World of Warcraft - English (NA) Forums -> 17% runestrike is nice BUT....

Xhatred

< Envy >

Vashj

0. 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 12:49:26 AM PST

I'm happy blizz has decided DK's need a threat boost of some sort however.....

I'm not really fond of runestrike as a crutch to hold threat.

Let's face it..... if your a DK tank if RS lights up alot your threat will be fine.

However there are those times it just doesn't light up at all............ now before you pallies and warriors get all emo like (hey man we miss stuff too and it hurts our threat) I want to point out that RS isn't like anything else anyother class has. It requires a sequence of motions.... dodge parry, then our next auto attack.

I believe the term some blizz mod used was "overpowerevengestrike" but anyways I like runestrike and think it has a place, but imo it's just it's too much of a crutch for DK tanking.

It's like a catch 22..... you need to RS to hold good threat (granted your dps'ers aren't terrible) but sometimes it won't let you and we cannot hold threat end game on bosses without using it. Therefore we are an RNG based tank system all around RS.

Some fights RS just isn't as useful on certain bosses (as in hardly lights up).

If RNG screws us on RS not activating we get caught very fast by skilled hunters/warlock.

DK threat is low.... no problem you can buff it another way but I don't really like the idea of doing it through RS (even though I'm sure what I say won't affect the decision at all).

Also I'd like to say RS buff is a nice start but what about unholy tanking threat end game? AoE wise it's hurting more than ever and single target needs help also.

Is there any plans to help UD tanking or is it sort of shevled as a pvp/dps tree now?

Camopon

< Innkeeper >

Arthas

1. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 01:17:34 AM PST

Q u o t e:
I believe the term some blizz mod used was "overpowerevengestrike"

I distinctly remember the term "Heroic Over-Revenge."

Asset

< Mediocracy >

Anetheron

2. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 02:26:24 AM PST

What, you don't like having a massive majority of your threat based on a clunky proc ability?

Stannis

< Aussie Raiders >

Shattered Hand

3. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 04:06:46 AM PST

This really seems poorly thought out.

Im glad my threat will be ~even over a 10m fight. This misses the main problem with RS threat/ICR.

In current raids, if I don't get a RS proc within ~10s Locks/Hunters/lolwars are already in danger of ripping threat off me. Its very very rare threat is a problem 1-2m into the fight.

My biggest issues with icy radiance is its even more likly ill be RS starved at the start of the fight when needed.

Instead of a cheap cop out, can you take time to look the poor mech of RS based threat (when amplified by ICR).

Or since were the only class not to have a single target threat increase w/ 2 pc bonus,
2pc bonus: Your Blood runes have a 25% chance to make your next attack a runestrike(and DnD increase or whatever)

Dosvidaniya

< Celebros >

Dragonmaw

4. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 06:46:18 AM PST

Look at it from Blizzards point of view. They know it is a clunky ability. They know we will have a slight threat issue due to radiance (so they buffed it). Then you consider the changes they are making next x-pac. They are overhauling talent trees. They are removing defense and doing who knows what else. It doesn't make sense to try to change RS now if they will have to change it one patch later.

Blizzard has always advocated massive changes at the same time while trying to avoid overhauls in between. It makes sense to do it that way. They will be overhauling next x-pac. Just wait for it.

Q u o t e:

Two things are infinite the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein

Dekkar

< Fatal >

Alleria

5. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 06:58:46 AM PST

It kind of boggles my mind that Runestrike is so critical to DK threat in the first place. I mean, you think that TBC paladins would have been a good example of why reactive threat was bad. To correct it, they nerfed the threat on Holy Shield and Consecration (indirectly just by scaling for Cons, Holy Shield used to generate 130% threat but that modifier was removed), and instead they added Hammer of the Righteous and Shield of Righteousness. 2 ACTIVE attacks.

It's probably too late to fix the problem now, but I'd expect in Cataclysm you'll have a slight overhaul (not a total one) to not rely on Runestrike so much.

Ghostcrawler

Blizzard Poster

6. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 09:08:22 AM PST

The fundamental problem is that DKs are allowed to tank from three trees. (And no, we're not going to change that.)

A Feral druid uses different buttons when tanking than when doing dps. The same is true of the paladin and warrior. We want tanks to use different buttons for a couple of different reasons. One is that it's not fair to do as much damage when tanking as when not tanking. Second, we just think it's more interesting for tanks to learn to use different abilities. The class has more depth when you mix your buttons up than when you just use the same attacks when filling any role.

It would be easy to change Frost Presence to have a huge threat multiplier and just let DK tanks hit the same buttons they do when doing dps. But we don't want to do that for the reasons I stated above. A better answer is to give DKs a new FU ability that they use instead of Death Strike, Obliterate or Scourge Strike. This new ability could even be Rune Strike, just instant and costing runes instead of rp. The problem is that the Blood, Frost and Unholy talents are based around those existing strikes. Adding a new strike would require a lot of talent changes. For example, a talent like Vicious Strikes would need to also boost this new FU strike for DKs to really benefit from it (else half the Unholy tree sort of falls apart for an Unholy tank).

