so, no ranged survival :(

[sunxsera]

Melee survival is the way it should always have been, and I've been Survival since Vanilla. Legion Survival with Mongoose Bite and Flanking Strike was best though.

Ohh, you mean the classic/vanilla survival hunter? The one where you bind all melee attacks in 1macro and spam it ?

[F Rm]

I do sorely miss the Exotic Munitions and wish there was a heavier focus on traps (that aren't pvp talents). But the fact that it was a DoT spec is hardly a Hunter fantasy. Serpent Sting, yes. Even fire, absolutely. But Black Arrow, the focus of the spec, didn't fit at all.

A focus on DoTs doesn't automatically mean using magic, as you pointed out yourself.

The thing about Hunters; even though this isn't the case atm based on the RPG, is that ammunition or arrows that is somehow enchanted/infused with magic, can still suit the class as Hunters can just buy said ammo/arrows from others who are schooled in the magical elements.

This is how it was described in the past regarding Arcane Shot(ammo used for it). Hunters went and had those shots infused with magic with the help of someone else.

I agree that I don't think hunters should be relying much on the use of magic, but something like the above, isn't wrong in itself.

As for Black Arrow, the part about it that doesn't fit is the reference the name makes towards the old WC3 ability. The actual ability was just a DoT that increased our damage done with other attacks.

The part of it raising undead wasn't there in the earlier days.

This is where you miss a bit. MM and ranged SV weren't that different at their cores. both shooting. Just different types of shots. While current BM and melee SV, even while sharing Kill Command, don't play anything remotely similarly despite the focus on pets.

"Both shooting"

FpicEail said it well enough really.

If this is how you judge hunter specs that focus on the ranged weapon then, how come all caster specs are fine? I mean, some cast DD abilities while others focus on DoTs. Some rely on pets(demons) while others do not. But no matter, they're all just specs where you cast spells, right?

Warlocks can't have 3 specs where you cast spells. 1 is enough. 2 if we let Demo stay as well.

Rogues having 3 DW-specs all based on melee combat? Nope, 2 has to go.

Mages? 1 ranged caster spec is enough.

Warriors? Either Arms or Fury has to go. Can't have 2 melee-weapon damage based specs in 1 class.

And before you say something like: "but warlock specs are different, demo focusing on demons, Destro focusing more on fire And chaos spells and harder hits while Affliction focus on shadow and DoTs"

Or

"Rogues have 3 different specs because they swing their melee weapons in different ways or because one spec focus thematically on using daggers instead of swords"

...or other things like that. Before you(or anyone) say this, this is exactly how it was between all hunter specs as well.

The 3 specs were all ranged, focusing on the same core theme of being hunter specs, as they should. It is after all 1 class and not several. But the specs also focused on different parts of the class fantasy, both thematically as well as mechanically. Just like all other classes did.

You kinda made a point for me against this earlier. You said it was strong and people loved it but then it was nerfed and nobody would take one anymore. That would imply the tuning is what made it popular and not the fantasy. I would argue the same about current BM.

Not sure how you got only this from what you quoted there but either way...
You forgot the part about where I said "...the combination of those things"

+what FpicEail said.

[Doffen]

For real? Since my hunter is geared and I'm not insane I play BM, but that just makes survival sound even more dogshit

No, not for real. It's why the best survival Hunter in the world use both dots even on single target. And good luck using two buttons on cleave/aoe. You actually want to use the whole of 4 abilities in your main rotation, aka like 90% of all the dps specs in the game. The reason why people think it's two buttons is because how strong the burst phase is and the better you handle that one the more damage mongoose BITE will do in a fight.

A BM Hunter talking about easy specs. Hilarious. I play both specs and Survival has more skills required to do good damage than a BM Hunter ever had. Not saying Survival is hard, but point me to a dps spec in the game that is.

[aimmachine]

as a diehard hunter/rogue i do not believe, that mm/sab will fun and hard(at the same time) spec one more time/

[Karrotlord]

snip

1) I still contend that straight up magic should be done away with in all hunter specs. Remove Arcane Shot and change Chimera Shot to nature/frost instead of arcane. Hell, that would fit in better with the actual in game chimeras. And there's no need for magic to be used to apply any of it. Make the most out of the Hunter's master of the wilderness theme. And bring back something like Exotic Coatings for whichever specs you want. I'd love that.

