Survival revamp inevitable?

[Fedexkilla80]

If it was to become ranged again it would have been done by now more than anything. The tank spec is far fetched but it's also the sort of thing they might try. Melee hunter was never needed however they gave it a go anyways.

[Donkeywing]

Even if they were to revert it back to ranged in 10.0, survival wouldve been a melee spec for more than six years. The damage is already done, at this point I don't think it matters anymore as it has become a 2spec class for many.

I'm highly doubtful it will ever be reverted back to melee. They've simply sunk too much time and effort into the spec trying to make it work somehow (hopelessly failing considering its popularity). Most importantly however is that you only have to look at the others specs to know theyre not going to change it. Right now MM still has issues in playability, you're actually casting more abilities as MM than you do as an avg caster, it's not what the hunter class was ever about before they did the major revamp. They've deleted the ''old'' hunter specs/class/vision and replaced it with the current specs with new ideas. They're not going back on this, if anything they'll double down again.

Funny enough the people who argued the specs were too similar now have MM being very close to a caster spec and SV litteraly a melee spec of which there are already too many in the game right now. At the end of the day, its clear this argument did the hunter class no favours. The hunter class identity is fading in terms of mechanical play.

[Drusin]

I like Survival the way it is, wouldn't be opposed to OG survival coming back as 4th spec though

[T-34]

SV would be so easy to fix. Blizz just doesn't care enough to fix it for whatever reason. First off, its rotation is great, but only if you talent into Mongoose Bite and Wildfire Infusion. Without either of those talents, the quality of the rotation instantly tanks. Those two talents need to be baseline (so I can finally take Chakrams and not feel bad about it). Next, SV needs some kind of unique utility. As it is now, there's no reason to bring a SV Hunter to your group over BM or MM, since they can do everything SV can do, but at range. SV just needs something unique that BM and MM can't do, and it'll be golden.

SV will always have a huge drawback compared to BM and MM and that is that is a melee spec in a game where ranged specs almost always are preferred to melee specs.
Why the developers have removed 1 ranged spec and added 5 new melee specs (DH, Monk, SV and 2 DK specs) in a game where there are already to many melee specs is one WoWs greatest mysteries.

And if SV should get a mandatory utility or buff then it will just mean that another melee spec will be left in the dust.

[Bisque]

I don't know about a revamp being inevitable. Unless you work at blizz or have a friend who works at blizz, it is all speculation at best. I don't think a revert to ranged is coming (though yes I could be wrong). MSV has been a thing since legion, I have to think that if the melee experiment failed, they would have reverted it by now and yet it MSV is still a thing so... We also have to realize what is failure by blizzard's standard, is blizzard's defintion of a spec failing the same as your definition? Blizz knew MSW would be a niche role, played by a small number of players-does that small number make it a failure in blizzard's eyes? If MSV is played a lot in the casual and normal areas of the game and played little on the mythic end, is that a failure in blizzard's eyes or only in the player base?

I think with MSV you have 4 possible outcomes:

1) The spec is not a failure, revamp to ranged is not inevitable and blizzard is overall happy with the spec in spite of its low reputation

2) A revamp is coming next expansion, hence blizz's sees no point in working on the spec now because we are changing everything after SL anyway.

3) Blizz just doesn't care, we have 2 specs that are somewhat popular so we don't see a need to work on MSV

4) Blizz wants to change, revert MSV but it is the pet project of someone higher up and blizz, some senior developer and they don't want to piss that person off.

Honestly pick either of the 4 at this point. For my money I do not think a revamp or revert to ranged is coming but I will gladly eat my words if a big revamp does come.

I think you can break it down

[Bepples]

We also have to realize what is failure by blizzard's standard, is blizzard's defintion of a spec failing the same as your definition? Blizz knew MSW would be a niche role, played by a small number of players-does that small number make it a failure in blizzard's eyes?

This is actually an extremely important point. This is the standard business MO that Blizzard follows religiously; when success isn't met, change the standards of success. This is the reasoning behind their refusal to report subscription counts any more. As for Survival; it turned out to be an unpopular, forgotten spec so Blizzard just turns around and says they intended it to be "niche" the whole time. Convenient for them, although any reasonable person would note that turning a popular spec into an unpopular one would generally be considered a failure no matter what the motives were.

