Core Issues With 4.x Dark Knight

[Reynhart]

I don't have a way to seperate out those numbers. However, just a quick look at a turn where there are forced tank swaps (v2s and ex death) and the same trend continues.

It might have something to do with PLD having a powerful ranged attack, allowing it to lose less DPS when it's forced to stay away from the boss. Something we can't really calculate by just looking at raw potencies.

This may not mean much but I have personal experience on both classes, and nothing in my personal expierence suggests turtle dark > turtle paladin. Nothing I can think of justifies the claim in any actual turn.

To be fair, even if Turtle DRK would deal more damage than Turtle PLD (Or Turtle WAR), since turtle tanking is basically an inefficient tactic in current content, it wouldn't do anything to make DRK "better".

[Chrono_Rising]

It might have something to do with PLD having a powerful ranged attack, allowing it to lose less DPS when it's forced to stay away from the boss. Something we can't really calculate by just looking at raw potencies.

To be fair, even if Turtle DRK would deal more damage than Turtle PLD (Or Turtle WAR), since turtle tanking is basically an inefficient tactic in current content, it wouldn't do anything to make DRK "better".

My responses are to someone who made the claim that turtling matters, I never claimed it did. Regardless, as for ranged attacks in v4s, have you ever tried holy spirit spamming when being chased by a blackhole, not as easy as it sounds. In v2s the ranged times happen so infrequently that I would expect it barely shows up in the data. If the ranged attacks were such a factor I would expect paladin to be above warrior, also not even close. Again the only thing you are doing is poking holes in evidence by cherry picking single mechanics and flagging them as mattering, and not actually offering any evidence of your own.

[Reynhart]

Again the only thing you are doing is poking holes in evidence by chery picking single mechnics and flagging them as mattering, and not actually offering any evidence of your own.

First, I personally didn't claim anything proving DRK to be superior, I was asking an information...that can't be provided. Besides, since PLD (And WAR) lose more DPS than DRK by staying in tank stance (keep in mind losing more doesn't equal being lower), it's understandable that a fight with tank swaps would also benefit them by spreading mitigation needs and allowing more DPS stance uptime, even at low percentile.

[Eyvhokan]

Besides, since PLD (And WAR) lose more DPS than DRK by staying in tank stance

Is this really true?

DRK in grit loses blood weapon, which is quite high uptime (about 37% if used on cooldown), and contributes not only in skill speed, but adds MP and blood generation (basically 'adding' time to the Dark Arts 'berserk') as well, so losing this is quite a big double dip. Because this is on for such a large amount of time, I would consider losing this a pretty big loss.

[Reynhart]

Is this really true?
DRK in grit loses blood weapon, which is quite high uptime (about 37% if used on cooldown), and contributes not only in skill speed, but adds MP and blood generation (basically 'adding' time to the Dark Arts 'berserk') as well, so losing this is quite a big double dip. Because this is on for such a large amount of time, I would consider losing this a pretty big loss.

Blood Weapon has indeed 37% uptime. Considering it gives à 10% haste buff when up, it provides, on average 3.7% haste. If you reduce the delay to 96.3% (100-3.7), you increase the DPS by 100/96.3 = 3%
So, by having Grit, your base loss is 23% damage (80%/103%) = 77%. From some testing, I found that you can use at best one more Dark Arts during a Blood Weapon window than a Blood Price window unless you use Delirium (which increase the gap up to three...damn that Blood Price nerf). So, you'd gain around 700 potency (5*140) over the course of 2 minutes, so around +15 pot/GCD. I'm not even sure it makes up for BloodSpiller's "increased potency" in Grit by comparison, to really change that 23%

For PLD, by having Shield Oath, you lose 15% of your damage instantly, plus the effect of Sword Oath wich is basically 50 potency every 2.24 seconds. AFAIK, the best rotation on PLD is GB-RA-RA-HS*5-GB-RA-RA (repeat), this rotation build up your total potency to 8250 (1070 for each GB, 760 for each RA, and 200 for HP Spam). The best part of this rotation is that it's basically a 1 minute rotation to line with Requiescat. So during this rotation, you can use 1 Requiescat for 350 pot, 3 Spirits Within for 600 potency (at best) and 4 Shield Swipe for 600 pot (at best), increasing your potency to 9800. On top of that, you can add Circle Of Scorn and its 250 potency every 25s, basically adding another 600 potency every minute, for a grand total of 10400 base potency. When applying ShOath, you remove 15%, ending at 8840. When applying SwOath, you add 1339 potency to your total (50/2.24*60), ending at 11739. So, between the two, you're losing at least 25% of damage.

