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 - - -
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.
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!".
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.
Last edited by todzilla85; 2020-03-30 at 06:23 PM.
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.
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.
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.
Subtlety Rogue was an amazing, incredible, unique, and fun spec prior to Legion and BfA
“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
― Douglas Adams
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.
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.
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.
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...
They're not Dark Rangers...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.
and about lore stuff...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.
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)...
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:
Last edited by Alkizon; 2024-04-19 at 09:51 AM.
__---=== PM me WHERE if I'm unnecessarily "notifying" you ===---__
_get_rid_of_insanity_
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.
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.