Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ...
4
12
13
14
15
16
... LastLast
  1. #261
    Quote Originally Posted by lagiacrux View Post
    do you have any basis for this statement? and low playerbase for a specc is not proof that "most people think it was a bad rework".
    That really just depends on what people mean when they say 'bad'. I mean sure you can argue popularity doesn't really equate to quality with the general public but if something is this horrendously unpopular with the people for who it actually matters something's gone wrong.

    For me personly being a completely dead spec in PvE in both raiding and m+ (and it isn't just because bm is good, it's played less than the other 'bad' pure DPS specs) means it's a failure on some level. At the very least it means it's a bad rework because they added another melee to an already melee stacked game.
    Hell if you look at the representation stats it's not even 'good' in pvp. Hunter is either the lowest or second-lowest represented class in 3s or 2s.

    I do agree with you on some of its failings from a design standpoint, survival massively suffers from 'it needs talents to feel like a functioning spec as opposed to cool bonuses' syndrome
    Tonight for me is a special day. I want to go outside of the house of the girl I like with a gasoline barrel and write her name on the road and set it on fire and tell her to get out too see it (is this illegal)?

  2. #262
    Quote Originally Posted by Saltysquidoon View Post
    That really just depends on what people mean when they say 'bad'. I mean sure you can argue popularity doesn't really equate to quality with the general public but if something is this horrendously unpopular with the people for who it actually matters something's gone wrong.
    "gone wrong" is difficult to describe. the fact that they did remove a ranged spec for a melee spec is obviously a turnoff for people who play hunter for the ranged aspect. additionally the legion incarnation wasnt that fleshed out afaik (havent played it myself). there are a lot of factors here why it isnt a more popular spec, but imho the biggest one is just that the numbers are "not good enough". imagine if you had DH numbers during bfa, the spec would be way way way more popular.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saltysquidoon View Post
    For me personly being a completely dead spec in PvE in both raiding and m+ (and it isn't just because bm is good, it's played less than the other 'bad' pure DPS specs) means it's a failure on some level. At the very least it means it's a bad rework because they added another melee to an already melee stacked game.
    Hell if you look at the representation stats it's not even 'good' in pvp. Hunter is either the lowest or second-lowest represented class in 3s or 2s.
    for pve i agree. the spec is just subpar, but thats not a "rework" problem, but a numbers problem. give the spec a +X% damage buff and this will change.
    for pvp, it is/was the only viable spec for hunters. that in itself is a problem, but thats just fact. thats why the class itself has a low representation. a lot of hunter players dont want to play melee, and their ranged specs are no viable, so the just dont pvp.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saltysquidoon View Post
    I do agree with you on some of its failings from a design standpoint, survival massively suffers from 'it needs talents to feel like a functioning spec as opposed to cool bonuses' syndrome
    i mean, yeah of course more talents baseline are better, but imho you only really need mongoose bite baseline. the rest actually seems fine and offers quite a lot of choices between pvp, single target and aoe.

  3. #263
    Quote Originally Posted by lagiacrux View Post
    "gone wrong" is difficult to describe. the fact that they did remove a ranged spec for a melee spec is obviously a turnoff for people who play hunter for the ranged aspect. additionally the legion incarnation wasnt that fleshed out afaik (havent played it myself). there are a lot of factors here why it isnt a more popular spec, but imho the biggest one is just that the numbers are "not good enough". imagine if you had DH numbers during bfa, the spec would be way way way more popular.


    for pve i agree. the spec is just subpar, but thats not a "rework" problem, but a numbers problem. give the spec a +X% damage buff and this will change.
    for pvp, it is/was the only viable spec for hunters. that in itself is a problem, but thats just fact. thats why the class itself has a low representation. a lot of hunter players dont want to play melee, and their ranged specs are no viable, so the just dont pvp.


    i mean, yeah of course more talents baseline are better, but imho you only really need mongoose bite baseline. the rest actually seems fine and offers quite a lot of choices between pvp, single target and aoe.
    The biggest difference between DH and Survival is not so much the dps. It’s more the defensive abilities and the utility. Survival doesn’t have enough defensives considering it being a melee spec. It’s pretty ironic that a spec called “Survival” has one of the lowest levels of survivability in the game.

