Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    Honestly, I think DW'ing needs to be removed entirely from the class. It wasn't even originally going to be an option, until WotLK Alpha (I think it was Jadefyre?) someone kept insisting they should allow the option, "just to see if it could work". Frankly, enough classes can dual-wield now, and thematically, it doesn't fit the class, and it ESPECIALLY doesn't fit Frost. 2H-Frost was not only a blast to place, but it *felt* like playing a Death Knight.

    Beyond that, yeah I think Blizzard lost sight of what made the DK so fun and unique. Anti-Magic Zone had brief flashes of brilliance, and I even remember having a load of fun with Anti-Magic Shell, back when you could purposely put yourself in harm's way, soak up a bunch of magic damage and translate it into a massive flood of Runic Power. Death Knights' identity was being "the anti-Mage". For some reason, though, they've veered away from that... and I'm really not quite sure why.

    I feel like, whoever is working at Blizzard, there's just nobody that really *LOVES* the Death Knight class, and it shows. Everything is just so humdrum and unexctiting. And dual-wielding should have never been supported, let alone embraced at the cost of 2handers.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by matrix123mko View Post
    I think Death Knight would be cool if he was "melee caster". My idea is that he would have to "channel" his strikes for a short time before hitting strong attack. Of course, it would be castable while moving.
    interesting way to create the "slow but hard hitting" feel but i'd prefer this to be a ranged variation instead. swinging/channeling the sword on the move to blast enemies from range with diseases/ spells

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhaxus View Post
    interesting way to create the "slow but hard hitting" feel but i'd prefer this to be a ranged variation instead. swinging/channeling the sword on the move to blast enemies from range with diseases/ spells
    Sounds weird for a knight but I like it.
    I give my flesh and blood freely to the Warchief. I am the instrument of my Warchief's desire. I am a weapon of my Warchief's command.
    https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...lopment-thread

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Claymore View Post

    Death Knights' identity was being "the anti-Mage". For some reason, though, they've veered away from that... and I'm really not quite sure why.
    probably to ensure the niche was empty for DH :|

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhaxus View Post
    it's not about the actual mechanics, but the fantasy behind it: lots of fast, small cuts are a more logical means of applying diseases and sores than giant 2h Sword Swings and vice-versa having a spec with "obliterate" and "nothing but the boots" in its flavour would make a lot more sense with a massive 2h-weapon instead of swinging two swords around
    The fantasy of UH is directly tied to Arthas and his visuals, all the way from WCIII, more than either Frost or Blood so I'm not sure why people keep trying to play this game of it making more sense to be the dual wield spec. I can understand if someone would like the visual for dual wield for UH, but stop acting like it makes more sense, it doesn't, it's simply an opinion. Personally, I like the visual of being a powerful warrior wielding a 2 handed sword, casting dark magic, and summoning the dead.

    Grant it mechanically they need to work the spec mechanics. As mentioned elsewhere damage is far too passive at the moment. There should be better interaction with our pets and diseases, plus more work done on our actual melee strikes.

    I also agree with the comment they really need to make dual wield a visual option, and maybe even vice versa, I kind of find the idea of playing a combat rogue, with a two-hander intriguing, or a survival hunter dual-wielding axes etc.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Casterbridge View Post
    The fantasy of UH is directly tied to Arthas and his visuals, all the way from WCIII, more than either Frost or Blood so I'm not sure why people keep trying to play this game of it making more sense to be the dual wield spec. I can understand if someone would like the visual for dual wield for UH, but stop acting like it makes more sense, it doesn't, it's simply an opinion. Personally, I like the visual of being a powerful warrior wielding a 2 handed sword, casting dark magic, and summoning the dead.

    Grant it mechanically they need to work the spec mechanics. As mentioned elsewhere damage is far too passive at the moment. There should be better interaction with our pets and diseases, plus more work done on our actual melee strikes.

    I also agree with the comment they really need to make dual wield a visual option, and maybe even vice versa, I kind of find the idea of playing a combat rogue, with a two-hander intriguing, or a survival hunter dual-wielding axes etc.
    I dunno; Arthas has always been a bit of an amalgamation of all three specs (less Blood than the other two). WC3 Death Knights definitely draw more inspiration from Unholy, but Arthas has always been associated with ice and frost -- hence, many people see him as the fundamental "Frost" DK, especially when he was presented as more of a "warrior in the forefront of combat", which has never really been Unholy's style.

    Ultimately, much like most NPC's for whom classes are based on, Arthas is kind of the "omni-spec DK". But I think, by and large, most people would associate him most with Frost. He generally fought one-on-one, used big, powerful hits, spent his days sitting upon the Frozen Throne, in a region called Icecrown, on the continent of Northrend, wielding a sword named Frostmourne.

  7. #27
    Its been like this forever and I too have been complaining about this, theres no excuse. Every single other melee has: More movement, More utility, and more CC.

    Its not like DK's do any more damage, almost all melee and all ranged are equal with each other, so how is it that all other melee have significantly greater movement, some seriously more (monk dh etc),significantly more utility and significantly more defensives, again some with serious amounts more. You would think DK dealt like 2x more damage to make up for their pitiful performance in other departments.

    DK's might be able to scrape it through into groups, they might have good damage, maybe even the best of all the specs in the game in a given patch, which makes them viable. But unlike other classes, when their DPS is weak, they are worthless. Grip is sometimes used sure, but every other class uses their utility, so what makes grip so special. Its pretty weak, it dosent even work on half of the units in the game anyway. People often use grip as an example of how DK's dont need as much movement as for example, a warrior, because in theory, the grip is like a reverse charge. Except again, you cant grip half the things in the game, and charge works 100% of the time.

    Same goes for defensives. We have icebound fortitude which sucks, you cant death strike unless you have RP and it barely heals anything, and furthermore you cant self heal if an ability is a one shot. Rogues have greater survival ability, DH's do, Arms does, and id say fury and WW are atleast equal, Id even argue shaman is better despite people thinking its trash as someone who plays both UH and Enh.

    I really just dont get how blizz dont see this, and if someone disagrees id love to hear why you think they are better than I think.

    I love the way DK does damage and its always been my main, and probably always will, but I keep finding myself trying shamans, warriors and hunters because DK's movement and utility is painful and it makes me hate playing the class at times.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •