---

Q u o t e:


Don't forget that nerfing Unholy Blight in such a way is a disadvantage for 50/0/21 specs as well. Just pay attention to the other specs that use that talent if you plan to reduce it's damage to compensate for a buff further down the unholy tree..

---

Uh, 50/0/21 has been a dead spec ever since Gargoyle was moved down to the Unholy 51 pt talent.

---

Q u o t e:


Uh, 50/0/21 has been a dead spec ever since Gargoyle was moved down to the Unholy 51 pt talent.

---

He is talking about blood.

---

Q u o t e:


He is talking about blood.

---

I know that. The standard Blood spec is 51/0/20.

---

Q u o t e:


I know that. The standard Blood spec is 51/0/20.

---

Pretty sure but not totally sure that after the UB change, the 50/0/21 pulled ahead because of the auto DC of blood, it accounts for more damage than the DRW, don't quote me on that though.

---

Q u o t e:


Pretty sure but not totally sure that after the UB change, the 50/0/21 pulled ahead because of the auto DC of blood, it accounts for more damage than the DRW, don't quote me on that though.

---

Think that was the case for the first version of UB, then it was brought down to 20%. At 10% it will certainly not be the case.

That said - I'd love to try out a blood build like 44/0/27. Not for the Ghoul dps, but for the stun. That stun is such a useful tool, and having a permanent pet to get into combat is also very useful. If thiose kind of things were made available outside of unholy, we wouldn't be in this pigeon hole.

---

Q u o t e:


Think that was the case for the first version of UB, then it was brought down to 20%. At 10% it will certainly not be the case.

That said - I'd love to try out a blood build like 44/0/27. Not for the Ghoul dps, but for the stun. That stun is such a useful tool, and having a permanent pet to get into combat is also very useful. If thiose kind of things were made available outside of unholy, we wouldn't be in this pigeon hole.

---

So make the permanent pet baseline, and decrease some of the bloat in unholy? I like this idea.

Change glyph of scourge strike to "your scourge strike generates 10 additional runic power"

BAM just fixed one of the bigger reasons why players have been abandoning SS in pve for a 10 sec IT+PS rotation and why they have been favoring IT+PS + DC over SS in pvp, the runic power gen of SS needs to equal that of IT+PS.

and as for the new SS, youve got a good idea there, making it only half spell power and half physical would be a good way to allow you to increase SS hits, and keep the ability unique from the other 2 FU attacks being that it would have essentially 50% armor pen.

however since the shadow damage is based directly off of how hard the physical dmg hits for, what you have there is spell dmg that is midigated by armor, making it no different than being a pure physical attack.

if you are set on making it a half and half, then the spell power componant has to scale off of weapon dmg like SS/FS curently does, just make it a lower amount, that way you could ballance it to essentially be a 125% weapon dmg attack like the other 2 FU attacks, but 50% of it ingores Armor.

EDIT: also just remove unholy blight from the game and roll that dmg into Scourge strike, yes unholy blight is well worth 1 tallent point, however its a pretty lame tallent, it already does like 50 - 150 a tick in pvp and 100 - 250 a tick in pve, thats pretty lame, and in 3.3 it will do half that dmg, no one wants a DoT that ticks for 25 - 75 pvp and 50 - 125 pve at lvl80 thats just lame.

I'm dying to see if the devs respond to the prevailing sentiment that this is an intended PvP nerf and a PvE buff. I just want clarity on what their intentions were.

Seriously.

---

Q u o t e:
I love this game blizzard, but your making me hate my favorite thing about it. Seriously, DONT NERF ME BRA. Like...DKs are the least represented class in arenas period. As for PVE who gives a damn about the lame PVE carefest. Its ridic that warriors MS ppl for 6-7 k, and apply a 50% healing debuff, or rogues evisc ppl for 9.5k, or locks/ele shamans dropping ppl in one global cooldown with Lava burst/conflag/chaosbolt etc. But god forbid DKs hit harder than 5k. Stop listening to the kids who are still butt hurt about s5 DKs and balance us, don't give us non sensical nerfs that destroy the synergy of the only tree that is even viable for DK PVP(and viable is stretching it lol).

This change is stupid. A damage buff is needed for unholy DKs in one way or another. But making it so we gain a bit of SS dmg against clothies and lose it agianst mail/plate wearers is ridic. DKs niche atm is destroying clothies...why make us more powerful against the one thing we really dont struggle against, while nerfing our damage against plate wearers. WTF am i sposed to do in 2s...just CoI spam the warrior till he gets DCed? If i can't SS hard enough to force a shield up hes gonna drop me or my healer.....come on blizz. I love this game and your really driving me crazy with all these DK changes. I should just switch back to my rogue and eviscerate kids for 9.5k CUZ THATS REALLY BALANCED.

---

QFT! Clothies are being destroyed in arenas atm as is. DKs do not need buffs vs clothies.

---

Q u o t e:


Pretty sure but not totally sure that after the UB change, the 50/0/21 pulled ahead because of the auto DC of blood, it accounts for more damage than the DRW, don't quote me on that though.

