I don't really get all the hate for SV hunters

[kasuke06]

I’m not sure what expansion your refer to when you say old survival but the gameplay of the spec in MOP / WOD was as simple as it gets. Personally I dont find easy forgiving specs to be very engaging or fun.

Wasn't here for pandas or WoD(had computer troubles, ended up quitting cold turkey until legion came around and looked like something worth coming back to.) When I say old, I mean "back when this was the only game people thought of when you said MMO". back when they actually released player counts! Back when the talent trees were actual trees! GET ERF MAH LAAAAHHN, YAH DANG WHIPPERSNAPPERS!

[ydraw]

Look back at the classic talent trees, you can find archived copies on google pretty easily. A good half of the survival talent tree involved improvements to their melee abilities. It's clear it was intended to be a class that could play in melee and range, maybe even switching between them situationally, but never quite panned out.

Yeah, no. It contained improvements to their melee abilities which were intended to be used to snare and root melee classes in PvP so that hunters could escape to ranged. None of the abilities were meant for melee DPS.

[Hehalol]

because they just got used to something and are now too stuck up to get over it , that's why they hate survival imo

a hunter is not merely a marksman carefully aiming from the distance, there's a certain brutality to the class that old specs failed to represent

hunter has a ferocious, animalistic side and melee depicts it all too well

as for the ranged vs melee issues it's mostly irrelevant to the topic

ps: btw 3 different ranged specs cannot be justified for hunter, so you can pick between an awsome shooter with a pet, a shooter with an awsome pet and a shooter with a pet and some added damage types on his arrows?... come on it's almost material for a joke...

Lol? you must be some cata or mop baby because hunters used to be very versatile at both aspects of the game.... you know when they could use both melee and a ranged weapon at the same time? Regardless of spec?

One used to be a master beast tamer , one a master marksman, and one a master tracker / trapper..... Seems pretty awesome fantasy wise compared to what we have now....

[cparle87]

Yeah, no. It contained improvements to their melee abilities which were intended to be used to snare and root melee classes in PvP so that hunters could escape to ranged. None of the abilities were meant for melee DPS.

Which is why they had multiple melee attacks, the ability to parry which no other ranged does, and a talent tree dedicated to melee attacks, increasing their chance to hit and crit with melee attacks, capped out by a 31-point spell that was... wait for it a melee dot. They got all of those things, because they weren't supposed to use them and just run out into ranged as quick as possible where they couldn't even use their 31-point spell. It would be like the 31-point spell being a powerful pet ability, but the spec is lone wolf-enforced.

[Bepples]

No, i've been right this whole time. You are queefing reasons into existence simply because you hate melee.

You're not actually countering any of my arguments. You're just declaring that I'm apparently always wrong because I hate melee. That's not how it works. Do you think melee Survival does in fact appeal to most existing Hunters (even though Blizzard themselves says it did not)? Do you think Survival does not have low representation? Do you think Survival does not have a conflicted identity? These are all arguments I use that come from the state of the game. My own bias doesn't have a bearing on whether these arguments are true or not.

It is why you are trying to make this conspiracy theory that Blizz as a whole hates a spec or class. That is just fucking stupid and smacks of fanboy desperation. There's no logic in it, just crazy. Yes, it is crazy to think they had a grudge against pally. It is crazy to think they have a grudge against ANY spec they created. Crazy and stupid, actually.

That's the exact opposite of being a fanboy.

Is it really that crazy? Like I said, they would not have deleted the spec if they had respect for the people playing it. Deleting the spec required considering SV Hunters to be expendable. If they didn't think they were expendable, they would not have been deleting the spec. Simple as that.

So the 3 most changed classes were the ones that all had 3 similar specs.....shocking...it....it...it is almost as if I've been saying that's why they were changed....gasp.

The point was that the three most changed specs were the three worst-off specs. Chasing spec distinction above everything else ultimately left class design in a worse place.

Specs do not need to be 100% distinct from one-another. This is something you have consistently failed to acknowledge.

I'm not holding hunter to stricter standard, you just have replaced logic with extreme fanboy insanity. Warriors have 2 specs that play similar because the 3rd spec was a tank. Hunters had all 3 (read: not just 2) specs play similar because they didn't have a spec fill a different role like tank or healer. The main difference between arms and fury is the weapons. With hunter, they didn't have that, all they had was pets and even then, it was either pets, exotic pets or no pets. That's it. So since they weren't going to make a hunter spec fill a different role (I think they should have) all they could do to create a significant variance was go melee on one. Now maybe they could have made BM the melee spec, but more people play that one already. They couldn't marksman a melee since it is...you know...marksman. That left surv. Sucks for you, sorry.

