Dark Knight is a tank, wtf

Simple answer? They wanted to try to entice people to tank more, so they made a class that a LOT of people were looking foward to as a dps class into a tank class in hopes that people will overlook their lack of desire to tank in lieu of finally getting the job they've been wanting for so long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arasiel

But why take the class that is the opposite of a Paladin.

---

It's not. In fact, the 2 have little to no connection except in FFIV and maybe FFXI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arasiel

A class that focuses on utter destruction with dark soul rending magic to be the guy who takes hits and protects party members..

---

Once again that's not totally true. DRK doesn't focus on destruction (well, not only) but on the use of the darkness to kill. The difference is that you can fit it in every role (glass cannon, heavy tanky hitter, sweeper, tank, etc..) except healer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squintina

Besides, it's not that out of this mind to have a class that thrives on sacrificing its own HP also be a tank. Just means it'll need a ton of HP.

---

Actually there is a shit ton of HP I don't use on my WAR (dps jewelry). If more HP can increase my damage/awesomeness while not putting my life at stake, I'm all for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamuKun322

The Soul of the Dark Knight is to protect and destroy in order to come out on top by any means necessary. In other words, I'm sure the Dark Knight story will be good, hopefully.

---

that's along the lines of what the devs announced for DRK. Its gameplay and story is inspired by Gatts from Berserk. For those who didn't read this manga, basically Gatts protects his friends by sacrificing his body and soul to demonic powers and often ends up bleeding to near death in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xhominid

They have to for even the spirit of Dark Knight to make sense as a tank.
One of their biggest abilities is using their HP to bolster their attack...to do so as a Tank? I really don't know how that's gonna happen without a HUGE revamp in the present tank HP and DEF values.

---

Only in FFxi. In most games, DRK just has one or 2 HP based attacks, which don't use that much HP, and a vampiric spell to regain their HP. It would work perfectly well as a tank without making it the glass cannon you want it to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemuria

Err... you mean FFV. Also Cecil wasn't exactly a 'tank', as he still had darkness attacks which sacrificed HP to deal extra damage.
Somehow sacrificing HP doesn't exactly scream 'tank for me'.

Of course, they could just remove that unique trait... but then it would be Dark Knight in name only. In EVERY iteration of Dark Knight, they've sacrificed HP to deal bonus damage. So... how exactly are they not a DPS?

---

read above


Special note :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cookiecutter

I'm just saying that I know there will be a lot of people who will be pretty mad if gun job isn't a dps role.

---

People are still being delusional even though it's been a long time since gunner dps has been cancelled. Now they try to think the words were double layered ("not what you think it is") to say that because NOW people are expecting healer, it will be a dps, cuz reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander_Dragonfang

By that logic, Kain was also a tank (actually properly geared even more tanky than Cecil itself) so Dragoons should also be tanks.

---

They COULD. But they aren't :p and well, DRG are more know for their jump than their tankyness tbh xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander_Dragonfang

Now, through the versions of all FF, DRK have been resistant HP absorb DPS classes, with a defence mainly from using heavy armor but not much more than that, on the other hand, they usually carry black magic, defense ignoring attacks, HP sacrifice high damage attacks, HP drains, several debuffs (basically defense and resistance reductions) all things you expect to see in a DPS/Debuffer class. Armor doesn`t determine the role of a class. So "historically" DRK have been always closer to what DPS is than a tank.

---

Actually these things make it a good if not great fitting tank. All the others an also fit a tank role (WAR has damage/defense reduction debuffs, can output huge damages, etc... so the "dps" bit isn't really THAT convincing). Also, armor IS defining your role. At least in FFxiv. Heavy ? tank. Chainmail and leather, physical DPS. Cloth => mages. And "historically" isn't FFxi. DRK always had above average to good tankyness on top of their damage. What you're trying to say is like saying RDM is a dps because he does that, forgetting the white magic part of its job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander_Dragonfang

nothing screams DPS more than a knight sword (what greatswords of dark and holy knights are called)

---

all FF iterations had greatswords to tanks. Knights, Paladins, Rune knights, special jobs for FFT, and DRK, were all super tanky jobs. It doesn't matter how high their damages were, they were tanks. not dps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ilitsa

Simple answer? They wanted to try to entice people to tank more, so they made a class that a LOT of people were looking foward to as a dps class into a tank class in hopes that people will overlook their lack of desire to tank in lieu of finally getting the job they've been wanting for so long.

