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

[Bepples]

The problem with SV was it played the same as MM before it became melee. It had nothing defining the spec. It was a ranged dot spec that didn't make sense. Black Arrow? WTF. Blizz didn't know how to define it or make it different that MM or even BM.

It really wasn't the same as MM. That's a meme at this point. The only ability they shared was Multi-Shot. The tookit, pace, aesthetic, and identity of the two specs were as different as those of Affliction and Destruction, for many of the same reasons. One is the bursty, hard-casting, and hard-hitting spec while the other is a sustained damage DoT spec. That's a perfectly valid distinction between two specs of a pure DPS class. I mentioned Warlocks, but Mages also have a similar distinction between Fire and Arcane. The spec was defined by its faster pace and DoTting style. Identity-wise, it was the spec that enhanced the projectiles while MM focused on sniping. Notice how MM mostly lacked abilities like explosive/poisoned arrows?

This attitude that SV and MM were not distinct enough is built on an overly-strict standard on how different specs should be, as well as a double-standard specifically for Hunters. Firstly, specs are not meant to be totally distinct in the first place. That's something they pushed in Legion and it ultimately hurt class design; they even admit this now. Specs are part of a class so you can assume some aspects are shared. Not only is that fine, but it's actually good class design; it means there is a class identity that can be used as a foundation to build from. For Hunters that was the ranged weapon. I don't want to hear that apparently 3 ranged weapon specs are impossible to differentiate when we have 13 melee weapon users in the game, 3 of which are on one class (Rogue). If it's fine for them, it's fine for Hunters, period. Enough with the Hunter-only standards and rules.

It is true that Black Arrow was a stretch but it still fit under the umbrella of "augmented projectiles"; it was just shadow magic instead of explosives or poisons. They needed a ranged DoT that triggered Lock and Load (because relying on traps sucked), Black Arrow existed in WC3 and briefly on the WotLK beta as the level 80 Hunter spell, and was frankly a cool ability. If it was really a thematic problem the obvious solution was rebranding it while keeping the same effect. Look at Barbed Shot for BM; that used to be Dire Frenzy, but they found that BM needed more involvement with the ranged weapon. Instead of butchering/remaking the spec, they just renamed it to Barbed Shot and gave it a new icon and visual while essentially keeping the same effect. Do the same thing to Black Arrow. Make it "Charged Shot" or something; an electric shot is pretty unique and hasn't been done before and fits better alongside the other enhanced projectiles, so there you go. Problem solved.

I don't know why you mention BM. BM's identity is even more obviously different to both MM and SV. If Blizzard didn't know what to do with Hunters, that was new to Legion because before that Hunter development was just fine. Hire people who know what they are doing and listen to community feedback. The class shouldn't suffer just because of inexperienced/shit developers. SV was a fine spec when it was ranged. This "same as MM" meme is an invented issue, not a real one; it's mostly a weak retroactive justification of melee Survival and nothing more. There were several obvious avenues for Survival after WoD, like Black Arrow multidotting. Therefore, there was zero merit to making Survival melee.

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

All Hunter specs had to melee within 5 yards. It was a forced handicap of the class. Those talents were intended to make you less helpless in melee range. At no point was it intended for the Hunter to stick to melee range, period. Switching between them situationally is a nonsense idea that could never mechanically pan out no matter what they did.

[kasuke06]

why even fight about a specc you that was only "tolerable" to you? arent there any speccs/classes you actually enjoy?

and regarding your opinion about the spec ... there is "voicing strong dislike about something" and there is "manically shouting cursing and wishing harm on others" ... you just did the latter.

We're well past voicing dislike. if blizz EVER followed "voicing dislike" we wouldn't have two thirds of the shit wrong with BFA. Old surv was fun, now I can barely stomach playing hunter at all because some retard decided my spec needed a massive overhaul to be something totally and completely out of line with what it had ever been.

Maybe pull that blizz cock out of your throat for three seconds, the oxygen deprivation is starting to effect your capability for thought.

[nToxik]

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

That is incorrect. SV was mostly thought of as the 'PvP' spec back in vanilla and all those melee abilities you mention were intended for the hunter to get back to range.