What a stream of desperate nonsense.

Yes, you are holding Hunter to a stricter standard. Arms and Fury having a tank spec in the same class does not suddenly absolve them from being two very similar specs. Even the weapon difference is superficial; the basic theme of both specs is very similar. Now, I think that's fine. The reason I point it out is that all you bandwagoning "class fantasy" fanatics apparently think this "too similar" problem only applies to Hunter specs. Even after the Legion changes you still have specs that are more similar to eachother than MM/SV. If you think Warrior doesn't count, look to the rogue specs. All three are duel-wielding melee specs based on stealth and ambushing. Somehow fine for Rogues, not fine for Hunters. It's cowardly and pathetic. Either apply this standard to all classes or none of them. Stop singling out Hunters as an excuse to plunder the class and screw the people playing it.

And, no, it certainly was not the case that all 3 specs of Hunter were the same. BM is very clearly and obviously different. I wasn't worrying about Bestial Wrath windows and Frenzy stacks as an SV Hunter, for example. For the umpteenth time, pets were not the only differentiating factor. Again, look to Rogues. None of those specs have pets yet they are apparently sufficiently distinct. You're continually ignoring the different modes of ranged weapon damage and generalising it all down to just "shooting" which is, as I've already said, cowardly and pathetic. SV had DoTs, MM had hardcasts. Literally the exact same difference used to differentiate Affliction and Destruction. I'm happy to copy-paste that over and over if you keep doing the same.

Yeah, they could have made BM melee instead. Or they could have made none of the specs melee on account of it being a stupid fucking idea that was utterly unnecessary and destructive despite you deluding yourself into thinking it was "their only choice" or some bullshit. You never actually adequately disputed that point: you just stamped your feet and cried about how I'm too mean to melee Hunters and therefore nothing I say counts. There were, and still are, other options aside from making a Hunter spec melee. Plus, making SV melee made it rely on pet aspects and therefore it now infringes on BM's fantasy, so wasn't that just a giant farce?

Making any of the Hunter specs a tank is an even worse idea. I would say it is the worst one I've heard for the class but I have unfortunately had to deal with people sincerely calling for SV to become a Healer spec, so you'll have to settle for second-worst. Look at how much damage and bitterness melee SV caused and how much of a constant headache it is for Blizzard. They literally had to remake the spec in the very next expansion after making it the first time and it's still floundering. Think of how much that would be amplified if they made it a tank spec; a role that is significantly less popular than DPS in a time when they are utterly incompetent at balancing the tank specs. Furthermore, think about how it's completely antithetical to the Hunter fantasy. To avoid just making Protection Warrior V2 and actually tie it to a Hunter theme they would have to base it on pet tanking (just as melee Hunters necessarily depend on the pet). Think about how bad pet pathing and position is right now then imagine a whole spec built on that; a spec with a role that is highly dependent on positioning and ultimately responsible for the entire raid. If you still think it's a good idea you are beyond help.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is why they had multiple melee attacks, the ability to parry which no other ranged does, and a talent tree dedicated to melee attacks, increasing their chance to hit and crit with melee attacks, capped out by a 31-point spell that was... wait for it a melee dot. They got all of those things, because they weren't supposed to use them and just run out into ranged as quick as possible where they couldn't even use their 31-point spell. It would be like the 31-point spell being a powerful pet ability, but the spec is lone wolf-enforced.

You're assuming that specs for pure DPS classes in Vanilla had as much as a role in deciding your playstyle and identity as they do now. They didn't. Most of what your class did was packed into the base class and the talents just gave superficial improvements to one of those aspects. For Hunters that was the ranged weapon and the pet; SV enhanced the utility/melee. It did not mean you would deliberately stick to melee.

The first iteration of Survival was mostly untested and unfinished, which is how Lacerate even ended up as a talent. Lacerate was useless, and even if it had any decent tuning at all it was a long DoT which means you didn't need to be in melee range constantly to apply it. DoTs, when it came to Hunters, were more a tool to do damage outside of LoS/keep people out of stealth than actual damage tools you'd use regularly. And this iteration didn't even last a year; their first revision of the spec was adding more generally useful talents along with Wyvern Sting. So he is absolutely right that it was just a spec that made you less useless in the manadatory melee-only range rather than a spec that actually intended you to DPS purely in melee range. The idea was that in PvP Hunters would inevitably be brought into melee range so it would be a good spec to be able to both pull off some damage in melee while escaping back to ranged.

