Trying to understand the complaints about DRK

[Argyle_Darkheart]

BS is clunky, and honestly I'd rather it say that it's unaffected by Grit, or rather "ignores the damage penalty of Grit," just like how Inner Beast does. At least then you wouldn't have 4 potencies to it. Just the base, and the DA potencies. 4 becomes 2. Trimming of the fat.

I would like to quickly point out that the potency of Grit Bloodspiller (475) does not compensate for the damage penalty from Grit; it would have to be 500 potency for that to be true. The potency of Dark Arts on Grit Bloodspiller (175), however, does.

This is why it has 4 different potencies.

[TouchandFeel]

I would like to quickly point out that the potency of Grit Bloodspiller (475) does not compensate for the damage penalty from Grit; it would have to be 500 potency for that to be true. The potency of Dark Arts on Grit Bloodspiller (175), however, does.

Expanding on the above.

Each one is actually 24 potency less for the Grit version.

No Grit + No DA: 400 x 1.2 = 480 potency
Grit + No DA: 475 x 0.96 = 456 potency
480 - 456 = 24 potency
24 / 480 = 0.05
This equates to 5% lower potency in Grit versus out of Grit.

No Grit + DA: 540 x 1.2 = 648 potency
Grit + DA: 650 x 0.96 = 624 potency
648 - 624 = 24 potency
24 / 648 = 0.037
This equates to approximately 4% lower potency in Grit, the lower % coming from 24 being a lower portion of the higher potencies.

The additional potency from DA is adjusted to compensate.
DA boost with no Grit is 140. DA boost with Grit is 175.
140 x 1.2 = 168 potency
175 x 0.96 = 168 potency

However since the values to which the equal additional potencies from DA are being added already have the 24 potency difference, that difference persists regardless.

As stated, the potency for Grit Bloodspiller would need to be 500 to be equal and remove the 24 potency difference.
No Grit + No DA: 400 x 1.2 = 480 potency
Grit + No DA: 500 x 0.96 = 480 potency

Personally I agree that the 4 separate potencies are unnecessary convoluted and should just be done away with while making Bloodspiller, and imo also Quietus, ignore the Grit damage penalty like Inner Beast and Steel Cyclone.

I actually wonder if the odd 4 potency thing is a result of the way that they calculate the end potency for abilities that are being used with DA, where they calculate the adjusted potency of the base ability and DA separately and then add them together like below.

(475 x 0.96) + (175 x 0.96)
as opposed to ...
650 x 0.96

While they mathematically are the same, from a programming viewpoint the fact that they are separate could be the reason that the devs aren't going the "ignore Grit damage penalty" route since that would only affect the portion of the equation for the Bloodspiller base ability, the 475 potency part, since the "ignore penalty" function is built into the ability and the DA part is tacked on and is not considered part of the ability and therefore would not be affected by the "ignore penalty" bit of the ability.

If that is what is going on, then I understand the multiple potency route as opposed to the "ignore Grit damage penalty" route, but then they should adjust the Grit potency to 500.

Aana's post below

I feel that both approaches have the potential for confusion and it all depends on how each individual interprets how the additional potency from DA interacts with the ability that is being boosted by DA.

If someone perceives it as the potency of the ability itself is being increased, then the "ignores Grit damage penalty" route may make more sense as the boosted potency is still the potency of the ability and thus ignores the penalty, while all the multiple potencies is just convoluted.

If someone perceives it as DA is providing an additional chunk of potency on top of what the ability does, then the multiple potencies for the differing situations may make more sense as they see them as independent of each other and therefore the "ignore Grit damage penalty" aspect may not translate over to the DA additional potency.

I will say though, that the way DA potencies are presented in the ability descriptions does somewhat skew perception towards the former which is likely why there is as much confusion and dislike of the multiple potencies approach for Bloodspiller's description.

In the end and as I alluded to earlier in this post, I suspect it may be a mechanics issue that resulted in the 4 separate potencies and not necessarily a perception issue.

[Aana]

The grit BS thing really has no good solution. If you say "Ignores tank penalty" (and get the 5% penny difference) then you still need to somehow point out in text that DA also ignores penalty but only for this 1 skill and risks confusion that DA is 140 potency just like every other skill (when it isnt). The alternative is what we have now which spells out the flat potency. This way makes it crystal clear how BS relates to other skills in either form and how DA fits into it.

It's wordy and awkward, but it is very clear. It's in the same boat as the awkwardness around upheaval. A lot of people are surprised that upheaval is affected by unchained because they assumed it ignored tank stance penalty as the damage goes up in defiance. But in the background it is doing the same thing as BS. Gets an (invisible) potency buff to compensate for tank stance then multiplied by the extraHP in defiance so it 'looks' like it's ignoring defiance. But then you unchained and damage goes up more so it didnt ignore defiance.

