Blizzard changes the description of the Death Knight talent trees
Curse has noticed a very intriguing change to the Death Knight information page. The descriptions of each of the talent trees has been changed. Here are the old descriptions:
- Blood: Talents in this tree focus on damage dealing abilities. Blood Presence increases damage output by a percentage.
- Frost: Talents in this tree focus on tanking abilities. Frost Presence increases threat and lowers damage taken by a percentage.
- Unholy: Talents in this tree have a variety of functions including summons, diseases, and PvP-focused abilities. Unholy Presence increases attack speed and reduces the global cooldown on death knight abilities.
And now, the new descriptions:
- Blood: Talents in this tree focus on weapons, armor, and strikes.
- Frost: Talents in this tree focus on control, counters, and combos.
- Unholy: Talents in this tree focus on spells, summons, and diseases.
This is quite a drastic change, but what could it mean? Let's look at the possibilities after the break.
You will notice that all references to PvP, DPS, and tanking are completely stripped away from the descriptions, instead focusing on more specific ideals and ability types. It should be noted that the Presences themselves still remain the same (they've been given a seperate section on the information page now), so maybe it's not as huge a shift as it first appears. However, by specifically removing terms like tanking and DPS from the talent tree descriptions themselves, it seems like Blizzard is deliberately moving away from pigeonholing any single tree into a single role.
If this is what they're doing, and it works, it may be that we will see Death Knights that can spec any way they want, and still have their own unique ways of tanking and doing damage. Much like Feral Druids can tank and DPS well with a single spec, it may be that Blizzard is making Death Knights able to tank and DPS well with any spec. It's a gutsy move to be sure, but if they pull it off, it may help the tank shortage, and it may also pave the way for further talent flexibility.
It may be that Blizzard will stretch this kind of flexibility to other classes as well. It is true that Arms Warriors and Retribution Paladins can already strap on a shield and do some small amount of tanking at the 5-man and 10-man level, but will we see them gain innate abilities that will allow them to do it in a manner that approaches Protection spec levels? Likewise, will we see Protection Warriors who can throw aside the shield and do some real damage? Certainly, if we do (And Blizzard has hinted that that they want all tank specs to be able to do more damage, which would imply they want more flexibility for tanks), we may be able to say that these Death Knight changes led the way.
Of course, it could fail, and we could be left we three talent trees that are thouroughly confused, and a Death Knight class that can be little more than mediocre DPS or mediocre tanking with a few gimmicks. That said, if I can choose to tank or DPS by summoning an undead army and inflicting powerful diseases via the Unholy tree, while my buddy can choose to tank or DPS by freezing his enemies with the soul-chilling power of the Frost tree, and we can both excel at what we do, Blizzard may have hit upon something that will vastly improve the game. Letting tanks play how they want but still be able to contribute what a group needs without all those nasty respec costs can only be good for all those tankless groups that seem to be languishing these days, at the least.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Blizzard, News items, Expansions, Talents, Death Knight, Wrath of the Lich King







Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
jay Jun 4th 2008 7:15AM
Yeah, nice to know for some, but do we really need comment posts that direct people to the alpha leak site?, I'm still stunned that blizz has not taken that down.
Noticed how the only WotLK news to grace this site for a while has nothing to do with these leaks?
No offense, but I'm pretty sure its a no no here now:)
xzor Jun 4th 2008 7:59AM
im pretty sure that wowinsider avoids posts based on the leaked alpha because blizz could claim that the text would be a violation of copyright. i.e. some new spell text could be word for word claimed as having a copyright covering it. this does not include video or screenshots, as these, according to common law, have been considered as user generated. it would be different if those screenshots or video had been produced by blizz and placed with copyright.
as far as i know, wowinsider hasnt signed a non-discloser agreement, and anyone with leaked info should not fear legal wrath, unless they had. blizzard can request that info be removed, and as a courtesy, wowinsider has in the past. legally however, once the info is out there, its done.
Jordrah Jun 4th 2008 10:50AM
haha i doubt blizz really cares. all the leaked information just keeps people interested in whats happening and hypes it all up more.
if they really wanted the wikia site taken down it wouldnt be up anymore
Aigarius Jun 5th 2008 11:26AM
Blizzard has no easy legal way of shutting down that site. The copyright does not apply, because the text snippets are too small to be covered by copyright. EULA does not apply, because you don't need to accept the EULA to unpack the game files. Espionage and trades secret legislation does not apply, because the file were hosted by Blizzard on an URL that was not protected. DMCA does not apply for the same reasons.
So the only leash Blizzard has with the gaming sites is the carrot of preferential treatment at expos, betas and press releases and they can threaten to take away that carrot if the news sites don't take down their WotLK alpha info. That does not apply to the leak site mentioned in a comment ago. The WotLK alpha leak site is also easy to Google.
Jeffery Jun 4th 2008 9:32AM
Tank Shortage?
A new class isn't going to fix our tank shortage. We have no shortage of classes or builds that can tank. What we have is a shortage of people willing to tank and to put up with the people in the group that never learn group dynamics.
