Complete Class Rework

[Eurhetemec]

They need to get the specs in a good spot, and then stop fucking with them. Most of them felt good at the end of Legion, then they tried to reinvent the wheel in BfA, and the wheel became a square.

No. Just no.

This is a perfect example of people not understanding what was going on.

Specs were not in a good place at the end of Legion. That's like saying a man in leg braces is "walking just fine!". BfA took away those leg braces, and forced the dude to start to try walking again, and people were all "OMG specs suck!!!", and it's like, NO, BfA is actually an improvement, but the leg-braces, i.e. the artifact weapons, have come off, so whilst the dude is walking better than at the beginning of Legion (when the leg braces were still being fitted, in this dreadful metaphor lol), he's still not back to full strength.

We can argue if Azerite, Essences, and Corruption are more leg braces, or maybe just painkillers and steroids to help him through getting better.

I don't mean to be harsh on you. Your experience is real. But the problem was that the artifact weapons were covering up a multitude of sins, not that design suddenly went to shit.

The absolutely did not try to reinvent the wheel with BfA. It's probably the what, the third expansion where they didn't do that, maybe second, depending on how you count it (the previous definite was MoP-WoD, and arguable was Wrath-TBC). They kept and improved on the Legion design, but by taking the braces, they made it obvious how much weight they'd been taking.

@LordVargK - Yeah I'm much more inclined to buy that the sheer burden of different, complex systems and scaling is having some kind of effect than just more psuedo-RNG. That's more plausible.

Still I personally haven't seen it. And given a ping of 12, and a solid framerate (albeit only a 60Hz monitor), I think I'd notice!

But maybe it's just two decades+ of internetting and MMOing making me not even notice small hitches other, younger players see as very obvious. I dunno. Or maybe Argent Dawn-EU and Turalyon-EU have just been less affected (though I've had AD people claim it's hitting them).

- - - Updated - - -

We really need more freedom in weapon choices. Maybe have some core skills change depending on the weapon. Would love to see a rogue with a 2h katana. Or a demon Hunter with a scythe. Dual wielding axes SV Hunter.

This is something I'd kind of love to see, at least in terms of allowing 1H or 2H choices (given weapons are largely cosmetic I don't think we can go back to "Axes do this, Maces do that..." nor would most people want to). Also can they please just let my Fury Warrior at least TRANSMOG his 2H weapons into 1H weapons, I mean come on... If you're going to force us to stick with dual-wielding 2Hes like a Diablo character (or a bad D&D 3.XE character!), let me transmog them!

I'd also love to see a spec which could at least optionally just use a single one-hander and nothing else.

[Lucavian]

No. Just no.

This is a perfect example of people not understanding what was going on.

Specs were not in a good place at the end of Legion. That's like saying a man in leg braces is "walking just fine!". BfA took away those leg braces, and forced the dude to start to try walking again, and people were all "OMG specs suck!!!", and it's like, NO, BfA is actually an improvement, but the leg-braces, i.e. the artifact weapons, have come off, so whilst the dude is walking better than at the beginning of Legion (when the leg braces were still being fitted, in this dreadful metaphor lol), he's still not back to full strength.

We can argue if Azerite, Essences, and Corruption are more leg braces, or maybe just painkillers and steroids to help him through getting better.

I don't mean to be harsh on you. Your experience is real. But the problem was that the artifact weapons were covering up a multitude of sins, not that design suddenly went to shit.

The absolutely did not try to reinvent the wheel with BfA. It's probably the what, the third expansion where they didn't do that, maybe second, depending on how you count it (the previous definite was MoP-WoD, and arguable was Wrath-TBC). They kept and improved on the Legion design, but by taking the braces, they made it obvious how much weight they'd been taking.

@LordVargK - Yeah I'm much more inclined to buy that the sheer burden of different, complex systems and scaling is having some kind of effect than just more psuedo-RNG. That's more plausible.

Still I personally haven't seen it. And given a ping of 12, and a solid framerate (albeit only a 60Hz monitor), I think I'd notice!

But maybe it's just two decades+ of internetting and MMOing making me not even notice small hitches other, younger players see as very obvious. I dunno. Or maybe Argent Dawn-EU and Turalyon-EU have just been less affected (though I've had AD people claim it's hitting them).

I kind of disagree with you because artifact weapons were a component of your spec. They weren't generic across the board and they did in fact improve your character, much like talents do. That to me is a very valid growth potential for the character. The only difference is they didn't take the talents away, but they did take away the artifact weapons. The reason I disagree is because spec design can be fine with a reliance on a rental system as long as those rental systems do in fact fill the gap. The man with braces walking doesn't give two shits that he has braces if his alternative is not walking at all. In fact, every expansion you can change what those braces look like, you can have them do neat little extra stuff, as long as that at minimum allow him to walk. Azerite armor out of the gate did not fulfill the gaps left by removing tier sets, legendaries, and artifact weapons all at once. So if they want to give us rent-a-systems every expansion fine, but make sure they always make each spec unique, flavorful, fun, and provide player options not 2 button rotations (unless you want that spec to be a two button rotation intentionally).

They didn't try to reinvent the whole wheel, but they tried to give artifact weapons back as something different enough to be it's own feature and not just artifact weapon 2.0, but they failed in making it nearly as effective at filling gaps in spec rotations, utility, etc. Had they succeeded then far less people that enjoyed legion's class play would complain about bfa class play (though there is still the matter of missing tier sets changing things up slightly from tier to tier).

[Eurhetemec]

I kind of disagree with you because artifact weapons were a component of your spec. They weren't generic across the board and they did in fact improve your character, much like talents do. That to me is a very valid growth potential for the character. The only difference is they didn't take the talents away, but they did take away the artifact weapons. The reason I disagree is because spec design can be fine with a reliance on a rental system as long as those rental systems do in fact fill the gap. The man with braces walking doesn't give two shits that he has braces if his alternative is not walking at all. In fact, every expansion you can change what those braces look like, you can have them do neat little extra stuff, as long as that at minimum allow him to walk. Azerite armor out of the gate did not fulfill the gaps left by removing tier sets, legendaries, and artifact weapons all at once. So if they want to give us rent-a-systems every expansion fine, but make sure they always make each spec unique, flavorful, fun, and provide player options not 2 button rotations (unless you want that spec to be a two button rotation intentionally).

They didn't try to reinvent the whole wheel, but they tried to give artifact weapons back as something different enough to be it's own feature and not just artifact weapon 2.0, but they failed in making it nearly as effective at filling gaps in spec rotations, utility, etc. Had they succeeded then far less people that enjoyed legion's class play would complain about bfa class play (though there is still the matter of missing tier sets changing things up slightly from tier to tier).

It's flatly wrong, as the other poster did, to say BfA tried to reinvent the wheel, and to imply that Legion had good class design on a fundamental level, and it's a common misunderstanding, especially from people who didn't play 7.0 or didn't play it much.

I get what you're saying re: class design being holistic and including the rental elements, but the problem with class design here is with Legion. Legion went too far in stripping classes back, because they knew they were going to rely on artifact weapons. This was really obvious in 7.0, because most classes felt kind of "off", if not outright borked.

As as people got their artifact close to maxed-out did the game start to flow decently. And we all knew that was going to end. It was known before Legion released at retail that artifacts would go away. Blizzard knew this, and they had fucked up by making too much stuff be on the artifacts, not the classes.

BfA's basic design, 8.0, was both an iteration of the design of Legion (rather than a total overhaul, like say WoD-Legion), and was an improvement on Legion. If you had no artifact in 7.3, and went to 8.0, you'd have seen significant improvement for most classes/specs (again not going to squabble over GCD stuff). But yes it's true that Azerite didn't fill the same whole as your artifact weapon, and I think Blizzard understimated how much they needed to take from the artifact weapons and "bake in" to the specs to make them fun/flow right. They put too much weight on Azerite and it just wasn't an interesting enough system. Had it launched with Essences I think things might have been different.

