Dark Knight Megathread

[Lyth]

You would still have to worry about Darkside upkeep though, so the MP combo would be weaker but you also couldn't neglect it or else you end up dropping Darkside.

MP starts at max, so between Blood Weapon and Delirium's MP gain you won't even use the combo for the first few minutes of the fight. And when you do, it'll just be a worse implementation of Storm's Eye.

????

This is just flat out bizarre. Yes, everyone in here has a 'bias'. This topic is intrinsically subjective, on whether you feel that DRK's gameplay is so bad that you'd risk playing the rework roulette. You have one too, invested in that rework spreadsheet you keep forcing on to this thread.

The reason why Living Dead was addressed was because it was by far the most requested question in the Q+A, and it had an overwhelming amount of player support behind it. The reason why it had so much support was because the job landscape itself had changed, with several stealth buffs to Holmgang and Superbolide across Shadowbringers into the Media Tour release. People are generally more receptive to buffing a job when it's actually in a disadvantaged state.

Here, if you want to see the world outside your echo chamber, have a look at the comments from this discussion from yesterday on Reddit. The landscape was very different before the Living Dead and Blood Weapon change.

I think if there's something specific about DRK's basic gameplay loop that bothers you, by all means go into it. Like I said before, I think the discussion around a second combo makes sense, but it largely depends on implementation (i.e. we don't need a 'maintenance' Eye/Goring combo just for the sake of being like everyone else).

[Shurrikhan]

This is just flat out bizarre. Yes, everyone in here has a 'bias'. This topic is intrinsically subjective, on whether you feel that DRK's gameplay is so bad that you'd risk playing the rework roulette. You have one too, invested in that rework spreadsheet you keep forcing on to this thread.

They've been different reworks each time, receptive to feedback. And if the majority of players within the thread are of a mind that DRK needs more added to it and we should therefore test out various ideas by which we might provide that, work done in keeping with that popular motive is hardly what would normally be seen as "forced" onto the thread.

The reason why Living Dead was addressed was because it was by far the most requested question in the Q+A, and it had an overwhelming amount of player support behind it.

That's not the point of what was stated. The focus was specifically on the fact that they chose not to make the simplest fix of simply removing the Doom state, despite that suggestion having being plenty bandied about, and instead found a similarly unique means of correcting its problem.

Here, if you want to see the world outside your echo chamber, have a look at the comments from this discussion from yesterday on Reddit. The landscape was very different before the Living Dead and Blood Weapon change.

Why are we comparing an immunity that was disadvantaged to discussion of a level 70 skill that has not been and still is not disadvantaged as if that the latter was uniquely emptied of concern by the LD and BW changes? Neither of those changes corrected DRK's lack of sustain or the degree to which Oblation fell short of its competitors, both of which remain popular targets for correction in that very thread.

That OP hasn't been starved of wind by changing seasons; their idea was simply poorly aimed from the start, which new viewers tend to become more aware of once a bit more thinking rises to the top of the comments board. The better aimed ideas, you may note, are still rather popular there.

I think if there's something specific about DRK's basic gameplay loop that bothers you, by all means go into it.

So long as you continue to treat pointing out a lack of something within that gameplay loop, however particular, as incapable of being valid criticism, that's going to force an very limiting precondition in favor of adding nothing to the job.

If we can only point out what "is wrong" from such a small collection of gameplay elements to begin with, instead of calling out that paucity and suggesting possible corrections to the latter, you're essentially precluding the desires of most here, all while pretending this premise that works to your favor and the expense of others' is merely broadly logical. It's not; there's an entire opposite avenue to work from here. And while the case for questioning "What things should be added?" should always come after "What needs fixing?" the first squarely follows the second here, for this particular job in this particular state, at least as most on this thread appear to see it.

Like I said before, I think the discussion around a second combo makes sense, but it largely depends on implementation (i.e. we don't need a 'maintenance' Eye/Goring combo just for the sake of being like everyone else).