---

nice try but no. FFxi people are not the majority afaik, and the other don't give a damn about its role. Also, people won't tank because a class they wanted appeared as a tank if they don't like to tank. You won't make me play mage dps if RDM or BLU come as a dps, because I find it boring as fuck. I'll level them up to max level for story and be done with them, back to tanking because that's what I love. it will be the same. People will play the new shiny tank/heal/whatever the time to level up to max level, be bored because they dislike the role, and go back to their main.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuwagami

nice try but no. FFxi people are not the majority afaik, and the other don't give a damn about its role. Also, people won't tank because a class they wanted appeared as a tank if they don't like to tank. You won't make me play mage dps if RDM or BLU come as a dps, because I find it boring as fuck. I'll level them up to max level for story and be done with them, back to tanking because that's what I love. it will be the same. People will play the new shiny tank/heal/whatever the time to level up to max level, be bored because they dislike the role, and go back to their main.

---

Like NIN.


Why are we discussing over this again? >.< The dev team decided it's going to be a tank so it'll be a tank. It's their game, so their rules. Even though the DRK has a background story in several FF's titles, it doesn't mean that they gotta copy-paste that concept here. No need to initiate a nerdrage about this. I like the idea of a tank DRK because... why not? I'm looking forward to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuwagami

Actually these things make it a good if not great fitting tank. All the others an also fit a tank role (WAR has damage/defense reduction debuffs, can output huge damages, etc... so the "dps" bit isn't really THAT convincing). Also, armor IS defining your role. At least in FFxiv. Heavy ? tank. Chainmail and leather, physical DPS. Cloth => mages. And "historically" isn't FFxi. DRK always had above average to good tankyness on top of their damage. What you're trying to say is like saying RDM is a dps because he does that, forgetting the white magic part of its job.



all FF iterations had greatswords to tanks. Knights, Paladins, Rune knights, special jobs for FFT, and DRK, were all super tanky jobs. It doesn't matter how high their damages were, they were tanks. not dps.

---

Completely wrong.

Anything tanking with those traits alone is barely better than a pure DPS with a bit of defence, actually, a healer would be tankier than that description and we know a tank has to be tankier than a healer, so no. Armor doesn`t define roles, this is the most important part of it all. In any game, your armor is there to support your role, yes, but not to limit you to it. An archer can wear heavier armor, and no, it wont become a tank.

All DRK through FF history have been DPS/Debuffers. In no way most of them have been tanks. Saying that FFT DRK for example was a good tank is simply put not having played the game or not dig deep enough on it to reach/build the true tanks. DRK actually don`t even fit any of the "roles" of FFXIV if we base ourselves on what DRK have been through the history of FFs, we shoud have a "Support role" and put the DRK as a debuffer with DPS inclinations. Anyway, DRK is far closer to a DPS class than a tank through the FF history, which for the DRK starts in FFII and surprise, amazing spear DPS and black magic caster and this is something is mostly respected through the series but some weird exceptions as Cecil, which is still good at DPS, in fact, Darkness was an HP trade per damage and in the remake is a strenght HP trade buff... In western role games, a FF DRK would be a heavy armored swordspell or battlemage. And the HP trades are closer to blood sacrifices typical of Berserker classes... DRK screams DPS as a concept.
Heavy armor and an average defense with HP absorb is not good enough for a Tank,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander_Dragonfang

Anything tanking with those traits alone is barely better than a pure DPS with a bit of defence, actually, a healer would be tankier than that description and we know a tank has to be tankier than a healer, so no. Armor doesn`t define roles, this is the most important part of it all. In any game, your armor is there to support your role, yes, but not to limit you to it. An archer can wear heavier armor, and no, it wont become a tank.