If MSV is played a lot in the casual and normal areas of the game and played little on the mythic end, is that a failure in blizzard's eyes or only in the player base?

The problem with this is all signs point to it being unpopular in casual areas of the game too. We have tracking of covenant choices, for example, that isn't contingent on rated PvP or mythic raiding. Those statistics have Survival at less than 5% of the class's population. This makes sense because the basic reasons as to why Survival isn't a popular spec aren't reliant on raiding metas.

[Tyris Flare]

Even if Survival were ranged you will still end up with the "arcane mage/sub rogue" effect where one hunter spec sees almost no play because the others are better. I agree that the game doesn't need more melee, but pure DPS specs never have anything close to equal representation in any group content. One spec is almost always the best, another is okay, and a third is garbage.

[Bepples]

Even if Survival were ranged you will still end up with the "arcane mage/sub rogue" effect where one hunter spec sees almost no play because the others are better. I agree that the game doesn't need more melee, but pure DPS specs never have anything close to equal representation in any group content. One spec is almost always the best, another is okay, and a third is garbage.

A) Not necessarily; in Blackrock Foundry all 3 were playable even though BM was clearly the best.
B) It's much worse to cement one spec as the worst option at all times like they've done with Survival

[keelr]

Well it would be really unfortunate. Survival is a unique spec, truely amazing and widely played in pvp. Its a melee spec which can completly enter ranged play in pvp.

[Nynax]

SV would be so easy to fix. Blizz just doesn't care enough to fix it for whatever reason. First off, its rotation is great, but only if you talent into Mongoose Bite and Wildfire Infusion. Without either of those talents, the quality of the rotation instantly tanks. Those two talents need to be baseline (so I can finally take Chakrams and not feel bad about it). Next, SV needs some kind of unique utility. As it is now, there's no reason to bring a SV Hunter to your group over BM or MM, since they can do everything SV can do, but at range. SV just needs something unique that BM and MM can't do, and it'll be golden.

Tank!

For reals though. It would need an aoe CC on the level of Druid Typhoon or Ring of Peace. Or maybe a group damage reduction like Anti-magic Zone. Something that seems almost OP. It's the same issue Mistweavers have atm

[Bepples]

Well it would be really unfortunate. Survival is a unique spec, truely amazing and widely played in pvp. Its a melee spec which can completly enter ranged play in pvp.

From arenamate.net:

2v2:

• Hunter Beast Mastery 68.4% (438)
• Hunter Survival 18.6% (119)
• Hunter Marksmanship 13.0% (83)

3v3:

• Hunter Beast Mastery 54.4% (166)
• Hunter Marksmanship 31.1% (95)
• Hunter Survival 14.4% (44)

RBG:

• Hunter Marksmanship 73.2% (142)
• Hunter Beast Mastery 19.6% (38)
• Hunter Survival 7.2% (14)

It is not widely played in PvP.

If being able to fight at ranged in PvP is what makes it so unique, why not just make it embrace that and actually be a ranged spec?

[PickleballAce]

The best revamp Survival could get (other than being returned to ranged spec), would be hitting the mobility of the other specs...especially Beast Mastery.

Melee already has too few advantages over Ranged, so there's not much incentive to play Survival when you can go Beast Mastery and capture 90 percent of that gameplay feel, have no range disadvantage, and generally do better damage anyway. But that's not going to happen because nobody would accept both BM and MM being turrets.

[Soon-TM]

NO but the fantasy of Rexxar is what they wanted and not what they got! Had they put in where you could use two one handers, use pets to include BM only pets and traps I think it would have been a bit more popular. Just my opinion

If they wanted to go with a Rexxar-like archetype, they should have revamped BM, not SV. But the whole thing still looks utterly unnecesary to me

[Razion]

If they wanted to go with a Rexxar-like archetype, they should have revamped BM, not SV. But the whole thing still looks utterly unnecesary to me

As badass and cool melee BM is and for how obviously rad the fantasy is, I think socially in terms of existing BM players it was a lot more dangerous a proposal and may have gone down worse. SV was in a position of being compared as "just another MM," with no real identity of its own, with the ranged SV tools easily able to be put in BM and MM without loss of flavor - and also, SV when it started out already had the entire melee toolkit anyway, and even at end Naxx SV melee if I recall was technically best due to AGI talent scaling in full BiS gear for hunter dps -- so there was already precedent in WoW for SV to be melee, even if Rexxar came first in WC3, it wasn't the case in WoW before for BM to be melee.