No one has posed their idea for a second combo on the basis that we "need" a maintenance combo, specifically, let alone that it must "be like everyone else." Rather, there is simply some interest in using other/more buttons and a maintenance mechanic happens to be a means of providing a soft cooldown that deals with issues of one combo or the other otherwise being the only one worth using. There are of course other means of doing that. A gauge-based builder-spender version, for instance, has already likewise been covered.

[Archwizard]

You have one too, invested in that rework spreadsheet you keep forcing on to this thread.

Interesting, after you spent several pages hounding someone for not having any clear ideas on a direction for the job and decrying the dangers of lack of specificity, my offense is that I was too clear and specific about such a direction?
... because I actually hammered one out to illustrate my meaning?
"Damned if you do," it would seem.

Because while you say "forcing" I've barely discussed it unless directly addressed, since I only ever meant for it to be a jumping off point for discussions, for anyone to dissect and run with as they please. And evidently, some people have.

So long as you continue to treat pointing out a lack of something within that gameplay loop, however particular, as incapable of being valid criticism, that's going to force an very limiting precondition in favor of adding nothing to the job.

If we can only point out what "is wrong" from such a small collection of gameplay elements to begin with, instead of calling out that paucity and suggesting possible corrections to the latter, you're essentially precluding the desires of most here, all while pretending this premise that works to your favor and the expense of others' is merely broadly logical. It's not; there's an entire opposite avenue to work from here. And while the case for questioning "What things should be added?" should always come after "What needs fixing?" the first squarely follows the second here, for this particular job in this particular state, at least as most on this thread appear to see it.

Precisely. The ask here is essentially to prove a negative.

This, like several other sweeping generalizations Lyth has made in the last few pages, is a broad point of argument for such narrow parameters that literally any rework -- ever, for any job -- would be rejected offhand. Most feedback, even.

Not "I disagree with your position on XYZ grounds of practicality," but rather setting such standards for everyone else that "Any position beyond my own is invalid by default."

[Lyth]

...

Not really. There are quite a few people besides myself who have already pointed out the risks of a rework, earlier in this thread.

As I said earlier, the reason why there was support for BW and LD was because there were actual gameplay problems there that made the job less fun to play. The reason why there isn't the same support for DM or TBN being buffed is because most people can see significant upsides to having those abilities the way they are, and they're more likely to be nerfed in the process of reworking them rather than buffed, as you can see in the thread that I linked. I especially dislike the suggestion that TBN have its MP cost and the Dark Arts mechanic removed and be moved to 25s, as that's a major nerf if you know how to use the ability properly. The discussion around sustain has more to do with role philosophy than job design. I don't see 'self-sustain' as mandatory on tanks because content is designed around having 1-2 healers present. If they decide to move towards an ARPG design, get rid of healers, and give everyone a stack of healing pots and raises then that's a different story.

I can tell that you don't have a point to make whenever you fall back into excessive verbiage, as is your old habit. That second last paragraph would put Urianger to shame. Let me simplify it for you. If you have a problem with DRK's core gameplay loop, by all means, discuss it. There are some things that are common to every iteration of DRK that we've seen so far, though, like a relatively higher oGCD count and layered resource management system currently on the job. So there are some things about the job that you can't change, because they're been a part of the job's identity across several reworks.

If you can suggest a maintenance combo setup that's more interesting than Eye/Goring and their many variants, then by all means. Alternatively, if you come up with a second combo that isn't resource-gated, then I'm all ears.

[Archwizard]

I can tell that you don't have a point to make whenever you fall back into excessive verbiage, as is your old habit.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about ad hominem.

[Shurrikhan]

If you can suggest a maintenance combo setup that's more interesting than Eye/Goring and their many variants, then by all means. Alternatively, if you come up with a second combo that isn't resource-gated, then I'm all ears.

I agree with you that we should aim for unique means of providing a given mechanic, so long as that actually produces a unique feel to gameplay. (Granted, not all technically unique mechanics do ultimately provide gameplay loops that feel unique, and some shared mechanics can nonetheless create different gameplay loops just due to their distinct contexts.)

But how tightly should we read this? If we're including even theoretical variants, then you've precluded any means of pacing a combo based on durations or resources. That may literally include every possibility.