2) It's not about mechanics or how the spells are categorized. It's about class fantasy and having coherent themes behind each spec. Mage for example has Arcane with a focus on mana and time, Fire is about massive burst out of nowhere and huge AoE befitting a firestorm, and Frost is about methodically controlling your enemies which I think it moved away from.

Warlocks had a unique Demo spec but that was taken away. What they got in place is still unique though, being a master of demonic armies. Aff is about torturing souls with, well, afflictions. And Destro is about bringing physical ruin to everything around you. They all have different and special fantasies around them.

Now here's the thing... Arms and Fury? I agree with you. Arms is supposed to be the master of weapons but doesn't convey that at all. Fury is in a great spot though. And Rogues are going through the same thing. Assa is about poison and Outlaw fills the swashbuckler fantasy decently. But with Sub, they don't know what the fantasy is or where to take it. So both us and Blizz would agree there. Then there's Demon Hunters with only 2 specs because they couldn't justify a third.

Now I don't know if you actually feel this way or where just trying to make a point.

3) I may have misinterpreted what you said.

[unbound]

https://www.wowhead.com/news=311877/...philo#comments
and no big changes to MM #sad

Ultimately, you have a few problems with Survival. On one hand, you finally have the case that is actually true this time (usually it's claimed, but not actually true) that there are a very small but very loud minority of players who love Survival as a melee spec. In reality, only about 3% of hunters are Survival in M+ and about 2% of hunters are Survival in Raids. Supposedly, overall, about 15% of hunters are survival, but it appears that most are abandoned before getting to max level. Blizz does response if there is enough noise even if the data doesn't support them.

On the other hand, Survival doesn't match any definition of class fantasy. While some degree of melee is good, Survival was supposed to be focused on traps and certainly used a bow effectively. They still are, at the end of the day, a hunter...not a rogue or a warrior.

I saw someone mentioned that they hated Survival and only really played one in WoD...which is a clear tip-off that they never played in the early days of Vanilla, BC, and Wrath (or certainly never played hunter back then). Survival was fun and matched class fantasy very well back in BC and Wrath, and was rather distinctive over focus on BM or Marks.

While I understand that we can't completely go back to those days, I see no reason that Blizz can't put Survival back to something more closely matching how Survival was back then. I don't care that less than 5% of hunters like Survival is today...because of the shift of Survival to melee, we actually have more melee specs than ranged specs in the game because of that shift; go play one of those instead.

[Doffen]

Ultimately, you have a few problems with Survival. On one hand, you finally have the case that is actually true this time (usually it's claimed, but not actually true) that there are a very small but very loud minority of players who love Survival as a melee spec. In reality, only about 3% of hunters are Survival in M+ and about 2% of hunters are Survival in Raids. Supposedly, overall, about 15% of hunters are survival, but it appears that most are abandoned before getting to max level. Blizz does response if there is enough noise even if the data doesn't support them.

In the end one spec will always be on the bottom. The issue with Survival is the hunters that simply refuse to even try it because it's melee. If you changed mongoose bite with steady shot more people would play Survival now than Marksman if we are to believe you and others in this thread. But then we have this fact, there are more players playing Survival now compared to Hellfire Citadel in WoD when it was ranged. Maybe Survival just played like shit.

And btw, Survival fits the Hunter Class fantasy perfectly. It's a copy of Rexxar, probably the most famous Hunter in the game.

[Jamais]

Afer reading trough SL notes, i've come to the conclusion that Survival will have a total of ONE melee ability in SL?? And that is raptor/mongoose.
Even Wing Clip is being replaced with Concussive Shot.

People who are looking down upon people who like Survival are really petty. The fantasy of the spec is spot on and Survival is by far the hunter spec with the most interesting and complete toolkit out of hunter specs. Even tho it does well on the survival fantasy, it feels more like a proper Beastmaster aswell.

It's a unique playstyle spec, especially in PvP, where it is a true melee/range hybrid. P.S. harpoon rocks.

[Exorzon]

And btw, Survival fits the Hunter Class fantasy perfectly. It's a copy of Rexxar, probably the most famous Hunter in the game.

I mean back in Wc3 Rexxar knew how to summon a quilboar, hawk and a bear and his ultimate was a stampeding roar. If that's not a beast master then I don't know what to tell you.