BS at least is crystal clear on what it does and its relation to DA.

[Hierro]

Just because I complain about a thing does not mean I dislike it. Not only did I say so myself, you yourself say as much here

Did you misread what I said? I was not complaining, but praising an aspect of DRK.

Anyone who knows anything about good design, or design in general, will see the flaws with this gauge and its implementation.

I suppose you have credentials in game design?

the DA effect of Q is worthless

You wrote all that theory. It sounds like you lack the practice if you think 4800 in MP cannot be refunded easily. However, I'll let a video demonstrate better than words can say. Check out how he goes from ~25%, to full with a single DA-Q, mutliples times, and on more than one pull. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJrtblpkHSQ

[stuff about gauges]

Realistically, PLD will only gain gauge via auto-attacks, the least engaging way to gain gauge. I don't know a PLD worth their salt that generates gauge through other methods. And no, PLD will not generate gauge as easily as it would in sword oath. In either case, DRK has far more interesting interaction with their gauge than PLD. WAR? hard to say, as I main it, I feel the gauge is little more than some token system, but I'll concede that may be habituation and bias.

if, as you say, there has yet to be a fight that outright requires this mitigation, a point that I say is flat out false

It's not false. There isn't a single instance that requires a raid-wide shield like DV or SiO, or perhaps more accurately, one that requires both. Let's be realistic, if a DRK is in your party, you're ensured to have WAR or PLD. You'll have some raid-wide shielding. Even then, instances like O4S were cleared just fine before SiO was turned into a raid-wide shield with DRK/WAR comps, and that instance had heavy amounts of damage going to the party. However, the point remains that party shielding isn't a requirement, or else comps with DRK would never clear anything to begin with, and it would be outright foolish to think instances like UCoB or UWU simply cater to DRK by having "weak-enough" raid-wide damage.

In regards to TBN costing MP, that point is irrelevant. Did you read the argument? There should not be a situation where you find yourself OOM. It's free mitigation and damage IF you practice proper management.

Clemency

Not part of your main damage combo, and arguably a detriment to use. But really, you can make the argument the frequent shielding you get from TBN is its own form of healing, otherwise SCH would be called a weak healer. Storm's path, on the other hand, the heal is so insignificant it changes realistically nothing. I should know from first hand experience. I don't feel like I'm missing a thing when I'm playing DRK over WAR, especially as MT as far as self healing goes.

what is offered by DRK, is offered by both WAR and PLD, and better

DRK unarguably has better AoE and mobility than PLD. DRK can take fluff damage better than PLD thanks to TBN. TBN outright 0s out auto attacks or certain raid-wides, blocking/sheltron only mitigates one such auto-attack/raid wide. Ever try mitigating o6s's last kiss with sheltron? Difficult to do when you constantly take autos. Easy with DRK thanks to TBN.

DRK has better personal mitigation than WAR. You can supplement any CD with TBN for mitigation that surpasses anything WAR can conjure up. TBN can be used while in dps stance, and it's better than IB.

so no, what is offered by DRK might have some aspects that is shared with the other tanks, but it definitely has its own unique flavor and can exceed where the other two don't.

[shao32]

DRK unarguably has better AoE and mobility than PLD. DRK can take fluff damage better than PLD thanks to TBN. TBN outright 0s out auto attacks or certain raid-wides, blocking/sheltron only mitigates one such auto-attack/raid wide. Ever try mitigating o6s's last kiss with sheltron? Difficult to do when you constantly take autos. Easy with DRK thanks to TBN.

DRK has better personal mitigation than WAR. You can supplement any CD with TBN for mitigation that surpasses anything WAR can conjure up. TBN can be used while in dps stance, and it's better than IB.

so no, what is offered by DRK might have some aspects that is shared with the other tanks, but it definitely has its own unique flavor and can exceed where the other two don't.

how many times you will use TBN as a excuse for fluff mitigation? TBN is barely to not worthy against fluff mitigation outside of savage and mass pulling and even on savage TBN dont break if you have the bad luck the boss start casting something or do anything stoping autoattacks, the skill is not designed to work effectively against such damage for 2 reasons:
1º the short duration and 2º with more item level the skill gain more chances to dont pop against non-high damage, the short duration prevents the effectiveness of TBN remains intact for any content as you ilevel grows, as full 370 i saw TBN fail so many times on single target AA due they cant hit hard enough to break the shield, only guardian and kefka can do that with less risk, being a job that have to squeeze every drop of mp and blood to barely being behind PLD on dps its just not a worthy option, you cant compare TBN with pasive block at all, since TBN is not free mitigation TBN is mandatory mitigation if we want to survive the hits that matters, you cant keep it on CD costing you dps and a chance to dont have it ready when you need it despite of the short CD it can happens a lot if you use it without thinking.

and i have to disagre, ignoring the part that inner beast cost some dps inner beast mitigate much more that TBN, TBN just handle 1 TB or 1 raid aoe, inner beast mitigate not only the TB or raid aoe, it mitigates the AA that come after, if we put a WAR using inner beast it have the best personal mitigation due your coldowns have longer duration in general and have constant HP self heals from path without mention holmgang, and all of this is meaningless bcs no matter who have the biggest cushion in they ass bcs dont save GCD of any healer.

