let us turn our friends into ghouls again when they die…
1 Like
There was nothing more frustrating during wrath than finally killing a dk just to have him come back and spank you as a ghoul. It was hilariously broken, we should def get that back.
6 Likes
I will reply to you once… and only once since you made a semi-valid point. (That’s a surprise) But let me expand why there is a sentiment behind baking or removing FC.
The idea is to make every Runeforging all just equitably viable in terms of damage dealing and utility of the Death Knight’s choice.
You would argue for Rune of Stoneskin would be the next most-used Runeforge. But what if I told you that it wouldn’t be the case if other options are just as good? Plus Stoneskin is a generic stat increase anyway which is kind of boring if you ask me.
Rune of Razorice could be one of these examples if the Death Knight would utilize Shatter Line.
Rune of Spellwarding is purely niche defensive enchantment and nothing else. God forbid Spellwarden returns to plague the PvP landscape (Honestly, not even qualified to say anything in this matter since I don’t feel powerful as a DK when PvPing as opposed to a MM Hunter) in the form of a PvP Talent (which got gutted).
Rune of Hysteria used to be good enough. Especially when Death Knight that wants to generate and spend RP enmasse. The ENTIRE point of the Runeforge got removed because BoS was too good with it hurting my Blood DK’s RP economy in the long run.
Rune of Unending Thirst could be an interesting alternative to Rune of Stoneskin Gargoyle… if it innately gives Haste rather than killing something!
Rune of Sanguination simply doesn’t do enough to compete against FC. If FC gets baked in or removed, it will be an interesting candidate against Stoneskin Gargoyle for Blood Death Knights.
Last but not least… Rune of Apocalypse. It is objectively, the worst Runeforge in the game. It’s so bad that not even Unholy, the spec that uses Timmy, would use it. No reason to leave it as is.
To say that people would flock into a different Runeforge that is best suited for their gameplay is obvious. The point is that FC is so good and so universally good that you might as well call it a Free Weapon Enchantment slot which is cool in all, but it kinda leave us wanting for more from other options.
2 Likes
I have no skin in the game about FC, but I can see why people want it baseline, and rework other enchants to make them all viable.
How difficult is it to envision FC being baseline, and rework the other runeforging to be slightly better than a normal enchant?
How is it a “bad idea” other than your inability to see the scope of other people’s ideas?
1 Like
Would love to move on from wounds mechanic but I doubt that’s a change that is made mid-expac.
6 Likes
They could just let is put 2 enchants on a 2 hander. It is a longer blade and should allow space for 2 runes
3 Likes
All runeforges will never be equal in power to be able to give you any sort of choice.
Stoneskin would be the next choice because it already happened earlier this expansion.
Runeforges were never meant to be this deep, interesting, all useful thing you guys are trying to turn it into. It’s just enchants that are free, that’s all it is. If you are a ret paladin there is a best enchant and that’s what you use all expansion and a lot of times this enchant is just an upgraded version of what it had last expansion because it’s a flat stat increase instead of a percentage.
-
they are already viable. Viable just means that it’s able to be done. So 2h can take RI right now if it wants and complete content.
-
They will never be equal. Nothing in WoW has been balanced to that degree.
-
It’s not hard to envision FC being baseline, it will just come with an overall nerf to the spec. How is that hard to envision after this happening time and time again?
Let’s do an exercise. Let’s just say for argument sake that all classes and specs are balanced and are 100% equal. Or at the very least are within the 5% Blizzard aims for. And let’s just say that all classes do 100dps just to drive the point home.
So DK does 100dps the way it’s designed now. Now you take something, bake something into the spec and then add in another DPS increase. Do you think that the DPS figure would stay the same and if so why?
If it wouldn’t stay the same then the DPS can only go up because there is an addition. That would mean for balance that there would have to be a nerf. Many people do not do this type of thought experiment when making any sort of suggestion. Then you get the Obliterate nerf in SL and other nerfs for additive changes.
FC being baseline would lead to nerfs and you wouldn’t hear the end of it from people on these forums that think they know what they are talking about because “they play the game” but that doesn’t mean anything. Danica Patric is a racecar driver but knows absolutely nothing about a car which she admitted to. That’s how many people are on these forums and they are wrong more often than not.
But all classes AREN’T equal.
So let’s use your own example.
Every class is within 5% of 100 DPS.
Paladins, DHs are sitting at like 103 DPS.
DKs and monks sitting at 97 DPS
ADDING FC (Which I dun agree with for various reasons) brings DK up to 99-101 DPS
That’s still within the 5% target, no nerfs are necessary. AND DK is better off than before.
Your own example still kinda proves you wrong.
1 Like
And they never will be.
What are you adding FC to when it already exists in the equation? Dont say that my example proves me wrong when you get the addition incorrect, and didnt even understand the point of the 100dps example.
Maybe one day.