  4. #264
    Quote Originally Posted by lagiacrux View Post
    for pve i agree. the spec is just subpar, but thats not a "rework" problem, but a numbers problem. give the spec a +X% damage buff and this will change.for pvp, it is/was the only viable spec for hunters. that in itself is a problem, but thats just fact. thats why the class itself has a low representation. a lot of hunter players dont want to play melee, and their ranged specs are no viable, so the just dont pvp.
    The issue here is it's a matter of proportion, survival is proportionally more unpopular than it's actual performance would suggest. If it was purely a numbers thing it would see more play than MM or hell it would see more play than Sub a spec blizzard left intentionally broken that survival outperforms by over 10%.

    To me even if it's as simple as blizzard doing a misread and hunters not wanting to play melee (and it's not even close to just that), that's enough to make the rework a failure in my eyes. What's the point of a spec people don't want to actually play when what spec you're playing matters?
    Tonight for me is a special day. I want to go outside of the house of the girl I like with a gasoline barrel and write her name on the road and set it on fire and tell her to get out too see it (is this illegal)?

  5. #265
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokashi View Post
    People saying Survival Hunter does not have many defensives does not understand the class/playstyle. They have enough buttons to avoid dmg rather than just standing there and take the big hits. People want it easy when it comes to defensive, no smart play required ...
    There's a big difference between defensive abilities and mobility and I feel you are missing the point entirely. Being able to run around a bit doesn't reduce the damage taken from unavoidable damage which is what we are lacking as a mostly melee based spec.

    Currently, all we have in PVE is a 3min CD for 30% reduced damage taken that stops us attacking. Paired with being stuck in melee range for most of the fight it's a bad combination.

    The level 30 talent row should replaced with actual, reduce damage taken, defensive abilities. 2 min CD, reduce AOE damage taken by #% for #secs and we would be golden.

  6. #266
    Quote Originally Posted by snebb View Post
    You get threads like this because people don't like major changes when it comes to something they have been accustomed to for years. If DPS rankings didn't place this spec so far down the list - it wouldn't be considered such a failure. It could never be the top hunter spec though cause we would all drown in tears.

    Survival, subjectively, is one of the most -fun- specs to play.
    It was actually the highest DPS Hunter spec during Uldir and it was still underplayed. People who are new to the class also tend to pick BM/MM. This isn't just a numbers problem or an adjustment to change problem. We are far too long into melee Survival for these weak excuses to still work.

    The fact of the matter is the spec both fails to appeal to the people who currently play the class, people who may reroll from other classes, or people who are new to the game. Sure, it pulls in some small amount from those groups, but nowhere near what it needs to.

    For reference, when Explosive Shot and Lock and Load were added to the spec in 3.0 it became a popular spec immediately. It did not take favourable damage tuning and years of player adjustment to gain new players. The players came right away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaver View Post
    Mate you cannot call an opinion for delusional.
    You can, actually. People love to hide behind the "my opinion!" shield all day but opinions can in fact be delusional. For example, if someone has the opinion that the sky is purple, they are delusional. In this case, if someone said Hunters should have always been more about melee and ranged when it was the class defined around ranged combat and the only vector of meaningful ranged weapon combat in this game then they are in fact delusional and so infatuated with melee they should be sticking to something they know like Warrior or Rogue.

    Quote Originally Posted by keelr View Post
    Imo one of the best remakes of WoW. They managed to create a completly unique ranged/melee dps spec. In bfa, for pvp it was one of the most enjoyable specs with one of the highest skillcap.
    It's a melee DPS with ranged capability. That is not unique in WoW. Unholy and Outlaw are both marketed with those terms. Unholy even has a pet so it's not even unique in that respect. There's also the fact that it borrows a significant amount of its toolkit and identity from BM.

    They managed to take a popular ranged spec and turn it into one of the game's most reviled melee specs. Spin it all you want, but it's a failed rework.