Going to 9.0, we'll see this pattern repeat to some extent. Azerite, Essence and Corruption will go and some specs which feel smooth and even OP right now will be harsh and demanding and perhaps flow much less well. Hopefully they learned from Legion-BfA and compensate by baking in anything vital, but we'll see. Either way, people will claim SL's class design is "dogshit", when what they actually mean is "You took away all the toys which were making my spec really powerful and easy-to-play!".

[todzilla85]

I dont think major reworks need to happen for most classes aside from maybe hunter, and that's not so much as a rework needed but more so fleshing out the the abilities, passives and talents for the specs, and maybe putting some of the old school playstyles back into them

That said I do think talent trees need to seriously be looked at this expac. There are a ton of talents that need to be reworked, buffed, or removed for many of the specs. There are a lot more dead talents in bfa that I recall any other expansion.

[Unholyground]

The only class that still feels like a class is Druid and only because of the affinity talents which every class should have. Affinity talents should exist for all specs similar to how druids have it for the other specs they have and it should be a baseline talent you get that is not part of the normal choices.

Class freedom was lost and with that a ton of player agency, when they went Spec > Class they removed so many things you could actually do with all the classes. Pruning will simply not be enough, it is a good step but not enough.

[keygy]

I can't say that I would want for another major overhaul for the entire class(Hunter). But I would like certain changes to be made, especially to individual talents that are available to each respective specialization.

Having said that, MM does need something to make it less...stale.

Fast questions:

1. Aimed Shot castable while moving, but it deals more damage - if you/the longer you - stand still.

And, Aimed Shot always ignores X% of the targets armor.

Good or bad?


2. Chimera Shot returned to MM, but with similar functions to how it currently works for BM.

Chimera Shot would now be the ability to empower Arcane Shots when used. (The Precise Shots-mechanic)

Good or bad?




Ranged SV!!
(see link in signature below)




No need to fight over anything.

4th spec and problem solved.

Also...

Ranged SV was not the "dustbin" of anything. The talent category Survival which we had prior to getting the first cohesive theme in WotLK(later Cata when they added actual specializations), I would agree on this being sort of a little of everything.
Even though it in itself, held a theme of being the category focused on survivability.

The spec we got in Cata, was designed with a focus on being a Munitions Expert and a Trapper.
I wouldn't call that a theme that's hard to get what it's all about.

Meaning: Enhancing ammunition/arrows and traps.

Second...

People have varying opinions on what aspects of a particular playstyle, what iteration of it they liked the most. It's the same with all the other specs as well.

Anyway, Ranged SV as a modern spec, could look something like what you can find in the link in my signature below.

I focused mostly on bringing in mechanics and effects from all past iterations of the spec, while also adding in some new ones that either stick to the core theme itself, or add things that currently are missing within the class as a whole.

The most obvious one being that of a spec which could have both an option to go with Lone Wolf, but also could have certain talents(optional ways) for relying on pets. Either for a change of pace, or just general player preferences.




At least if you consider the way in which they decided to implement it!

Aimed shot is not the issue with MM, the iteration of MM legion was a lot more caster oriented but the kit itself was beautiful, the problem with mm is the kit, not aimed, no traps.

MM need a rework again from zero, or in Shadowlands we gonna have the same problems that are in BFA.

[shoegazing]

After the disaster that were Legion class reworks, we definitely need major overhauls for most if not all specs in the game. There's not a single thing in the history of this game that has sucked as much fun out of the meat of the gameplay as the Legion class reworks.

This basically sums it up, lol

1. Class overhauls are destructive and we should not do them
2. But classes are in a terrible place atm due to bad overhauls
3. We need overhauls to fix this

T_T

I don't want minor tweaks and tuning to my Subtlety Rogue. I want this Legion/BFA trash version nuked from orbit with all evidence that it ever existed deleted without a trace.

I want an overhaul back to the way my class was before the stupid goddamn overhaul.

[Nerovar]

This basically sums it up, lol

1. Class overhauls are destructive and we should not do them
2. But classes are in a terrible place atm due to bad overhauls
3. We need overhauls to fix this

T_T

I don't want minor tweaks and tuning to my Subtlety Rogue. I want this Legion/BFA trash version nuked from orbit with all evidence that it ever existed deleted without a trace.