It really wasn't the same as MM. That's a meme at this point. The only ability they shared was Multi-Shot. The tookit, pace, aesthetic, and identity of the two specs were as different as those of Affliction and Destruction, for many of the same reasons. One is the bursty, hard-casting, and hard-hitting spec while the other is a sustained damage DoT spec. That's a perfectly valid distinction between two specs of a pure DPS class. I mentioned Warlocks, but Mages also have a similar distinction between Fire and Arcane. The spec was defined by its faster pace and DoTting style. Identity-wise, it was the spec that enhanced the projectiles while MM focused on sniping. Notice how MM mostly lacked abilities like explosive/poisoned arrows?

This attitude that SV and MM were not distinct enough is built on an overly-strict standard on how different specs should be, as well as a double-standard specifically for Hunters. Firstly, specs are not meant to be totally distinct in the first place. That's something they pushed in Legion and it ultimately hurt class design; they even admit this now. Specs are part of a class so you can assume some aspects are shared. Not only is that fine, but it's actually good class design; it means there is a class identity that can be used as a foundation to build from. For Hunters that was the ranged weapon. I don't want to hear that apparently 3 ranged weapon specs are impossible to differentiate when we have 13 melee weapon users in the game, 3 of which are on one class (Rogue). If it's fine for them, it's fine for Hunters, period. Enough with the Hunter-only standards and rules.

It is true that Black Arrow was a stretch but it still fit under the umbrella of "augmented projectiles"; it was just shadow magic instead of explosives or poisons. They needed a ranged DoT that triggered Lock and Load (because relying on traps sucked), Black Arrow existed in WC3 and briefly on the WotLK beta as the level 80 Hunter spell, and was frankly a cool ability. If it was really a thematic problem the obvious solution was rebranding it while keeping the same effect. Look at Barbed Shot for BM; that used to be Dire Frenzy, but they found that BM needed more involvement with the ranged weapon. Instead of butchering/remaking the spec, they just renamed it to Barbed Shot and gave it a new icon and visual while essentially keeping the same effect. Do the same thing to Black Arrow. Make it "Charged Shot" or something; an electric shot is pretty unique and hasn't been done before and fits better alongside the other enhanced projectiles, so there you go. Problem solved.

I don't know why you mention BM. BM's identity is even more obviously different to both MM and SV. If Blizzard didn't know what to do with Hunters, that was new to Legion because before that Hunter development was just fine. Hire people who know what they are doing and listen to community feedback. The class shouldn't suffer just because of inexperienced/shit developers. SV was a fine spec when it was ranged. This "same as MM" meme is an invented issue, not a real one; it's mostly a weak retroactive justification of melee Survival and nothing more. There were several obvious avenues for Survival after WoD, like Black Arrow multidotting. Therefore, there was zero merit to making Survival melee.



All Hunter specs had to melee within 5 yards. It was a forced handicap of the class. Those talents were intended to make you less helpless in melee range. At no point was it intended for the Hunter to stick to melee range, period. Switching between them situationally is a nonsense idea that could never mechanically pan out no matter what they did.

SV was still a spec that had no identity and Blizz kept adding new abilities to it to help define it but in the end, it wasn't really very 'hunter-ish'. It was a multi-dotting spec that encroached on Warlock and Shadow Priest themes. It didn't make a lot of sense from and hunter-esg point of view.

[Bepples]

SV was still a spec that had no identity and Blizz kept adding new abilities to it to help define it but in the end, it wasn't really very 'hunter-ish'. It was a multi-dotting spec that encroached on Warlock and Shadow Priest themes. It didn't make a lot of sense from and hunter-esg point of view.

Why even bother replying if you're just going to blithely repeat what you initially said despite everything in that post that countered it?

Yes, it did have an identity whether you recognised it or not. You're now just pointing out vague "issues" that you're making up as you're going a long. What does "hunter-ish" even mean? Hunters were the ranged weapon class and enhanced projectiles are a huge part of any ranged weapon archetype in any RPG universe. Go look at how the Bard works in FFXIV. It is most similar to what Survival used to be. Same as the Siphoner build of ESO. Enhanced projectiles and DoTting are a perfect fit for a ranged weapon class; ESPECIALLY WoW Hunters which have always been branded as versatile opportunists. Hell, look at SV right now. It still has some aspects that would fit right into ranged Survival, including Serpent Sting itself and Wildfire Bomb. That sort of toolkit has always been fitting for the Hunter class since the beginning when we had spells like Serpent Sting and Explosive Trap.

You're straight-up wrong on this one. Admit it. You are adopting a ridiculous position in an attempt to seem more "centrist" by shit-talking both ranged and melee Survival.

[lagiacrux]

We're well past voicing dislike. if blizz EVER followed "voicing dislike" we wouldn't have two thirds of the shit wrong with BFA. Old surv was fun, now I can barely stomach playing hunter at all because some retard decided my spec needed a massive overhaul to be something totally and completely out of line with what it had ever been.

Maybe pull that blizz cock out of your throat for three seconds, the oxygen deprivation is starting to effect your capability for thought.

if all you can do is hurl insults, youre not worth my time. enjoy being the first person on my ignore list.

[Lurker1]

Surv is the only true hybrid spec for pure classes ingame ranged and melee while being pure dam still win win in my book.

[Bodakane]

You didn't adequately address most of it so that's why it bears repeating.



How is melee a logical conclusion for a class that is defined around ranged weapon? That's the exact opposite of a logical conclusion. It took a huge amount of extra time and effort to make the spec melee only to condemn it to niche popularity. Hazzikostas even says they knew most Hunters wouldn't like it. So they spend an inordinate amount of time developing something that is guaranteed a worse outcome. If that sounds logical to you I hope you stay away from any sort of managerial role. Working to further explore SV's multidotting theme would have required less effort and produced a spec Hunters would actually enjoy and they wouldn't have had to remake it in the very next expansion.

Do you realise how laughably reductionist this "shots and pets, that's it" statement sounds? I can do that for any class. Warriors? Weapons and rage, that's it. Rogues? Weapons and stealth, that's it. Warlocks? Spells and pets, that's it. Again with the ridiculous double-standards. You are continually applying a standard that expects the level of difference between classes to the three Hunter specialisations... and ONLY for this class. I agree that there are only so many shots you can dream up of. The same also applies for spells and melee attacks, but nevertheless: we aren't asking for more than 3 specs to use ranged weapons. We can and did come up with enough different ways of shooting to satisfy 3 different specs in this class. If you think that's not true, you're free to try to explain to me the standard you came up with that somehow says Hunters with their 3 ranged weapon specs were too similar but Rogues with their 3 1-handed melee weapon specs were fine.



Did you accidentally spend the last 10 years playing a BC private server or something?

Here's a guide on the rotations of the two specs in 2.4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8d0bUnqwCQ&t=42s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gss2EPPsDZc&t=28s

Literally identitcal. They didn't just "feel" the same: they were the same. Meanwhile, in WoD the entire toolkit was different; the only commonality was having a casted focus generator and Multi-Shot for AoE. Even if you think they were too similar as of WoD, you cannot argue with sincerety that they were was more distinction in earlier expansions.

How can you explain your statement? You're just stating it bluntly without backing it up with everything, presumably because of how opposite to the truth it is. I want you to actually try to back this point up because I really would like to see the thought process that leads one to look at the WoD specs where they had different toolkits althogether, look at the BC toolkits where the specs literally had the same core gameplay and 90% of the difference was passive, and conclude "Yep, the later version is more converged/homogenised!". I did ask you to do this in the last post and you evidently ignored it.

Do you actually remember what ranged SV was, the toolkit it had, and how it plays? Because it legitimately seems like you have no idea and you're arguing from a position of ignorance because so far you haven't actually tried to evaluate the two playstyles, the similaries, and the differences and you have instead just repeated blanket statements about how they were the same thing.



Yes, I hate melee and I don't like to play it. That is why I picked a class with 3 ranged specs; because I like ranged weapons. And I picked the ranged weapon spec I liked the most and stuck with it...

...then it became melee.