They clearly changed the wrong spec

[Dadwen]

I mean back in Wc3 Rexxar knew how to summon a quilboar, hawk and a bear and his ultimate was a stampeding roar. If that's not a beast master then I don't know what to tell you.

They clearly changed the wrong spec

honestly I would not wish it on any of the spec's it was a shit thing to do to the people that loved playing RSV. (never liked MM and BM is only ok IMO in small bites but gets boring fast).

*granted I'm just about to the point where I could care less about the melee spec people losing theirs (some few exceptions out there) , too many of them defending it saying RSV played like BM or MM or it was a Melee spec from the start, which is all BS.

[Doffen]

I mean back in Wc3 Rexxar knew how to summon a quilboar, hawk and a bear and his ultimate was a stampeding roar. If that's not a beast master then I don't know what to tell you.

They clearly changed the wrong spec

Can't argue that, I agree. He is a melee beastmaster. I remember the questline in Legion as well. When he was learning us about survival in the wild. He is a good mix of both, but leaning quite more on Beastmaster for sure.

- - - Updated - - -

I simply play BM because it's the best, I'd play survival if it was the best - if I could play any spec I want I'd mostly play MM

I think every spec in the game is easy, they just vary in how punishing they are to your output if you mess that easy up

Totally understand that. I play both now(BM and Survival, got 3 so :>), but same as you, if I could choose I would play MM which I did from vanilla to BfA but now it's a bloody mess unfortunately. I know there are quite a few people that didn't like Marksman in Legion but personally thats the most fun I've had as hunter ever. And when talking about survival, to max damage a survival hunter need to get as many mongoose bites as possibly in the buff window. If you mess that up you notice quite the damage loss. Which is also the window where you do spam mongoose bite and kill command. So it's like an arcane mage. If you mess up there as well you take a heavy loss in damage. That's why I mean survival isn't just pushing two buttons, you gotta do it right too. But the rotation is of course very easy.

[Utrrabbit]

https://www.wowhead.com/news=311877/...philo#comments
and no big changes to MM #sad

We...are..LITERALLY ONE WEEK INTO ALPHA.

Stoo whining.

- - - Updated - - -

honestly I would not wish it on any of the spec's it was a shit thing to do to the people that loved playing RSV. (never liked MM and BM is only ok IMO in small bites but gets boring fast).

*granted I'm just about to the point where I could care less about the melee spec people losing theirs (some few exceptions out there) , too many of them defending it saying RSV played like BM or MM or it was a Melee spec from the start, which is all BS.

Ranged survival was crap and anyone who liked it was wrong.

[Lucavian]

Some more changes are needed to maintain a "valid" spec. With azerite being a goner, you also lose Latent Poison, the rotation without is really bland, imho.

And to make matters worse, it's like they've glossed over the spec entirely in beta. They made minor tweaks that for the most part won't change the talent loadout. They've added abilities (2 of the 3 dps abilities added require a ranged weapon). The 1 dps ability they added that's usable with weapons isn't even going to scale with mastery at this point. And, just to make sure the BOOMING population of this spec subsides a bit they nerfed mastery (because you know, it wasn't the worst stat already).

[F Rm]

1) I still contend that straight up magic should be done away with in all hunter specs. Remove Arcane Shot and change Chimera Shot to nature/frost instead of arcane. Hell, that would fit in better with the actual in game chimeras. And there's no need for magic to be used to apply any of it. Make the most out of the Hunter's master of the wilderness theme. And bring back something like Exotic Coatings for whichever specs you want. I'd love that.

Chimera Shot already does what you're purposing.

Chimera Shot
A two-headed shot that hits your primary target and another nearby target, dealing [ 79.09% of Attack Power ] Nature damage to one and [ 79.09% of Attack Power ] Frost damage to the other.

As for other things regarding Hunters using magic...it's both good and bad really.

In the olden days of the RPG, it was said that Hunters that used Arcane infused arrows/bullets, they did not do it themselves but they bought either the ammo complete with the infused magic or they went and had someone schooled in Arcane magic, had them infuse the ammo/arrows which the hunter then brought into battle.
This was sort of changed later to "many hunters had decided to learn enough about Arcane magic in order to do it themselves."

