like this isn't the case. Again with surveys; Reddit's community thinks that BM is one of the most unenjoyable specs in the game (far exceeding Survival, mind you). Mikepreachwow, as much as I despise him, thinks BM is the worst ranged spec in the game (I don't agree with him on that point, but the fact is that public perception of BM is obviously very negative).

The forums are not an accurate representation of the entire cross section of hunters. They skew very much towards the elitist side of the ledger which has always had a bee in its bonnet about rotations that are considered easy.

It's hard to say which spec would be preferred if there wasn't such a huge imbalance in raid effectiveness.

Personally there are quite a few ranged specs that are far worse than BM - Elemental Shaman (lots of long-cast-time spells with very little random element, just feels terrible and slow) and Balance (8 buttons to press, in order, with no variation at all - completely procedural) are far less enjoyable to play than BM imo, and I have a level 110 of both.

[derpkitteh]

i don't enjoy the gameplay of it, but i love melee hunter.

if it wasn't for the weird mongoose bite playstyle, i'd level my hunter as survival with no qualms.

[Wardley]

i don't enjoy the gameplay of it, but i love melee hunter.

if it wasn't for the weird mongoose bite playstyle, i'd level my hunter as survival with no qualms.

Yeah - I feel exactly the same. Just don't like the Mongoose bite thing either. If it was something a little simpler - such as like that of the Arcane Mage, then it'll work better imho.

I think they also made this change during the wrong expansion when they also introduced artifact weapons. It means you can't just pickup a new weapon and switch to the spec to try it out (esp. at raiding level) - you've got to commit to it and build up AP. So, it's not surprising that most hunters have stuck with the ranged spec and invested their AP on those weapons. So unless they come up with a much faster 'AP' catchup for alt specs, I don't think people are going be switching.

Levelling up my much lower level tanks though (levels 15-60) I find that must pugs I run have a survival hunter in them. So people are trying out the new hunter, and maybe the next expansion, if they stick with them being melee, you might have more people interested in the spec at max level again.

[marjolaine]

Not a fan of mongoose stacking to 6 it can feel quite fiddly for me, also not keen on raptor strike at all and the serpent spread talent. Add switching can be quite annoying for the spec. Not sure its an outright fail though.

[Geran]

Ding Ding Ding! The person you quoted is yet more evidence that Survival's changes were for the benefit of people who didn't play hunters.

Maybe i am just looking it wrong, but I think, in design every spec should be the focus to a BE a main spec [we can discuss if the goal can vary or be mutiple(pve, pvp,...)] , so if you want SV to be the focus of alt class, you are designing a game wrong.

[ydraw]

Yeah - I feel exactly the same. Just don't like the Mongoose bite thing either. If it was something a little simpler - such as like that of the Arcane Mage, then it'll work better imho.

I think they also made this change during the wrong expansion when they also introduced artifact weapons. It means you can't just pickup a new weapon and switch to the spec to try it out (esp. at raiding level) - you've got to commit to it and build up AP. So, it's not surprising that most hunters have stuck with the ranged spec and invested their AP on those weapons. So unless they come up with a much faster 'AP' catchup for alt specs, I don't think people are going be switching.

Levelling up my much lower level tanks though (levels 15-60) I find that must pugs I run have a survival hunter in them. So people are trying out the new hunter, and maybe the next expansion, if they stick with them being melee, you might have more people interested in the spec at max level again.

The thing is that survival would have to be much better than the 2 ranged specs to attract interest. Ranged are preferred over melee in almost all content all other things being equal. To be considered, they have to be doing more DPS than the ranged specs are - which they mostly do, except survival.

It's much harder to get a raid spot as melee than as ranged, and it's also harder to pug content as melee than range. Something that has always been the case but is even worse now thanks to the 4 new melee specs in the last few expansions.

[Baneador]

In leveling, quest and pvp Survival is awesome, in raids and dungeon... the others do better. I main Survival all the time but its really sad, with Survival i have 855 item level and with Marksman i have 837 and do more dps, what the hell.