[Bodakane]

You're not actually countering any of my arguments. You're just declaring that I'm apparently always wrong because I hate melee. That's not how it works. Do you think melee Survival does in fact appeal to most existing Hunters (even though Blizzard themselves says it did not)? Do you think Survival does not have low representation? Do you think Survival does not have a conflicted identity? These are all arguments I use that come from the state of the game. My own bias doesn't have a bearing on whether these arguments are true or not.



That's the exact opposite of being a fanboy.

Is it really that crazy? Like I said, they would not have deleted the spec if they had respect for the people playing it. Deleting the spec required considering SV Hunters to be expendable. If they didn't think they were expendable, they would not have been deleting the spec. Simple as that.



The point was that the three most changed specs were the three worst-off specs. Chasing spec distinction above everything else ultimately left class design in a worse place.

Specs do not need to be 100% distinct from one-another. This is something you have consistently failed to acknowledge.



What a stream of desperate nonsense.

Yes, you are holding Hunter to a stricter standard. Arms and Fury having a tank spec in the same class does not suddenly absolve them from being two very similar specs. Even the weapon difference is superficial; the basic theme of both specs is very similar. Now, I think that's fine. The reason I point it out is that all you bandwagoning "class fantasy" fanatics apparently think this "too similar" problem only applies to Hunter specs. Even after the Legion changes you still have specs that are more similar to eachother than MM/SV. If you think Warrior doesn't count, look to the rogue specs. All three are duel-wielding melee specs based on stealth and ambushing. Somehow fine for Rogues, not fine for Hunters. It's cowardly and pathetic. Either apply this standard to all classes or none of them. Stop singling out Hunters as an excuse to plunder the class and screw the people playing it.

And, no, it certainly was not the case that all 3 specs of Hunter were the same. BM is very clearly and obviously different. I wasn't worrying about Bestial Wrath windows and Frenzy stacks as an SV Hunter, for example. For the umpteenth time, pets were not the only differentiating factor. Again, look to Rogues. None of those specs have pets yet they are apparently sufficiently distinct. You're continually ignoring the different modes of ranged weapon damage and generalising it all down to just "shooting" which is, as I've already said, cowardly and pathetic. SV had DoTs, MM had hardcasts. Literally the exact same difference used to differentiate Affliction and Destruction. I'm happy to copy-paste that over and over if you keep doing the same.

Yeah, they could have made BM melee instead. Or they could have made none of the specs melee on account of it being a stupid fucking idea that was utterly unnecessary and destructive despite you deluding yourself into thinking it was "their only choice" or some bullshit. You never actually adequately disputed that point: you just stamped your feet and cried about how I'm too mean to melee Hunters and therefore nothing I say counts. There were, and still are, other options aside from making a Hunter spec melee. Plus, making SV melee made it rely on pet aspects and therefore it now infringes on BM's fantasy, so wasn't that just a giant farce?

Making any of the Hunter specs a tank is an even worse idea. I would say it is the worst one I've heard for the class but I have unfortunately had to deal with people sincerely calling for SV to become a Healer spec, so you'll have to settle for second-worst. Look at how much damage and bitterness melee SV caused and how much of a constant headache it is for Blizzard. They literally had to remake the spec in the very next expansion after making it the first time and it's still floundering. Think of how much that would be amplified if they made it a tank spec; a role that is significantly less popular than DPS in a time when they are utterly incompetent at balancing the tank specs. Furthermore, think about how it's completely antithetical to the Hunter fantasy. To avoid just making Protection Warrior V2 and actually tie it to a Hunter theme they would have to base it on pet tanking (just as melee Hunters necessarily depend on the pet). Think about how bad pet pathing and position is right now then imagine a whole spec built on that; a spec with a role that is highly dependent on positioning and ultimately responsible for the entire raid. If you still think it's a good idea you are beyond help.

This will be my last post top you because you have the reading comprehension of brick but are also so fucking headlong into crazy fanboy you don't know what is up or down.