Originally with the DK we had rotational differences because the tanks used their rune-based cooldowns (VB, UA, BS). None of those really contribute to threat though and we found that because of the DK's complex rotation that missing say an initial Plague Strike (because it's hard to be hit and expertise capped while still getting all your mitigation stats) really clobbered DK threat. Rune Strike was a way to give some threat back to the DK. We're really not fond of on-next-swing attacks and would love to get rid of them in Cataclysm, but it's going to be a ton of work for all affected classes.

[ Post edited by Ghostcrawler ]

Ghostcrawler
Lead Systems Designer

Charsi

< Critical Mass >

Stormrage

7. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 09:40:55 AM PST

Perhaps Rune Strike could be a high threat low damage RP dump that replaces Death Coil or Frost Strike? As you cite, making it a frost/unholy strike means you have to mess around with a bunch of talents. Is replacing a runic power consuming attack a viable alternative to replacing the rune consuming strike?

Maybe restrict it to Frost Presence, and give it a solid amount of threat and a cooldown - like, say, 6 seconds - so it doesn't entirely replace damaging abilities nor cause DK tank dps to go into to the floor. Hey, what if it could sunder the target's armor, or reduce their attack power?

/runs

[ Post edited by Charsi ]

Wagglle

Icecrown

8. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 11:57:13 AM PST

Q u o t e:

It would be easy to change Frost Presence to have a huge threat multiplier and just let DK tanks hit the same buttons they do when doing dps.

This is exactly what dk tanking currently is FYI.

Staticsmo

< Uprising >

Aerie Peak

9. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 11:58:31 AM PST

Q u o t e:

This is exactly what dk tanking currently is FYI.

Yeah I was going to say... I wasn't aware DKs really used different rotations while tanking and dpsing. Rune Strike just ends up being macroed into everything, it's not a button we push.

Main - 80 Moonkin: http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Aerie+Peak&n=Randomsmo
Blog - http://randommg.blogspot.com/

Thunderstruk

< Momentum >

Echo Isles

10. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 11:59:02 AM PST

Q u o t e:
A better answer is to give DKs a new FU ability that they use instead of Heart Strike, Obliterate or Scourge Strike

Death Strike =3

Q u o t e:
http://i38.tinypic.com/2q1upz4.png

^ this ^

Kiyolano's guide to playing a shaman

Chillrend

< Refugees of Luclin >

Elune

11. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 12:02:42 PM PST

Wouldn’t a new FU tank strike be a little unfair to blood tanks who convert their FU runes to Death Runes for more Heart Strikes? So blood tanks would use this new tank strike less? I certainly don’t think you haven’t considered that. I’m just curious what you had in mind.

/target Dead Horse
/cast Beat

Personally I think it would be cool if this new strike were to be high in threat, low to moderate in damage (won’t break PVP), have a short cooldown and applies some sort of short duration tank oriented debuff (attack power, 3% miss, etc.) in addition to not being dodged blocked or parried. Then subsequent hits on targets afflicted by the debuff from each tree’s signature FU strike causes additional threat. You could tailor each signature strike to have varying amounts of additional threat for precise control on how much each tree should have. *cough* Unholy threat *cough* (note the debuff would only affect the person that applied it – like Stormstrike)

Now your FU tank strike would not be a replacement but a compliment to each tree’s FU strike without the need for a major talent overhaul. It would become an opener and something you occasionally hit to maintain the debuff.

Also....in before someone quotes:

Q u o t e:
The last thing the DK class needs is yet another buff or debuff tied to an attack and I'm not sure the class really even needs another mechanic to have to watch or track tied to Scourge Strike

Morsul

< The Eleventh Hour >

Earthen Ring

12. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 12:03:28 PM PST

Q u o t e:
The fundamental problem is that DKs are allowed to tank from three trees. (And no, we're not going to change that.)

A Feral druid uses different buttons when tanking than when doing dps. The same is true of the paladin and warrior. We want tanks to use different buttons for a couple of different reasons. One is that it's not fair to do as much damage when tanking as when not tanking. Second, we just think it's more interesting for tanks to learn to use different abilities. The class has more depth when you mix your buttons up than when you just use the same attacks when filling any role.

It would be easy to change Frost Presence to have a huge threat multiplier and just let DK tanks hit the same buttons they do when doing dps. But we don't want to do that for the reasons I stated above. A better answer is to give DKs a new FU ability that they use instead of Heart Strike, Obliterate or Scourge Strike. This new ability could even be Rune Strike, just instant and costing runes instead of rp. The problem is that the Blood, Frost and Unholy talents are based around those existing strikes. Adding a new strike would require a lot of talent changes. For example, a talent like Vicious Strikes would need to also boost this new FU strike for DKs to really benefit from it (else half the Unholy tree sort of falls apart for an Unholy tank).

Originally with the DK we had rotational differences because the tanks used their rune-based cooldowns (VB, UA, BS). None of those really contribute to threat though and we found that because of the DK's complex rotation that missing say an initial Plague Strike (because it's hard to be hit and expertise capped while still getting all your mitigation stats) really clobbered DK threat. Rune Strike was a way to give some threat back to the DK. We're really not fond of on-next-swing attacks and would love to get rid of them in Cataclysm, but it's going to be a ton of work for all affected classes.