I want an overhaul back to the way my class was before the stupid goddamn overhaul.

We're probably never going to get that. The guys that laid out the fundamentals for the pre-Legion specs are long gone and the people currently working at Blizzard seem creatively bankrupt. You can't just replace 10+ years of class development with a quick rework and expect it to be the same quality.

[F Rm]

Aimed shot is not the issue with MM, the iteration of MM legion was a lot more caster oriented but the kit itself was beautiful, the problem with mm is the kit, not aimed, no traps.

MM need a rework again from zero, or in Shadowlands we gonna have the same problems that are in BFA.

Please specify what you actually mean when you say "kit".

---

I did not post that as a hint towards the "caster"-playstyle of current MM.

I only posted it based on what is the most common type of feedback you can find regarding MM.
It's not the only feedback ofc. But it is up at the top of requests. That is, to make AS castable while moving(or some want it to be an instant cast).

The thing though, is that with a spec like MM, there needs to be some penalty on top of the basics(like with all other specs, depending on how they are designed).
A burst-oriented spec with hard-hitting instant damage-based shots...the most obvious way to penalize a design like that, would be a movement-restriction, as without it, it could easily become waay to powerful.

And yes, this is very much about actual numbers as well.


Another way you could go by, compensating for it's bursty nature, would be to have a varied damage-model, either for a specific ability, or for the entire toolkit. Meaning: Stand still = more damage done by abilities. Move = less damage done by abilities.


I would argue that, out of the two examples here, the latter one would be the better option as, if "forced" movement simply prevents you from casting altogether(a signature ability in this case), for a lot of players; the mentality; is that they simply won't like it.

Here, it's not as much about the actual performance, but more about the perception of the design and how it affects player mindsets.

---

Anyway, enough of that.

It was just some suggestions based on the feedback I've seen from other players towards the spec.

I'm not saying that the rest of it is fine the way it is for MM. This is just a part.

[Bepples]

You'll have to fight me if it means losing melee Survival. Ranged Survival was always the dustbin for whatever odds and ends Hunter had laying around, and never had a cohesive theme or feel prior to becoming melee-oriented, whereas Beast and Marks were always pretty clear. Whenever people ask for "ranged Survival back" they always mean an entirely different expansion's wildly different version of Survival, too. If you stuck everyone who wanted ranged Survival back in a room together, not only would there be very few people (and most of them would be people who had never main'd Hunters, or not for long), but they'd never, ever, in a million years be able to agree on what "ranged Survival" actually entailed beyond "more traps".

Talk about being completely full of it. It's strikingly clear you have next to no experience with the Hunter class and Survival in particular.

Survival was always the utilitarian side of the class. From the very beginning it focused on enhanced control with better traps. Of course, specs back then weren't all intended to be independent, competitive PvE DPS specs. When that did become their philosophy, the direction they went with Survival included getting an offensive toolkit that reflected its existing theme of resourcefulness. This meant getting unique abilities that focused on buffing projectiles with special effects. You had Explosive Shot and Black Arrow and then Serpent Sting was made primarily a Survival thing

This was the core of Survival for 4 expansions. There was no unclear theme. There was no frantic changing of the spec to try to find its place. That's revisionist lying. Survival in WotLK was largely the same gameplay loop as Survival in WoD with the only significant change being the switch from mana to focus. When people ask for ranged Survival back they are universally calling for the return of those basic elements: Explosive Shot, Black Arrow, Serpent Sting, Lock and Load, and enhanced traps. They might prefer some peculiarities of certain expansions. For example, in Cataclysm Explosive Shot could still clip itself with Lock and Load, and in WoD Serpent Sting became a passive effect. But the core mechanics of the spec were very much set in stone for all that time before the wrecking ball that was Legion class design.

There is, however, a period of Survival's history where it does have an unclear theme and is being frantically changed to try to find something that works, and that would be the current melee Survival. If you disagree with this, feel free to explain what you think the cohesive theme is behind a spec with a couple generic physical melee attacks, a grenade, a ranged-weapon-based poison, and a few pet-based aspects lifted from BM.

[Devilyaki]

Most of the specs don't need more than some cleaning up.

