Wrath Retrospective: What we learned from death knights, page 2

Death knight DPS
Tanking is not the only aspect of PvE that death knights have held a significant impact on shaping: there is also the wide changes that death knights have brought on the DPS scene. WotLK has been an amazing change of philosophy for WoW with the bring the player not the class (BtPntC) design, yet it has also caused many of the issues that we have seen today. BtPntC hinges upon two distinct principles of equality: damage equality and utility equality.
To many players, damage equality is of the utmost importance. I think we can all agree that damage is one of the key driving forces of virtually every combat based game out there; healing is nice, soaking damage is all well and good, but it is the raw power of a character, it is their ability to blast things to bits, that is really exciting. Death knights have shown us many a problems that can exist within damage equality, particularly in regards with melee attacks.
Unholy has been one of the prime DPS specs of choice throughout much of the death knight community. Blood and frost are to be respected, and they've demonstrated many things in their own right (in fact, frost is my personal favorite); however, it's been unholy that has demonstrated a key facet of damage the most. I am, of course, referring to mixed damage attacks -- those attacks which are based both physical and magical. Scourge Strike more than anything else has been the best indication of how difficult it is to properly balance out these effects. Magical damage is based around the principle of how it ignores armor; which is an excessively powerful mechanic that often goes ignored by many players. Allowing a melee class to wield magical abilities isn't a strange or new concept, but it is a difficult concept to balance effectively.
At its most basic premise, original RPGs operated in a sort of rock-paper-scissors method; magi beat warriors, warriors beat rogues, rogues beat magi. In the beginning of WoW, that was actually the basic premise of how PvP operated - more on this later - however WoW has evolved beyond such a basic form since then; melee classes overall are rarely restricted to physical attacks. Aside from warriors, nearly every melee class in the game deals some form of magical damage. Death knights moved further beyond what any other melee class has before; they are the perfect combination of physical and magical. Only blood differed from this in any way, which is why it isn't surprising that blood is becoming a tanking tree in the next expansion. By focusing solely on the duality of the death knight class, Blizzard has shown they can make this duality work, but it takes time, it takes work. This is often frustrating for players, understandably so, but in this case we must have patience.
Beyond damage equality, there is also balancing the utility that classes bring. This is the second principle of BtPntC; spreading out utility, homogenizing utility, in an effort to allow for leeway in class choice when it comes to filling out a raid group. That being said, we have quickly learned that not all utility is created equal. It isn't merely enough that various classes are able to provide a specific buff within whatever capacity it is that they can; the method in which that utility is brought must also be done equally in order for the philosophy to be successful. Although death knights might not be the perfect example of this, elemental shaman with Totem of Wrath and demonology warlocks with Demonic Pact might be better, the lack of power in the death knight's unbalanced utility is predominately caused by the lack of encounter design to support it. Ebon Plague is, at the core, perfectly balanced in respects to Earth and Moon, although both are far superior to Curse of the Elements, but Ebon Plague has one mechanic which neither of the others do -- the capacity to be spread to multiple targets with only a single press of a button.
Pestilence and the way it interacts with Ebon Plague is a huge breach in the equality of class utility. If there had been any examples of boss encounters with a significant number of clustered adds where this imbalance had made a difference. I do not feel that I can stress the capacity for this mechanic to have been such a stringent requirement enough; had a more creative workaround not been developed, unholy death knights would have certainly been required for dealing with Vile Spirits on heroic Lich King. Even though it never really became a major issue, Blizzard learned quickly of this issue, sadly, though, they haven't addressed the core of it. They are, slowly, with Cataclysm, and that is a good change.

As much as I postulate on the PvE aspect of the game, that is but a fraction of everything that encompasses WoW. Although I am not a PvP expert in the sense that I don't carry around a gladiator rank, nor do I have a top rated team, I do follow the balancing mechanics of PvP very closely. The most interesting thing about PvP balance is how everything hinges upon such a thin thread; even minor little changes to a certain class can have a widespread impact on what teams, classes, and specs are considered to be viable. For everything that the death knight class has taught us about PvE balance, we have learned so much more about PvP balance from them.