The other downside to making this high threat ability a new FU strike is that it turns all tanking rotations into the exact same thing no matter what your spec is: IT + PS + Tank Strike + BS + BS (RP Dump) -> Tank Strike + Tank Strike + BS + BS, except replace the second pair of BS's with another Tank Strike if you're anything but Blood spec. That sounds ridiculously boring to me, and it removes any of the variable rotations you get from changing talent spec.

It is a challenge, but the three trees need to feel different when going through their rotation. I honestly don't see the problem with having the tank and DPS rotations for each tree be the same. We already have three vastly different damage rotations available to the class, we don't need to add three different tank rotations on top of that. Why not just add a talent fairly deep in each tanking tree that increases the threat of the key rotational abilities of each tree?

For example Blood would have a talent that increases Heart Strike and/or Death Strike threat, Frost would have a talent that increases Obliterate and/or Frost Strike threat, and Unholy would have a talent that increases Scourge Strike and/or Death Coil threat, or something to that extent.

Night falls in Hearthglen
Come and see the willows bend
Heavy with hanged men.
-Silverdawn, Earthen Ring

Lamprei

< Neglect >

Smolderthorn

13. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 12:04:57 PM PST

Right now single target threat is trouble enough, but aoe threat is very difficult, too. Has there been any consideration of adding to the threat of blood boil, the secondary heart strike, howling blast, or wandering plague while in frost presence?

"I wish I was hitting a different but very similar attack"

Wagglle

Icecrown

14. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 12:06:49 PM PST

Making rune strike like shield slam seems ideal to me, it makes all tanks have to push another button (can't macro to everything) and it's on a cd so have to use a small amount of forethought in rotations. Maybe double the threat and RP cost as it'd be used about half as often as well, leaving the dmg the same or even lowering it for pvp concerns.

[ Post edited by Wagglle ]

Dunri

< Knights of Menethil >

Moon Guard

15. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 12:08:12 PM PST

Q u o t e:

Death Strike =3

It's Heart strike, Death strike isn't the main damage dealing strike for blood (I've never played frost in my life, dunno if Death Strike is used.)
...
Unless you are trying to say that tanks simply replace heart strike with death strike, in which case you would be wrong, as it uses different runes.

Wagglle

Icecrown

16. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 12:08:19 PM PST

Q u o t e:
Right now single target threat is trouble enough, but aoe threat is very difficult, too. Has there been any consideration of adding to the threat of blood boil, the secondary heart strike, howling blast, or wandering plague while in frost presence?

That's a player issue not a dk issue. Our single target threat current is very strong and our aoe threat is amazing, even as blood it's better than a warriors and unholy is the strongest aoe threat in game.

Thunderstruk

< Momentum >

Echo Isles

17. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 12:10:30 PM PST

Q u o t e:

It's Heart strike, Death strike isn't the main damage dealing strike for blood (I've never played frost in my life, dunno if Death Strike is used.)
...
Unless you are trying to say that tanks simply replace heart strike with death strike, in which case you would be wrong, as it uses different runes.

he said frost+unholy rune user, which is death strike, heart only uses 1 rune not 2 =P

Q u o t e:
http://i38.tinypic.com/2q1upz4.png

^ this ^

Kiyolano's guide to playing a shaman

Combatus

The Venture Co

18. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 12:21:06 PM PST

Q u o t e:

The class has more depth when you mix your buttons up than when you just use the same attacks when filling any role.

sounds like your asking for rotations but you only give one ability to work with

i remember making a post about this about 3 weeks after lich king released about dks macroing everything to rune strike because they simply have no choice. im not sure how a dps tank class without a tanking tree is going to "change up" a rotation when all 3 trees use roughly the same abilities.

dk's have something in common with warrior and pally tanks in they are both reactive and pro active. but only half of this system is reliable and it's not the reactive RS

just buff frost presence like you just buffed RS and let the tree reflect the rotations.
OR

maybe one of these dk tanks i keep heaering about but never see who have zero threat problems and do top 5 dps while tanking would like to come out and explain what some of us are doing wrong.

Alakona

< Fusion >

Turalyon

19. Re: 17% runestrike is nice BUT.... 11/04/2009 12:28:31 PM PST

Q u o t e:

maybe one of these dk tanks i keep heaering about but never see who have zero threat problems and do top 5 dps while tanking would like to come out and explain what some of us are doing wrong.

I couldn't tell you what you are doing wrong but it certainly is something if you're having single target threat issues currently.

To toot my own horn a bit- I'm on wmo top dk tps charts for every fight I main tank in ulduar/toc (obviously if I'm an offtank I won't be with how runestrike works.) The problem is palli threat is out of hand, not that dk threat is bad. DK threat is in a perfect place, if you suck you will have threat problems and if you're good you will almost never have threat problems.

[ Post edited by Alakona ]

Forum > CLASS ROLES > TANKING