But dammit, give me back ranged survival in some way.

100% agree, worst thing done to a spec and class in game ever. No worthwhile hunter plays it now as melee.

[F Rm]

Talk about being completely full of it. It's strikingly clear you have next to no experience with the Hunter class and Survival in particular.

Survival was always the utilitarian side of the class. From the very beginning it focused on enhanced control with better traps. Of course, specs back then weren't all intended to be independent, competitive PvE DPS specs. When that did become their philosophy, the direction they went with Survival included getting an offensive toolkit that reflected its existing theme of resourcefulness. This meant getting unique abilities that focused on buffing projectiles with special effects. You had Explosive Shot and Black Arrow and then Serpent Sting was made primarily a Survival thing

This was the core of Survival for 4 expansions. There was no unclear theme. There was no frantic changing of the spec to try to find its place. That's revisionist lying. Survival in WotLK was largely the same gameplay loop as Survival in WoD with the only significant change being the switch from mana to focus. When people ask for ranged Survival back they are universally calling for the return of those basic elements: Explosive Shot, Black Arrow, Serpent Sting, Lock and Load, and enhanced traps. They might prefer some peculiarities of certain expansions. For example, in Cataclysm Explosive Shot could still clip itself with Lock and Load, and in WoD Serpent Sting became a passive effect. But the core mechanics of the spec were very much set in stone for all that time before the wrecking ball that was Legion class design.

There is, however, a period of Survival's history where it does have an unclear theme and is being frantically changed to try to find something that works, and that would be the current melee Survival. If you disagree with this, feel free to explain what you think the cohesive theme is behind a spec with a couple generic physical melee attacks, a grenade, a ranged-weapon-based poison, and a few pet-based aspects lifted from BM.

Yep, my thoughts exactly.

[Alkizon]

By the way, since you people are a little hooked on hunters...

(just as a reflection)
In short: main idea of BM was taken away and given to narrow melee hunter (basic functionality of which has always belonged to all hunters, and rest stuff for sure appeared by "smoking weeds"), but BM received part of Surv's fantasy in response for this, Surv ceased to exist in principle with exception of traps, which, however, were also so damaged in their fantasy part, and remaining bits of Surv's toolkit were shoved into places of mm's original mechanics, which led to confusion and general frustration of those who already mastered by their own strengths and weaknesses.

the end. So...

They're not Tinkers or Grenadiers...

There is difference between trap and mine/grenade, but poor devs stopped noticing this, as result of which Legion's hunters appeared. This slag is absent in lore for both ranger and beastmaster, on basis of which this class was created. According to your logic, we can safely issue them at least half of tech tree, for which Teriz is so strive here (in the sense of - wants to receive for own "needs"). For this particular case, I'll be completely on his side
- Lasers? - Yes, no question, take it here!
- Flare launchers? - Why not, fill out this form!
For the same reason, I was against introduction of fully mechanical pets to hunters. Some variations of cyborgs (half with half) may be - like something special/unique, but not this cosmetic disgrace that they were given. There is certain line between joke and stupidity, and for them it has even grown with moss for a very long time.

For reference - you have one of tinkers' version at this picture, while in basic set of combinations neither these guys (goblins), let alone gnomes could be hunters... but, as you already managed to discuss above, they had "that" different direction for balance and historical justice. So it goes.

Imperator4321
Hunter class is based on the Ranger class from D&D which has (mostly) been a divine (nature) half-caster that got druid spells. Hunter can be seen as the martial equivalent to the druid same way the paladin is a more martial priest, the Druid is overtly a spellcaster while the Hunter uses it in more subtle ways such as imbuing their arrows with magic, taking on the aspects of certain animals and forming magical bonds with beasts.

They're not Dark Rangers...

Triceron
Hunters use traps and animal pets, have a strong connection to beasts and the wilds, and they're themed on survival and resourcefulness. Dark Rangers are very much themed more as shadowy assassins fueled by hatred and vengeance, using their own torment to cause pain and fear to their enemies. I think these are very different concepts at the core which can't be ignored and simply equated as a Hunter specialization.