The fantasy of melee BM is rad. In reality it may have been worse than what happened.

[cparle87]

SV would be so easy to fix. Blizz just doesn't care enough to fix it for whatever reason.

Blizzard doesn't follow the demands of the vocal mouth frothers does not mean they don't care, as much as it hurts to tell you you're not the center of the universe.

[Bepples]

But that's not going to happen because nobody would accept both BM and MM being turrets.

This. The prospect of nerfing BM/MM to cater to SV is beyond ridiculous. It was heinous enough to make SV melee in the first place but thankfully Blizzard hasn't been this depraved yet.

SV was in a position of being compared as "just another MM," with no real identity of its own, with the ranged SV tools easily able to be put in BM and MM without loss of flavor

No matter how many times you people repeat this it will never be true. Ranged SV was a separate identity and gameplay style to MM in the same way Affliction is separate to Destruction. Thematically it focused on special munitions and utility instead of sharpshooting and careful aiming, and mechanically it operated on sustained rot damage with mostly instant casts and mobility while MM was the one with the slow, hard-hitting, physical damage casts.

If you think this wasn't a sufficient distinction because "hurr durr they both use a bow!" feel free to explain how the two Warrior specs are sufficiently distinct despite being different varieties of angrily swinging a stick, or how all Rogue specs are sufficiently distinct despite all of them being dual-wielding skirmishers with Stealth.

and also, SV when it started out already had the entire melee toolkit anyway

As did every Hunter spec. SV just buffed the melee abilities. It did not make the spec melee. It just made the spec hold up better when stuck in melee which was an important counterplay in PvP where people would deliberately keep Hunters in close range where they couldn't shoot. It also had the best tools for getting back out to ranged which was what it always preferred to do.

and even at end Naxx SV melee if I recall was technically best due to AGI talent scaling in full BiS gear for hunter dps

Whether or not it was the optimal choice in Naxx gear (the agi scaling was significant but you lost Trueshot Aura so whether or not it's worth it is still dubious), if you think you played in melee you're severely misinformed. Well, we already know you're misinformed. But to be clear: SV was still a ranged spec and it was played with an Aimed Shot/Multi-Shot weave just like any other PvE build. Agility gave 2 ranged attack power for every one melee, so melee started off behind and only fell more and more behind as you got more gear.

Were you seriously under the impression that Hunters were running around in Naxx as melee DPS this whole time? Christ, look up some guides and videos before posting.

The fantasy of melee BM is rad. In reality it may have been worse than what happened.

"Taking an unlimited spec and making it limited is rad" - standard delusional melee logic.

[Razion]

No matter how many times you people repeat this it will never be true. Ranged SV was a separate identity and gameplay style to MM in the same way Affliction is separate to Destruction. Thematically it focused on special munitions and utility instead of sharpshooting and careful aiming, and mechanically it operated on sustained rot damage with mostly instant casts and mobility while MM was the one with the slow, hard-hitting, physical damage casts.

If you think this wasn't a sufficient distinction because "hurr durr they both use a bow!" feel free to explain how the two Warrior specs are sufficiently distinct despite being different varieties of angrily swinging a stick, or how all Rogue specs are sufficiently distinct despite all of them being dual-wielding skirmishers with Stealth.

Whether you agree with the sentiment or not, this was the agreed upon generalization within the community around the time of Legion. This is likely what led to the resulting split of Survival to Melee, in order to make it more distinct from the other specs. You may not personally think it was lacking in its own identity, but clearly even in this thread all these years later this issue is still fairly divisive - despite Survival having such a lower representation in players after the rework.

Survival was lacking in some kind of cohesive identity, and it just happened to be that they could make it that much more different to the other specs at the time. BM was "THE" pet spec, MM was "THE" shooter spec. SV was just "other" shooter spec, or even "other" pet spec.

Other specs at the time of Legion had similar identity issues. Rogue specs had to differentiate themselves into Pirates, Ninjas, and Poisoners in order to make themselves sufficiently different, Warriors had to distinctly focus on the size and manner of wielding weapons in order to keep themselves different. But these are other examples.

Even though it, Survival, had its own share of personality with venoms and traps and these 'other' tools that were generally speaking part of the Hunter fantasy as a whole and shared around the other two specs, they could still somehow lean into the other specs. Animal venom? Makes sense as part of a spec that focuses on beasts, that would have animal venom, or would be part of a sharpshooter spec that had a focus on shooting specialty arrows. This is the crutch of a lot of why SV was seen as just other and not it's own thing -- it could have led into other specs with their own explanations, whereas in other specs like Fire, Frost, Arcane, it would have been near impossible to explain why a Fire Mage is using a Frost spell -- they had distinct different tools and spells comparatively to say Hunter at the time which was a lot more general. But this is perhaps a larger issue on classes that has fantasy that revolves entirely around weapons and less to do with their own unique brand of magic and how those branches of magic are so visually distinct and special in their own right. That's another discussion.

And, again, this is mostly a statement on the mentality at the time. Please don't take this as an attack on you or your supposed preference for old ranged Survival, which is a perfectly valid preference to have. This is just what was the thoughts around the community at the time and was probably what ultimately led to having Survival change to melee -- to trace back further to its roots that made it even more unique to BM and MM. SV was the one that got the short end of the stick. Was it fair? Probably not. Should Hunter have gotten a fourth spec or had SV expanded on further to solidify how it could be different from MM or BM? I mean, it could have very well been possible. Even now though, what most people seem to be clamoring for is not a return of Survival to be even more divergent and special in its own right but rather just as it was. It seems to me when these discussions start what people seem to be missing is the gameplay of old ranged Survival and while the visual fantasy is there and important to the concept, it could be there in the other specs and I'm not sure it would be as radical a separation of fantasy as is being portrayed here often enough.

So while ultimately I can't say I agree with you, please understand that the direction of ranged SV was lacking, and it perhaps wasn't as obvious on expanding the flavor of SV. What would the solution have been -- okay, so they get a different animal venom for each ranged attack, maybe they're the only ones with traps... would that have worked? Mechanically, logically, yes. But in terms of being sufficient fantasy? I'm not as sure. SV still may have been perceived as "the MM with green arrows". Maybe the criticisms we would be dealing with now would be on the other foot and maybe people would have been saying it would have been a good opportunity to try melee Hunter - as it was in the past. To me it's pretty blatant that SV was the spec that was the least distinct, and that melee is the most distinct direction of Hunter that they have gotten in a very long time. It may be regrettable how things turned out to those who loved ranged SV, but I think this was ultimately the correct choice in terms of fulfilling a more distinct fantasy for the expansion that focused on having specs as different as possible.

[Bepples]

Whether you agree with the sentiment or not, this was the agreed upon generalization within the community around the time of Legion.

Fuck that noise. Hunters at large rejected this reasoning right on Legion's announcement. It was forced on Hunters by Blizzard and a bunch of greedy melee players. Don't even begin to pretend this was a stance that was anywhere close to consensus. After all, we've already established you have a poor grasp of the past of this class, what with the "melee was Naxx BiS for Hunter" talk.

Survival was lacking in some kind of cohesive identity, and it just happened to be that they could make it that much more different to the other specs at the time. BM was "THE" pet spec, MM was "THE" shooter spec. SV was just "other" shooter spec, or even "other" pet spec.

No it wasn't because, as it turns out, specs aren't just boiled down to one-word descriptions. Arms Warrior is "THE" rage-based melee weapon user, so why does Fury exist? Are you honest-to-god arguing that there's only room for a grand total of one ranged weapon spec? Only one spec to represent all modes of ranged weapon combat other than commanding pets? and because of this you think it was right to turn SV into the game's thirteenth melee weapon user? Listen to yourself.

Other specs at the time of Legion had similar identity issues. Rogue specs had to differentiate themselves into Pirates, Ninjas, and Poisoners in order to make themselves sufficiently different, Warriors had to distinctly focus on the size and manner of wielding weapons in order to keep themselves different. But these are other examples.

No, because they were all invented issues. There weren't any serious problems with spec identity necessitating ground-up reworks. An iterative approach would have been better. Legion's obsessive focus on making each spec its own micro-class with minimal crossover was damaging to class identity and the game as a whole. Specs aren't meant to be totally independent entities. They are specialisations of a base class and therefore they are meant to share some things from the base class.