- I don't know if melee appeals to most hunters. Nor do you. No one but Blizz has the evidence. It doesn't mean anything either way.
- I don't know if Surv has low representation. What are you basing it on? Compared to other hunter specs, other melee specs, percentage of player base playing melee surv versus percentage of player base that played ranged surv? It doesn't mean anything either way, else McDonlad's has the best hamburgers because they've sold more than anyone else. Its an objectively dumb argument. It is also an argument I never made.
- No it didn't leave them worse off. You don't like them, that is your subjective opinion. Your subjective opinion is not fact. Especially when you're the type of person to act like an entire company hates something as illy as a spec. To reach that level of ridiculous, one most question all of your stances on the topic.
I'm not ignoring different "types" of ranged weapon damage. There aren't enough to make three distinct specs. That's one of the reason they made the change. Shots aren't like schools of magic. there's only so much you can do....arrows and bullets are treated the same.
- No I don't think surv has a conflicted identity. I remember melee abilities from hunters. I can tame pets. I have traps. You obviously do because everything comes down to ranged versus melee. That is literally all you care about and is your only criteria. You've shown that over two days now.
- Yes it is fucking crazy. It is bat shit cuckoo bird bananas crazy. Blizzard doesn't hate specs. You are reaching Alex Jones plane of the government turning frogs gay with chem trails levels of crazy.
- I never argued that specs need to be 100% different form each other.
- I am not holding hunter to any fucking thing. Read this as many times as you need to, get flashcards, ask an adult to help you......Warrior has two nearly identical specs. Hunter had 3. Surv was like MM and BM. By changing surv, they made 3 different specs. Changing MM or BM would mean they still had surv feel similar to the one they didn't change. There was no change they could make to surv by keeping it ranged that wouldn't make it even more like BM or MM. So again, practice thinking or reading comprehension. Do whatever is necessary for you to just understand this logic. You don't have to agree with it, but I'm tired of you thinking this is written in a different language.
- Rogue used to be 3 very similar specs. Combat, like surv, was kind of in the middle similarity wise between the other two specs. By turning combat into outlaw and changing it completely, they successfully separated the specs.
- Tank specs are balanced fine. They can all do the job. Some do some jobs better, some require more skill. A hunter tank spec could be amazing because it would add a different and new tank play style. I know, I know, you think its stupid because RANGED IS LIIIIIIIIIIIFFFFFFFFEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sigh.

[greatmefisto]

- Rogue used to be 3 very similar specs. Combat, like surv, was kind of in the middle similarity wise between the other two specs. By turning combat into outlaw and changing it completely, they successfully separated the specs.

I don't know anything about Rogue (do all the specs play diffrent) but if they could distinguish 3 dual-wielding specs from one another (and still keep all of them dual-wielding) then it's sure as hell that they could distinguish 3 ranged specs aswell. So here's when your argument "they had no other way than to go melee with surv" kinda falls apart.

[Bepples]

This will be my last post top you because you have the reading comprehension of brick but are also so fucking headlong into crazy fanboy you don't know what is up or down.

Good for you. Unfortunately, that's not going to stop me from replying because I care too much about honesty to allow you to post a stream of lying nonsense to everyone else here as the last word.

I don't know if melee appeals to most hunters. Nor do you. No one but Blizz has the evidence. It doesn't mean anything either way.

I mean, common sense dictates that if you have a class that has 3 ranged specs it's going to be picked more by people who like ranged specs and less by people who have melee specs. Nevertheless, we have more than just common sense:

http://warcraft.blizzplanet.com/blog...-3-interview/2

"Representation doesn’t necessarily matter as much, I think. We knew with Survival Hunter that we were making a niche spec. It is a melee spec for a class that has traditionally being range. I think that a lot of existing hunters, they are all hunters because they want to be a range class, and so we don’t necessarily expect them or want them to feel like they should be changing; but for new players picking up that class, it is an intriguing option; and we have seen a lot of Survival Hunters doing extremely well at very high levels of play. So the fact that they are not playing as often, I don’t think reflects upon their potential so much as it just does where the audience is at right now. That’s not much of a problem."

So, basically, they knew Hunters wouldn't like it and they knew it would be a niche spec. Of course, he thinks it doesn't matter because apparently Survival being able to pull decent DPS even though the audience isn't there (which, in typical Hazzikostas PR garble fashion, makes no sense with scrutiny), but even he admits that Hunters at large do not want to play it. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

You might think this means something but that's a pretty brazen stance. A spec deliberately made to be antithetical to the interests of a class? How is that not a big deal, and an ultimately bad idea? Now a whole bunch of development time and effort is being sunk into a spec, inherently at the expense of other specs in the class, on something they admit the class doesn't like. That's a serious failing in class design and a complete abandonment of common sense.