---

I had highlighted the traits making it a viable tank but maybe you missed it... as for the armor, I also think you missed

Quote:

---

At least in FFxiv.

---

show me where I'm wrong.

Also, while mages could wear heavier armor (some games feature a tank/heal in heavy armor, or even they could wear leather armors unless lore reasons), an archer in heavy armor would be just dumb. Archers (monks, ninjas as well) are supposed to be really mobile, and you can't do that in heavy armor. Even if this game has no load slow.

Edit :

Quote:

---

Heavy armor and an average defense with HP absorb is not good enough for a Tank,

---

So in fact you just completely ignored this game in your thought process. In this game, heavy armor = heavy defense. And heavy defense + HP absorb + defensive use of darkness IS good enough for a tank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander_Dragonfang

other stuff

---

FF3 DRK had good attack, good defense and used low level White magic. Not a dps/debuffer.
in FFX-2, it had good attack, good defense and some debuffs but the only one usable here would be Bio.
Cid was tanky because reasons, nothing to do with being a DRK.
for FFT : fell knight and deathknight had high HP and were absorbing HP and MP. The DRK available for all had lower HP but still could absorb HP&MP, plus the sacrificial moves. All could wear tank specific armors
Bravery Default (not technically FF) can raise its defense and attack significantly when taking damage and has good HP. They also have a high defense. Some sacrificial moves but still no debuffs.
Final Fantasy Dimensions' DRK has some tanking abilities (absorb HP and Draw attacks)
FFXII's Uhlan has a damage and defense debuff (just like WAR here...), elemental weakness (doesn't exist here) debuff and confuse (won't happen here or would be useless) but still has heavy defense and high HP



For all those though, you need to remember that they were solo game, in which there were no "real" tank job, as the goal is to deal with the enemies as quickly as possible. That leads to high damaging roles with more or less tankyness. Among them, DRK usually had a lot of tankyness, hence why it's more fitting a tank role than many others.


Then yeah, FFxi :
glass cannon and many debuffs. But you know, FFxi isn't "FF history"


TLDR : FFxi's DRK isn't FF "historical" DRK

Whatever the theme/lore/reasoning/flavor the drk has, I want drk to have a wildly different play style to pld and war since they both have very similar setups:

- 1 enmity combo
- 1 aoe enmity
- stances
- small and big mitigation (ram/ib and venge/sentinel)
- etc

I want to see huge play style differences. Like blm vs smn different.

Welcome to last October.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elazu

Welcome to last October.

---

Last October was the launch of the Eorzea Database and the world transfer system, as well as the housing preview. Nothing about DRK last October. >_>

People seriously need to study up on FF lore because they got DRK wrong as XI's DRK is a rare find.

They took Titan from me.
They took Ninja from me too.
And they gave us Dark Knight.
I'm not mad, I would just like to see a tank that doesn't need heavy armor to do his job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lolirocco

They took Titan from me.
They took Ninja from me too.
And they gave us Dark Knight.
I'm not mad, I would just like to see a tank that doesn't need heavy armor to do his job.

---

ninja was never a tank. FFxi's player ripped it apart from its core because the game was actually pretty free on builds and because they abused the pretty poorly balanced abilities. Doesn't make it a tank. Just like FFxi's DRK being a debuffer doesn't make it a debuffer in all FF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lolirocco

I never said it was a tank. I said they took the opportunity away from me to implement some sort of an evasive tank.
Now that rogue AND ninja are dps, they basically dismantled the whole concept of that.

Please don't label anyone giving their opinion as someone who has no knowledge of FF lore.
Some of us could care less about lore but care about actual gameplay.