    Quote Originally Posted by lagiacrux View Post
    do you have any basis for this statement? and low playerbase for a specc is not proof that "most people think it was a bad rework".
    When the spec used to be very popular and then after a rework it is permanently unpopular, it kind of is proof that it was a bad rework. Most of the time when something is popular, undergoes a major change, then becomes unpopular, people consider that to be a failure. People just like to spin-doctor that away when it comes to Survival due to personal biases. But ultimately they spent a bunch of work in remaking a spec only to drive away most of its playerbase and keep it as the "unpopular joke spec that needs attention" for years on end.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tokashi View Post
    Hunter has always been the noob friendly, low skill cap, range dps class. Since Vanilla WoW it was the best entry level class for new players that want to get familiar with range dps.
    I know it's fun to shit on Hunters all day for being unskilled and lazy, but the fact of the matter is a) the class is not out of line with the amount of skill required for most other specs (and if you disagree, feel free to refer to any iteration of Arcane Mage for reference) and b) people arent stupid noobs for wanting to use ranged weapons.

    It also seems like you're stuck in Legion where Survival actually had a ton of discordant mechanics that were difficult to manage. This isn't Legion and Survival is significantly streamlined to the point where it really isn't that far out of line compared to the other specs. It's just as simple as them unless you take specific builds to add complexity which is also something you can do with the others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Segus1992 View Post
    Hunter was not defined on its mastery of ranged weapons initially, and Hunter as a word and the fantasy of it has never been either. It's about using what's available to hunt. That means being able to use both melee and ranged weapons (and magic, bombs, traps, pets, etc). Shouldn't be very hard to understand.
    It was literally defined with the most explicit language possible in WoW's supporting material from the very start of the game as the class that is made unique by its mastery of ranged weapons.



    You might live in a fantasy universe where this isn't the case but we've already established that your opinions are delusional so that's no surprise.

    P.S. "using what's available to hunt" specifically precludes the notion of not being able to operate at full effectiveness with a ranged weapon so grats on that self own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Segus1992 View Post
    Plus, it'd be pretty pathetic of me to change my opinion just because other people are allergic to change. I'm aware people hate Survival because "new bad" and "I don't wanna be forced to melee, it's scary!", I don't care. The only legitimate criticism is wanting the old playstyle Survival had back, but that isn't a reason to hate Survival, it's a reason to hate Blizzard for not delivering on their promise to give talents to do that through Marksman.
    You try to diminish the opinions of people who hate melee SV here but they are far more valid and legitimate than whatever you regurgitate onto these boards. People came to the Hunter class expecting ranged combat and over a decade into the game's lifespan a bunch of newer, egotistical, unskilled developers decided they would take out a ranged spec from under us and replace it with an Arms Warrior ripoff. Hunters aren't stupid or afraid of change for not being on board with that and they are fully in the right to oppose it. I know it's had to perceive when you are so infatuated with melee gameplay that you can't possibly see ranged players as equals but you have to put in some effort to overcome your personal flaws here.

    You have to love the mental gymnastics here. "Melee survival taking away the ranged Survival playstyle isn't a reason to hate melee Survival!". Um, yes, actually, it is a completely valid reason. Melee Survival is the reason ranged Survival doesn't exist so melee Survival is the problem. It isn't up to Marksmanship to awkwardly juggle ranged Survival's mechanics and gameplay. Marksmanship is a different spec with a separate identity and gameplay style. Trying to offer ranged Survival's gameplay via MM was always a bad idea pushed forward by people who are so ignorant of ranged gameplay that they see all ranged specs as the same thing. I know you fit into that camp so I'll put it in terms a melee lover can understand: imagine if they went to Assassination Rogue and took away stealth and melee attacks in order to turn it into a half-assed Marksmanship ripoff because "Assassination is just Subtlety with poisons! Just put its current stuff in Subtlety and let that spec deal with the stealthy stuff! Rogues aren't defined around being stealthy dual-wielders, you know!".

    Quote Originally Posted by Segus1992 View Post
    Survival is great. The rest of Hunter can stand to improve. And your "scary big internet man" tactic of trying to force your opinion is pretty sad.
    You'll never admit it out of pride and melee favouritism but Survival will always be the circus freak of WoW class design. Unless, of course, they own up to their mistakes and bring back ranged Survival. Then we can all forget this failed experiment and move on. But we know that the class developers are just as proud as they are bad at their jobs so they'll never backtrack on something like that.

  7. #267
    Quote Originally Posted by FpicEail View Post
    It was literally defined with the most explicit language possible in WoW's supporting material from the very start of the game as the class that is made unique by its mastery of ranged weapons.