How hard is this to understand? I'm not obligated to suddenly start liking melee. The rotation could flow well and the talent options could be great, both of which are things can be said of current Survival, and I still wouldn't like it because melee is not my preferred playstyle. Hence why I picked a ranged class. How is it fair for that to then later get thrown away in favour of melee? I never went around to other classes and demanded their melee specs become ranged. Why is it fair, then, for those people to come to the Hunter class and demand that our specs become melee?

And as for the fanboy comment: you literally came to this thread to mope about how people apparently give Blizzard shit no matter what they do. Pot, meet kettle.


Elemental wants to know your location.

In all seriousness: it's true that we don't know, but it's also foolish to assume there aren't biases. And I think those biases do show in some class design decisions. For example, look at how much new stuff melee specs got, from animations to tooltips to new classes to our Survival spec, when Legion launched. Some melee specs were worse off, true, but it's clear melee got a lot more attention. It was a few patches later when ranged specs got their new animations but Blizzard ensured melee specs got theirs right on launch.

Every single new DPS spec added to the game has been melee, and now we lost a ranged spec in favour of melee. That ranged spec, by the way, had key abilities removed from it in WoD not long before it was utterly gutted in 6.2 and made totally non-viable in raiding content. Even if they didn't have it out for ranged SV Hunters, it sure as fuck felt like it. I don't believe they accidentally trashed the spec and then deleted it and I don't think it's unreasonable to say that if they had any respect for the players of the spec they wouldn't have done what they did, especially in the way they did it.



Not a real argument.

How hard is it to understand that all your arguments come from he fact that you just hate melee? Not hard at all. It why I've been saying it.

But you are a little crazy about all this. You are trying to invent extra reasons to hate the change that was made simply because you don't like melee.

But again, it is OK that you hate melee.
It is ok you chose hunter because it was ranged specs not centered around magic.
It is ok that surv was your favorite.
It is ok that them changed surv to melee upset you.

It is NOT OK, that you're spiraling out of control and inventing bullshit while rewriting history all while shutting on logic, simply because you're mad.

Warriors are just weapons and rage, except one spec got to be a tank so the playstyle was completely different. Basically they have 2 specs in arms and fury that play very similarly, you know just like MM and Surv used to be. Rogue? Why do you suppose they changed combat to outlaw? Same reason.

What should have happened is that they should have made Surv a melee tank spec.

Also, yes it is ridiculous to think Blizz hates a spec. Blizzard is an entity comprised of numerous people. It is absurd to think all the people involved in the process of changing a spec all hate that spec. In fact, all it does is highlight your insanity over this.

Look, just be mad your favorite spec is gone, that is enough without this other stupid crap that is fabricated.

[nToxik]

Why even bother replying if you're just going to blithely repeat what you initially said despite everything in that post that countered it?

Yes, it did have an identity whether you recognised it or not. You're now just pointing out vague "issues" that you're making up as you're going a long. What does "hunter-ish" even mean? Hunters were the ranged weapon class and enhanced projectiles are a huge part of any ranged weapon archetype in any RPG universe. Go look at how the Bard works in FFXIV. It is most similar to what Survival used to be. Same as the Siphoner build of ESO. Enhanced projectiles and DoTting are a perfect fit for a ranged weapon class; ESPECIALLY WoW Hunters which have always been branded as versatile opportunists. Hell, look at SV right now. It still has some aspects that would fit right into ranged Survival, including Serpent Sting itself and Wildfire Bomb. That sort of toolkit has always been fitting for the Hunter class since the beginning when we had spells like Serpent Sting and Explosive Trap.

You're straight-up wrong on this one. Admit it. You are adopting a ridiculous position in an attempt to seem more "centrist" by shit-talking both ranged and melee Survival.

I agree to disagree. SV had no identity in Wrath/Cata and other than it being OP at some point, the only reason it was popular was because it was easy to play, not because it was immersive. I played SV during that time because I min/max and generally play whichever spec is the most viable for raiding. However because SV didn't have a huge DPS cooldown or execute, it fell out of favour even though many hunters still continued to play it.

I don't agree that SV should have been changed to melee but that is my personal opinion. That said, let's be honest, SV was getting pretty weird. Blizz could have done a better job at keeping it ranged and changing it to something entirely different, but for some reason, they made it melee which shocked many including myself. Blizzard even had that huge SV thread on the WoW Hunter forums looking for feedback about the Survival spec at the time.