I don't know if Surv has low representation. What are you basing it on? Compared to other hunter specs, other melee specs, percentage of player base playing melee surv versus percentage of player base that played ranged surv? It doesn't mean anything either way, else McDonlad's has the best hamburgers because they've sold more than anyone else. Its an objectively dumb argument. It is also an argument I never made.

It does matter, because if melee SV is played by very few people (true) and ranged SV was played by many more people (true) that means, like I already said, they have sunk a bunch of time and effort into making a design change that makes it enjoyed by less people. I'm basing it on SV's representation in raids and M+. It is godawful in both. Ranged SV was only similarly awful during patch 6.2 when it was totally unviable for end game content (almost like they din't like SV or something). SV now isn't amazing, numbers wise, but its single target is very strong. Yet it's seeing the same sorts of numbers as dumpster-tier specs. Ranged SV was routinely one of the game's most popular specs yet now it is, as Hazzikostas says, a "niche" spec at best. That's not an improvement. That's a significant collapse in standing.

This is why you're doubling down on the "lack of distinction" argument. You know full well that everything hinges on that, since the resulting product of the melee Hunter decision is so bad that you have to make it look really worth it by exaggerating SV's problems before the change. That's your entire angle here, and it's a weak one.

No it didn't leave them worse off. You don't like them, that is your subjective opinion. Your subjective opinion is not fact. Especially when you're the type of person to act like an entire company hates something as illy as a spec. To reach that level of ridiculous, one most question all of your stances on the topic.

It left a lot fewer people enjoying those specs and all three of those specs required major revision in the very next expansion. I think it is fully fair to say that means they were "worse off". These were specs that were, by all intents and purposes, fine before Legion after having essentially the same model and design for years at that point. Then they all suddenly found themselves on the brink in Legion. It's delusional to pretend it was worth it at that point.

I'm not ignoring different "types" of ranged weapon damage. There aren't enough to make three distinct specs. That's one of the reason they made the change. Shots aren't like schools of magic. there's only so much you can do....arrows and bullets are treated the same.

Yes you are. You do it in this very point. You just declare "you can't differentiate them" with NO backing.

Do you think Explosive Shot and Aimed Shot are not different enough or what? What about the fact that SV had all the DoTs? You're consistently ignoring that the difference between MM and SV was the same as the difference between Affliction and Destruction; you're just pretending that somehow it's not the same thing because of shots v.s. spells. So fucking what? At best you can argue that shots aren't as visually prominent as spells. That doesn't mean you can't differentiate two specs that use them. That doesn't even address the gameplay differences.

And what about melee abilities? Theyt are, most of the time, even less visually prominent than shots let alone spells yet we have 13 specs that do some variation of whacking the boss with a stick, including the Rogue class where all three specs stab the boss with two melee weapons. Why is there not "only so much you can do" with that? If it sounds like I'm repeating myself it's because I am; I have to repeat myself because you repeatedly dodge around this point in an effort to tar Hunters and Hunters alone with your ridiculous standards while giving everyone else a free pass.

No I don't think surv has a conflicted identity. I remember melee abilities from hunters. I can tame pets. I have traps. You obviously do because everything comes down to ranged versus melee. That is literally all you care about and is your only criteria. You've shown that over two days now

You clearly don't read these forums often enough. Even players of melee Survival complain about the conflicted identity. Survival doesn't have a very large toolkit yet somehow manages to tocuh on 3 distinct, separate identities at once before it even gets to the talents. You have spells like Raptor Strike and Harpoon which wouldn't be out of place on one of the warrior specs. You have Kill Command, Coordinated Assault, and Spirit Bond which are all ripped off BM in one way or another. And then you have the remainder being some sort of homage to the "opportunist" style of ranged SV, i.e. Serpent Sting and Wildfire Bomb.

It's a complete mess. Survival has never had a more conflicted identity than this. And the reason it is that way is specifically because of melee. To have a unique melee Hunter archetype they need the pet, but then to differentiate it from BM they need traditional SV aspects, so you end up with this amalgamation.

Yes it is fucking crazy. It is bat shit cuckoo bird bananas crazy. Blizzard doesn't hate specs. You are reaching Alex Jones plane of the government turning frogs gay with chem trails levels of crazy.

You just keep repeating that it's crazy without explaining why. So I'll just repeat my counterpoint: people don't consider those they respect as expendable, and Blizzard was treating ranged SV players as if they were expendable by deleting their spec. You're doing the same thing here.