Yes, they are also ranged, but having mechanics similar to shamanic, namely: imbue magic of their weapons and their abilities. Here are just those abilities not of subordinate "natural, initially chaotic", but of creative elements, but of vile, destructive, corrupting, "changing" them. In other words, being in the same plane, they're from completely different areas of spectrum, both - in source of their strength and in general principle of gameplay. Hunters aren't mage-druids, just mimics, but DRs have full control and accounting in order to compete with, for example, SP for title of full-fledged dark theme mage... difference, perhaps, is only in weapons and fact that DR doesn't let magic pass through themself, doesn't allow themself fall to being its source, but prefers only its superficial use staying only as its "designator".

and about lore stuff...

Still think that goblins/gnomes/forsaken hunters are big mistake. Ones for the first two would be perfectly replaced by tinkers, and for latter - by dark rangers... that's all, and lore is in order and less weird moves during dances from tambourines around style and racial characteristics. Once again I'll clarify for the sake of decency, to replace not because of "similarity", but because of the inappropriateness of incongruity of certain mechanics.

- snip -

They are a mistake in the first and foremost because these races don't fit with main lore component of hunter class.

Gnomes and goblins will conditionally have problems of complementation and lack of interest in having something like that at all, but they compensate for such a lack ("disadvantages") by ownership and manipulation of technologies (which in turn is either difficult or not necessary for the rest races) for their own full-fledged implementation
- - - - - - - - - - -
yes, I’m talking, for example, about draenei (they do tech, but mostly don’t need personal mechanical stuff), however for tinkers it would be much more appropriate to put in 3rd slot not real mech-suit itself, but cyber kit with gadgets manipulators and other nonsense, while vehicles will remain means of transportation; but devs buried 3rd slot (after reading today another one of topics about poor surv hunters, who were turned into this(=current) nasty perversion) so this gap in equipment mechanics haunts them to this day, they continue to fail without it, but they are too narrow-minded to fix everything as it was
- - - - - - - - - - -
You can call it "overcompensation", if you like, although of course it's not, rather "historical balance", just first thing that came to mind. And forsaken simply won't fully form/implement connection of original part of hunters with "druidism's" harmony with nature, they are aliens at this party of life, but dark rangers will allow not only to preserve racial purity of origin of these dangerous creatures, but also to fill gap created by absence of hunters.

So: Hunters/Tinkers/DRs. It's simple, you just need to have balls to make a full-fledged and meaningful decision, but for an obvious reason, devs have long been deprived of those.

Hunters have nothing to do with "technology", and talking about archery and gnomes in one sentence is generally ridiculous.

No, main hunters' role-playing aspect is care and control of animals, symbiosis and coexistence/friendship/mutual assistance with them, this is hunting and survival in the wild (while use of "technologies" here as such is limited to "handy material", and not something so artificial and alien to this) environment, ability to merge with it and landscape, use of nature magic (about which "Gnomes and Forsaken" have zero knowledge), reading footprints, knowing habits and predicting behavior of booty... Therefore, hunters have nothing to do with technology or magic used by gnomes, and even more so with nature of forsaken. With same success it is possible to attribute "technology" to shamans based on their use of "lightning". That's bull$hit, completely nothing in common, and we even analyzed it in detail in that thread

This is why use of same type of armor, weapon, or magic school can't in any way be related to similarity of class fantasy.

main thing is lore/fantasy, main thing is whole set of class' core mechanics.

It's enough to imagine small gnome with long large bow and with quiver of arrows with heavy combat tips, from which one supposedly should aim to shoot, and in between of this "mad" poor creature will laughingly throw bombs and grenades under own and pet's feet, being next to bear 5 times larger than owner, which trying to sleep on this "loser" or use as link in food chain; or forsaken as friend with living wolf, allowing to play and chew on own leg bone during rest period, and in battle merging with environment (well, only if will be hunting in cemetery apparently)... yes, they are absolutely out of their minds (I'm talking about devs).

No. Nothing of such kind should be.

ps. One more time *pointing up*, all of it, not just "something of", that's what is called class.

Current WoW hunters' meaning in general sense, even if we take role-playing games, is very sad, and it's true not only about survival. For example, if we put our attention at BM.