Now that it is melee, well there is no real reason to argue about it now. It is what it is even though we had more than enough melee classes already.

[Bepples]

How hard is it to understand that all your arguments come from he fact that you just hate melee? Not hard at all. It why I've been saying it.

Hating melee is a motivation for my arguments. It's not the base of my arguments. When I say something like "SV being melee excludes long-time Hunter mains", that isn't automatically wrong because I don't like melee. Before you argue it is, do understand that Hazzikostas said as much in the Gamescom 2017 interview. My arguments are based on realism.

But you are a little crazy about all this. You are trying to invent extra reasons to hate the change that was made simply because you don't like melee.

My motive has nothing to do with the validity of the arguments. See above.

It is NOT OK, that you're spiraling out of control and inventing bullshit while rewriting history all while shutting on logic, simply because you're mad.

Oh, please. Where am I inventing history? You're the one who argued that SV and MM became more similar over time despite that being provably fucking ridiculous, and perhaps now you've recognised how ridiculous it is given you've stopped doubling down on it and just let it slide. You also claimed that people were just as vitriolic and pressing about specs being too similar as the Survival debate now, which is also bullshit.

Revisionism is core to the melee Survival agenda; pretending SV was a pure melee spec in the past, pretending ranged SV was an unpopular/broken spec, pretending a significant amount of people play and enjoy melee Survival, pretending it's unviable to have 3 specs of the same weapon type in the same class... all of these, and many more, are revisionist arguments that fall apart under scrutiny. Blizzard didn't start with a problem and arrive at "melee Hunter" as the conclusion. They started at "melee Hunter" and went about inventing problems to justify it ahead of time. I say this with confidence because there is no logical path from SV's state in WoD and the problems facing the spec that arrives at "melee" as the logical conclusion, especially when it was pretty easy to predict how bad it would turn out (and many of us did).

Warriors are just weapons and rage, except one spec got to be a tank so the playstyle was completely different. Basically they have 2 specs in arms and fury that play very similarly, you know just like MM and Surv used to be.

Cool story. Why is it fine for them but not for MM/SV? You're still holding Hunters to a stricter standard.

Rogue? Why do you suppose they changed combat to outlaw? Same reason.

Yep, and it also ran into a lot of problems. The three most changed specs in Legion were Outlaw, Demonology, and Survival. Guess what the three least-played specs were?

Nevertheless, it's still a melee duel-wielding spec, before and after the change. All three of them are. So you have all three of the specs of one class using the same weapon type. Still apparently perfectly fine for them, but not for Hunters for some unstated reason.

What should have happened is that they should have made Surv a melee tank spec.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

THIS is the road you are going to go down, now? This is an even worse idea than melee Survival and that's saying a lot. Do you want the spec to have even less players than it currently does? This is how you do it.

Also, yes it is ridiculous to think Blizz hates a spec. Blizzard is an entity comprised of numerous people. It is absurd to think all the people involved in the process of changing a spec all hate that spec. In fact, all it does is highlight your insanity over this.

I used to believe this, but there have just been too many times a particular spec/class has been so totally and thoroughly screwed by Blizzard that it becomes impossible to believe it's an accident or anything other than either carelessness or outright contempt.

To give you an example, Paladins were a steaming pile of shit in general in Vanilla and their class review was basically a minor talent rearranging that serverd only to break their only working PvP build. They were left as buff-bots for all of Vanilla, and when they complained about it on their forums the same alt-character troll would tell them to shut up and know their place as buff-bots. Day in and day out. Not only did Blizzard not ban this person, they actively defended him by name, saying he was delivering "constructive feedback". There were many examples of that sort of fuckery directed at Paladins throughout Vanilla, but personally my favourite part is how their Zul'Gurub voodoo doll was the only one that had extra flavour text after the class name, so that it said "The doll resembles a paladin, or an adolescent girl".

Tell me; is it ridiculous to think that maybe someone in charge at Blizzard has a grudge against Paladins when that's how they treat the people who play it? Let's be real; this certainly isn't how you treat people you like.