[Hierro]

how many times you will use TBN as a excuse for fluff mitigation? TBN is barely to not worthy against fluff mitigation outside of savage-

Outside of savage and mass pulls? You mean content that hits like a feather anyways? Come on, man. If there's not enough damage from fluff, then it's irrelevant. Also, no such thing as bad luck for when a boss starts casting, it's all planned. You need to learn an encounter better if this is an issue.

[shao32]

Outside of savage and mass pulls? You mean content that hits like a feather anyways? Come on, man. If there's not enough damage from fluff, then it's irrelevant. Also, no such thing as bad luck for when a boss starts casting, it's all planned. You need to learn an encounter better if this is an issue.

since reaching a number of TBN per combat it become a loss, 15 if i remember well, every artificial bloodspiller dealy natural resource generation and with it natural bloodspiller with are a always a dps gain compared to the artifical ones that are dps neutral at best most of the time and being sightly dps loss other times, spaming TBN is not a correct way to use it properly, as MT only by TB and raid aoes you reach around 10-12 TBN per combat easily, and yes combat are scripted but i doubt noone outhere memorize the exact number of AA every boss do betwen mechanics to be sure they dont waste 140 potency for nothing.

[Megguido]

That's why you plan your cooldowns. You shouldn't use TBN to mitigate as much auto-attacks as possible. You should use it when it's relevent, there's no point in mitigating autos when there's just autos. It's great when something else has the healers' attention (like prey markers on O7S).

Also, TBN is DPS neutral, Inner beast costs 170 potency and 5 to 25% damage. Inner Beast is also very short (6s), so you'll pretty much only mitigate the tankbuster and the following auto. I'll take O7S' Arm&Hammer as an example: it deals 70k naked, and autos around 13k. So about 83k damage to mitigate: Inner Beast will reduce that by 20%. 83k * 20% = 16.6k damage mitigated, when TBN will mitigate "only" 13k damage. You're losing 170 potency and locking yourself in tank stance for 10s to mitigate 4000 more damage, I'm not calling that much more than TBN considering the cost of such mitigation. Also, when are you really using Inner Beast to mitigate an Ultima ?

Once again, that's not 5 more seconds on their 30% damage reduction that makes WAR defensive kit so strong. It's Holmgang. Of course WAR will be so sturdy, if you play full turtle tank. Enjoy the 2k DPS gameplay spamming Inner Beast.

and all of this is meaningless bcs no matter who have the biggest cushion in they ass bcs dont save GCD of any healer.

I mean, a WAR will Holmgang (e.g.) clown's Hyperdrive. That's 65k HP that you have to heal eventually. Keep your Benediction for that, or blow several oGCD / GCD instead.
For the same tankbuster, DRK can mitigate it to reduce the hit to, say, 25k. You don't even need immediate healing, and an excog is usually enough. Healer can save the Benediction for something else. SCH can use their aether stack on drain instead of Lustrate.

[Jandor]

You can hold 100 blood
You don't want to cap blood
Everything that uses blood costs 50 blood
Everything that uses blood lights up when it's available.

You never need to actually look at the gauge... that's one of my complaints for DRK.

[SleepyNeko]

DRK unarguably has better AoE and mobility than PLD. DRK can take fluff damage better than PLD thanks to TBN. TBN outright 0s out auto attacks or certain raid-wides, blocking/sheltron only mitigates one such auto-attack/raid wide. Ever try mitigating o6s's last kiss with sheltron? Difficult to do when you constantly take autos. Easy with DRK thanks to TBN.

I don't think your TBN will be mitigating much if you are already hit by an AUTO, One auto and most of the shielding from TBN is already gone so it really does nothing against "fluff". At least sheltron is free (and blocking is free in general). The thing is the fluff damage for PLD comes alot more steadily compared to a one full auto mitigation for DRK which could end up as over healing due to HoTs or healers preparing bigger heals for TBs.

But isn't this all back to HW's problem? Doesn't matter if PLD has better mitigation if healing is not a problem, so it doesn't matter if it is expensive for WAR to use IB because there is no need for WAR to use IB. Also Raw Intuition/Bulwark > Dark Mind for fluff.