Death knights were created virtually as a direct counter class. During the last days of TBC PvP, restoration druids were the king of kings when it came to healing. Their strength now is debatable, but back then no one could deny the awesome power that druids held. Blizzard made a very big slip when they originally developed death knights -- they were clearly made to overthrow the druid overlords of the time.
The flaw of counter classes
Designing a class to directly counter another class is a terrible design plan. This may not seem obvious, or perhaps it does to you, but within a PvP system as complex as WoW's counter classes simply cannot exist. To some extent, it may seem sensible; however, it could quickly turn into an arms race of how many classes a specific spec can counter, and then there's the class representation imbalance as well. There's a very good reason why PvP cannot be balanced around the high end. Beyond the basic flaws such as skill or other human reasons, there is the most basic human reason of all; that certain players of certain classes are simply more likely to engage in PvP than others. Just to throw out an example, say rogues are more likely to play in PvP; this would mean that any class or spec specifically designed to counter rogues would be at an advantage in terms of creating a stronger team, which would lead to a population imbalance against rogues and their direct counter classes. Eventually this would lead to a higher number of players switching to the class that counters the class which counters rogues, and so on and so on would the cycle repeat itself.
Each class needs to be designed to have certain flaws, certain weakness, and also certain strengths that they can capitalize upon. These weaknesses and these strengths can make them better suited at handling certain classes but never should it allow them to so dominate another class that they will always win no matter the variable of skill. Death knights have taught us this excessively. They were designed to counter restoration druids, and it showed. The representation of restoration druids didn't just drop significantly, it cratered, they completely fell off the face of the earth, or Azeroth if you like. This is why death knights were changed, for better or worse: because Blizzard realized that designing classes to specifically counter others is not a wise choice.
The dispel problem
Dispels are a huge PvP issue; they have been for a very long time. Ever since the on set of arenas, dispels have been under attack for the power that they hold. Blizzard realized this at the time; they thought about change, yet nothing was really implemented for WotLK. Perhaps, at the time, they figured that merely increasing the number of armaments within the race would actually lead to an equalizing effect; sadly it did not. Death knights were actually rather integral in showing this as they were perhaps the weakest class when it came to being vulnerable to dispels.
Thankfully this is finally being fixed, to what degree we cannot yet be certain, yet we can be certain that Blizzard has learned from the flaws that death knights have highlighted.






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Revelation Jun 23rd 2010 9:14AM
Fascinating, should be a mandatory read for all those who complain about Deathknights and all Deathknights too!
First time Commenting but the work done by many of the writers on the server is phenomenal work! Keep it up!
Mergetvs Jun 23rd 2010 12:01PM
@ Revelation
"First time Commenting"
I saw what you did lawl.
I mourn the loss of Unholy tanking. But look forward to trying out this whole blood tanking thing when it is forced upon me
BritishBulldog Jun 23rd 2010 4:37PM
By saying "I saw what you did lawl", you meant you saw that he was commenting for the first time ever on the site?
Amrite?
Brian Jun 23rd 2010 9:21AM
Warriors do have a little magic damage i.e. Thunderclap. Gettig silenced really sucks on certain trash pulls. Blizzard made it magic to increase it's crit bonus but I didn't roll a warrior to get the "You are silenced" message repeatedly but it's ther
Jamie Jun 23rd 2010 9:26AM
I would think you should have prepared to be silenced a lot as a warrior, I mean Shouts unbuffed are every 2 minutes right? Can't shout if you're silenced :)
Bluesmeargle Jun 23rd 2010 9:27AM
Without thunder clap we are Pretty gimped on trash. Cleave doesn't do too well >.> but I think what we lack in aoe aggro we make up for in other ways. The buff to revenge really skyrocketted my dps!
Mike Jun 23rd 2010 9:32AM
Blizzard made it magic so it couldn't be dodged or parried, but then changed it to ranged to get 200% crit. Silencing doesn't affect solely magic, it blocks any ability that can be associated with sound. Being ThunderCLAP, it's obviously going to be a silenceable ability.