And that's how I see Survival. They abruptly cancelled their upcoming changes to the spec on WoD beta (LnL charge overhaul and Bear Trap), removed Kill Shot only from that spec and left it without a baseline cooldown after they said they would add one, only to later nerf the spec to the ground by patching out an important mechanic acting as if it were a bug, ignored all player feedback and then announced the spec would be replaced with melee Survival. The only time they acknowledged us at all was when they said they would have old SV playable via Marksmanship talents, which they utterly failed to live up to (they made a token effort and never really bothered). Every step of the way the message was "you're expendable and we don't care". We will never be sure whether they didn't like Survival Hunters, but like I said before: this isn't how people treat those they respect.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree to disagree.

I don't. I want you to admit you're wrong on this one. You're just doubling down on a failed argument at this point. You're ignoring every substantive argument I'm putting here and just copy-pasting the same statement into the thread in hopes that it will stick.

Sorry if you expected civility, but I have zero respect for this sort of pigheadedness.

SV had no identity in Wrath/Cata and other than it being OP at some point, the only reason it was popular was because it was easy to play, not because it was immersive. I played SV during that time because I min/max and generally play whichever spec is the most viable for raiding. However because SV didn't have a huge DPS cooldown or execute, it fell out of favour even though many hunters still continued to play it.

Flat-out inaccurate. Ignoring the "no identity" part because you're just pasting it again with no backing like the last couple of times (and I'm not inclined to repeat myself again), SV did have a cooldown in the form of Rapid Fire which it shared with the other specs. The cooldown-less Survival happened in WoD and it certainly wasn't our choice. We were promised a spec-specific cooldown and they backed out at the last minute. It also had an execute until WoD, but they had long since stopped caring because by the time WoD was released they already decided to make it melee.

Survival was a very valuable DPS spec throughout its tenure with Explosive Shot. In WotLK it was probably the best Hunter spec to play from 3.0.8 (BM nerf) until 3.3 (MM gets enough armour penetration to take over). In Cataclysm it was great in the first tier, OK in the second, and absolutely dominant in the 3rd, being the most popular DPS spec in the whole game. For most of MoP it was one of the most popular DPS specs, and it carried on into the first tier of WoD like that too. If people continued to play it when it wasn't the best spec (one of your only true statements) that's probably because people did find it fun and immersive. The spec wasn't significantly easier than either of the other two specs so I'm not open to more patronising garbage about how we are all dumb dumbs who want to play easy beginner specs with no nuance.

I don't agree that SV should have been changed to melee but that is my personal opinion.

That's nice, but do understand your fake centrism isn't going to score any points with me. This isn't a "both sides are valid" or "both sides are wrong" debate. There's a right side and a wrong side.

That said, let's be honest, SV was getting pretty weird.

Nope, that's not honest. You're making shit up as you go along. SV in WoD was a natural progression of SV in WotLK, when it first got Explosive Shot. See the above posts. It was the spec that had enhanced arrows/bullets. Simple as that. A completely valid identity that is very common in fantasy. And, most importantly, one of the most fun specs they've ever created.

Now that it is melee, well there is no real reason to argue about it now. It is what it is even though we had more than enough melee classes already.

There is every reason to argue because it should no longer be melee. Nothing is set in stone. If it can suddenly become melee after so many years of being a successful ranged spec, it sure as hell can change back after a few years of being a failed melee spec.

[Nzete]

Survival going melee not only took away the spec my hunter alt played (bad). It also put another class in the "you have to ask if they are melee or ranged" category (bad - increased the work in making groups). Group composition generally matters on the melee vs. ranged thing. If I'm making the group and I'm on the last spot and want specifically a melee or ranged, if I'm not looking for a particular spec (like boomkin) or class (need a shroud), not having to ask about spec is going to be on the list with raiderio (experience) and ilevel.

[lagiacrux]

Survival going melee not only took away the spec my hunter alt played (bad). It also put another class in the "you have to ask if they are melee or ranged" category (bad - increased the work in making groups). Group composition generally matters on the melee vs. ranged thing. If I'm making the group and I'm on the last spot and want specifically a melee or ranged, if I'm not looking for a particular spec (like boomkin) or class (need a shroud), not having to ask about spec is going to be on the list with raiderio (experience) and ilevel.

i mean ... that seems more like a people problem. if you (as a hunter) sign up though the tool and not write your spec into the info its your own fault. disqualifying someone for the lack of even giving basic info is very understandable imho

[Bodakane]

Hating melee is a motivation for my arguments. It's not the base of my arguments. When I say something like "SV being melee excludes long-time Hunter mains", that isn't automatically wrong because I don't like melee. Before you argue it is, do understand that Hazzikostas said as much in the Gamescom 2017 interview. My arguments are based on realism.



My motive has nothing to do with the validity of the arguments. See above.



Oh, please. Where am I inventing history? You're the one who argued that SV and MM became more similar over time despite that being provably fucking ridiculous, and perhaps now you've recognised how ridiculous it is given you've stopped doubling down on it and just let it slide. You also claimed that people were just as vitriolic and pressing about specs being too similar as the Survival debate now, which is also bullshit.

Revisionism is core to the melee Survival agenda; pretending SV was a pure melee spec in the past, pretending ranged SV was an unpopular/broken spec, pretending a significant amount of people play and enjoy melee Survival, pretending it's unviable to have 3 specs of the same weapon type in the same class... all of these, and many more, are revisionist arguments that fall apart under scrutiny. Blizzard didn't start with a problem and arrive at "melee Hunter" as the conclusion. They started at "melee Hunter" and went about inventing problems to justify it ahead of time. I say this with confidence because there is no logical path from SV's state in WoD and the problems facing the spec that arrives at "melee" as the logical conclusion, especially when it was pretty easy to predict how bad it would turn out (and many of us did).



Cool story. Why is it fine for them but not for MM/SV? You're still holding Hunters to a stricter standard.



Yep, and it also ran into a lot of problems. The three most changed specs in Legion were Outlaw, Demonology, and Survival. Guess what the three least-played specs were?

Nevertheless, it's still a melee duel-wielding spec, before and after the change. All three of them are. So you have all three of the specs of one class using the same weapon type. Still apparently perfectly fine for them, but not for Hunters for some unstated reason.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

THIS is the road you are going to go down, now? This is an even worse idea than melee Survival and that's saying a lot. Do you want the spec to have even less players than it currently does? This is how you do it.



I used to believe this, but there have just been too many times a particular spec/class has been so totally and thoroughly screwed by Blizzard that it becomes impossible to believe it's an accident or anything other than either carelessness or outright contempt.

To give you an example, Paladins were a steaming pile of shit in general in Vanilla and their class review was basically a minor talent rearranging that serverd only to break their only working PvP build. They were left as buff-bots for all of Vanilla, and when they complained about it on their forums the same alt-character troll would tell them to shut up and know their place as buff-bots. Day in and day out. Not only did Blizzard not ban this person, they actively defended him by name, saying he was delivering "constructive feedback". There were many examples of that sort of fuckery directed at Paladins throughout Vanilla, but personally my favourite part is how their Zul'Gurub voodoo doll was the only one that had extra flavour text after the class name, so that it said "The doll resembles a paladin, or an adolescent girl".

Tell me; is it ridiculous to think that maybe someone in charge at Blizzard has a grudge against Paladins when that's how they treat the people who play it? Let's be real; this certainly isn't how you treat people you like.

And that's how I see Survival. They abruptly cancelled their upcoming changes to the spec on WoD beta (LnL charge overhaul and Bear Trap), removed Kill Shot only from that spec and left it without a baseline cooldown after they said they would add one, only to later nerf the spec to the ground by patching out an important mechanic acting as if it were a bug, ignored all player feedback and then announced the spec would be replaced with melee Survival. The only time they acknowledged us at all was when they said they would have old SV playable via Marksmanship talents, which they utterly failed to live up to (they made a token effort and never really bothered). Every step of the way the message was "you're expendable and we don't care". We will never be sure whether they didn't like Survival Hunters, but like I said before: this isn't how people treat those they respect.