Presumably, they did so for reasons of lacking the means to hire others. Although, this part is sort of left open for outsiders to define on their own.

Do you(the player) want to be a hunter that knows enough about magic to infuse ammo on your own or are you buying the ammo, complete with the infusion?

It's an RPG so, you decide really.

I have nothing against Hunters being able to partially rely on the use of magic, as long as the type of magic, is in tune with the essence of nature and the wild.
Here, I can agree that something like Black Arrow was a bit out of touch with the essence of the class in general. Though that could easily be changed…
The ability originally, did not have anything to do with undeath when we first saw it implemented in Wrath of the Lich King. It was just a DoT that also increased enemy damage taken by our other attacks.

If they just change the name, it could easily be themed around being a different type of poison(still, with the same mechanical design as we had prior to Legion). Heck, they can even keep the part where it deals Shadow damage. Poisons dealing Shadow damage isn't exactly unheard of. It all depends on where the ingredients come from that are used to create said poison.

---

As for Exotic Coatings and other things like it, feel free to check the link in my signature below. I think you'll find a design that caters to this a great deal.
Whether you like it or not, is entirely up to you. But it would achieve what you mentioned there.

2) It's not about mechanics or how the spells are categorized. It's about class fantasy and having coherent themes behind each spec. Mage for example has Arcane with a focus on mana and time, Fire is about massive burst out of nowhere and huge AoE befitting a firestorm, and Frost is about methodically controlling your enemies which I think it moved away from.

Warlocks had a unique Demo spec but that was taken away. What they got in place is still unique though, being a master of demonic armies. Aff is about torturing souls with, well, afflictions. And Destro is about bringing physical ruin to everything around you. They all have different and special fantasies around them.

Now here's the thing... Arms and Fury? I agree with you. Arms is supposed to be the master of weapons but doesn't convey that at all. Fury is in a great spot though. And Rogues are going through the same thing. Assa is about poison and Outlaw fills the swashbuckler fantasy decently. But with Sub, they don't know what the fantasy is or where to take it. So both us and Blizz would agree there. Then there's Demon Hunters with only 2 specs because they couldn't justify a third.

Now I don't know if you actually feel this way or where just trying to make a point.

The thing here is...oh btw, no I don't actually feel like what I wrote there. I personally have nothing against those other classes or their respective specializations. What themes they're aiming for.

But yeah, if we are talking about intended themes and about class fantasy...it wasn't exactly lacking for Hunters either, prior to Legion. It just did not have the Legion standard of identities that we have now. No specs did back then really.

Beast Mastery - It was a spec with the base surrounding the use of a ranged weapon, though the main focus was on the bond with wild beasts. With nature. You could form a tight bond with your main companion where the two of you empowered one another during combat. You also had the option to become someone who was able to command additional wild beasts to fight for you, albeit only for short periods. They are after all wild beasts.

Marksmanship - Was, and still is, the spec that's themed around the idea of a master archer and sharpshooter. Especially today but, back then as well. Marksmen did not/do not spend a lot of time, bonding with the wild beasts of nature. They rely on the use of their weapon, on aiming it perfectly. It's all about getting in that perfect shot, hitting just the right spot where you know it will cause maximal damage to the target.

Survival(pre-Legion) - Was a spec themed around the use of the ranged weapon as well. Though, contrary to a marksman, a Survival hunter focuses more on agility, and does not rely on having perfect aim. They do not favor standing still for too long, always on the move, tracking the prey instead of waiting for it.
While they relied on the weapon, it was actually the ammunition/arrows they focused on specifically. Animal venom, poison, and explosives were all favored tools for a Survival hunter. It doesn't matter where a poisoned arrow hits the target, as long as it hits, the target will eventually die.

Short version, portraying the theme of the old SV: You were a Munitions Expert and a Trapper.

3) I may have misinterpreted what you said.

Fair enough.

The issue with Survival is the hunters that simply refuse to even try it because it's melee.

But then we have this fact, there are more players playing Survival now compared to Hellfire Citadel in WoD when it was ranged. Maybe Survival just played like shit.

And btw, Survival fits the Hunter Class fantasy perfectly. It's a copy of Rexxar, probably the most famous Hunter in the game.

I can't speak for everyone else here ofc, but I have tried SV multiple times during both Legion and BfA. And you're right, it is intended to be a melee-spec, thus being of no interest to me. Or to others like me.