I never argued that specs need to be 100% different form each other.

By saying that SV and MM (and even BM by your off-the-wall standards) are the same thing you are saying that despite the clear, far-reaching and near-total differences, they are insufficiently distinct because they share some baseline elements such as the use of a ranged weapon, the access to a pet, and basic rotational elements like Multi-Shot. So you absolutely are effectively arguing that specs need to be 100% different, at least when it comes to Hunters (I know you don't think that about other classes because you deliberately hold Hunters to a tougher standard).

I am not holding hunter to any fucking thing. Read this as many times as you need to, get flashcards, ask an adult to help you......Warrior has two nearly identical specs. Hunter had 3. Surv was like MM and BM. By changing surv, they made 3 different specs. Changing MM or BM would mean they still had surv feel similar to the one they didn't change. There was no change they could make to surv by keeping it ranged that wouldn't make it even more like BM or MM. So again, practice thinking or reading comprehension. Do whatever is necessary for you to just understand this logic. You don't have to agree with it, but I'm tired of you thinking this is written in a different language.

Yes you are. Even if you dismiss Warriors because of their tank spec (which is ludicrous because that doesn't make Arms and Fury any less similar than one another) you have Rogues, Warlocks, and Mages which are all pure DPS classes. Rogue is the most important one here because it is also a weapons user, only it is melee instead of a tank. And Warlocks also have a very similar model to pre-Legion Hunter.

Your narrative about the 3 Hunter specs makes no logical sense. First, let's assume that they really wer the same thing as you are arguing. They then change Surv to something different (not really, because it rips off BM in a much more major way than ranged SV ever ripped off MM). How does that lead to 3 different specs? By your own logic, this would lead to SV being different but BM and MM still being similar because they are both still ranged. This exposes the flaw in your Hunter double-standard; you think the specs were the same thing solely based on their ranged weapons, but you also want to portray SV as the silver-bullet solution that solves it all. Then why are BM and MM still ranged? Again, according to YOU, this would not be possible because apparently we just can't distinguish ranged weapon specs.

I know you are angling for "but BM and MM couldn't become more different without treading on SV", but that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card for you because we now know what post-Legion BM and MM look like; neither of them added aspects that infringed on ranged SV's theme of multidotting with enhanced projectiles. If they retried the last few expansions but left SV the same as it was without changing ANYTHING AT ALL (and we absolutely did have pending ideas for SV's future) it would still be vastly different from the other two specs, even moreso than WoD. The only thing to account for is the couple of SV spells they put in the MM talent tree as a consolation, which would be easily replaced.

You're assuming I'm not understanding your points. I understand them perfectly; I just think they are flat-out wrong and baseless. You keep insisting the Hunter specs were the same thing when they weren't. You keep insisting that there was no way to differentiate them further when there was. And you keep insisting that parallels drawn with other classes don't count when they do. Your justifications are either weak or non-existent. I'll give you a quick example: you never actually countered my idea of Black Arrow multidotting. That would significantly deepen SV's playstyle and differentiate it from the other two specs given the Lock and Load interaction. MM and BM never in any of their iterations had anything like that. Oh, and we actually had it on live servers with the Archimonde trinket with SV's final patch, so it's a very realistic idea. This single point, and it's not the only one, utterly destroys your argument that it was impossible to differentiate them. You know this, and that's why you never even countered it; you just let it slide and hoped I wouldn't bring it up. Tough luck.

Rogue used to be 3 very similar specs. Combat, like surv, was kind of in the middle similarity wise between the other two specs. By turning combat into outlaw and changing it completely, they successfully separated the specs.

And yet before and after the Outlaw change it's still a class with 3 specs that are all the same role (melee DPS) and all use duel-wielded weapons and stealth. That already meets the standard you use to argue the Hunter specs were the same, yet this arbitrarily doesn't count (because it is, in fact, a double-standard). If they could differentiate a class where all three specs use a melee weapon, they can do the same for a class where all 3 use a ranged weapon. Unless you really want to try to argue that there's more ways to differentiate stabbing the boss v.s. shooting it? That won't end well for you.

Tank specs are balanced fine. They can all do the job. Some do some jobs better, some require more skill. A hunter tank spec could be amazing because it would add a different and new tank play style. I know, I know, you think its stupid because RANGED IS LIIIIIIIIIIIFFFFFFFFEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sigh.