[Sundreamer]

i see a lot in pvp...though most people that have played hunters for a long time, will not go survival. we chose a ranged class, we're not gonna go melee.

and with so many melee classes out there already, survival will be on the short side when it comes to competitive raiding...but what about casual raiding? lfr-heroic?

[Deleted]

And that is the point every hunter is making, SV has become a alt spec for other classes(mainly the ones who play melee as favorite choice), not a main choice for the already ones.

So.... from a veteran hunter point of view, it is a failure. (more if you were a SV).

Thats just a spin on words. There is no veteran vs noobs, no one represents a group, you only talk for yourself. Some people hate change so of course they won't even try it. Others do, simple as that.

Some people are also pissed with warlock demonology being different, well, just move on or quit. Its a game with updates, you can't control what blizzard impplements

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed. And there's still only 1 class in the game that can both tank and ranged DPS.

Hunter is the only archer class in the game. There's more than enough demand for different types of archery to have kept survival a ranged spec.

Its not an archer class its a hunter. Those archers in other games play nothing like hunters in WoW. Its a different archetype

[Toppy]

As someone who really enjoys playing Survival I have a question:

Doesn't hunter almost always have two specs everyone plays and one spec no one plays?

[Deleted]

...and also the fact that people have just historically preferred Survival over MM before 6.2.

What a stupid attempt at a strawman argument. No one here is arguing that Blizzard is paying people to play Survival, and I don't believe people who play Survival are idiots for doing so. I do think people defending it or saying that it being melee isn't a problem are idiots, though. Or "seriously deluded", to put it more nicely (but I'm not known to do that).

So basically you say people playing survival are not idiots but those defending it (therefore likely playing it and enjoying) are idiots? Nice logic dude, I don't even have to try, you make it easy for me. The biased "I don't like so its objectively bad look at those numbers" in these forums is so terrible its hilarious how bad your rhetoric is just to justify what is merely your own personal opinion. Stop crying and wait for the next expansion IF they change it. No amount of senseless blabbering from you will change that fact. Subforums are always nothing more than echo chambers and confirmation bias, you are a pure avatar of that.

[Sarevokcz]

melee tamable pet spec then if your going to do that, dont even pretend that unholy and survival fulfill anything near similar fantasies. Not sure how it divides the class? previously we had nearly 3 thematically identical specs, this is a breakaway that provides meaningful distinction.

the explosives thing is odd, granted, dont see a problem with the rest

its name should have changed, survival has always been a poor name for the spec, easily fixed issue, wouldnt say its a crippling flaw.

frankly? they should have made BM the melee spec, Rexxar was looked at as BM for over a decade, he doesnt even fit into the whole SV polearm archetype with being dual wielder and even stuff like flanking strike sounds more as BM ability (and could have been oh so sweet for target switches, where it could have charge mechanic.)

SV could have been the spec with lots of tools, where it was primarily a ranged, but had stuff for melee aswell, it could have been the spec with DoTs (had 3 for god knows how long) and lots of kiting, it could have more utility traps, added some melee counterattacks and would have been pretty much THE survival hunter thematically with wearing down the opponents without exposing himself to more harm than necessary.

SV might have worked, if its combat was actually dynamic like DH, but no, they had to make it one of the dullest specs to play with frakly boring and uninteresting artifact ability

[ydraw]

As someone who really enjoys playing Survival I have a question:

Doesn't hunter almost always have two specs everyone plays and one spec no one plays?

Not really, all 3 specs were popular in the last expansion until they nerfed the shit out of survival and made it unplayable.

[Deleted]

Not really, all 3 specs were popular in the last expansion until they nerfed the shit out of survival and made it unplayable.

That's partially true. Each of the 3 specs had it's moment in the limelight in WoD with some overlap. Some of that was due to scaling, some to do with buffs/nerfs/"fixes" and also tier set bonuses had a big impact.