    You might live in a fantasy universe where this isn't the case but we've already established that your opinions are delusional so that's no surprise.

    P.S. "using what's available to hunt" specifically precludes the notion of not being able to operate at full effectiveness with a ranged weapon so grats on that self own.

    You try to diminish the opinions of people who hate melee SV here but they are far more valid and legitimate than whatever you regurgitate onto these boards. People came to the Hunter class expecting ranged combat and over a decade into the game's lifespan a bunch of newer, egotistical, unskilled developers decided they would take out a ranged spec from under us and replace it with an Arms Warrior ripoff. Hunters aren't stupid or afraid of change for not being on board with that and they are fully in the right to oppose it. I know it's had to perceive when you are so infatuated with melee gameplay that you can't possibly see ranged players as equals but you have to put in some effort to overcome your personal flaws here.

    You have to love the mental gymnastics here. "Melee survival taking away the ranged Survival playstyle isn't a reason to hate melee Survival!". Um, yes, actually, it is a completely valid reason. Melee Survival is the reason ranged Survival doesn't exist so melee Survival is the problem. It isn't up to Marksmanship to awkwardly juggle ranged Survival's mechanics and gameplay. Marksmanship is a different spec with a separate identity and gameplay style. Trying to offer ranged Survival's gameplay via MM was always a bad idea pushed forward by people who are so ignorant of ranged gameplay that they see all ranged specs as the same thing. I know you fit into that camp so I'll put it in terms a melee lover can understand: imagine if they went to Assassination Rogue and took away stealth and melee attacks in order to turn it into a half-assed Marksmanship ripoff because "Assassination is just Subtlety with poisons! Just put its current stuff in Subtlety and let that spec deal with the stealthy stuff! Rogues aren't defined around being stealthy dual-wielders, you know!".

    You'll never admit it out of pride and melee favouritism but Survival will always be the circus freak of WoW class design. Unless, of course, they own up to their mistakes and bring back ranged Survival. Then we can all forget this failed experiment and move on. But we know that the class developers are just as proud as they are bad at their jobs so they'll never backtrack on something like that.
    Jesus Christ there's a lot of sad aggression in this post. Given how much you obsess about this, I'm sure you're aware that Survival was initially a melee spec, and even after being changed, it was still intended to be versatile and use both melee and range. Didn't last past Vanilla, but that doesn't change the fact.

    What your post basically boils down to is "I shout louder so I'm right, and you're mean for saying otherwise". Lots of assumptions to justify your obsessive aggression. Melee lover? Pride? Lol ok. Ranged Assassination sounds great, and I was definitely on board with the theorizing around a Rogue spec becoming medium range when the reworks were happening in Legion.

    The bolded part is especially hilarious (really, most of the post is hilarious, mostly for the internet tough guy act you so heavily smear on). Your opinion is valid because it's your opinion and because "Hunter was always ranged!!!". Quite sad, but we all have to be driven by something, hey?

  8. #268
    Quote Originally Posted by FpicEail View Post
    You can, actually. People love to hide behind the "my opinion!" shield all day but opinions can in fact be delusional. For example, if someone has the opinion that the sky is purple, they are delusional. In this case, if someone said Hunters should have always been more about melee and ranged when it was the class defined around ranged combat and the only vector of meaningful ranged weapon combat in this game then they are in fact delusional and so infatuated with melee they should be sticking to something they know like Warrior or Rogue.
    I agree, your opinion cannot dispute a fact. But saying "In my opinion the sky is purple" is not the same as saying "In my opinion Survival was a good rework" because the latter doesn't depend on a fact. Now if he had said "In my opinion most people think Survival was a good rework" then you could call him delusional.

  9. #269
    Bloodsail Admiral Pigglix's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Somewhere Far Far Away
    Posts
    1,026
    Nay, to me surv is one of the most enjoyable melee specs. Now if i only could dual wield as well, as long with the dark skin tone and white hair... could go full drizzt..because screw rexxar xD.

  10. #270
    Quote Originally Posted by FpicEail View Post
    It was actually the highest DPS Hunter spec during Uldir and it was still underplayed. People who are new to the class also tend to pick BM/MM. This isn't just a numbers problem or an adjustment to change problem. We are far too long into melee Survival for these weak excuses to still work.