Now if you simply want to avoid anything like our existing examples, I still have to ask... why preclude them so preemptively? We tried some other ideas. Some of them were probably bad, but that's something we can check after contextualizing them. We still learn from what we saw needed improvement and in what likely ways. The discussion rarely settles so quickly on a "good enough" long-term (i.e., save as a tentative step or context). I'm still ultimately gonna be anal about anything that smells of homogeneity, and I doubt I'm alone in that. But when we're discussing a particular prospect, we can at least lay those possible implementations out and imagine them through so we have steppingstones for our continued discussion... instead of just insisting someone leap the poorly-defined gap singlehandedly.

Not really. There are quite a few people besides myself who have already pointed out the risks of a rework, earlier in this thread.

I know. I myself have warned about the risks of reworks. Many, many times.

But there's a difference between shutting down all attempts to progressively hammer out our preferences --precluding that discussion alternatively through, "your ideas are meritless and dangerous without a completed alternative" and "concretely exemplified ideas are intrusive plugs"-- and simply noting the implications of such and such a change or attempting to tie the smaller ideas back to the consensus of larger goals if/when those examples overly fixate discussion. There's a difference between asking, "Okay, but what gameplay loop do you want to result from that?" and requiring the strictest of conditions (such as precluding every existing mechanical means of softly pacing a combo's usage) for an idea to even be thought through collectively.

The reason why there isn't the same support for DM or TBN being buffed is because most people can see significant upsides to having those abilities the way they are, and they're more likely to be nerfed in the process of reworking them rather than buffed, as you can see in the thread that I linked.

And I point out those upsides whenever anyone brings up their potential adjustments. They have certain affordances I want to keep. In my case, that's a bit more to do with gameplay that capacity, but still.

As you've said, most people see those upsides already. And if the thread loses sight of those upsides, we can keep reminding people of them. We can even do all that... without calling out others for even just collectively/publicly thinking through whatever X change might produce.

I especially dislike the suggestion that TBN have its MP cost and the Dark Arts mechanic removed and be moved to 25s, as that's a major nerf if you know how to use the ability properly.

Same. I've already been accused of "dying on that hill," and will continue to do so. While I could see Dark Mind potentially taking on a new, more synergetic function, I think TBN is easily the most interesting mitigation ability XIV has, and am not willing to lose its affordances.

By synergetic, I here refer to, say, turning incoming damage instead into a damage over time effect in a context where Edge is augmented by... a Sineater trait to be able to reduce the remaining DoT to be taken by some portion of its damage dealt. Yes, that's spitball, but the idea is that you'd have something that provides more, at-least-somewhat freely placeable windows by which to get further, interesting value out of flexible oGCD attacks. Naturally, I would then wish to link in Living Dead similarly.

The discussion around sustain has more to do with role philosophy than job design.

Yes, but that doesn't exclude it from being a vector of available job identity. Nor does "healers exist" mean that we should ignore parity in healing+mitigation. That's especially the case if a job has no compensatory strength to, say, make up for the lost healer rDPS. Note that at present, GNB can outdamage, outmitigate, and outheal DRK.

I don't see 'self-sustain' as mandatory on tanks because content is designed around having 1-2 healers present. If they decide to move towards an ARPG design, get rid of healers, and give everyone a stack of healing pots and raises then that's a different story.

This seems a reduction to the absurd.

And who has outright claimed that self-healing, specifically, is "mandatory"?

Now, sustain is a factor in tank balance, and self-healing --alongside mitigation, be that based on incoming damage or only on the tank's own stats-- is a factor in sustain. And since mitigation is the form that has greater and more unique affordances, it's generally easier to fix an imbalance in primarily just in self-healing through... self-healing. We can trade some of that sustain between mitigation and healing, or eventually trade some of that sustain towards damage if later contexts allowed for that, but right now DRK has neither a compensatory lead in mitigation nor damage.

Granted, if you've got warning bells ringing on the basis that jobs don't need to perform similarly in each category, only on the whole, I understand; I'm right there with you. But asking for rough parity is not asking for homogeneity. And suggesting that DRK get a bit more self-healing is just being pragmatic. It's not even of the sort of pragmatism that might sacrifice identity (unless you outright count being slightly underpowered as... an identity). By all means, keep an eye on it lest it suddenly, somehow mutate and come out swinging an axe, but DRK can have some self-sustain without being excessive or homogeneous.

That self-sustain is not a huge deal, but there's no risk here of DRK becoming more homogeneous just from pulling a thousand or so extra cure potency per minute. It could even be leveraged rather uniquely.

There are some things that are common to every iteration of DRK that we've seen so far, though, like a relatively higher oGCD count and layered resource management system currently on the job. So there are some things about the job that you can't change, because they're been a part of the job's identity across several reworks.

Well, yeah. That's not been contested...

Did I just miss someone trying to get rid of either of those aspects? Are... are we talking about Shadowbringers/Endwalker Darkside here? Darkside being considered a wasted gauge aside, I've mostly been seeing people advocating for more of that, not less... I get that some people could probably make clearer in a given isolated post that what they find insufficient (a la Darkside) ought to be replaced, not merely removed, but this seems to be in agreement with everyone else anyways?

If you have a problem with DRK's core gameplay loop, by all means, discuss it.

My problem with the core gameplay loop, whether it fits your constraints or not, is that I want more -- more to do, and to watch out for, over which I would have actual control (rather than it being set by timers or equivalents that are inflexible in practice) and some means of paying off gambles and/or capitalizing on events.

That probably, but not necessarily, means flexible mini-burst windows, some of them reactive (be that to offensive procs, defensive events, or ideally both), and maybe some means of controlling pacing. That may mean having some damn good reasons to want to hit a particular combo step at a precise time, complete with the flexibility to let me make that happen.

When I have that hammered out enough for what it's my head to make sense to others, I will post it. It will take some time though, because my core problem with the kit is how little agency, TBN aside, it offers me between bursts; that requires addition, not just critique.

I can tell that you don't have a point to make whenever you fall back into excessive verbiage, as is your old habit. That second last paragraph would put Urianger to shame.

This is like the third time you've used that "burn". I don't know why you've been so fixated the past five years over how I type, but the last time you went full ad hominin at people across a DRK thread, it got shut down, so please don't do that again.

[Dracosavarian]

This is like the third time you've used that "burn". I don't know why you've been so fixated the past five years over how I type, but the last time you went full ad hominin at people across a DRK thread, it got shut down, so please don't do that again.

I don’t think they are intentionally trying to “ Burn “ you Shurrikhan. Rather, the phrase comes to mind “ Less is MORE. “

I am far more verbose than you are, but one thing I have learned in life, working in both Healthcare and IT and supporting both, is the core of what that phrase means. When on meetings for IT issues, I would at times have people telling me, in the midst of a long and technical explanation as to why a program or critical server failed that lead to a sev, tell me “ Get to the point. “

What others are trying to say is what I have spoken of earlier in some discussions with you. Your counter arguments go on for so long, point by point, that they in turn end up muddying your argument. And for a lot of people, they lose focus on what the point you are making is, due to this.

It’s one of the reasons why I make a concerted effort on my own end to truncate my phrasing to get my point across as concisely as possible. Because I myself all too often had this issue far earlier in my own life.

[baklava151]

MP starts at max, so between Blood Weapon and Delirium's MP gain you won't even use the combo for the first few minutes of the fight. And when you do, it'll just be a worse implementation of Storm's Eye.

I mentioned earlier they would have to change some numbers around to make it work, otherwise yeah I agree if they just dropped it in at level 30 when you first get Flood of Shadow without any other changes, it'd suck. I don't know what those adjustments would look like exactly (although separately I want Delirium to change to literally anything but an IR clone) but I imagine there's a sweet spot between having to do an MP combo after every Souleater combo and doing it every once in a blue moon. If the devs wanted to get really spicy, they could pop a Darkside cost on Blood abilities and make it less static.

[Lyth]

...

