Dark Knight Megathread

[Archwizard]

I don't know why you keep trying to sell this idea.

And I don't know why you are trying to have it both ways of saying

the threat of no MP refund is what really constrains its timing

while also using the catch-all that the refund justifies it having a cost.

From what I see, from a design perspective, the fact that we're always holding a big portion of our MP back in the event of needing TBN constrains our already over-simplified rotation. It being cost-neutral isn't the same as it being free.
And for what? The flavor of a "counter"attack that we could have cast anyway, because not having such ability would be a detriment to our damage output if we're not the main tank?

[Undeadfire]

From what I see, from a design perspective, the fact that we're always holding a big portion of our MP back in the event of needing TBN constrains our already over-simplified rotation.

You don't need to hold a portion of your MP for TBNs, everything can be planned with maths in 14, some people use TBN just to add extra Edge/Flood for the raid buffs.

TBN without the MP cost and cooldown kept the same is broken OP.

[Archwizard]

TBN without the MP cost and cooldown kept the same is broken OP.

Nobody's going to argue for it to have a 15 sec CD and be free. At worst I've only ever seen requests to go up to 25 sec in lieu of MP/DA, like WAR and GNB's.

If it's oversimplified, then the last thing it needs is even fewer constraints, uniqueness, or elements of complexity.

True, but from a design perspective, the idea of having any new MP abilities, or reworking the properties of the ones we have, must be constrained against the value of TBN and its potential interactions on the same resource.

We cannot, for instance, discuss having new skills that cost more/less MP, altering our MP gain abilities like Blood Weapon, or reducing the MP costs of Flood/Edge without that affecting the economy of TBN. We cannot discuss putting AD on an MP system (as you have in the past) without discussing if it's affected by DA/DS. We can't discuss situational alternatives to TBN (like old RI vs NF, or Cover vs Intervention) without discussing how to implement a DA-like aspect or make up for not having one.

Under the current system, we're locked into only having Edge/Flood on MP.

For a skill that doesn't compete for its resource, we're constrained to base everything in that resource around it.

[Shurrikhan]

True, but from a design perspective, the idea of having any new MP abilities, or reworking the properties of the ones we have, must be constrained against the value of TBN and its potential interactions on the same resource.

Yes, but so what?

We cannot usefully discuss ANY central skill's resource (be it time, weave-gap, shared CDs, or job-specific resources) without also considering the impacts upon that skill. That's not unique.

The same case would have to be made for Kaiten and Gyoten vs. Shinten, Reprise vs. RDM's melee combo, (previously) Onslaught vs. Fell Cleave, Bloodletter vs. Perfect Pitch vs. average Bard non-DoT WS ppgcd, etc., etc.

That doesn't mean we suddenly can't balance or add onto their kits; it just means we have to have a modicum of intelligence in doing so. Not every skill has to go the way of --barring time thus spent-- complete independence.

We cannot... discuss... altering our MP gain abilities like Blood Weapon, or reducing the MP costs of Flood/Edge without that affecting the economy of TBN.

Yes, greatly changing MP/gauge generation would increase or decrease the punishment of not leaving a TBN's worth of MP/gauge (i.e., cause it take more or less time to get back to X MP after having overspent), but it would do nothing to proper play.

We cannot, for instance, discuss having new skills that cost more/less MP... [or] putting AD on an MP system (as you have in the past) without discussing if it's affected by DA/DS.

You might as well say that PLD can't get any more spells specifically because Requiescat only affects the damage of Holy Circle and Holy Spirit. DA affects only Edge/Flood at present because those are the only skills presently tied to MP.

Current DA in practice: Reduces the cost of your following MP-spenders other than TBN by a total of <TBN's MP cost>.

It merely happens that there are only two MP spenders at present, each of which can only cost 3k MP, the same as TBN.

A DA mechanic that'd suit whatever you need: Reduces the cost of your following MP-spenders other than TBN by a total of <TBN's MP cost>.

Allowing for more varied MP costs takes no more than switching DA from "next spender free" to "next X-gauge's-worth of spending free". We've already seen changes similar to that in other jobs once a reason for that small extra layer of precision was added. That DA currently only affected Edge/Flood does not mean it must only ever affect Edge/Flood. It just means that there is at present nothing else for it to affect.

Under the current system, we're locked into only having Edge/Flood on MP.

No. No, we are not. There is currently NOTHING ELSE on MP. Given there is currently NOTHING ELSE to spend MP, DA only affects what's on MP (Edge/Flood). That does not mean it can only ever affect what is currently on MP.

Unless you're insisting that TBN was designed from the start to purposely (dis)favor certain currently inexistant spenders over (or, in favor of) others, there is no reason to think they'd use new ability additions to add complexity (works on this but not that) to TBN. Far more likely, we'd simply have its gameplay affects translated over by simply, in essence, modernizing its language and no longer shortcutting its procedure to take advantage of very limited surroundings.

We can't discuss situational alternatives to TBN (like old RI vs NF, or Cover vs Intervention) without discussing how to implement a DA-like aspect or make up for not having one.

Yes, that's how alternatives work. They take into account the full power of whatever they're competing against. What is shocking about this? You already have to do this for every other alternative. Why would it suddenly be so bad that you have to do this for TBN, just as you would for anything else?

[Shurrikhan]

And I don't know why you are trying to have it both ways of saying

Because it constrains usage subtly, in a way that'd keep us from prepopping for TB1 to then eat up all we can for 8s just some (15-prepop time) seconds later and still have it available again for yet another TB before anyone else would have access to their on-demand. Instead, we get particular bonus opportunities, but not so limitlessly as to require that TBN be tuned down. The CD and MP cost together keep it flexible without making it OP.

From what I see, from a design perspective, the fact that we're always holding a big portion of our MP back in the event of needing TBN constrains our already over-simplified rotation.

If it's oversimplified, then the last thing it needs is even fewer constraints, uniqueness, or elements of complexity.

Moreover, it's hardly some huge portion of resource; it consumes (ultimately, shifts the timing of) just 1 of 3.33 charges of Flood/Edge.

No, being ultimately cost-neutral isn't the same as being directly free, but for any Edge/DA you're unable to spend within the raids buffs themselves due to unfortunate TB timing, you're effectively able to spend another Edge/Flood that would otherwise have been used outside of buffs just to prevent overcapping within the next raid buff cycle. Yes, that's not immediately free, and it's good that it's not, but your concern has already been addressed, making it free-in-effect even in that rare scenario, so long as there are another 2 minutes within the given fight.

And for what? The flavor of a "counter"attack that we could have cast anyway

No. It's for its ability to be as flexible as it is. That's it.

The DA mechanic is what can deal with your concern of a lost Edge/Flood within raid buffs without bringing in the issues of it being directly free. (Should it be allowed to stack? Probably not, if to be perfectly balanced. Should it only use the DA if you're under X MP? Yeah, that would probably be a good change, as not to waste a DA's benefits in abnormal circumstances (though abnormal they would have to be for this to form a concern). But it's not there just as a counterattack gimmick.)