Current BM not only completely violates classical part of its purpose (it's clear that all hunters are more or less “pet”-class, but in order to distinguish this within limits of improving one or another of their abilities), it also takes away a functional piece originally intended in favor of survival. Still unclear? Well, let's pay attention to initial idea of ​​BM: owner&pet are one combat whole, almost complete symbiosis and almost mental understanding between each other, owner spends all own strength and skills (Attention!) mainly on one pet. What follows from this: no Hati (at the same time, no one forbids using this model for your animal, but this should remain one constantly active animal; by the way, this could be something completely opposite, just for lonely hunter (being not active, but "spirit" pet) using abilities with pet requirements - def/(anti)control) and minimum of "random" herds of animals with which BM has no connection. On the other hand, now look at old survival: main idea is to exhaust enemy and then finish off, passive and proc damage, assist party members with control (2 important elements characterizing mainly support part of classes), animals aren't focal point, but are no-name allies (they can elementary act as traps, snakes/crows/"one-time-hit"-dogs and stuff)...

Some word about CDs' issue from EU forum:
~ As I understand it, people are asking for more smeared/stable damage policy, rather than just unnecessarily exaggerated peak one, for a number of very pertinent reasons. Moreover, part of hybrid/support gameplay policy was based on exhausting enemy with slow build-up/maintenance of potential, which is very good alternative to current samely gameplay (they could "stand to" in PvP events thanks to this, and could be useful if necessary in PvE - smear/compensate negative/imperfection/insufficiency part as opposed to "pure/strait" classes). People has a decent point here, I must say. In other words, there used to be marathon runners and there were sprinters and even sometimes their hybrids, which itself isn't bad at all for class&gameplay diversity.

Is it clear now, how wrong and inadequately they mixed up this all? Ie literally: the one, who developed idea of "Legion's hunters" had no idea of what ideologically "hunters" carried in themselves all this time. Technically, they didn’t satisfy those people who wanted melee hunter, since again hefty part of abilities (unexpectedly) are range ones, but also ruined fun for people, who loved their old gameplay. Absurd isn't it? Could be perfect standard by which you can classify any Epic fail.

In general, each of specializations uses “animal” part of original idea in one way or another, in the same way as “ranger” one, simply because it's the same class (specializations in this case don't play any role, because, as again it has been repeatedly said already, class is just set of identical mechanics and if this isn't respected, class ceases to exist, which exactly happened in Legion) so - aspects, stings, pets, traps, thematic distance abilities and melee zone weakness.

As for melee part, that has been said for a long time, even by me:
1) hunters never had idea as “melee” fighter;
2) the entire part of melee was given to them (to all hunters!) as dead zone compensation (in this sense, they rather took small piece from role-playing games belonging to “weapon master”(at 1:08:27 ~as Aragorn) as “headhunter" part - this is why joke about “hunter’s weapon!”), this was their weakness (like the other classes, each had their own), but this was also strong part of survival - they were much less afraid of falling into control and their “dead zone”, since it was easily exited without much loss of damage (receiving/giving);
3) even I already quite tired to read all this bs about "classic survival planned to be melee fighter"/"survival had no own designated fantasy/gameplay" - completely unreasonable fallacy; they was "survival" which mean, easier to keep you on distance and have own cunning fantasy/gameplay, but! within limits of existing single, full-fledged and holistic class' ones.

As for current inadequacy in relation to their “new” understanding of fantasies (= specializations), then idea of ​​this part can be completely unhindered with no less success shoving absolutely in any class: it can be warrior, rogue, priest, shaman, monk, even druid etc. which essence will be just banal "multiclass appendage". Do I find it right? - No, this is stupid, not for this game. Firstly, in desire to push “this” into 4th specialization, observing class integrity rules (in hunters' case), it's necessary to expand functionality of all specializations to this 4th (otherwise, there is no place for melee), and this will make class pretty swollen. At the same time, I'm not opposed to returning dead zone and part of melee abilities (and also strongly insist on return of 3rd weapons' slot to characters), because real hunters' masters became noticeable exactly by skillfulness of overcoming this their weakness.

ps. I'm completely against 4th melee spec and fully for returning survival to its distant "unstoppable runner" roots. Don't misunderstand me, "middle-distance/half-melee bomber-man/grenadier" idea isn't bad itself, but would be much better and easier to implement through completely different, new class, without inappropriate attempts to crossbreed hippo with rhino... yes it sounds quite alike, even kind of visual similarity, but you better don't

Dear devs, you're trying to sit with one @$$ on two chairs, it will NEVER EVER work, and the sooner you understand this and return to original design, the sooner everything will return to normal, otherwise you won't be able to do anything good with classes' gameplay. Cheers.

Some offhand words about SV's popularity:

It wasn't "the most", but one of. In any case, this is often referred to in discussions of sv.melee vs sv.range, of course this was before they started cutting it, peak probably was in MoP area. I can’t directly refer to any link right now, but I know for sure that those were cited in above topics, because I remember exactly that if disputes appear there on this matter, everything ends almost instantly. I'll scroll now through some of links from my post about hunters (bold link in my post), but I don't promise anything. Naturally decline didn't come immediately of course, but in several stages, under dev's "conducting". It noticeably overtook colleagues in popularity in certain period, still BM was never so popular at that time, peaks of interest were mainly always associated with cosmetic additives (I think, that now is exactly same story). But, as always, final decision to "destabilize situation" belongs to devs.

There is something "of arguments" here:
(first belongs to probably the largest of topics devoted to such discussions, here could be more links from it)
<1> <2> <3>

I like Bepples' energy, but he's a little too zealously with trolls, however, still without losing temper and keeping within own "character". This is all from those topics, which have at least some interactive arguments (there are still about 5-6 posts, but they refer to materials that are too ancient and no longer available), however, I could add here more than 2 dozen posts that speak for its former popularity or have logical chains without giving directly "talking" arguments and isn't disputed by anyone in further down text, but this is not quite same.

[huehuehue]

_get_rid_of_insanity_

[keygy]

Please specify what you actually mean when you say "kit".

---

I did not post that as a hint towards the "caster"-playstyle of current MM.

I only posted it based on what is the most common type of feedback you can find regarding MM.
It's not the only feedback ofc. But it is up at the top of requests. That is, to make AS castable while moving(or some want it to be an instant cast).

The thing though, is that with a spec like MM, there needs to be some penalty on top of the basics(like with all other specs, depending on how they are designed).
A burst-oriented spec with hard-hitting instant damage-based shots...the most obvious way to penalize a design like that, would be a movement-restriction, as without it, it could easily become waay to powerful.

And yes, this is very much about actual numbers as well.


Another way you could go by, compensating for it's bursty nature, would be to have a varied damage-model, either for a specific ability, or for the entire toolkit. Meaning: Stand still = more damage done by abilities. Move = less damage done by abilities.


I would argue that, out of the two examples here, the latter one would be the better option as, if "forced" movement simply prevents you from casting altogether(a signature ability in this case), for a lot of players; the mentality; is that they simply won't like it.

Here, it's not as much about the actual performance, but more about the perception of the design and how it affects player mindsets.

---

Anyway, enough of that.

It was just some suggestions based on the feedback I've seen from other players towards the spec.

I'm not saying that the rest of it is fine the way it is for MM. This is just a part.

with kit i mean everything, options to do Single or aoe damage, survival of the spec on bosses with hard hitting abilities or sustained damage every few secs.


In legion MM was squishy as fuck, but you have good single target damage, good aoe, and good spread aoe, only disavantages was the spec was a caster more than a ranged hunter, and you not have any defensives apart from the inmunity.

Bm right now have, mitigation, selfheal, single damage, aoe damage, and do not have a single disavantage.

That's the problem with mm right now.

[Dadwen]

Most of the specs don't need more than some cleaning up.

But dammit, give me back ranged survival in some way.

undo the crappy design from WOD onward and while some changes are ok not a rebuild, just from the people I used to play with, more quit because they were tired of relearning their class every expansion.

but after the couple of months I tried in Barf I mean BFA, I would not even think of coming back to try with out them bring back ranged Survival now.