---

You'd have to grossly misuse DRW for UB to pull ahead of it even before the 3.3 change.

This is actually a great thread, hopefully the devs can use it and not just blow off the constructive critcism.

---

Q u o t e:


No.

I hate to see anyone trying to support a strategy of "yell loud, yell often and we can get them to make a change."

We're always going to pay more attention to intelligent discussion than caterwauling. We're always going to make the changes we think are right for the game, even if the community doesn't give us the stamp of approval. Sorry. That doesn't mean we don't want feedback.

Most everyone reading these forums knows a good post when they see it. If you're having trouble I would look for "makes a persuasive argument" and not "agrees with me."

---

Is it your intention to lower PvP damage vs anyone in mail + shield or greater armor levels?

---

Q u o t e:


No.

I hate to see anyone trying to support a strategy of "yell loud, yell often and we can get them to make a change."

We're always going to pay more attention to intelligent discussion than caterwauling. We're always going to make the changes we think are right for the game, even if the community doesn't give us the stamp of approval. Sorry. That doesn't mean we don't want feedback.

Most everyone reading these forums knows a good post when they see it. If you're having trouble I would look for "makes a persuasive argument" and not "agrees with me."

---

I don't mean to be rude, but if the bolded sentence is the case, why do u respond to that one QQ post instead of all the constructive material in this thread?

---

Q u o t e:


No.

I hate to see anyone trying to support a strategy of "yell loud, yell often and we can get them to make a change."

We're always going to pay more attention to intelligent discussion than caterwauling. We're always going to make the changes we think are right for the game, even if the community doesn't give us the stamp of approval. Sorry. That doesn't mean we don't want feedback.

Most everyone reading these forums knows a good post when they see it. If you're having trouble I would look for "makes a persuasive argument" and not "agrees with me."

---

Take this logic test with me, GC.

1.) Magic damage's key benefit is its ability to bypass armor.

2.) The magic portion of this strike will depend on the physical damage portion.

3.) Point 2 means that the magic portion will be affected by armor.

4.) Why have a magic damage portion then?

I mean----have you guys actually thought about this? If the magic damage is tied to the ratio of physical damage, then guess what? IT IS ALL AFFECTED BY ARMOR.

Now, the question everyone is waiting for GC.

Is the shadow portion based on DAMAGE DONE or is it based PRE-MITIGATED weapon damage?

Its a *very simple* question, can you answer it?

---

Q u o t e:


I said we pay more attention to intelligent discussion. "Pay more attention" means discuss in design meetings, which is really what you want most of the time. Responding to a forum post in hopes of discouraging a ton of bumping and QQ posts is just me trying to make my life easier. Remember, the blue posts is not ultimately what you want. The game change is.

Let's not derail this discussion though. I made my point.

---

Yes lets not derail the discussion with QQ stomping - your point is made.....

Now can we get an answer to the poster above you? Is the shadow damage component based on the unmitigated or mitigated physical damage?

---

Q u o t e:
Take this logic test with me, GC.

1.) Magic damage's key benefit is its ability to bypass armor.

2.) The magic portion of this strike will depend on the physical damage portion.

3.) Point 2 means that the magic portion will be affected by armor.

4.) Why have a magic damage portion then?

I mean----have you guys actually thought about this? If the magic damage is tied to the ratio of physical damage, then guess what? IT IS ALL AFFECTED BY ARMOR.

Now, the question everyone is waiting for GC.

Is the shadow portion based on DAMAGE DONE or is it based PRE-MITIGATED weapon damage?

Its a *very simple* question, can you answer it?

---

Namely this ^^

As others have posted - it's not cloth that DKs are doing poorly on.

The concern is that the armor-bypassing shadow damage (affected by resistances already), based on the physical damage portion, is already mitigated by by higher armor targets.

We'd just like clarification on it please. Thank you for continuing to acknowledge that you are following this thread.

---

Q u o t e:


No.

I hate to see anyone trying to support a strategy of "yell loud, yell often and we can get them to make a change."

We're always going to pay more attention to intelligent discussion than caterwauling. We're always going to make the changes we think are right for the game, even if the community doesn't give us the stamp of approval. Sorry. That doesn't mean we don't want feedback.

Most everyone reading these forums knows a good post when they see it. If you're having trouble I would look for "makes a persuasive argument" and not "agrees with me."

---

Ok, here is my shot at intelligent discussion:

We know the change was made for pve reasons. It is probably balanced in pve (due to raid debuffs like sunder etc etc). This change does not at first seem to work for pvp. The two reasons are
1) In pvp it is much harder to get 3 diseases on your target due to fire and forget dispel spells/totems
2) Our pvp gear does not have armor pen as a stat currently like warriors (our pve gear does)

Since the objective is to balance around both pvp and pve simultaneously (as has been the goal in the past for all characters in this game -- and the expections are few and far in between); my belief is that the change is good for pve, but I'm not sure about pvp (I'm not being idignant or angry since it's not on the PTR yet). Can you offer us some insight into how this change will work for pvp?

Since you're around, any chance you can clarify how scourge strike is supposed to work in 3.3? It's broken on the PTR and speculation is getting out of hand.