Plus; in all those examples you mentioned they took care to preserve the core parts of what made those classes what they were. They didn't take away core features of Warrior and Rogue. With Survival they took away the most core aspect of what makes us Hunters. It's not comparable.

Even though it, Survival, had its own share of personality with venoms and traps and these 'other' tools that were generally speaking part of the Hunter fantasy as a whole and shared around the other two specs, they could still somehow lean into the other specs.

Once again; specs are not different classes. They are specialisations of the same class. It's meant to be this way. All three Hunter specs had access to pets, as well. That didn't make BM not the pet spec because BM had the most in-built interaction with its pet. This is not only fine but it's the ideal state of class design. You want specs to build off the foundation of the class, not take away from it.

This entire time you're pretending they gave Survival some unique advantage that the other specs don't have in order to make it stand out. That's not what happened. They gave Survival a unique disadvantage; it's the only Hunter spec that's restricted to melee attacks. You start a Hunter with a ranged weapon and then you lose it if you spec into Survival. That's an utterly ridiculous and infeasible way to try to make a spec distinct. It only cements Survival as the worst choice and you end up with...well... what Survival is now. It takes god-tier delusion to pretend this was a good idea. Why don't you go take Stealth away from one of the Rogue specs while you're at it?

Animal venom? Makes sense as part of a spec that focuses on beasts, that would have animal venom, or would be part of a sharpshooter spec that had a focus on shooting specialty arrows.

This is why Serpent Sting used to be a baseline ability but SV had the most enhanced version with all the interactions. That's how it's meant to work. Once again, it's like pets being universal to Hunters, demons being universal to Warlocks, and Stealth being universal to Rogues.

Besides; you're ignoring the other parts besides the venom. Survival's signature ability was Explosive Shot; MM and BM had nothing of the sort, nor would it make a lot of sense in either spec. MM's meant to be the methodical sniper and BM is meant to work in tandem with the pet. This is why Explosive Shot is relegated to an awkwardly-fitting MM talent today. And if you want to get pedantic and say it does fit MM just fine; why doesn't Eviscerate fit Subtlety or Rend fit Fury? You're not going to be able to construct any standard that works for all classes here other than an egregious double standard.

whereas in other specs like Fire, Frost, Arcane, it would have been near impossible to explain why a Fire Mage is using a Frost spell

This is a pretty poor example to say the least given you do actually have crossover between the schools of magic in the Mage specs such as Frost Nova being baseline. Blizzard did actually attempt to make the Mage specs totally separate in Legion and they were relentlessly berated for it to the point where they had to back down on many things.

God damn, Blizzard themselves said they went too far with spec differentiation in Legion to the point where class identity was compromised and Shadowlands took a lot of steps to reverse it. If you're still fixated on the idea that specs are meant to be totally separate and independent you're years behind on this discussion.

to trace back further to its roots that made it even more unique to BM and MM.

Bruh. Are you really going to pretend SV was some super distinct melee spec in Vanilla again before being homogenised? Get a grip. It played with a ranged weapon from the start all the way until Legion, and it started off similar to the other specs before diverging from them every expansion. If you still consistently fail to understand the role of the melee weapon in classic Hunter design you're just wasting everyone's time.

please understand that the direction of ranged SV was lacking

Please understand that we will literally never agree on this because the position is bogus. Ranged SV had far more direction than this bastardised melee version could ever hope to, what with its grenades mixed with Arms Warrior ripoff attacks mixed with pet interaction stolen from BM.

so they get a different animal venom for each ranged attack, maybe they're the only ones with traps... would that have worked?

Being the only one with traps would be unacceptable because, once again, it's part of the class foundation and the class foundation is meant to have a little from each spec. As long as there are unique bonuses to trapping in SV, which ranged SV had (and melee SV does not, in fact), it's fine. The only time they were stupid enough to make traps SV-specific was at the start of Legion when they first made it melee.

As for the animal venom; you really are fixated on that, aren't you? You don't seem to be aware that Explosive Shot and Black Arrow existed. Survival's identity wasn't the venom spec; it was the exotic munitions spec. It primarily used explosives and venoms; Black Arrow threw in some magic damage, which I would have preferred to be something else rooted in practical projectile enhancements (e.g. an electric attack), but there was a clear theme on special shots that MM didn't have.

