Death Knights' "rune" system might take some skill
by David Bowers 
Aug 29th 2007 at 4:04PM
"Oh my frikkin dog, everybody and their second cousin is gonna wanna be Death Knights!" was the cry heard throughout Outland when the new Hero Class was announced. WoW players everywhere had visions of dungeons and raids filled with only Death Knights; as well as Alliance and Horde cities alike all filled wall-to-wall with thousands of players who abandoned their original class to become Death Knights, only to discover (along with rogues and hunters) that it ain't so easy being uber-cool and powerful when everyone else is uber-cool and powerful too -- because everyone else is taking your raid spot.Well Drysc has a ray of light to shed on this despair... or, in the case of Death Knights, perhaps that should be a big tank of unholy frozen blood to spill on it (assuming that would help):
I expect just about everyone is going to want to try one, but is everyone going to want to drop their long-time proffered class for one? I seriously doubt it. Also there's some amount of self regulation that will really be required to keep group composition equalized.Not only will the other 9 classes still be needed to succeed in any group effort, but the tactics involved in playing a Death Knight might be too hard for the average Stanley Noobsauce to master. In response to one player who felt that the rune system Death Knights will be using seemed "clunky and not fun," Drysc responded:
So the official word is that Death Knights won't be able to do everything by themselves, and may in fact be pretty hard to play. Is this enough to allay fears of Death Knight overpopulation? Will we still have to hire Death Knight exterminators from the opposite faction to clear out our own cities?
In its current design, at least as far as I've seen, it's like having three different energy pools that can be made smaller or bigger before each fight for what you think you may need. I would kind of also liken it to some systems used in space sims where you throw more power into your shields, weapons, hull, etc. While the rune system is designed to be a pre-combat setup, there's the possibility of there being some on-the-fly swapping abilities for re-proportioning your rune distribution.
It's definitely going to be more complex. I think there's going to be a clear definition (more so than other classes) of a good death knight player that manages and controls their runes and cooldowns well, and someone who doesn't.
Filed under: Expansions, Classes, Death Knight, Humor
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Doma Mar 20th 2008 3:35AM
ill wait for the archdriud, thank you. Or whatever shaman/druid equivalent may/will be. So, have fun, iguess. Doesn't matter to me.
Though the first Gnome DK I see is f@%&ing Dead-On-Sight. I'll be looking.
Yavene Apr 4th 2008 11:42PM
From what I heard, you start out as a Death Knight in training for the Scourge in Stratholme, then fight your way out. Plenty of potential for learning curves and challenges there.
That said, I doubt it will be very hard. Blizz wouldn't want a large amount of their customers to be unable to do a good part of the new content (see the heroics and raid "nerfs").
Thorfax Jun 30th 2008 4:08AM
I think, if you noob you noob.. if people wanna roll DK's and either be good or bad then thats their risk. But at least if they suck its more fun for the skilled people to completely own them and laugh in their faces. If they do a good job fighting you then gratz to them. But for now let them try it out and see how it goes. Can't say how many times i've attacked level 70 characters with pretty decent gear and they just fail cause they dunno how to play there class... That again comes down to the skill / gear debate.
You either noob or pro. Thats life.
Mirakei Jul 23rd 2008 3:03PM
as many of you already have pointed out yeah there's gonna be a huge deal with an overpopulation of Death knights so? if you choose to roll a death knight is it really that bad? does it give so bad reputation? i mean shouldn't we be focusing on --> WHY
Mirakei Jul 23rd 2008 3:06PM
lol my comment is way to short.. i wrote like 500% more xD
Emett Nov 12th 2008 9:21AM
I'm a little late but what people are neglecting to remember is that deathknights aren't anywhere near the same as picking up a new spec or a new character. The system of runes is by far ten times more confusing them mana, energy and rage combined. And no you cant be apro after it after being mage dps and warrior tank. There is going to ba an isane overpopulation of death knights. When you look at the /who in your menu you'll see the majority of them will be level 55 -60 because not many are going to have the patience to learn a new class and develop new strategies. Besides if any of them actually planned to do well in the expansion they'd be leveling as fast as they could so they could be in the first wave of level 80's and get dibs on the early raiding. Early raiding guilds are going to be huge because those guuild turn to larger later raiding guilds. Why level a lvl 55 when you can ensure that instead of being left behind like in BC with your Kara "Epics" you can get first hand on some of the best items to be seen in the game? Because I guarentee the major guilds. "Every server has them" Will be recruiting 80's as soon as they walk in the door to make up for the loss of power base as everyone is equall again. The death knight will be a fun class full of lore and promising new game play and styles. But what you need to remember is with over population makes the death knight unpopular in groups. It will be like the rogues used to be? 40% of the server and you only need one per group and 3 per raid at the most!! If you really want to enjoy gaming experience in Northrend. Stick to your main.
Emett Nov 12th 2008 9:30AM
Also, it does take 70 levels to learn a class. THose players who "think" they know a class after 30 or so levels are what we call noobs. Even when you get to 70 you dont fully know your class untill you know how to raid and pvp as that class. Wether you're a healer, dps or tank their are ways to do both. And to do both well. What you need to remember are memorising the moves and knowing which to apply in specefic situations and in what order are two very very different things that define the good players from the not so good players. The good players all know that they were still picking up new strategeis and ways to fight specefic classes. So in conclusion I must dissagree with one of the posts above.
Sylythn Aug 29th 2007 4:14PM
What I'm going to find interesting is the accelerated learning curve required to play one well at 80. When you roll a standard character, you've got 70 levels to learn all its abilities, strengths and weaknesses incrementally as you level. With the Hero Class - bam, you're given a nearly lvl 60 character with all the abilities and spells at once. You've then got only 20 levels to learn, gear and get skilled at a completely new class. Ever pick up a PTR character of a class you've never played? Yeah, it's kinda like that - whoah, this is cool...now what the hell do I do?