---

I never intended to label you as ignorant or anything. It's just that in the FF series in general, gameplay revolves around lore and not the contrary. Also, evasive tanks are usually a very bad idea concerning balance. And ninja tank would just have been dumb

This XI/XIV class/gameplay/content/everything comparisson needs to stop...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuwagami

ninja was never a tank. FFxi's player ripped it apart from its core because the game was actually pretty free on builds and because they abused the pretty poorly balanced abilities. Doesn't make it a tank. Just like FFxi's DRK being a debuffer doesn't make it a debuffer in all FF

---

I never said it was a tank. I said they took the opportunity away from me to implement some sort of an evasive tank.
Now that rogue AND ninja are dps, they basically dismantled the whole concept of that.

Please don't label anyone giving their opinion as someone who has no knowledge of FF lore.
Some of us could care less about lore but care about actual gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemuria

Err... you mean FFV. Also Cecil wasn't exactly a 'tank', as he still had darkness attacks which sacrificed HP to deal extra damage.
Somehow sacrificing HP doesn't exactly scream 'tank for me'.

Of course, they could just remove that unique trait... but then it would be Dark Knight in name only. In EVERY iteration of Dark Knight, they've sacrificed HP to deal bonus damage. So... how exactly are they not a DPS?

---

lol you both got it wrong. It's Final Fantasy IV that stars Cecil.

Also, Dark Knights for this game could probably still use their HP sapping ability in order to draw in more aggro. There, problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

Last October was the launch of the Eorzea Database and the world transfer system, as well as the housing preview. Nothing about DRK last October. >_>

---

Uh no, they mean October that JUST passed, not October from 2013.

I think what needs be said here is... "This is Eorzea, wipe your biases off at the door."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MilesSaintboroguh

lol you both got it wrong. It's Final Fantasy IV that stars Cecil.

Also, Dark Knights for this game could probably still use their HP sapping ability in order to draw in more aggro. There, problem solved.

---

Also Cecil had the highest physical defense as a Dark Knight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

Last October was the launch of the Eorzea Database and the world transfer system, as well as the housing preview. Nothing about DRK last October. >_>

---

Uhh no. That was over a year ago October. He's talking about last October. You know. Last month. Calanders!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MilesSaintboroguh

Uh no, they mean October that JUST passed, not October from 2013.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

Uhh no. That was over a year ago October. He's talking about last October. You know. Last month. Calanders!

---

"Last October" to me means "last year's October." Sounds very wrong to me to say "last October" when you mean "last month."

Dude, last October means the last October that passed. Meaning last month. Get with it. The only way it would mean last year is if it was still currently October.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

Dude, last October means the last October that passed. Meaning last month. Get with it. The only way it would mean last year is if it was still currently October.

---

Oh, the joys of English, where "last October" can mean two completely different things. But sure, go on believing that your interpretation is the only correct one.

I mean, I'm just being a smart aleck. What's your excuse? >_>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuwagami

n
I never intended to label you as ignorant or anything. It's just that in the FF series in general, gameplay revolves around lore and not the contrary. Also, evasive tanks are usually a very bad idea concerning balance. And ninja tank would just have been dumb

---

Yeah I don't even think evasive tanking is something possible of implemending in the battle mechanics we have atm. It's just that I don't see anything else working that wouldn't need heavy armor. But I mean if they want to make more people interested in tanking, they need to start getting creative about it.
The whole Iron Mountain thing is just not working for everyone.
Something beastlike would catch my interest. Or light armor or summons...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

Oh, the joys of English, where "last October" can mean two completely different things. But sure, go on believing that your interpretation is the only correct one.

I mean, I'm just being a smart aleck. What's your excuse? >_>

---

My reasoning is simple as I already explained. Last October was the last October that came and went. So last month. You're definition is deliberately misleading and confusing since it blatantly ignores last month. Most people would be confused by you're fringe definition.

But why trust me? Let's Google the definition of last.

