Dark Knight Megathread

[baklava151]

We've talked about the idea of putting MP and Blood on different combos before, back around Stormblood. The problem is that each resource has a potency value based on the on-demand spender for that resource. In single target, MP has a potency value that you can calculate from the cost of Edge. Blood has a potency value that you can calculate from the cost of Bloodspiller. So I can plug these numbers in and directly compare the effective potency of each combo. And that's a problem, because I'm always going to use the higher potency combo. So if it turns out that the MP combo provides more value, then I'll just use that combo, and spend the Blood from BW either on Bloodspiller or Living Shadow depending on whether it's an odd or even numbered minute. If it turns out that the Blood combo provides more value, then I'm only ever going to use the MP combo if I need to save up to use TBN.

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.

[RyuDragnier]

So you have the seeming paradox of the job having the least complicated attack rotation, and perhaps the one with the hardest time surviving at almost every level of content (aside from perhaps synched ShB content), which is arguably more important for a tank. Not incapable of performing the duties of a tank, just... harder on them.
It culminates in taking on a lot of risk, all for the reward of... doing slightly more damage than other tanks during your opener at 90 with an absolutely boring attack combo.

Granted, the damage makes it very attractive from a raiding perspective, but take that singular element away and you have the least attractive tank available.

The funniest part is that the sustain portion can easily be fixed with few changes that don't really change the kit a whole lot. An HoT on Oblation, Dark Mind mitigating 10% of physical damage as well (so it's usable in all situations), maybe cure potency on use of Bloodspiller/Quietus...there's so little the devs have to actually do to fix DRK's ability to survive and bring it on par with other tanks.

[CasterSvarog]

The funniest part is that the sustain portion can easily be fixed with few changes that don't really change the kit a whole lot. An HoT on Oblation, Dark Mind mitigating 10% of physical damage as well (so it's usable in all situations), maybe cure potency on use of Bloodspiller/Quietus...there's so little the devs have to actually do to fix DRK's ability to survive and bring it on par with other tanks.

Or heck, they could bring back older actions like Shadowskin and Sole survivor for the ARR/HW levels. Those levels could certainly use something to help with tanking until you get TBN at level 70.

[Archwizard]

You're much better off looking at

It's really hard to take this type of feedback from you as genuine, given that you've admitted your bias towards changing as little as possible about the job.
"You're much better off" reads as a lot of projecting your own desires and preferences onto others and dressing it up as fact.

Now, I will agree that (on paper if not in practice) the devs are more likely to accept feedback that requires as little change as possible for the job, and there certainly are elements of the job that could be addressed with minor alterations, like Ryu said. We don't need to reinvent the wheel just to say that C&S and AD shouldn't be on a shared charge, at least as they are now.
But if part of the argument is that the job has been watered down to the point of losing its own substantial identity and has significant overlap with another in the same role to the point of virtual copy-paste with superficial differences, they're going to continue getting the same feedback until something about its fundamental nature changes.

Much like how consistent feedback for 7 years was that Living Dead was garbage: its nature didn't change, so the feedback didn't either.

Now, that doesn't have to mean a ground-up rework... but it does mean something has to shift dramatically about the basic gameplay, which is an extremely fine line from fully reworking the job (even one that preserves the most popular elements), and heaven only knows where you draw that distinction.

And in the vein of that Living Dead example, in practice, they're more receptive to the idea of a "unique" job nature as a guiding design principle than you might think, given that the "easy" route would have just been to remove the Doom timer and make it essentially Holmgang... and instead they made it even more complicated just to maintain distinction.

[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.

[Kalaam]

Guys you're getting off track, it is no use criticizing others opinions in such a way. You have a fundamental disagreement (one likes the current design, the others don't) just leave it at that.