PodPeople Jun 23rd 2010 6:18PM
it's magic dmg for the reasons Mike listed, but also for it to not be blocked or mitigated by armor. the 200% 'ranged' crit was added to increase it's effectiveness at generating/holding aggro. apparently blizzard had decided that the grass really was a little greener on the pally and DK sides of the their respective fences.
styopa Jun 23rd 2010 9:26AM
"Blizzard classified them as being a hero class, not to be confused with your ordinary, run-of-the-mill class. To many people, this caused worry that death knights would be grossly overpowered and far superior to all of the others. Blizzard was quick to point out that this was not the case..."
...and once again lost a gross amount of credibility, as this was obviously countered by just about everyone's experience in both PvE and PvP. They were grossly overpowered, stayed grossly overpowered, and are arguably still OP, but probably not moreso than whatever class ends up favored in any specific patch.
The problem I see/saw with DK's is the ability to start at lvl 55. The limits to when you could have a DK fell so quickly that they were in practical terms irrelevant.
It's bad enough that every time a class ends up OP, the immature ganksters flock to it in droves - witness BM Hunters in TBC - and the class develops a reputation for idiots and retards. Multiply this exponentially by the fact that they could skip the leveling process up to lvl 55? And it's a SURPRISE that every ankle-biter 12-year-old made one? Really? Even if you're a serious, skilled player interested in playing through the (awesome) intro quests, you really shouldn't be at all surprised that you're painted with that broad brush.
I'd like them to take the logic of DK's and apply it to other classes as well, that would at least mitigate the population imbalance due to people wanting to shortcut leveling.
For example: If you have an 80 warrior class SOMEWHERE on the account, you can start a new warrior at 55. If you have an 80 druid, you can roll a druid on a new server and start in nice blues at 55 just like DK's (albeit you don't need the big long backstory quest).
DK's aren't inherently bad, and aren't really excessively OP. Their legacy however is something that people who play DK's will simply have to live down over time.
Dashifen Jun 23rd 2010 9:44AM
You know ... this is a pretty good idea. Well done.
Lissanna Jun 23rd 2010 9:45AM
"Blizzard was quick to point out this was not the case" does not equal "they were never overpowered". Blizzard says & promises things that don't happen all the time. His statement is absolutely correct, because Blizzard SAID they wouldn't be OP, whether or not they were.
Daethar Jun 23rd 2010 9:52AM
Also, since the starting quests deck them out in blues, many feel godlike when they first step foot into classic/bc areas. In two senses, they are, as PvE solo mobs weren't made to be challenging based on such high level gear, and PvP fights against one other person is ridiculous when the death knight's gear is leaps and bounds above what other classes get until the end levels of Outland/early levels of Northrend.
However, this also created a huge flaw in the class, which is that they had only 3 levels with which to learn their class, instead of 58. This, paired with the easy-mode in solo situations, led to many* fresh DKs being the worst teammates possible for late classic and early BC dungeons, as well as battlegrounds. Quite a few times, when levelling my tankadin, Death Knight dpsers would just pull everything over and over, and the healer would quickly go OOM trying to save them, because if they didn't save them all that trash would wipe the group. Other times, their dps simply was too great for similarly levelled groups (around 55-60 range), and pulling aggro was a given for a person still learning the ropes of their class. On the PvP side, the early Death Knights made bgs a death-grip tug-of-war (I don't care what you may think, Death Knights, being death gripped 5 times in a row across the BG only to be put in Icy Chains at the end is NOT fun), and really could walk around with little to fear. Once people learned their weaknesses (and the got nerfed), however, it seemed this mindset persisted, and if you ever rolled into a BG with a 58 Death Knight, who just got [An Honorable Kill], you could rest assured they would be a liability for several matches until they learned what the heck they were doing.
Now, if I am levelling an alt and see a death knight before /I/ am 70, it is generally something to be avoided, whether it be my faction or the opposing one. I know there are good players who "get it", or have death knights on other servers and know what they are doing, but they seem so few and far between for that 15 level span before Northrend.
langiszero Jun 23rd 2010 10:04AM
You don't need 58 levels to learn a class.
You don't even need 1 level.
SunGod228 Jun 23rd 2010 10:23AM
@styopa
I think you hit the nail on the head when it comes to starting a toon at 55. I am a mature experienced player leveled a DK alt and it can be overwhelming. You are bombarded with abilities early on that you barely get a chance to test and fully understand the synergy between your new ability and your current ones before you get two more.
And even with shoulder and chest heirloom items 1-55 took me about 2 to 3 days on a recent toon. And I believe I hit 80 around 6 to 7 days played time. That means my DK missed a large the amount of early game experience that other classes have.
So your right leveling a Mage to 55 leveling DK to 55, but that is effectively what they are saying.
Brodi Jun 23rd 2010 12:13PM
@SunGod
That's exactly how I felt leveling mine. My first two 80s were both Mana classes, so I decided to try a Death Knight out just to get a glimpse of how non-mana users work. By the time I finished the Scarlet Enclave, I had unspent talents, unfamiliar abilities, and no one really told me how the class worked. Didn't help that I had never played a melee class and was still fairly new to the game.
It wasn't until I was midway through Howling Fjord that I really became comfortable with the class's mechanics. While my Death Knight is now my main and I'm happily raiding with him, I still remember how tumultuous the early leveling process was, so I'm always a little more patient with them (assuming they don't violate certain modicums of decency, but any class can do that).
Rob Jun 23rd 2010 12:45PM
I have...a ton of 80s. But I'm not sure forcing everyone to go through level 1 to 85 is the answer. You don't really gain all that much. Your rotations are largely static. And you certainly don't need much skill to PVE level grind (I once knew a DK who did 250 dps at level 80, i mean how the heck do you go through 25 levels doing that bad?).
I think we over-complicate situations. Eddie Merckx, famous cyclist, said his training was to 'bike lots'. Similiarly, the best way to be good at arena is to do arena, the best way to do BGs is to do them. It doesn't matter what the level is to some extent. Yes you'll get new tricks, and gearing at 80 is a whole different ball game, but the principles are the same.
Just like group play. Do you need to go through 20 different dungeons throughout your leveling 'career' before you know how to group play? Would that even help? No, i doubt it. Everything is faceroll. Its not until either 1) the player becomes interested in how to actually play properly, or 2) the content gets too difficult for facerolling, that you have any sort of 'hey I can play better in a group'. Otherwise it's 'meh' and 'shrug'. The reason people suck is because they got through 80 levels without having a need to not suck. This will not change if its 10 levels or whatever.
Hob Jun 23rd 2010 1:19PM
@Daethar
I pretty much agree with everything you've said, except one thing:
"[Starting at level 55 and having an entire set of epic blues] created a huge flaw in the class, which is that they had only 3 levels with which to learn their class, instead of 58."
"Learning the class" is something that happens to most if not all classes - mainly because just about every class has a "leveling spec" which they discard for "the real spec" later on.
For warlocks, it's pretty well accepted practice to be Affliction until 50, Demonology until 80, then Destruction for raiding. Each spec has tricks and rotations that must be learned. Mages go Frost until they can make Arcane viable. On my druids, at least until recently, it was easier to spec as feral dps until 40, then switch over to balance for moonkin form. I suppose it's possible to level a rogue via Subtlety instead of Combat, but why would you want to? (Perhaps Selfloathius could offer his opinion...) This could be just my opinion, but as far as I'm concerned, the spec is the class.
So, while DKs have only 3 levels before they're "Azeroth ready", it's not a unique weakness of the DK class. It's part of the weird foundation of the game, where leveling as one spec and ending up as another is standard practice.
DC Jun 23rd 2010 4:01PM
I played an unholy DK through Outlands and northrend the first month wotlk came out.
You started in outlands with gear would make angels weep. You got 4 or 5 diseases (I cant remember, it was alot) that could be spread among as many mobs as were near with a button. You had an awesome pet that only required a corpse to summon, and in the unlikely event that you died you came back as a ghoul, just to make sure you could exact that last little but of revenge. BGs in the 40-50 range were basically decided by how many DKs you had on your side, and i distinctly remember participating in a contest to see how many of those buzzards we could grab, at once, outside honor hold and still finish the battle with full health (it was 16).