Quote:

---

last1
last/Submit
adjective
1.
coming after all others in time or order; final.
"they caught the last bus"
synonyms: rearmost, hindmost, endmost, at the end, at the back, furthest (back), final, ultimate

---

Coming after all others. Meaning a month ago. By the very definition of the word you are wrong. So it would seem my excuse is an accurate usage of vocabulary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

My reasoning is simple as I already explained. Last October was the last October that came and went. So last month. You're definition is deliberately misleading and confusing since it blatantly ignores last month. Most people would be confused by you're fringe definition.

---

Nope, last month was too recent to be last October. Not ignoring it at all.

Also, your fringe definition of "you're" is probably more likely to confuse people.

Look at the dictionary definition of the word last I just posted. By the definition of the word you are wrong. This isn't my opinion. Your definition of the word is factually inaccurate.

Edit. I use Swype and it misspelled the word and I didn't notice before posting. It's a good thing that doesn't change anything about the definition of last. Whew.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

Nope, last month was too recent to be last October. Not ignoring it at all.

Also, your fringe definition of "you're" is probably more likely to confuse people.

---

Ah semantics. Ever are you the source of interweb wars.

Seriously guys Tangent Express!

It's not semantics. It's vocabulary. This thing where we have a huge annually updated book with accepted destinations. That said it is a tangent so I'm out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

It's not semantics. It's vocabulary. This thing where we have a huge annually updated book with accepted destinations. That said it is a tangent so I'm out

---

se·man·tics
səˈman(t)iks/
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.

Certainly this is an argument of semantics. Specifically, the meaning of "Last October" :)

But yes tangent is tangent. Cut the string!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

Look at the dictionary definition of the word last I just posted. By the definition of the word you are wrong. This isn't my opinion. Your definition of the word is factually inaccurate.

---

It's cool, I can look up dictionary stuff, too!

Quote:

---

last
2. (of a day of the week) Closest to seven days (one week) ago.
It's Wednesday, and the party was last Tuesday; that is, not yesterday, but eight days ago.

---

That's the sense I'm using. The same way I wouldn't say that American Thanksgiving was last Thursday; I would just say it was Thursday. If I say it was last Thursday, people will think I'm very confused about the current date.

Edit: Come on, do y'all really want yet another thread about whether DRK should be a tank or a DPS? At least this conversation is making me think about how I use the words and phrases I do. >_>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

It's cool, I can look up dictionary stuff, too!



That's the sense I'm using. The same way I wouldn't say that American Thanksgiving was last Thursday; I would just say it was Thursday. If I say it was last Thursday, people will think I'm very confused about the current date.

---

Taaaannnnnnnnnnnnngggeeentt!

Do as Elsa says: Let it goooo, let it goooooo!

From Dark Knights not being DPS, to what Cecil is supposed to be, to what the definition of "last month" is. Yep, normal day in the forums.

That's on the day scale bro. Not months. Even with that definition you're wrong since it was more than seven days ago. Let it go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiggy

That's on the day scale bro. Not months. Even with that definition you're wrong since it was more than seven days ago. Let it go.

---

Meh, the example only shows it for days, but I'd argue that, descriptively, a lot of people would have similar expectations at the month scale. Like, right now, if you said "last January," or even up to about May or so, I'd assume 2014. If, come January 2015, you said "last December," I'd probably first think you meant 2013. I'm not saying it can't mean the one that just passed, but I know I'm not the only one who wouldn't expect it to without context clues (yes, the context clues I ignored to be sarcastic and start this tangent).

As far as "letting it go," I'm just trying to have a civil (if horribly sarcastic at times) conversation to broaden my understanding if linguistics. :p

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elazu

Last October was a month ago.

---

Welcome to the last hour of conversation. >_>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

Last October was the launch of the Eorzea Database and the world transfer system, as well as the housing preview. Nothing about DRK last October. >_>

---

Last October was a month ago.

I couldn't care less if NIN was a tank or DRK was a healer who could do Kamehmehas. I just like to play. :)

That is all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThusFarJay

I could care less if NIN was a tank or DRK was a healer who could do Kamehmehas. I just like to play. :)

That is all.

---

Amen! Praise the sun! \o/

This thread reeks of postive casuals that derail our rant and it disgusts me.