I created a Hunter because of the theme and fantasy of using Ranged weapons. If I wanted to play melee, I would've chosen another class.

---

Survival during HFC in WoD was literally tanked in terms of performance by the devs.

That in combination with them announcing that it was going to be turned into a melee-spec, was why people abandoned it. It wasn't the top performing hunter spec during Blackrock Foundry(also WoD), but that was pretty much the time where most hunters played it.

Ofc no one is going to play a spec that is nerfed so much that it can barely keep itself above tanks during raid encounters…

---

"It's a copy of Rexxar"

It would be if you were able to dual wield weapons. It would be if you didn't have the mini-crossbow. And if you did not have the Wildfire Bombs.

[Axxil]

https://www.wowhead.com/news=311877/...philo#comments
and no big changes to MM #sad

Survival is good where it's at, especially being the only good hunter pvp spec.

[Doffen]

It would be if you were able to dual wield weapons. It would be if you didn't have the mini-crossbow. And if you did not have the Wildfire Bombs.

If you go by those criterias then no spec or class in game follows any of the fantasy of the npc's in Warcraft.

I want to be like Khadgar on my mage. But then I need to learn to teleport a whole city, I need to learn to use gem of health, I need to learn to make puns.
Or a better example:
My Hunter want to be like Sylvanas. Oh wait. I don't have Mind Control, I don't have Wailing Arrows, I don't have Life Drain, I can't turn into banshee form.

So if you want to argue then be real. It is a copy on how of Rexxar is a melee hunter who use pets. Just like Survival now.

And yes, the point for Survival not being popular in HFC(it was average in BrF too, not super popular) and even now might not be that it is melee, but maybe because the damage it does isn't great for PvE? On heroic Ny'alotha it's the second worst performing spec, while just below middle in mythic. But it is the most popular Hunter Spec for PvP for example. And that is most likely because it's a melee spec. A good thing that hunters got that option to be decent in PvP.

In the end one spec is the least popular one. Subtlety Rogue is in worse condition than Survival. As long there are several thousand players that plays Survival is good enough for the devs most likely.

[Nefarious Tea]

Old range survival was one of the best specs the class has had, even when they nerfed it at the end to try to make people hate it, it still was fun to play.

That bolded part is interesting. If people hated it because it got nerfed, that means you didn't like the spec on its own gameplay and merits, you only liked it because it did high DPS.

Thanks for poking a hole in your own argument and that of every other person who argued that Survival was popular because it was fun.

No, it was popular because it was the best damage.

[Bepples]

In the end one spec will always be on the bottom.

Usually that bottom spec changes from patch to patch. Melee Survival is always in the dumps, though, in terms of representation.

The issue with Survival is the hunters that simply refuse to even try it because it's melee. If you changed mongoose bite with steady shot more people would play Survival now than Marksman if we are to believe you and others in this thread.

Yeah. Hunters don't like melee. Go figure. This is just another argument for why it shouldn't be melee. Actually, this is the primary, most important argument. They forced something on the class most of the players don't want.

But then we have this fact, there are more players playing Survival now compared to Hellfire Citadel in WoD when it was ranged. Maybe Survival just played like shit.

False equivalency. Survival in HFC was far, far worse off than melee SV in terms of damage at any point in its existence. At no point did melee Survival struggle to compete with tanks on damage. Stop cherrypicking and lying.

And btw, Survival fits the Hunter Class fantasy perfectly. It's a copy of Rexxar, probably the most famous Hunter in the game.

No, and no. The Hunter class fantasy is pretty explicitly centred around ranged weapons and it is an extremely poor imitation of Rexxar.

The fantasy of the spec is spot on and Survival is by far the hunter spec with the most interesting and complete toolkit out of hunter specs.

Imagine thinking a melee spec that throws bombs at its feet constitutes a spot-on fantasy. What are you smoking?

Even tho it does well on the survival fantasy, it feels more like a proper Beastmaster aswell.

You guys swear up and down that they changed Survival to melee because it was too similar to Marksmanship and then you go and make statements like this. Unreal.

We...are..LITERALLY ONE WEEK INTO ALPHA.

A) The biggest changes come at the beginning. If there's hardly anything now it's not likely there's going to be anything significant later on.
B) "It's only testing!" meme. You people have been falling for that trap for literal decades now.