No, i've been right this whole time. You are queefing reasons into existence simply because you hate melee. It is why you are trying to make this conspiracy theory that Blizz as a whole hates a spec or class. That is just fucking stupid and smacks of fanboy desperation. There's no logic in it, just crazy. Yes, it is crazy to think they had a grudge against pally. It is crazy to think they have a grudge against ANY spec they created. Crazy and stupid, actually.

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

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

[Kaver]

A lot of class specs are 'brain dead' as you describe. Ret Pally. DH. Arms.



The problem with SV was it played the same as MM before it became melee. It had nothing defining the spec. It was a ranged dot spec that didn't make sense. Black Arrow? WTF. Blizz didn't know how to define it or make it different that MM or even BM.

Then they made SV melee, which just about everyone didn't ask for. Not only that, it was now an additional melee spec where we already had too many melee specs in the game. It didn't bring anything special to a raid that another melee class didn't already bring. And on top of that, the rotation was clunky at best in WoD where just about any other melee's rotation felt more fluid and did equal or better damage.

So in BFA,

SV is still a slightly lost melee spec,
BM is slightly harder to play than WoD
MM is slightly easier to play than WoD

I agree very much that Ret Pally, DH and Arms also have brain dead rotations. But they do at least have to think about their placement and avoid mechanics to keep as much uptime on the boss a possible. Hunters don't have to do this while they contrary to casters have/want all instant attacks.

There are normally disadvantages of being melee and ranged:

- Melees: You have to be in range of the boss to attacks. Many mechanics (especially on M+ trash) happens in melee range. Target switching often requires you to travel some distance which results in down time.

- Ranged: Have cast time abilities and therefore often can attack while moving resulting in lower uptime on bosses. Some boss fights requires constant movement and can result in much down time.


BM hunters dont have any of these disadvantages. And hunters want the other specs (MM and SV) to also be like that. They want the best of both worlds. On top of this they also want very forgiving rotations. If you give hunters exactly what they want, there will be no challenge to the specs at all. And that is not engaging.


BM hunters should at least have a punishing rotation to compensate for the all ranged instant attacks.

[kasuke06]

if all you can do is hurl insults, youre not worth my time. enjoy being the first person on my ignore list.

"I have no argument so I can't hear you! LALALALALALALALA!"

'Kay. Have fun in your little bubble.

[Kaver]

We're well past voicing dislike. if blizz EVER followed "voicing dislike" we wouldn't have two thirds of the shit wrong with BFA. Old surv was fun, now I can barely stomach playing hunter at all because some retard decided my spec needed a massive overhaul to be something totally and completely out of line with what it had ever been.

Maybe pull that blizz cock out of your throat for three seconds, the oxygen deprivation is starting to effect your capability for thought.

Old survival was simple, easy and forgiving. If you think that is fun, then at least you still have BM to comply with those needs.

[Valkari]

I'd agree that it was clunky and strange when it first came out in legion, but I like the idea of it. In BFA it's much more streamlined and fun, I haven't even looked at the other specs on my hunter this time around.

There are still two specs for people that want to do the ranged thing.

[Katchii]

Bottom line for me is that it was a change that I don't think anyone was asking for, didn't need to happen, and IMO compromised the identity of the whole class. I mained SV on my Hunter before it went melee because I didn't want a boring spec like BM (boring in the sense that it's ridiculously easy to play) and didn't enjoy being a more turret like class as Marksmanship, but I love my pet.

If I wanted to play a melee class, I'd play a melee class with a pet I'd play Unholy DK. I see the charm with the class, I guess, but I think Hunter lost more than it gained' when they made the huge overhaul. I haven't touched my Hunter except to level it to cap (just in case they change it to something I'll play) since MoP.

[kasuke06]

Old survival was simple, easy and forgiving. If you think that is fun, then at least you still have BM to comply with those needs.

Hunter has never been truly difficult, and old surv was still one of the more complex rotations for them so not really sure what your point is...

[Kaver]

Hunter has never been truly difficult, and old surv was still one of the more complex rotations for them so not really sure what your point is...

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

[threads]

Old survival was simple, easy and forgiving. If you think that is fun, then at least you still have BM to comply with those needs.

new SV is even easier