The "solution" (not that there was any existential problem in the first place) was to continue iterating on ranged Survival as they had been doing for years up until this point and add new, unique mechanics to help make its gameplay more involved and valuable to the class. There was a cool Black Arrow cooldown reset mechanic at the end which allowed for multidotting and funnel cleave; that sounds awesome and unique and would have certainly been of more valuable to us than "BM but melee ".

melee is the most distinct direction of Hunter that they have gotten in a very long time. It may be regrettable how things turned out to those who loved ranged SV, but I think this was ultimately the correct choice in terms of fulfilling a more distinct fantasy for the expansion that focused on having specs as different as possible.

Yes; it's distinct via weakness which causes most people to avoid it altogether. If you really think it was a good decision to make, I don't know what else to tell you: there are few class design approaches more delusional and you're letting your melee preferences cloud your judgement.

[Bisque]

Whether you agree with the sentiment or not, this was the agreed upon generalization within the community around the time of Legion. This is likely what led to the resulting split of Survival to Melee, in order to make it more distinct from the other specs. You may not personally think it was lacking in its own identity, but clearly even in this thread all these years later this issue is still fairly divisive - despite Survival having such a lower representation in players after the rework.

Survival was lacking in some kind of cohesive identity, and it just happened to be that they could make it that much more different to the other specs at the time. BM was "THE" pet spec, MM was "THE" shooter spec. SV was just "other" shooter spec, or even "other" pet spec.

Other specs at the time of Legion had similar identity issues. Rogue specs had to differentiate themselves into Pirates, Ninjas, and Poisoners in order to make themselves sufficiently different, Warriors had to distinctly focus on the size and manner of wielding weapons in order to keep themselves different. But these are other examples.

Even though it, Survival, had its own share of personality with venoms and traps and these 'other' tools that were generally speaking part of the Hunter fantasy as a whole and shared around the other two specs, they could still somehow lean into the other specs. Animal venom? Makes sense as part of a spec that focuses on beasts, that would have animal venom, or would be part of a sharpshooter spec that had a focus on shooting specialty arrows. This is the crutch of a lot of why SV was seen as just other and not it's own thing -- it could have led into other specs with their own explanations, whereas in other specs like Fire, Frost, Arcane, it would have been near impossible to explain why a Fire Mage is using a Frost spell -- they had distinct different tools and spells comparatively to say Hunter at the time which was a lot more general. But this is perhaps a larger issue on classes that has fantasy that revolves entirely around weapons and less to do with their own unique brand of magic and how those branches of magic are so visually distinct and special in their own right. That's another discussion.

And, again, this is mostly a statement on the mentality at the time. Please don't take this as an attack on you or your supposed preference for old ranged Survival, which is a perfectly valid preference to have. This is just what was the thoughts around the community at the time and was probably what ultimately led to having Survival change to melee -- to trace back further to its roots that made it even more unique to BM and MM. SV was the one that got the short end of the stick. Was it fair? Probably not. Should Hunter have gotten a fourth spec or had SV expanded on further to solidify how it could be different from MM or BM? I mean, it could have very well been possible. Even now though, what most people seem to be clamoring for is not a return of Survival to be even more divergent and special in its own right but rather just as it was. It seems to me when these discussions start what people seem to be missing is the gameplay of old ranged Survival and while the visual fantasy is there and important to the concept, it could be there in the other specs and I'm not sure it would be as radical a separation of fantasy as is being portrayed here often enough.

So while ultimately I can't say I agree with you, please understand that the direction of ranged SV was lacking, and it perhaps wasn't as obvious on expanding the flavor of SV. What would the solution have been -- okay, so they get a different animal venom for each ranged attack, maybe they're the only ones with traps... would that have worked? Mechanically, logically, yes. But in terms of being sufficient fantasy? I'm not as sure. SV still may have been perceived as "the MM with green arrows". Maybe the criticisms we would be dealing with now would be on the other foot and maybe people would have been saying it would have been a good opportunity to try melee Hunter - as it was in the past. To me it's pretty blatant that SV was the spec that was the least distinct, and that melee is the most distinct direction of Hunter that they have gotten in a very long time. It may be regrettable how things turned out to those who loved ranged SV, but I think this was ultimately the correct choice in terms of fulfilling a more distinct fantasy for the expansion that focused on having specs as different as possible.