    The fact of the matter is the spec both fails to appeal to the people who currently play the class, people who may reroll from other classes, or people who are new to the game. Sure, it pulls in some small amount from those groups, but nowhere near what it needs to.

    For reference, when Explosive Shot and Lock and Load were added to the spec in 3.0 it became a popular spec immediately. It did not take favourable damage tuning and years of player adjustment to gain new players. The players came right away.



    You can, actually. People love to hide behind the "my opinion!" shield all day but opinions can in fact be delusional. For example, if someone has the opinion that the sky is purple, they are delusional. In this case, if someone said Hunters should have always been more about melee and ranged when it was the class defined around ranged combat and the only vector of meaningful ranged weapon combat in this game then they are in fact delusional and so infatuated with melee they should be sticking to something they know like Warrior or Rogue.



    It's a melee DPS with ranged capability. That is not unique in WoW. Unholy and Outlaw are both marketed with those terms. Unholy even has a pet so it's not even unique in that respect. There's also the fact that it borrows a significant amount of its toolkit and identity from BM.

    They managed to take a popular ranged spec and turn it into one of the game's most reviled melee specs. Spin it all you want, but it's a failed rework.



    When the spec used to be very popular and then after a rework it is permanently unpopular, it kind of is proof that it was a bad rework. Most of the time when something is popular, undergoes a major change, then becomes unpopular, people consider that to be a failure. People just like to spin-doctor that away when it comes to Survival due to personal biases. But ultimately they spent a bunch of work in remaking a spec only to drive away most of its playerbase and keep it as the "unpopular joke spec that needs attention" for years on end.



    I know it's fun to shit on Hunters all day for being unskilled and lazy, but the fact of the matter is a) the class is not out of line with the amount of skill required for most other specs (and if you disagree, feel free to refer to any iteration of Arcane Mage for reference) and b) people arent stupid noobs for wanting to use ranged weapons.

    It also seems like you're stuck in Legion where Survival actually had a ton of discordant mechanics that were difficult to manage. This isn't Legion and Survival is significantly streamlined to the point where it really isn't that far out of line compared to the other specs. It's just as simple as them unless you take specific builds to add complexity which is also something you can do with the others.



    It was literally defined with the most explicit language possible in WoW's supporting material from the very start of the game as the class that is made unique by its mastery of ranged weapons.



    You might live in a fantasy universe where this isn't the case but we've already established that your opinions are delusional so that's no surprise.

    P.S. "using what's available to hunt" specifically precludes the notion of not being able to operate at full effectiveness with a ranged weapon so grats on that self own.



    You try to diminish the opinions of people who hate melee SV here but they are far more valid and legitimate than whatever you regurgitate onto these boards. People came to the Hunter class expecting ranged combat and over a decade into the game's lifespan a bunch of newer, egotistical, unskilled developers decided they would take out a ranged spec from under us and replace it with an Arms Warrior ripoff. Hunters aren't stupid or afraid of change for not being on board with that and they are fully in the right to oppose it. I know it's had to perceive when you are so infatuated with melee gameplay that you can't possibly see ranged players as equals but you have to put in some effort to overcome your personal flaws here.

    You have to love the mental gymnastics here. "Melee survival taking away the ranged Survival playstyle isn't a reason to hate melee Survival!". Um, yes, actually, it is a completely valid reason. Melee Survival is the reason ranged Survival doesn't exist so melee Survival is the problem. It isn't up to Marksmanship to awkwardly juggle ranged Survival's mechanics and gameplay. Marksmanship is a different spec with a separate identity and gameplay style. Trying to offer ranged Survival's gameplay via MM was always a bad idea pushed forward by people who are so ignorant of ranged gameplay that they see all ranged specs as the same thing. I know you fit into that camp so I'll put it in terms a melee lover can understand: imagine if they went to Assassination Rogue and took away stealth and melee attacks in order to turn it into a half-assed Marksmanship ripoff because "Assassination is just Subtlety with poisons! Just put its current stuff in Subtlety and let that spec deal with the stealthy stuff! Rogues aren't defined around being stealthy dual-wielders, you know!".