As for WAR, it's much simpler. Having Defiance up already reduces your damage by 20% (Corrected) while Deliverance increase them by 5%, so your base loss is around 24% (Corrected). And any Beast ability linked with Defiance is a DPS loss when compared to the corresponding Deliverance ability, even if it ignores the damage penalty. The only tricky skill is Onslaught, I haven't really tested if the increased HP makes up for the damage penalty.

Keep in mind that these calculations consider 100% Tank stance vs 100% DPS stance, and I'm fairly aware that they don't apply as they are in real content, when you take into account the mechanics. And, again, I don't claim that DRK deals more damage. If you have one job at 3000 that loses 25% damage and the other at 2800 losing 23%, the first one is still higher.

The primary point to make with regards to your posts is that they are muddying the discussion by diverting attention away from the matter at hand with ephemeral discrepancies in perceived performance based on varying uses of individual skills, or stance usage, across percentiles that statistically are inconsequential in the scope of job balance as a whole, and which can be measured regardless of statistical subsets with the data that we actually DO have.

Frankly, I really dont think DRK is "the matter at hand". The whole content design that enforce people to drop as much mitigation as possible is what makes tank balance a mess.

[Chrono_Rising]

For PLD, by having Shield Oath, you lose 15% of your damage instantly, plus the effect of Sword Oath wich is basically 50 potency every 2.24 seconds. AFAIK, the best rotation on PLD is GB-RA-RA-HS*5-GB-RA-RA (repeat), this rotation build up your total potency to 8250 (1070 for each GB, 760 for each RA, and 200 for HP Spam). The best part of this rotation is that it's basically a 1 minute rotation to line with Requiescat. So during this rotation, you can use 1 Requiescat for 350 pot, 3 Spirits Within for 600 potency (at best) and 4 Shield Swipe for 600 pot (at best), increasing your potency to 9800. On top of that, you can add Circle Of Scorn and its 250 potency every 25s, basically adding another 600 potency every minute, for a grand total of 10400 base potency. When applying ShOath, you remove 15%, ending at 8840. When applying SwOath, you add 1339 potency to your total (50/2.24*60), ending at 11739. So, between the two, you're losing at least 25% of damage.

Sword Oath is 75 potency per auttoattack hit. Also you include the full 60 seconds for the sword oath buff, this may or may not actually work out since you might not auto when spamming holy spirit.

This analysis in general is not going to match in game application. First, blood price I imagine has a context in which it is restoring as much mana as blood weapon, and the missing context makes it extremely difficult to compare notes on. Warrior is by far the most difficult to play this kind of analysis with because it has so many moves which ignore the damage penalty inflicted by its own tank stance. The only tank which you analysis properly could apply to is paladin because its skills are not changed depending on stance. And thats what the issues with your analysis boil down to.

If you want a proper analysis you will need to go ahead and pull endless amounts of data comparing full time dps stance to full time tank stance to get an actual answer on this one. Play optimally in tank stance, play optimally in dps stance, and compare the % difference in damage.

I have been typing this reply and all of the reasons for why you analysis is lacking, but rather than posting a small novel I settled on just giving the reason above as the reason. I've come to a conclusion. Your post has nothing to do with anything about dark knight design once you stopped talking about dark knight, Dark Knight is the express purpose of this thread. This proves nothing, and is in general taking away from the conversation. What does this have to do with the design and core issues with Dark Knight?

[SyzzleSpark]

Frankly, I really dont think DRK is "the matter at hand". The whole content design that enforce people to drop as much mitigation as possible is what makes tank balance a mess.

It absolutely is when you're posting in a thread titled "Core Issues With 4.x Dark Knight"

If your issue is with the focus on DPSing while tanking then perhaps this game just isn't for you, because that's a "problem" that is outside the focus, scope, and frankly potential of this thread. Again, its muddying the discussion.

Then again, if you think eschewing mitigation at all costs without any qualifying statements or situational if/ands/buts is the nature of tanking in this game, I can say for certain that that is 100% subjective and there are numerous instances of its falsehood to balance out any sad-face experiences that may have turned you off to tanks' motivation to master the risk-reward dynamic of dps vs. mitigation.