I do remeber reading a blue post quite sometime ago that the reason sv went melee is because blizz saw sv as simply another version/ magical version of MM, hence they went melee to distinguish it from MM. I feel mixed about their reasoning. On one hand I do like MSV, so I am glad MSV is a thing (hopefully will continue to be in the future...) but I don't remeber ranged SV feeling like a "magical" version of MM. Unless my memory is foggy ranged sv played/felt different enough from MM, one could argue that blizz could have kept sv ranged and differentiated it further from MM without having to go melee.

I don't visit the official wow forums much (sub is not even active atm lol) but I do remeber I use to see quite a few posts about bringing RSV back as a 4th spec, so that way you keep everybody happy. MSV is still a thing for those who like melee sv and you have ranged sv for those who want to go ranged again. While I don't think there is anything wrong with that, I just don't see it happening. Fair warning I don't work for blizzard (so this is all guesswork on my part) but I have a feeling that if blizz gave hunters a 4th spec then other dps specs will want a 4th spec and blizzard doesn't want to deal with that mountain. That being said if blizz wanted to bring back RSV as a 4th spec, I would def. support that.

I will say that if msv goes back to ranged, you would expect that move to happen during the interim for the next expansion. There is no way they would you would get a big revamp during an expansion. Which is why I kind of hold my breath praying there is no massive blue post concerning SV hunter during the pre expansion period, which is contrast to the usual " I hope blizz fixes X spec and makes post on it mentality" that most people have. Crossing fingers for the next pre-expansion period that msv still remains... kind of funny when msv is really the only spec that you hope still remains a thing, you don't see fury warriors hoping/crossing fingers that fury will still be a spec come next expansion.

[Razion]

I do remeber reading a blue post quite sometime ago that the reason sv went melee is because blizz saw sv as simply another version/ magical version of MM, hence they went melee to distinguish it from MM. I feel mixed about their reasoning. On one hand I do like MSV, so I am glad MSV is a thing (hopefully will continue to be in the future...) but I don't remeber ranged SV feeling like a "magical" version of MM. Unless my memory is foggy ranged sv played/felt different enough from MM, one could argue that blizz could have kept sv ranged and differentiated it further from MM without having to go melee.

I don't visit the official wow forums much (sub is not even active atm lol) but I do remeber I use to see quite a few posts about bringing RSV back as a 4th spec, so that way you keep everybody happy. MSV is still a thing for those who like melee sv and you have ranged sv for those who want to go ranged again. While I don't think there is anything wrong with that, I just don't see it happening. Fair warning I don't work for blizzard (so this is all guesswork on my part) but I have a feeling that if blizz gave hunters a 4th spec then other dps specs will want a 4th spec and blizzard doesn't want to deal with that mountain. That being said if blizz wanted to bring back RSV as a 4th spec, I would def. support that.

I will say that if msv goes back to ranged, you would expect that move to happen during the interim for the next expansion. There is no way they would you would get a big revamp during an expansion. Which is why I kind of hold my breath praying there is no massive blue post concerning SV hunter during the pre expansion period, which is contrast to the usual " I hope blizz fixes X spec and makes post on it mentality" that most people have. Crossing fingers for the next pre-expansion period that msv still remains... kind of funny when msv is really the only spec that you hope still remains a thing, you don't see fury warriors hoping/crossing fingers that fury will still be a spec come next expansion.

Hmm. I used to think maybe the other dps central classes would maybe want for 4th specs if Hunter had gotten it first, but I think the knowledge of the separation issue is widespread enough that people would be more understanding -- this same kind of situation happened once with Feral/Guardian where two specs basically already existed, it just had to be made official. I think this may be another case of there potentially being a 4th spec already existing that is already half-supported, so it wouldn't be as much a detraction from other specs for this to be introduced.

As others have pointed out, melee hasn't been a very good alternate role in Hunter (well, mostly) so, to this end while it is an option it's not like Hunter is having four total ranged dps specs. As a mSV player I am just happy for it to exist and I'm content if it's not as represented or if it's weak and I like that it's a little technical. I just think mSV is fun, so as the other was getting at, I think a lot of my perspective is probably warped by that admittedly.

If a fourth spec was introduced I do wonder how it would all go down, as mSV may not have to work within the constraints of SV and may be free to be its own fantasy (as someone suggested at one point, an Aspect and Strikes theme). I think it all sounds fun.