The whole group dynamics and whining from this same group is why I quit tanking in the first place. It became to much like work.
The Tank Shortage is from all of us folks that were willing to tank either finding good guilds and only tanking for those guilds or else giving up all together. Personally I only tank for friends now a days and when I do I remember why I loved to tank.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but unless this puts a spark of interest into some folks to pick up tanking, the whole Death Knights can tank issue means nothing.
Zarzuur Jun 4th 2008 7:24AM
(I don't see the change on the page!)
Anyway I suppose they can mix it up, but I don't think it will stop certain trees to be regarded as damage, tank or utility .. it's easier to remember. IMO, trees should still be themed without being too cookie-cutter.
Balius Jun 4th 2008 8:36AM
If the trees represent the method by which one tanks or deals damage, and by picking abilities within the trees one becomes either DPS or a tank of that particular style (if Blood contributes to HP, Frost improves damage absorption via armor, and Unholy improves dodge and parry you'd have three styles of tanking...but other means of differentiation are possible). While people will certainly decide on the talents they consider best for the roles, if the tanking talents are split then the ideal tank build will probably be a hybrid, rather than a single tree.
David Bowers Jun 4th 2008 10:59AM
Don't min-maxers eventually say that one particular spec is best for a particular purpose and all others suck? Whether the final "tanking spec" people agree upon is in Frost or Blood or wherever, it'll still be set in stone by people who believe that you have to be the absolute "best" at something. They often say that anything less is "gimping" your raid.
Certainly I agree that it's good to be the best you can be, but how do you really define "best?" Is it merely that you do the most damage, maintain the highest survivability, or have the most mana-efficient healing? Is the situation in high-end raiding really such that nothing except these numbers matters?
This is one of the things that always depressed me about playing a rogue. I liked the subtlety tree, but people always told me combat was best for raw DPS. Is such "superiority" of one spec over another Blizzard's failure in their talent design? or is it the players' failure to appreciate the different advantages each talent spec can bring?
Eternalpayn Jun 4th 2008 6:12PM
David, I feel the exact same about subtlety. Combat is the most boring spec of all of the rogue ones. Even assassination is completely uneventful compared to everything you have to do with sub.
NeSuKuN Jun 4th 2008 7:28AM
why the report button dissapears when you vote a comment?
Virusz Jun 4th 2008 7:39AM
Thats right!
There should be no (pve talent tree) for any class imho
Every tree should be viable for pve, pvp, whever it's tanking or dealing damage or healing or whatsoever!
Frost/Blood pvp here I come lulz
Eternalpayn Jun 4th 2008 7:49AM
From what I've seen on the Warlock Trees, we may not have trees for PvE or PvP anymore. I think the trees are coming down to how you play the class, not the game.
Clasifyd Jun 4th 2008 8:10AM
I will agree; As an affliction PvE lock, I notice that there a lot of new talents 'earlier' in the affliction tree that I would like to pick, but have absolutely no intention on picking up some of the top tier talents because of their PvP orientation. Similarly, the destruction tree is looking juicy, even as having an affliction spec. I've always wanted Ruin AND Unstable Affliction. We're shaping up to be powerhouses in the PvE realm, that's for sure.
con-man Jun 4th 2008 8:06AM
reported him for you! and voted down...
rosencratz Jun 4th 2008 8:14AM
i think these changes have been read into far too deeply.
I think all blizz have done is made the category titles more vague so that people don't feel pigeonholed... even though they still probably will be.
As it is blizzard only suggest what talents we should take for whatever role we seek to do the rest is down to us players to work out.
It would be a poor show for them to start specifically listing which talents we need for whatveer role we want to play. it's also so they can cover their own backs. if they say one tree is good for PvP and it turns out any of the others are also as viable then they could get called on it, same goes for tanking/dps,etc.
vaguer descriptions are best for the players i think, if people want to be told how to cookie cut their characters they can look it up online somewhere. :)
grofer Jun 4th 2008 8:18AM
aww man, merely pointing to where a good deal of the wowinsider news these days comes from and after all this blog linked to the wiki before themselves. Just being helpful while wowinsider is too chicken shit to host info themselves.
William Jun 4th 2008 8:18AM
Seems like the wording has changed but the meanings really hasn't. Why does the writer of the article call it a "drastic change"?
Thinking Mouse Jun 4th 2008 8:29AM
I never agreed with the original descriptions. After seeing the leaked talent trees, I had a go at making a level 80 DK tanking spec, and I drew mostly on skills from the blood and unholy trees, rather than the frost. It never seemed that frost was really that good for Boss tanking, rather for controlling multiple adds. Maybe the change is because they realised this.
TobiasX Jun 4th 2008 8:48AM
There's a difference between "being chicken" and a lawsuit.
wolfy Jun 4th 2008 9:04AM
Make tanks deal more dmg?!
speaking in terms of pvp then, not only can they take a hell of a long drawn out beating but they could then give one back.. err.. the words uber unstoppable spring to mind?
i think that'd be the worst move they've ever made if they do give tank specs more dmg. I mean Its part of the payoff and the terms that you agree to when speccin tank, either spec for dmg dealing or high armor/protection.