I cite for reference Xeno's stream during day 2 (?) of prog on UCOB, wherein he drank up a 70K crit followed by a 30K cleave from Twintania within 4 seconds before finally going down, strictly by virtue of having been in Defiance and making liberal use of IB.

The entire argument falls apart when you realize that when you strip away all of the tank mitigation essentials from every tank (stance, CDs, utilities) the remaining differences are few.

[Reynhart]

It absolutely is when you're posting in a thread titled "Core Issues With 4.x Dark Knight"

Sorry, I thought we were in this thread :

However, in the spirit of not trying to "suggest fixes" I hope others will follow in not posting how to fix the issues, only post what the issues are in their view.

So, yeah, in my view, the issue is "content design". And how it is related to DRK is mostly by TBN, which is supposed to be our all powerful skill allowing us on demand mitigation, but that we barely use because it makes it harder to beat enrage timers by reducing our DPS, or even how Dark Arts is worthless to spend on Dark Mind or Dark Passenger in significant content.

[Chrono_Rising]

First, I personally didn't claim anything proving DRK to be superior, I was asking an information...that can't be provided.

Maybe you haven't directly said it yet but wait for it...

Besides, since PLD (And WAR) lose more DPS than DRK by staying in tank stance (keep in mind losing more doesn't equal being lower), it's understandable that a fight with tank swaps would also benefit them by spreading mitigation needs and allowing more DPS stance uptime, even at low percentile.

There it is. This is a claim not an established fact (even though it is said like one), and I figured it would be your claim from our earlier discussions in July. It is similar to the claim to which I originally responded in this thread.

Heres the thing, there is no evidence for this claim. Not from first hand testimonials, not in the volumes of savage stats collected on another site, and not the SSS dummies. There is evidence, though as you have pointed out it is not proof, that the opposite statement is correct. That Paladin and Warrior lose more going into tank stance is not supported by any observable metric, nor has anyone provided any evidence to the contrary. My point is that despite trying to poke holes in the evidence against dark knight, I still have evidence, though admittedly there are further questions surrounding it. The claim you have made has no support. Maybe your statement is correct, but I have as much evidence for this as I have evidence for a teapot in space orbiting the sun (Russel's Teapot if I'm specific).

More to the point, even if your claim were true, it does nothing except justify that dark knight would act in a "main tank" role for groups who do not tank swap and have a high uptime on tank stance. However, it still suffers from having no evidence, and for it to make sense as a point in this discussion it means that a significant amount of players at a lower percentile also have this awareness and actively use it to their advantage (there is no evidence of this either).

Without this point we have no reason to believe that Dark Knight is skewed in favor of MT at lower percentiles and with the number of paladins and warriors it is impossible that they are all OT all the time. It might skew the numbers slightly but remember we are playing in a time when for every 1 Dark Knight there are approximately 2 paladins and 1.5 warriors doing savage.

[SyzzleSpark]

snip

But in Defiance WAR's Fell Cleave turns into a 437.5 potency attack that heals them and cuts their incoming damage by 20% for 6 seconds, so obviously it has suffered the worst injustice here.

Poe's law, don't fail me now.

First, I personally didn't claim anything proving DRK to be superior, I was asking an information...that can't be provided. Besides, since PLD (And WAR) lose more DPS than DRK by staying in tank stance (keep in mind losing more doesn't equal being lower), it's understandable that a fight with tank swaps would also benefit them by spreading mitigation needs and allowing more DPS stance uptime, even at low percentile.

The primary point to make with regards to your posts is that they are muddying the discussion by diverting attention away from the matter at hand with ephemeral discrepancies in perceived performance based on varying uses of individual skills, or stance usage, across percentiles that statistically are inconsequential in the scope of job balance as a whole, and which can be measured regardless of statistical subsets with the data that we actually DO have.

You're basically red-herring-ing everyone away from the implications of data that actually exists to try and talk about the implications of data that doesn't exist or that measures variations that are a very small part of an already measurable whole (Plunge or Holy Spirit usage across percentiles, the number of full-time Grit DRKs vs. full-time Defiance/ShO tanks at one specific very low percentile), effectively distracting people from the fire burning down a house by calling attention to the flames from the neighbor's grill.