    You'll never admit it out of pride and melee favouritism but Survival will always be the circus freak of WoW class design. Unless, of course, they own up to their mistakes and bring back ranged Survival. Then we can all forget this failed experiment and move on. But we know that the class developers are just as proud as they are bad at their jobs so they'll never backtrack on something like that.
    1st part of your post has been addressed multiple times: melee dps spots are at a premium. It’s hard to justify bringing one over another when it provides no utility bonus to the raid by being there while also not providing competitive damage against other melee that are easier to play.

    2nd part of your post: stating “the sky is purple,” is not a statement of an opinion. It’s a statement that is a lie or, as you put it, delusion. You can’t have an opinion stated as objective truth. An opinion would be “I think the sky would look better purple,” or “I think blue should be called purple instead.” Stating “the sky is purple,” is a statement that someone is trying to pass off as fact, and that’s why it is wrong. It’s not stated as opinion.

    3rd point: I won’t argue it’s a failed rework. It’s unpopular, for sure, but unpopular doesn’t mean it’s failed unless you are talking about a popularity contest. Sure, Rogue and DK have some range abilities to them, but so do Paladin and Warrior. SV is slightly different in that almost all of its abilities can be used from range and even have a CD to make all abilities used from range. It’s slightly more range adept than all other melee. As far as having a significant amount of its toolkit borrowed from BM, have you even played the spec? It has 1 shared baseline ability.

    Your 4th point: again, comes down to popularity. It’s a working spec that can compete in current content. By that metric it’s a success since it’s a workable spec. As far as popularity goes it has lost in that department. It also still bears the stigma of “why play melee when you have range secs?” This topic always makes me chuckle because Druids are never asked this or even considered to be asked that. The same with “why play melee dps when you could play tank.”

    5th point: agreed that Hunter is easy and not that far out of line of others. There is a certain amount of skill that determines min/max with timing things like BS usage. To state that it’s just as easy to min/max with SV vs BM, or even min/max MM vs BM is slightly different and much easier to screw up.

    6th point: yep. In arguing the persons post about the original definition of Hunter you are correct. However, it doesn’t state “solely ranged attacks,” but “primarily.” In today’s context, these are also old definitions and the class has changed over time.

    7th point: you are arguing whose opinion is more valid, which you can’t do. Opinions are all equally valid. You also attempt to speak for everyone. I, personally, didn’t come to Hunter to play rdps. I picked Hunter because I like the theme of them and the ability to play with a pet. Being rdps meant nothing to me as I didn’t care. Possibly one of the reasons I didn’t care as much about SV becoming melee.
    You then say it’s an Arms Warrior ripoff. When did Arms throw bombs, shoot poison tipped arrows, or attack with a pet?
    I agree with your last part up until you compare Rogue specs. Rogues were actually in the same camp as Hunters in that most of their specs were completely interchangeable gameplay wise, but with the reworks they went thru don’t play the same.

    8th point: I love how when someone doesn’t conform to your ideas you now use the buzz phrase “melee favoritism.” Hell, you even accused me of it at one point even though I stated I loved range SV and would have preferred Blizzard to just add a 4th spec for melee. SV, as I’ve stated many times in the past, also has this stigma to it brought on by others which started before the spec was even changed on live. There were guild leaders threatening to bench their players if they played the spec as well as jokes and memes before it even made it out of Beta. As I stated earlier, I find it funny that no other class has gone thru this as Druids also have a range vsmelee dynamic.

  11. #271
    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    3rd point: I won’t argue it’s a failed rework. It’s unpopular, for sure, but unpopular doesn’t mean it’s failed unless you are talking about a popularity contest. Sure, Rogue and DK have some range abilities to them, but so do Paladin and Warrior. SV is slightly different in that almost all of its abilities can be used from range and even have a CD to make all abilities used from range. It’s slightly more range adept than all other melee. As far as having a significant amount of its toolkit borrowed from BM, have you even played the spec? It has 1 shared baseline ability.