Notice all this stuff is in the past tense. Today, are still extremely powerful classes but only on paper. They have a litany of (albeit watered down) abilities that can do some serious damage when mixed the right way. However, they have also become, arguably, the least creative class Blizz ever made. Whereas the stealth mechanic rogues get requires a certain subversity (dare i say, perversity) to fully harness, the mage an understanding of CC, the warlock health and inventory management, etc., DKs have become basically about stacking debuffs to launch a single massive strike. When I see a DK, I know that the fight will evolve in only one way: diseases, chains, melee strike. There is no subtlety, no creativity, in the way a DK fights. Every time I go to EoTS, and watch the shamans eject the enemy off the middle with TB or Priests MC their foes off bridges to their deaths I feel a little pride, because I have seen an extremely powerful but limited ability employed in just the right way- a certain alchemy that is sublime to behold.
So therefore I say do not hate the DK because he has leet DPS, weep for his pitiable position- his godliness has reduced him to an existence of banal ownage, never understanding the joy, the exult, of using a skill in a way it was never intended but instead merely meting out his damage in a most unbalanced way.
splodesondeath Jun 23rd 2010 5:58PM
Hob, I don't quite agree with you about leveling specs.
With the newer design philosophy that Blizzard is hoping to use, "leveling specs" may well become things of the past, or at least become less significant.
What is the point of a leveling spec? It is to have the least amount of downtime for the longest amount of "uptime" (i.e. getting experience - not being dead, killing more faster)
Let's look at some of the more popular leveling specs for solo questing:
Druid: You go feral so you don't have to worry about mana. It can be painful until Mangle.
Death Knight: Unholy for more AoE capabilities.
Mage: Frost for Blizzard-grinding/survivability/cheaper spells
Rogue: Combat (I tried to level a rogue as this spec but I wanted to kill myself out of boredom, so I can't say much)
Priest: Shadow for high mana returns
Paladin: Prot for AoE grinding
Shaman: Enhancement for cheaper spells
Warlock: Affliction for multi-mob "DoTting"/better mana returns
Hunter: Beast Mastery for better pet tanking/pet damage
Warrior: Prot for AoE/survivability/Revenge-skillage
Now, many other specs are viable. Smite-priests will be certainly more popular come Cataclysm from the look of the changes to Disc, Subtlety rogues are seen as "more fun" by a growing playerbase (fast Stealth CD, Ambush 1-hit KOs). Many warriors still level as Arms or Fury (MS & Overpower, Whirlwind & fast big hits). BM's status as the hunter leveling spec is debatable, one might prefer Marks' increase to Volley damage. Retribution remains a good leveling spec thanks to Divine Storm.
Players should not be pigeon-holed into one spec just because "it's better", and Blizzard knows this. With Dungeon Finder and BG leveling, you can level your shammy as resto for faster queues in LFG, or make that mage fire and do crazy AoE damage at the EotS flag along with knocking people off the edge.
When I started playing the game as a mage back in 2.1, my friends (who have since stopped playing WoW) told me that "Arcane has offensive and defensive talents, but don't take it unless you're a n00b. Fire is more offense, frost is more defense."
I picked Frost because I thought shooting ice bolts was cooler. My friend had leveled his mage as fire; when I reached higher levels he got mad when I started winning duels.
In short, play because you want to play in the way the spec exemplifies the class. If you would rather shove swords into people, but you want to play a rogue instead of a warrior, go Combat. If you don't want to play a mage, but you love lighting people on fire on your warlock, go Destruction.
Sleutel Jun 23rd 2010 7:01PM
"DK's aren't inherently bad, and aren't really excessively OP."
Well, not anymore, they're not. But I remember my first hardcore raiding guild in the early days of Wrath: several of the tanks were DKs, purposely re-rolled because of the new class's OPness. Their cooldowns were amazing, and they tanked while pumping out DPS that was in line with some of the, well, actual DPS.