You could stick a maintenance combo on DRK, similar to PLD/WAR/MNK/DRG/NIN/SAM, but they're usually placed on the job in question to reign in its damage and resource-generation (our average self-sustain would be reduced as well, in DRK's case). I think that if you're going to add a new combo to the job, and at a high level, then it should be something that players enjoy using, rather than prefer to avoid using. That's why I think setting up an 'enhanced' combo is a better choice overall. I feel good when I can use a Soul Reaver combo, both in aesthetic and damage dealt. I do not feel good using Storm's Eye. Of course, if you can come up with a 'second combo' concept that doesn't fall into the categories that we've discussed, it would be worth discussing that now.

If you have specific improvements that you want to discuss, great. But people tend to latch on to catchphrases and stop thinking about what they really mean. Everyone becomes obsessed about 'when are we getting our rework' because they have come to associate the term with buffs and changes. But it doesn't always work out that way, as we've seen. I think now's the time to push the big red rework button from our minds and think in a more focused way about how DRK's gameplay can be improved from where we are now. All I'm asking is that people think critically for themselves, rather than repeating the 'rework' phrase because they've heard it's a popular thing to say.

The self-healing discussion is an odd one. I personally feel that tanks in general have way too much self-healing, this expansion. You can fight for more self-sustain on principle, but I don't think that it actually matters that DRK is at a disadvantage in this category. For example, if you gave me a choice between more self-sustain vs. replacing Dark Missionary with something on par with Shake, I'd pick the latter in a heartbeat. I also think it's better for DRK to not be the FoTM (as long as we're in striking distance of that spot), for a couple of reasons. First, it's more fun outskilling someone playing the 'best tank' by virtue of having better uptime. Second, I never enjoyed seeing what the WAR and PLD communities became like when they were FoTM (or perhaps the better term is flavor of the expansion). Third, look at BLM - they're perpetually second to third place, and they're happy there. I think if there's a tight enough balance, and they change up the relative strengths up frequently such that nobody stays on the top for too long, then it's fine. The people campaigning for the FoTM are the ones that mess up most jobs anyways.

Either way, I'm not opposed to more self-sustain, but there are probably other things that I would prioritize over this.

I actually like procs a fair bit (and enjoyed seeing them on DRK in Heavensward), but some people don't fare as well with them. The decision-making around them tends to be fairly simple, even on dps jobs that do have them still (i.e. RDM). I think that if what you're looking for is skill expression, what this game is really missing is skillshots. Oddly, the closest thing that we've ever had to this on DRK was the old Salted Earth. RPR's Ingress/Egress is pretty fantastic in this regard, because you're eyeballing a distance and trajectory based on the direction you're facing, while planning a return point after the mechanic resolves. But I think that opportunities for skill expression are also things that you can brainstorm when coming up with new abilities for next expansion.

As for the statement about verbiage, it is what it is. Your posts are at their best when just make your points clearly. I only remind you when I find myself getting tired trying to decipher your point.

I mentioned earlier they would have to change some numbers around to make it work, otherwise yeah I agree if they just dropped it in at level 30 when you first get Flood of Shadow without any other changes, it'd suck. I don't know what those adjustments would look like exactly (although separately I want Delirium to change to literally anything but an IR clone) but I imagine there's a sweet spot between having to do an MP combo after every Souleater combo and doing it every once in a blue moon. If the devs wanted to get really spicy, they could pop a Darkside cost on Blood abilities and make it less static.

I don't mind Delirium too much now, especially since we're only down to three stacks. I wish that it gave a GCD speedboost in honor of the old Blood Weapon. I wouldn't mind if it brought in some new animations. But I probably would find a way to upgrade Living Shadow first before doing anything with Delirium.

[baklava151]

I don't mind Delirium too much now, especially since we're only down to three stacks. I wish that it gave a GCD speedboost in honor of the old Blood Weapon. I wouldn't mind if it brought in some new animations. But I probably would find a way to upgrade Living Shadow first before doing anything with Delirium.

I'll only tolerate Living Shadow's existence if this is the level 100 capstone ability