    Your 4th point: again, comes down to popularity. It’s a working spec that can compete in current content. By that metric it’s a success since it’s a workable spec. As far as popularity goes it has lost in that department. It also still bears the stigma of “why play melee when you have range secs?” This topic always makes me chuckle because Druids are never asked this or even considered to be asked that. The same with “why play melee dps when you could play tank.”
    The main problem (in my eyes) with the viability of Survival is the lack of defensives. Considering it being a melee spec it should have a defensive toolkit comparable to Rogues. But it doesn't. It got the same defensive toolkit as a BM hunter which is completely ridiculous considering it's much much much easier to dodge mechanics on a BM hunter than a melee spec. In M+ most significant trash mechanics happens in melee range, so by default melee specs should have the strongest defensive toolkit. But Survival for some reason doesn't have that. It's pretty ironic that a melee spec called "survival" has one of the worst levels of survival in the game.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by FpicEail View Post
    I know it's fun to shit on Hunters all day for being unskilled and lazy, but the fact of the matter is a) the class is not out of line with the amount of skill required for most other specs (and if you disagree, feel free to refer to any iteration of Arcane Mage for reference) and b) people arent stupid noobs for wanting to use ranged weapons.
    Hunter requires a lot less effort to play in dungeons and raids than any other class. If you go into a +25 dungeon you will have a much much easier time playing a BM hunter than an Arcane mage. It's much easier top adapt to different scenarios and to do consistent damage while avoid damage and doing mechanics. That's just a fact. I think you need to try and play some other classes than Hunter just once in a while to get a reality check.

    Looking at the rotation on a training dummy doesn't represent how much effort it takes to play a class in competitive content. If you look at: "How much effort does it take to do consistent competitive damage while doing mechanics and surviving in end-game content", then no other class comes close to the hunter in general.

  12. #272
    if you want to look at some bad "class" revamps there aren't any.
    now, if you want to look at some bad specialization revamps, there's plenty.

    from titan grip fury warrior to "outlaw" rogue, from the constant back and forth between 2-H Frost DK and Dual wield Frost DK. there's plenty of muddied attempts at reinventing certain specializations.

    the survival hunter change from a ranged marksmanship clone with a tad more mobility to a melee spec. is one of the better revamps/redesigns they've done.
    "but it doesn't fit in with the class lore, they're hunters. they NEED to use ranged weapons." yeah, by that definition shadow priests shouldn't exist, rogues should only ever use daggers and any hybrid class is considered blasphemy and needs to be euthanized on the spot.

    the old survival spec was wack, all over the place with way to many bells and whistles that didn't mesh with each other in any way shape or form.
    sure, in it's current form it's not perfect. no class/spec is. but it sure as hell has more cohesion than explosive shot and wyvern sting ever had.
    and although the old survival was FotM at one point, that's the only time it was widely played in the first place, because it was actually good/strong.
    so unless there's any die-hard old school survival hunter lovers out there that would want to weigh in, the survival hunter revamp is not the worst spec revamp ever made.

  13. #273
    Quote Originally Posted by Short View Post
    the old survival spec was wack, all over the place with way to many bells and whistles that didn't mesh with each other in any way shape or form.
    sure, in it's current form it's not perfect. no class/spec is. but it sure as hell has more cohesion than explosive shot and wyvern sting ever had.
    and although the old survival was FotM at one point, that's the only time it was widely played in the first place, because it was actually good/strong.
    so unless there's any die-hard old school survival hunter lovers out there that would want to weigh in, the survival hunter revamp is not the worst spec revamp ever made.
    SV was competative or the best spec in 4.0, 4.3, used in all tiers of mop to some extent (5.0, 5.2, 5.4) and obviously 6.1. During BRF survival wasn't even the best hunter spec and yet ''widely'' played. Major misinformation right there.

  14. #274
    Brewmaster Neotokyo's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    in Limbo... damn the Wi-fi is expensive here...
    Posts
    1,351
    Agreed, didn't like what they did to Survival. Would like a Hunter Tank spec with pets. I recon that could be fun.

  15. #275
    WOD Survival hunter was the smothest dps spec ive ever tried. Since you were focus starved and one of your priority spells explosive shot had 2 charges it was possible to do a perfect rotation if you managed your focus. With todays specs you are often gcd capped and with procs you get 2 or more things you want to press at the same time forcing you to delay one which to me feels bad.