In HFC MM was King in most fights, BM was very strong in 1, maybe 2 depending on your raid setup. Most of the reason for this was that the fights played to MM's strengths (single-target burst).

SV was competitive until it was broken by 6.2 (Multistrike affecting Serpent Sting & Serpent Sting losing the initial big tick with a Multi-Shot), clearly to move people away from playing it to pave the way for Melee SV, a rather cynical approach to the issue but I can understand why they did it, doesn't mean it was right though.

What a lot of these threads about Melee SV boil down to is that many people liked the old SV and are sad to see it gone. They also clearly feel that the new MM and BM don't fill the niche that they have lost in SV (fully mobile, DoT-based, pet-user but not pet-reliant). I hope I'm not mis-representing their views here (since these views are not my own), I'm just attempting to paraphrase the views I have seen.

I also believe I am right in saying that if MM (the marginally closer of BM & MM to 6.1 SV) could achieve a similar playstyle via talent selection (and not be sub-par as a result of these choices) then the need would be met since (I hope) it is not simply the name of the spec that matters but they playstyle.

This appears to have been somewhat the design intent in Legion, with Black Arrow, Lock 'n' Load & Explosive Shot (albeit with a lot of re-design) all part of MM talents now. Sidewinders also has a distinctly 6.X SV feel to it's design too. What all of this tells me is not that SV has been a failure but that MM & BM have been.

BM is widely derided (rightly imo) as un-engaging, lacking in complexity & with acres of boring downtime. It might meet some of the designer's intentions regarding class fantasy but fails spectacularly from a playstyle perspective.

MM, if I am right about design intent, was meant to play like old MM or old SV depending on talent selection but talent choice is simply not a thing in MM at the moment and even if it was, they haven't done a good job of capturing either but especially not with regards to 6.X SV.

To summarise, I think the design intentions were;
1. Keep BM mostly as it is
2. Make MM play somewhat like old MM or old SV based on talent choices
3. Create new Melee SV

Essentially 4 specs in 3. It didn't work for Feral hence Guardian. It didn't work for Gladiator Prot warrior (well, it did before nerfbat).

It feels like part 3 is the only bit they got right albeit with a lot of bugs & new-spec teething problems.

[c000]

frankly? they should have made BM the melee spec, Rexxar was looked at as BM for over a decade, he doesnt even fit into the whole SV polearm archetype with being dual wielder and even stuff like flanking strike sounds more as BM ability (and could have been oh so sweet for target switches, where it could have charge mechanic.)

That was my dream too. A Rexxar-type option for hunters. BM probably would have been a better melee fit than sv. It seemed like an obvious choice. But sv had long been a spec that had a bunch of 'where do we put this' throwaway stuff that they didn't know what to do with, or seemed to fit with bm or marks at the time. They probably viewed sv as the 'weakest' of the 3 options and tried to make it better...

[Gurg]

frankly? they should have made BM the melee spec, Rexxar was looked at as BM for over a decade, he doesnt even fit into the whole SV polearm archetype with being dual wielder and even stuff like flanking strike sounds more as BM ability (and could have been oh so sweet for target switches, where it could have charge mechanic.)

SV might have worked, if its combat was actually dynamic like DH, but no, they had to make it one of the dullest specs to play with frakly boring and uninteresting artifact ability

That was my dream too. A Rexxar-type option for hunters. BM probably would have been a better melee fit than sv. It seemed like an obvious choice. But sv had long been a spec that had a bunch of 'where do we put this' throwaway stuff that they didn't know what to do with, or seemed to fit with bm or marks at the time. They probably viewed sv as the 'weakest' of the 3 options and tried to make it better...

Yea. I imagined survival being Rexaar look-a-like spec. And i do agree that BM is more lean toward that goal.
Simply.. you could have few core skills and the rest of your active pet. This way you could basically switch between tanking (tenancy) and melee DPS with mid range utility (Fero) and great utility but average (lets say limited AOE/Cleave) via (cunning). This would add another flavor to Hunters and make them more appealing to other people too.