Lmfao, no they are not. Go talk to Vengeance Demon Hunters right now and ask them about how they feel about tanking balance.

A Hunter tank would be straight-up terrible. I would rather stump for melee Survival than see it become a tank, if you think this is just about my preference of ranged specs. Like a melee DPS Hunter, a tank Hunter would necessarily depend on a pet. This would be a spec that would require you to control and maneuvre two units at once in a game that is most distinctly not equipped to handle it. Oh, and it's something that I would confidently state less than 1% of the class wants. I would say it's astonishing to me how you would actually push this idea but the rest of your posts are equally as asinine so it's really nothing new.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know anything about Rogue (do all the specs play diffrent) but if they could distinguish 3 dual-wielding specs from one another (and still keep all of them dual-wielding) then it's sure as hell that they could distinguish 3 ranged specs aswell. So here's when your argument "they had no other way than to go melee with surv" kinda falls apart.

Ding ding ding! Whether it's old Combat or new Outlaw, all three rogue specs use duel-wielded melee weapons and stealth. So the Outlaw remake is actually irrelevant. The argument against Hunters pre-Legion was that all three used bows and therefore it was impossible to differentiate them. But that's obviously a double-standard. The only way out of this one is to argue that the melee attacks of Rogues are more visible and distinct than the ranged attacks of Hunters, which is a dead-on-arrival argument because melee attacks are inherently less visible and usually less distinct.

This is why I bring up Rogues and Warlocks all the time. They are a great case study for debunking the Hunter double-standard pushed by Blizzard and much of the community. DoTs v.s. Casts are not enough to distinguish two specs? Works for Warlocks (Affliction v.s. Destruction), so why not Hunters? Hunters are too similar because they all use the same weapon type? Works for Rogues, why not Hunters? I don't actually think those classes have spec distinction problems and I don't wish to sic a bunch of glassy-eyed class-fantasy zombies on their classes; they've already suffered enough. Those classes are just such helpful tools for exposing the special set of rules that evidently only applies to Hunters.

[Poppincaps]

Hunters want 3 brain dead specs. All ranged, all instant attack and all with rotations that dont punish mistakes.

In Legion you were punished with MM if you played the vulnerable window wrong. But hunters dont like that so they forced Blizzard to change it.

All hunter specs in MOP / WOD were brain dead and boring as hell. But this is what hunters want. They dont want specs which engage you and force you to play optimally. They want easy, simple specs which you cant mess up no matter how bad you play.

Let's list off some realistic reasons why people roll hunter since you seem to think it's only because they want an easy class to play:

1. They are the only physical ranged class in the game. The archer archetype is one of the more popular archetypes in video games.

2. They have a pet, but not only that they can tame, name, and in the past could even train that pet. This results in them having the most RPG elements of any class even now despite them removing a lot of those elements.

3. They are historically the best soloing class outside of Blood DK and Vengeance DH, both of which are hero classes and thus, Hunter was the best soloing class for quite a while in the beginning.

4. They have freedom of movement. You could argue that this makes the class easy to play, and I'll admit that it does remove one element of ranged DPS play which is planning movement, but that is not inherently the case. Hell, part of the reason I like BM so much is that there's a lot of on the fly decision making and thinking ahead. Sure, the spec is one of the least punishing, but getting a 95% parse or higher is more competitive than most other specs in the game due to the higher skill cap on BM as well as the number of players and the Hunter community being highly competitive as well. BM Hunter is the epitome of easy to play and hard to master.

But yeah, every single hunter just wants a brain dead spec. That's the only possible reason.

[Kaver]

Let's list off some realistic reasons why people roll hunter since you seem to think it's only because they want an easy class to play:

1. They are the only physical ranged class in the game. The archer archetype is one of the more popular archetypes in video games.

2. They have a pet, but not only that they can tame, name, and in the past could even train that pet. This results in them having the most RPG elements of any class even now despite them removing a lot of those elements.

3. They are historically the best soloing class outside of Blood DK and Vengeance DH, both of which are hero classes and thus, Hunter was the best soloing class for quite a while in the beginning.

4. They have freedom of movement. You could argue that this makes the class easy to play, and I'll admit that it does remove one element of ranged DPS play which is planning movement, but that is not inherently the case. Hell, part of the reason I like BM so much is that there's a lot of on the fly decision making and thinking ahead. Sure, the spec is one of the least punishing, but getting a 95% parse or higher is more competitive than most other specs in the game due to the higher skill cap on BM as well as the number of players and the Hunter community being highly competitive as well. BM Hunter is the epitome of easy to play and hard to master.