Ranged survival was crap and anyone who liked it was wrong.

It had way more players than melee Survival so actually it's the other way around.

And, just to make sure the BOOMING population of this spec subsides a bit

Was this sarcastic?

If you go by those criterias then no spec or class in game follows any of the fantasy of the npc's in Warcraft.

Now you're getting it.

Playable WoW classes are extremely loosely connected to WC3 characters. This is why screeching REXXAR into every thread doesn't work.

And yes, the point for Survival not being popular in HFC(it was average in BrF too, not super popular) and even now might not be that it is melee, but maybe because the damage it does isn't great for PvE?

And in the raid before BRF it was literally the most popular spec in the game.

Your argument that it totally depends on damage is nonsense. Earlier this very expansion SV was the very best single-target damage spec in the game. It STILL remained extremely unpopular. HFC was very unique in that the spec was so poorly-performing that bringing one to your raid was a significant detriment. I don't think it's inaccurate to say that there has never been a raid where a Hunter spec has been less viable. Choosing it over Marksmanship was a flat -20% damage loss minimum on Patchwerk which was Survival's best situation given it was a sustained damage spec which, due to 6.2's changes, had no AoE capability whatsoever. And this was after a hotfix that buffed most of its abilities by 25%. It's delusional to use HFC as any sort of talking point other than "if you nerf the living shit out of a Hunter spec no one will play it". Melee SV has NEVER had it that bad.

But it is the most popular Hunter Spec for PvP for example.

Ranged SV was also the most popular PvP spec in WoD even during 6.2. Its representation back then was something like double what it is now in terms of proportion of all rated PvP players. And that was in a time where way more people participated in rated PvP. So if you think rated PvP means anything (it doesn't, really, because it has always been an exceedingly small pool of players) ranged SV was better there too.

And that is most likely because it's a melee spec. A good thing that hunters got that option to be decent in PvP.

Lol!? How on earth do you legitimately believe that its PvP strength comes from being melee? Think through it for at least one second. How does not being able to do full damage at range make it better in your mind?

It's our best option because it has extremely powerful CC options via PvP talents and the damage output of both BM and MM is severely lacking. So it has better CC and damage than the other Hunter specs. A big part of its PvP strength is actually its ranged capability and like I said before ranged SV was way more popular in PvP. So it's good in spite of being melee and not because of it.

That bolded part is interesting. If people hated it because it got nerfed, that means you didn't like the spec on its own gameplay and merits, you only liked it because it did high DPS.

He didn't even say people hated it. He said they tried to make people hate it. Learn to read.

No amount of fun gameplay made it an option to play in HFC. Playing it was literally the difference between being able to kill a boss or not. If I played it I would have had to give up raiding entirely. I stuck with the spec through high and low for years before that but it was out of the picture in HFC.

You're not grasping the degree of unviability of SV in HFC. Melee SV has never had it as bad. It's damage was seriously comparable to that of tanks on the patch launch. What the fuck did you expect us to do? Continue playing it and gimping our raid?

No, it was popular because it was the best damage.

It was not often the best damage option in the Hunter spec yet it was often a popular choice. It was just usually viable in raiding, which it wasn't in HFC.

In SoO it was actually more popular than BM despite doing less damage.

Imagine speaking so confidently about an issue you know nothing about.

[Exorzon]

In SoO it was actually more popular than BM despite doing less damage.

Can confirm that I played SV throughout the entire SoO patch, it wasn't that far behind from BM from what I can remember

[Dadwen]

We...are..LITERALLY ONE WEEK INTO ALPHA.

Stoo whining.

- - - Updated - - -



Ranged survival was crap and anyone who liked it was wrong.

right that must be why you see all the melee hunters around, and why RSV never was that popular *oh ya it was (guess you're the one that's just wrong.)

- - - Updated - - -

That bolded part is interesting. If people hated it because it got nerfed, that means you didn't like the spec on its own gameplay and merits, you only liked it because it did high DPS.

Thanks for poking a hole in your own argument and that of every other person who argued that Survival was popular because it was fun.

No, it was popular because it was the best damage.

Umm confused , he said they were trying to make people hate it by nerfing and it didn't work it was still fun to play, your statement *entire post for that matter makes no sense?