Urthona Aug 29th 2007 4:20PM
Enter the Wipe Knight.
Rich Aug 29th 2007 4:24PM
It doesn't take 70 levels to learn to play a class well. Any decent player (I know I know, they are like smart blondes and bigfoot, but go with it ;) ) doesn't need 70 levels or 100-200 hours of play time to get the hang of a character. Starting the DK out so high won't be that bad, since the hardest part of it will be the rune system and learning how that works. There is no reason to force players to start at lvl 1.
The people who get it will get it and those that don't will go back to huntards.
Pudwhack Aug 29th 2007 4:31PM
I disagree about the need to level from 1-70 to learn your character. I leveled my shaman to 60 being elemental then went resto for raiding. Until 60 I had never healed a group before. Then I went enhancement to level to 70. I had to learn how to play melee within those 10 levels and I believe I did a fairly good job. Anyone who has ever played a shammy I am sure will agree with me that elemental and resto are far different than enhancement melee fighting.
I went thru a similar process with my rogue leveling him from 1-70 sword combat and then switching to a more traditional PVP dagger spec. It took me about a week to get it figured out but there certainly was no need for me to go back and re-level my rogue to learn how to play it.
I am currently leveling a priest who, of course, is shadow specced and will remain so until endgame raiding in which I will respecc him to a healer so I can leave my shammy enhancement.
I hear people all the time claim you need to play a character thru a significant amount of levels to understand how to play the class correctly, but really now, who has truely needed to spend months playing a class thru 60 or 70 levels to "figure out" how to play it?
Sylythn Aug 29th 2007 4:54PM
I never said you NEEDED to go through 70 levels to learn a character. I do however think those that spend 70 levels playing a class have a distinct advantage over those of us that might pick up a PTR character when we've never played that class (which seems to be a similar experience to the Death Knight class).
I would also submit that changing specs and playstyle is a very different thing from grabbing a new class. I can switch to protection from retribution on my paladin and figure out tanking far quicker than I can pick up a druid and learn to play it properly.
Further there are the examples found all over realms and forums everywhere - of clueless level 70 characters, that even after they play through 70 levels still don't know some key elements of their classes (now imagine those people only going through 20 levels...how much more will they miss). And there's of course the players who you can tell ebayed their characters...they just don't know it as well as someone who spent 70 levels with it.
Even those of us that are really good at our characters and pick up solid playstyles early in the leveling are still learning new tricks when it comes to 70 - about once a month I pick up a new tip from someone that improves my playing.
All I'm saying is that the learning curve is going to be drastically steeper with the Death Knight, because you don't have 1-60 available to you as a learning experience.
dekulink Aug 29th 2007 5:26PM
My Pally will kill all DKs on sight. :)
DontLetsStart Aug 29th 2007 7:48PM
"I would also submit that changing specs and playstyle is a very different thing from grabbing a new class. I can switch to protection from retribution on my paladin and figure out tanking far quicker than I can pick up a druid and learn to play it properly."
I think I could take a class I'd never seen before, and just by doing a bit of reading instantly be a better player than the majority of nubsauces out there.
Learning a new character really isn't that hard. I think there are really three classes, which we tend to call roles: tank, DPS and healing. The "real" classes only change the trimmings of those roles. Since the Death Knight is a tank and DPS class, anyone who has done those roles before and isn't a complete idiot should pick it up in about 5 mintues, not 70 levels.
Effect Aug 29th 2007 7:46PM
While its true that you don't need '70 levels' to learn to play your class. Starting at 30-40 seems more reasonable. When you start at a high level there is the instant shock of having a full spell book and talent sheet that you have absolutely no idea about. So you have to sit there and spend hours just mousing over abilities to memorize what they do. Then you just have to guess at what sounds useful as you create your hotbar.
Switching specs is no big deal. You will still be familiar with the spells, approx damage, cast times, icons of your class. Not to mention likely discussed in depth with other members of your class about alternate spec pros and cons.
It's basically a given that someone will be (noticably)better at his/her class if they have played it from low levels, rather than starting maxed out.
Freehugz Aug 29th 2007 7:52PM
LF1M Full on DK
Matthew Rossi Aug 29th 2007 8:23PM
I don't think people are giving proper credit to how different some classes really are when you respec. As a warrior, I can respec from Protection to Arms/Fury or Fury/Prot on a whim and I know pretty much what I'm going instantly (this is why my respec cost stays fixed at 50g, I tend to respec once a week at the least) - but my resto shaman might as well be a different class from when he was enhancement. Shocks? I never even use them.
In the case of Death Knights, I think starting at 55 will be enough, since anyone who unlocks one will probably have at least one other alt he or she has played. The more classes you play the easier it is to switch between them.
n82 Aug 30th 2007 10:24AM
honestly, it will be the same situation as we had before BC. Every body was like "WOHAAAAAA DRENAIS BLOODELFS" "ZOMFG SHAMANS ON ALLY SIDE..NEED NEED NEED"
but after some time the hype died down and people didnt want to invest the extra time in playing from 1-60 and then from there to 70. With the DK i think it will be rather similar. Big hype till the release but then a lot of people will be like "naa, fuck it" and play there old class and wait for a hero class that fits them more.
Alcevious Aug 29th 2007 10:27PM
A better way to treat hero classes (considering they'll simply be new classes and supposedly not superior) is to make them much much harder to play.
Derrick Aug 30th 2007 1:01AM
@6... What are you going to do? Heal them to death?