But yeah, every single hunter just wants a brain dead spec. That's the only possible reason.

I agree that the 3 first points are part of the reason why people start playing hunter when they are new to the game. But they are not the reason why so many players choose to roll hunter in the competitive raiding scene. Point 4 "Freedom of movement" is 99 % of the reason for that.

What you say about BM having a high skill cap is ridiculous. BM has the lowest skill cap of the game. That is why it is difficult for a high skilled player to get high parses. When a spec has a low skill cap it increases the competition for that spec internally. A low skill cap reduces the distance between a good player and an excellent player and therefore more players are included in the race for the top. With BM an excellent player have a harder time creating distance between him and a good player because the maximum potential is very low and it doesn't allow the excellent player to take full advantage of their skill.

Many high profile BM players (Like Gingi and Meeres from Method) do also admit that the reason they often play BM hunter during progression is because it is the best progression spec in the game due to the effortless gameplay.

BM has a low dps ceiling and a high dps floor.

I promise you, if a cast-time ability was introduced to the main rotation of BM or the gameplay became more punishing, we would see a heavy decline in the players who choose that spec in the raiding scene.

Brain dead specs are the selling point of the hunter when it comes to raiding and m+ dungeons.

[Bloodnickel]

everyone in this thread trying to justify their spec and validate their epeen (...why y'all care) when literally every single class in the game is candy crush, there isn't a single class spec in the game that is even remotely difficult.

[greatmefisto]

everyone in this thread trying to justify their spec and validate their epeen (...why y'all care) when literally every single class in the game is candy crush, there isn't a single class spec in the game that is even remotely difficult.

Main discussion is not about difficulty of the class. Next time read more than just one post before typing.

[Bloodnickel]

Main discussion is not about difficulty of the class. Next time read more than just one post before typing.

no it isn't, everyone still bitching about brain-deadness and whatnot. sssssshut the fuck up

[Twen]

no it isn't, everyone still bitching about brain-deadness and whatnot. sssssshut the fuck up

It's not everyone, mainly one guy who has nothing of substance to say and just keeps endlessly parroting that one condescending line of thought. All these people just need to stop replying to him at all, he's obviously not taking anything else into consideration, they're basically talking to a wall. Or possibly a troll. Either way, same solution.

[greatmefisto]

no it isn't, everyone still bitching about brain-deadness and whatnot. sssssshut the fuck up

Then you have reading comprehension problem.

[Regalosh]

It's not everyone, mainly one guy who has nothing of substance to say and just keeps endlessly parroting that one condescending line of thought. All these people just need to stop replying to him at all, he's obviously not taking anything else into consideration, they're basically talking to a wall. Or possibly a troll. Either way, same solution.

There are two parrots actually, one is condescending SV, the other doing the same with BM non-stop.

[ydraw]

Making any of the Hunter specs a tank is an even worse idea. I would say it is the worst one I've heard for the class but I have unfortunately had to deal with people sincerely calling for SV to become a Healer spec, so you'll have to settle for second-worst. Look at how much damage and bitterness melee SV caused and how much of a constant headache it is for Blizzard.

At least a tank spec would actually be useful. Only 1 class in the game can both tank and ranged DPS (Druid). Being able to switch to tank to run dungeons would be popular with many - even if just to get satchels. The biggest problem with survival is that the last thing the game needed was yet another melee DPS spec.

That said, any spec they added should have just been added, not replaced 1 of only 3 ranged weapon specs in the game.

[Lord Pebbleton]

I don't want hunters to have a melee spec. I tried out survival back in Legion for the artifact skin, and even if the rotation wasn't all that bad, it felt clunky and messy to be in melee range. The last time I was in melee range was in Cata, on Spine, because I ran out of ammo (before we got melee weapons taken away ofc).

I have to agree with FpicEail. No one really wanted a melee hunter spec, and those that would mention it would usually make fun of it. I rolled a hunter 10+ years ago because I liked the idea of ranged weapons, and I'm not a fan of having one such spec taken away from me.

[Qman]

There was no ammo in Cata: Patch 4.0.1 (12-Oct-2010): Ammo has been removed from the game.

[TOM_RUS]

god i hope this spec just goes back to ranged in 9.0. adds nothing to the class and never wanted for anything. dumb people tried to play melee hunter in vanilla and only dumb people play the spec now.

This exactly.