  16. #276
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaver View Post
    The main problem (in my eyes) with the viability of Survival is the lack of defensives. Considering it being a melee spec it should have a defensive toolkit comparable to Rogues. But it doesn't. It got the same defensive toolkit as a BM hunter which is completely ridiculous considering it's much much much easier to dodge mechanics on a BM hunter than a melee spec. In M+ most significant trash mechanics happens in melee range, so by default melee specs should have the strongest defensive toolkit. But Survival for some reason doesn't have that. It's pretty ironic that a melee spec called "survival" has one of the worst levels of survival in the game.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Hunter requires a lot less effort to play in dungeons and raids than any other class. If you go into a +25 dungeon you will have a much much easier time playing a BM hunter than an Arcane mage. It's much easier top adapt to different scenarios and to do consistent damage while avoid damage and doing mechanics. That's just a fact. I think you need to try and play some other classes than Hunter just once in a while to get a reality check.

    Looking at the rotation on a training dummy doesn't represent how much effort it takes to play a class in competitive content. If you look at: "How much effort does it take to do consistent competitive damage while doing mechanics and surviving in end-game content", then no other class comes close to the hunter in general.
    Yes and no. Don’t misunderstand, the defensive aspect can use some work, but overall they aren’t much worse off then a Warrior or a Paladin. The biggest difference is the utility and AoE aspect. Most melee bring differing forms of crowd control, such as an AoE stun, or even a stun that can be damaged thru (Rogue/Paladin) as well as utility like increased damage taken (DH/Monk), while also bringing high AoE burst potential and decent sustain damage. Some even bring utility for the groups survival, such as Darkness from DH, or Shout from a Warrior, or even the majorly beneficial AoE stealth from Rogues. Hell, a Hunter can’t even trap anything for a skip anymore because if someone gets too close it pulls. Even a Hunter’s Tar Trap has a small radius and is useless once mobs run out of it, vs something like a Mage or Rogue.
    The worst part about all of this is Blizzard is probably in a bind on how to change that. Giving SV things that BM/MM don’t have brings up situations to really upset the Hunter playerbase and community overall.
    I’m just replying to your response to me, not the one you responded to Fpic about.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Donkeywing View Post
    SV was competative or the best spec in 4.0, 4.3, used in all tiers of mop to some extent (5.0, 5.2, 5.4) and obviously 6.1. During BRF survival wasn't even the best hunter spec and yet ''widely'' played. Major misinformation right there.
    Where are people getting this information that it was widely played? Can’t find a number of parses looking at World of Logs, and Warcraftlogs shows a difference of 42k vs 7k, which I wouldn’t say was widely played. Not trying to say you’re wrong, just wondering where people are getting the numbers from for representation .

  17. #277
    No. Survival is super fun, they just need to fix some talents but other than that it's a great spec.

    The worst class revamp goes to Spriest Voidform.
    change can't wait.

  18. #278
    Why does surv suck? Hunters were always a ranged class with melee and traps as utility. Now all of a sudden they have a melee spec and magically learned about grenades and hand crossbows. Also every other hunter spec forgot how useful a melee weapon can be. What fun. To me Surv is an example of how pigheaded and arrogant blizzard has gotten over the years produced rolled up into a spec. It basically says, hey we know better than you and you are going to take this new melee spec because its what you want and we know best get fucked. The stupid part is that a lot of what is built into the surv spec could have been an amazing basis for a brand new class. A melee/ranged hybrid class the focuses on using melee, short ranged weapons, grenades and traps to overcome their opponents. Sounds great. Now why did you force your new class idea on my hunter? Instead of developing surv more we got a fever dream for a spec, that's actually closer to a class all by itself.
    Last edited by Carni; 2020-11-15 at 02:04 PM.

  19. #279
    Surv will suffer as long as current BM exists. BM is basically a 40 yard melee since it has 0 cast times and doesn't take up melee spots.

  20. #280
    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    Where are people getting this information that it was widely played? Can’t find a number of parses looking at World of Logs, and Warcraftlogs shows a difference of 42k vs 7k, which I wouldn’t say was widely played. Not trying to say you’re wrong, just wondering where people are getting the numbers from for representation .
    Memory mostly, total log numbers dont say much as things changed a lot during a single patch(in 5.4.2 for example sv could no longer be considered competative if I'm not mistaken). In any case I just copied the term ''widely played'' from the previous person, its a vague term at best and its why I put it in quotations marks in my previous post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •