Survival revamp inevitable?

[NutellaCrepe]

As much as you have heard of an actual argument to use.

But sure, keep using hyperboles to get your non-existent point across, I'm sure Blizzard will do something with Survival because of it.

Agreed. There is nothing in Bepple's screeching, novel-length posts that comes even remotely close to a valid point. 90% ad hominem, 10% "i miss the old ranged suuuuurv."

[dewd]

im just sad that ever the game released every addition to the game was not only a melee class but also they turned a ranged into another melee spec. but whats the point by now? in shadowlands, except for black arrow, marksman got everything survival had pre legion. explosive shot was the only thing everyone liked about survival anyway and if it means so much to to anyone they can spec into it

[SynDethroc]

The most necessary change: let us dual wield!

[Bepples]

As much as you have heard of an actual argument to use.

You either just said you've never heard of a hyperbole before or that I have heard of actual arguments to use. Which is it?

But sure, keep using hyperboles to get your non-existent point across, I'm sure Blizzard will do something with Survival because of it.

This isn't even a Blizzard forum so what a pointless post this was.

"I am an ele shaman. I play ele because I want to be a ranged shaman. If I wanted to play melee I'd play the melee classes. Therefore change enhance to range for my personal preference."

Enhancement has been melee since the beginning and is in a class that isn't rooted in ranged combat via use of a ranged weapon. Hunters are defined around a ranged weapon and Survival used to be a ranged spec. So this is an exceptionally bad argument. It's even worse when you note that Enhancement has significant issues being a compelling option v.s. Elemental throughout WoW's history and that's just one ranged spec in the same class; Survival has two.

Flawed logic, like all your post in this thread.

Survival used to be a popular spec, then it was made melee, and then forever after it has been an unpopular spec. What's flawed about that? That's just common sense.

1) if survival had better numbers than MM and BM, they would be played more.

There have been times when its tuning was very strong and it was still barely played.

2) survival had one of the highest skill ceiling by a long shot

It really doesn't. This isn't Legion. Survival has been heavily streamlined. The involvement in that spec is not significantly higher than MM and that spec is currently the most popular in raiding. This is purely just Survival Hunters wanting to feel better about themselves so they play up the amount of skill it requires.

Some people do like being able to switch to melee while playing a hunter. Some people might just want a complicated melee class that's not face roll and over represented. Why are you campaigning so hard to take that away from them?

...because you guys took it from us first. What a breathtakingly tone-deaf post.

You could apply that sentiment to any 'hyrbid' class. Regarding shaman "If I wanted to play a melee spec I would play [Insert pure melee here] or If I wanted to play a caster I would play [Insert pure caster here]". Could apply that same logic to your idea of making surv a tank spec too. "If I wanted to tank I would play etc etc etc."

See above.

• Hunters are heavily anchored in ranged combat due to the ranged weapon. Shamans aren't.
• Survival was hastily reworked into a melee spec 12 years after launch. Enhancement has been an established melee spec since the beginning.
• Enhancement always has a lot of trouble being a compelling option due to being melee... and that's against just one other ranged DPS spec.

allowing those hunters who want to occasionally melee without changing classes the option is a good idea imo.

Does your opinion account for the fact that the Venn diagram overlap of people who like Hunters and people who like melee is microscopic? How do you come to the conclusion that it's a good idea to devote an entire third of one of the most popular classes in the game to such a fringe niche concept, especially as a replacement to an existing widely-enjoyed spec?

The fantasy trope of a melee character who attacks in tandem with an animal companion is nothing new, and I think it has a place in wow.

We already have a pet companionship spec: BM. We do not need ranged BM and melee BM. If people want a melee BM (which hardly anyone wants to begin with) they should make a talented option within BM and let SV focus on something useful and compelling. Wasn't the whole point of making it melee in the first place because Blizzard thought ranged SV had too much overlap with the other specs? That was clearly a farce, then.

whatever the spec needs.

The spec needs to be ranged, period. We are too far into melee Survival's unbroken history of abandonment and failure to continue pretending this is a good idea that should continue into the future.

Because your reason is literally retarded.

Oh, really? Which part was incorrect or "retarded" as you put it? The part where ranged SV was a popular option? The part where Blizzard removed that in favour of melee SV which has never been a popular option? The part where Blizzard openly stated that they didn't expect Hunters to like melee Survival and aimed it towards new players and rerolls? Which one of those, in your eyes, is an incorrect statement that you can disprove?

I'm someone who hates melee Survival. Those reasons are why I hate it. You're wondering why people hate melee Survival. How about you pipe down and listen to what we have to say about it instead of making blanket assumptions as to why we feel the way we do and then lashing out and calling us retarded when we say your assumptions are inaccurate?

You still have 2 other ranged specs that have actual identity, compared to SV just being a knockoff MM when it was ranged.

Oh, good. Another non-Hunter declaring "they all used a ranged weapon so they must be the same thing hurrrrrrr durrrrrr". Do you also think Arms and Fury warrior are the same thing because they both angrily swing sticks around? Or all 3 Rogue specs are the same because they all stealth and dual-wield? Or all 3 Warlock specs are the same because they all use fel magic and demons? Or is this a double-standard that applies exclusively to Hunters like it always is with you people?

Agreed. There is nothing in Bepple's screeching, novel-length posts that comes even remotely close to a valid point. 90% ad hominem, 10% "i miss the old ranged suuuuurv."

Yeah? Can you point out anything I said that's actually wrong or are you just going to throw out passive-agressive, immature BS like this?

Let's start with something simple. Survival was once a ranged spec, Blizzard remade it for a different audience, so the original audience is mad about it and wants it changed back. Is that an invalid point?

[NutellaCrepes]

*Reeee snip*

Long rant, once again, with no real point and exclusively ad hominem attacks. If the fact that one of 3 hunter spec is melee is that much of a trigger to you, maybe you should take a break from the game and re-evaluate what's important in your life. We can practically hear you running out of breath as you furiously type your outraged manifesto posts.

I loved the old SV, but they could honestly tweak MM to give it black arrow as a talent option and give it the exact same mechanic that it had, especially with legendary options now. You don't have to screech and demand that an existing spec be taken away.

[bloodmoth13]

Marksman and beast master are the only archer specs in the game. Archers are a major part of fantasy worlds, so inevitably the ranged specs are incredibly popular.
Frankly i think we need more ranged specs, rogue dont need 3 melee specs one could be ranged but thats me.
Its just hard to justify playing survival when the ranged specs do what survival does better, at range and safer. Hunter specs are basically melee specs with infinite range.

[lagiacrux]

survival is a fun and interesting melee spec that is held back by 2 (main) factors
- the numbers are low
- its a spec in the hunter class

[Spikeychris]

Survival spec adds a bit of flavour. Now it's not hugely popular but it is there for the people who want it and that is fine imo. It was always a weird one you have MM for hard hitting ranged shots, BM for more pet themed and survival for??? traps???

[Beatman]

? Survival is fine. I played survival in BfA and have recently started to play it again in Shadowlands. I think more people would play it if they fleshed out the spec fantasy some more and allowed survival hunters to wield two 1-handed weapons.

Personally, I would like to see more player-pet interaction and overall less ranged abilities. Also, Mongoose Bite should be baseline in my opinion because it offers a playstyle unique to survival.

[keyone01]

? Survival is fine. I played survival in BfA and have recently started to play it again in Shadowlands. I think more people would play it if they fleshed out the spec fantasy some more and allowed survival hunters to wield two 1-handed weapons.

Personally, I would like to see more player-pet interaction and overall less ranged abilities. Also, Mongoose Bite should be baseline in my opinion because it offers a playstyle unique to survival.

> think msv is fine
> wants more fleshed out spec fantasy
> propose more pet interaction
> one of the other hunter spec is called beast master btw
> "but BM is ranged it's totally different man, you don't understand"

At least try when choosing spec fantasy argument again, hint for you - rsv had actually distinct one compared to wannabe melee bm throwing grenades in his face.

[Rucati]

Oh, good. Another non-Hunter declaring "they all used a ranged weapon so they must be the same thing hurrrrrrr durrrrrr". Do you also think Arms and Fury warrior are the same thing because they both angrily swing sticks around? Or all 3 Rogue specs are the same because they all stealth and dual-wield? Or all 3 Warlock specs are the same because they all use fel magic and demons? Or is this a double-standard that applies exclusively to Hunters like it always is with you people?

I've mained Hunter since vanilla.

Literally all you do in all your responses is make wild assumptions.

SV was a garbage spec which is why it got redesigned in the first place. The new spec is far more interesting and engaging than the previous spec. If it's too difficult you can still play BM which requires less brain cells than walking, or MM which is also relatively interesting but really straight forward.

Hunters have had melee abilities since vanilla, having a spec that utilizes melee half the time actually makes perfect sense with the class and I'm kind of surprised it wasn't added to the game earlier.

[Bepples]

Long rant, once again, with no real point and exclusively ad hominem attacks.

Since you opted to ignore what I posted and declare it to be ad hominem, I'll just post it again until you acknowledge it:

Survival was once a ranged spec, Blizzard remade it for a different audience, so the original audience is mad about it and wants it changed back. Is that an invalid point?

I loved the old SV, but they could honestly tweak MM to give it black arrow as a talent option and give it the exact same mechanic that it had, especially with legendary options now.

Uh, no. You can't. There's no way with the current MM to replicate the old SV identity and playstyle. Not even close. You would know this if you knew anything about this class, which you clearly don't.

You don't have to screech and demand that an existing spec be taken away.

The couple dozen of melee Hunter fanatics could have gotten their fix by having a talented melee stance within BM, but they sure as hell didn't have a problem with Blizzard taking an entire ranged spec away just to make it happen. So why should they be offered a level of respect they wouldn't give to others?

Survival spec adds a bit of flavour. Now it's not hugely popular but it is there for the people who want it and that is fine imo. It was always a weird one you have MM for hard hitting ranged shots, BM for more pet themed and survival for??? traps???

Survival was the utilitarian exotic munitions spec. It worked fine that way for almost a decade and was very popular. Usually when a popular playable class in a game is changed in a way that drives away most of the playerbase we don't just throw our hands in the air and say "oh well, it's just not for everyone and that's fine!"; we declare the change a failure and go back to what worked.

? Survival is fine. I played survival in BfA and have recently started to play it again in Shadowlands. I think more people would play it if they fleshed out the spec fantasy some more and allowed survival hunters to wield two 1-handed weapons.

Survival is clearly not fine when it's consistently reviled by the playerbase and in a mostly abandoned state. Thinking that dual wielding will somehow cause everyone to flock to the spec is delusional. There is no amount of polish that can be applied to melee Survival that will save it. It's a fundamentally flawed concept.

I've mained Hunter since vanilla.

Doubt it.

SV was a garbage spec which is why it got redesigned in the first place. The new spec is far more interesting and engaging than the previous spec.

In Blackrock Foundry in 2015, the last time Survival saw any notable raid representation whatsoever, the spec was seeing about 2k parses a day at its peak early in the tier. Right now in Castle Nathria at its height SV pulled in about 200 parses a day. Literally 90% less played, but sure: the ranged version was the garbage one. LOL. How out of it can you be?

There's a reason several WoW youtubers including Bellular and Mikepreachwow are saying Survival should go back to being ranged, you know. I mean, how shit must the current Survival be if half the discussion about it is about reverting it to an iteration that was removed 5 years ago?

If it's too difficult you can still play BM which requires less brain cells than walking, or MM which is also relatively interesting but really straight forward.

There you are again, playing up the difficulty of Survival. How insecure about your own intelligence must you be to tout your WoW spec of choice like this?

Hunters have had melee abilities since vanilla, having a spec that utilizes melee half the time actually makes perfect sense with the class and I'm kind of surprised it wasn't added to the game earlier.

Hunters had ranged weapons since Vanilla. Having a Hunter spec without one is not only moronic but also totally lacking in precedent. The melee abilities of Classic were situational, while the current Survival must stick to melee range to reach its full damage potential. It does NOT make sense to predicate a spec on taking away from the base class.

Finally, let's not forget how this line of the discussion started: you played dumb about the reason people hate Survival; you in fact knew exactly why, you just rejected it because you personally like Survival. Are you always this self-centred?

[threads]

anyone who thinks MM and range SV were the same, yet SV literally has kill command and a bestial wrath rip off and is totally unique, is retarded.

[Rucati]

Doubt it.



In Blackrock Foundry in 2015, the last time Survival saw any notable raid representation whatsoever, the spec was seeing about 2k parses a day at its peak early in the tier. Right now in Castle Nathria at its height SV pulled in about 200 parses a day. Literally 90% less played, but sure: the ranged version was the garbage one. LOL. How out of it can you be?

There's a reason several WoW youtubers including Bellular and Mikepreachwow are saying Survival should go back to being ranged, you know. I mean, how shit must the current Survival be if half the discussion about it is about reverting it to an iteration that was removed 5 years ago?



There you are again, playing up the difficulty of Survival. How insecure about your own intelligence must you be to tout your WoW spec of choice like this?



Hunters had ranged weapons since Vanilla. Having a Hunter spec without one is not only moronic but also totally lacking in precedent. The melee abilities of Classic were situational, while the current Survival must stick to melee range to reach its full damage potential. It does NOT make sense to predicate a spec on taking away from the base class.

Finally, let's not forget how this line of the discussion started: you played dumb about the reason people hate Survival; you in fact knew exactly why, you just rejected it because you personally like Survival. Are you always this self-centred?

I don't really care if you doubt me, tbh, I still have Rhok'delar in my bank from then.

Did you know that raid representation is 99% about which spec is stronger and 1% about which is more fun? SV had 2k parses a day because it did more damage, not because people liked it more. Please use your brain.

But I see you're a Bellular fan, so honestly you aren't worth talking to. Anyone that can stand listening to that clown for more than 5 seconds has to be under 13 years old.

All you seem to do is talk about your own opinion and represent it as fact. Which is fitting given that you continually act like a child.

[Beatman]

> think msv is fine
> wants more fleshed out spec fantasy
> propose more pet interaction
> one of the other hunter spec is called beast master btw
> "but BM is ranged it's totally different man, you don't understand"

At least try when choosing spec fantasy argument again, hint for you - rsv had actually distinct one compared to wannabe melee bm throwing grenades in his face.

You must be fun at parties. Also, why bring rsurvival up after all these years. It's gone - deal with it.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no amount of polish that can be applied to melee Survival that will save it. It's a fundamentally flawed concept.

That's a completely baseless statement. Tbh, you sound like a salty rsurvival enthusiast who can't let go. Sorry.

[renatompassos]

Flawed logic, like all your post in this thread.

1) if survival had better numbers than MM and BM, they would be played more.
2) survival had one of the highest skill ceiling by a long shot, most people can't switch to it and do well like they can with the simple MM and BM rotation, so they don't. Even if their numbers were on par, the rotation is too complicated for the average player and they may not pull the same numbers as a result. It's not because the spec is too hard for you that it is flawed by design. Some people enjoy the challenge and survival provides that for them.

Some people do like being able to switch to melee while playing a hunter. Some people might just want a complicated melee class that's not face roll and over represented. Why are you campaigning so hard to take that away from them?

No it’s not flawed. Better numbers or not, it will still be under-represented because it’s not what hunters signed up for. It’s really that simple. Why do you think BM is still heavily played despite being bottom of the barrel in dps? Most hunters don’t even try Survival, that’s how stupid and failed the idea was. Do you even play hunter? I bet not.

Thanks Bepples for elaborating flawlessly on the topic. Now let ‘s hope for 10.0

[A Chozo]

No it’s not flawed. Better numbers or not, it will still be under-represented because it’s not what hunters signed up for. It’s really that simple. Why do you think BM is still heavily played despite being bottom of the barrel in dps? Most hunters don’t even try Survival, that’s how stupid and failed the idea was. Do you even play hunter? I bet not.

Yes, it's flawed. It's currently under-represented because the game favors ranged currently and the other specs deal more damage in the "meta". Lots of hunters signed for Survival spec - which is why it has a small but relevant population.

People who want old Survival can simply go play MM or BM because it's the same shit - hence why we got current Survival.

The spec doesn't deserve to die because it's not the most popular Hunter spec. Old Survival deserved to be ended because it was just MM or BM again.

[Bepples]

Did you know that raid representation is 99% about which spec is stronger and 1% about which is more fun? SV had 2k parses a day because it did more damage, not because people liked it more. Please use your brain.

Ok, let's look to BM: the other weak Hunter spec right now. Its single target is barely better than SV's and its AoE is worse, if anything. BM is continually gaining on daily parses and has reached 1k parses a day. Like I said, Survival got around 200 parses a day and has in fact dropped since then. It actually got 200 parses in the last week. Let's also not forget Uldir where SV was actually doing more damage than the other two but still remained deeply unpopular, or Siege of Orgrimmar when ranged Survival performed less than BM but had more representation.

So clearly it's not just a numbers thing. People hate Survival. You yourself admitted people hate it: you just think it's because Hunters are all dumb and you're blessed with the divine intelligence required to play Survival.

But I see you're a Bellular fan, so honestly you aren't worth talking to. Anyone that can stand listening to that clown for more than 5 seconds has to be under 13 years old.

No, I just keep track of what famous WoW personalities are saying about the spec. Bellular, Kelani, Mikepreachwow, and Limit Maximum have all talked about how melee Survival has floundered due to being melee. The first two are particularly relevant because they were Hunter mains. Unlike you, I like to get a reading of what the general community thinks on the issue.

All you seem to do is talk about your own opinion and represent it as fact. Which is fitting given that you continually act like a child.

You're the one and lashed out and called my reasoning (that Hunters by and large want ranged gameplay and therefore don't want melee Survival) was retarded, so maybe you should stop being such a hypocrite.

You must be fun at parties. Also, why bring rsurvival up after all these years. It's gone - deal with it.

We bring up ranged Survival because it was a solid spec and melee Survival has been a resounding failure. Look at all you Survival fanatics desperately coming up with all sorts of creative excuses as to how the deeply unpopular melee Survival is better than the widely enjoyed ranged Survival.

That's a completely baseless statement. Tbh, you sound like a salty rsurvival enthusiast who can't let go. Sorry.

Completely baseless? How about the unbroken 5 years of Survival floundering in obscurity since it was made melee, including a second enormous remake that streamlined and improved it? Think before you post, please.

Yes, it's flawed. It's currently under-represented because the game favors ranged currently and the other specs deal more damage in the "meta". Lots of hunters signed for Survival spec - which is why it has a small but relevant population.

What you just mentioned are just two other factors in why it's unpopular -- one of them also being "it's melee" but for some reason you don't think it makes turning Survival melee a questionable decision. The fact of the matter is the spec is unpopular because it's melee. That's not flawed logic. What is flawed logic is all the mental gymnastics of your side pretending that this spec, which provides enjoyment to nearly no one, is better than ranged Survival which was enjoyed by many.

People who want old Survival can simply go play MM or BM because it's the same shit - hence why we got current Survival.

The spec doesn't deserve to die because it's not the most popular Hunter spec. Old Survival deserved to be ended because it was just MM or BM again.

To people who do actually have a modicum of investment in the Hunter class, which you evidently don't, we don't declare the specs to be the same just because they used a ranged weapon. There's more to a spec than its weapon type and there are different ways of handling ranged weapon combat. Survival did it differently to MM (and certainly BM, which focused on the pet) and that's what made it valuable; it provided additional exploration and alternative gameplay for ranged weapons. We now have 2 ranged weapon specs in the game; one of them is built around the pet. If you seriously think a single ranged weapon spec is enough to represent all facets of ranged weapon combat but we needed a thirteenth melee weapon user, you're so hopelessly steeped in melee favouritism all of your posts are completely irrelevant and not worth consideration as anything beyond delusional ramblings.

Melee Survival deserves to die because it has no clear focus, provides enjoyment to nearly no one, and is a product of melee-favouring class design aimed at pleasing people who don't even play Hunters rather than Hunters first. Survival was a perfectly good and strong spec before Legion and since then it's been the circus freak of class design. Anyone with a single shred of objectivity would point out that it was a bad direction; you just don't have any objectivity.

[kliffharry]

Survival is absolutely killing it in higher m+ keys, not the strongest in ST but definitely not as bad as people make it out to be, and their consistent aoe dps throughout a dungeon is severly underrated.

[renatompassos]

Survival is absolutely killing it in higher m+ keys, not the strongest in ST but definitely not as bad as people make it out to be, and their consistent aoe dps throughout a dungeon is severly underrated.

And even if that’s true, you still won’t see them around because the vast majority of casual players have no interest to play melee hunter. Now imagine if they gave us the playerbase a new, interesting 3rd ranged spec (hell, just give it a new name! Remember what they did to Combat Rogue?) AND gave it good DPS. Then you’d see the whole class’ players at least try it.