4.1 Dark Knight Feedback and fixes

[Aana]

Missing part of my quote:

Bleh to much simultaneous editing I guess.

[/B] The fact that it works and is adequate right now does not A: invalidate the fact that DRK needs buffing and re-tuning or B: rule out the possibility of content getting harder and less magic focused.

Basically you're pitching a fit over semantics and peripheral arguments while claiming to agree with me on the main point of discussion, which overall detracts from the discussion. That's why I'm "painting you as the bad guy".

Im trying to point out that Balance is not a theoretical issue. It is a practical one. I return to the original comparison for context. (Old) Halone/Delirium had different but identical power effects. -10% to an enemy stat. They were 'balanced' in every sense of the word. But when pld was on the bottom, people cited halone as one of the issues because most raid aoes and many TBs were magic and the fluff AAs that halone mitigated didn't amount to much.

You HAVE to balance based on the content. That's not some semantic BS. That's how balancing works. They need to be balanced in a practical way, not a theoretical way. Halone WAS weaker than delirium back then because the encounters said so. We can 'what if' till the cows come home. Can you imagine this same argument being used on Halone?

Pld: Delirium is to strong! Halone needs a buff!
Drk: Delirium isn't strong! Its the same as halone. What if next tier all raid AOEs and tank busters are phy? Its fine!

Welp:
Me: Dark mind is fine! Its a good and useful CD
Drks: Dark mind isn't strong! What if next tier all raids stop doing heavy magic damage!

Balance isn't theoretical about future what ifs. Balance is only ever relivant to the content its played in.

Zerg: Great on open ground, bad in chokes.
Terran: Great in chokes, bad on open ground.
Maps: All have a mix of open ground and choke
Result: Asymetrical balance that allows factions to avoid homogenization.

Asymetrical balance is a thing. It doesn't need to be 'all' damage just because raw int is physical any more than raw int needs to block magic. Fights will continue to have mixed damage. Balance is ALWAYS based on the content. You cant remove balance from content. They define each other. Its not semantic. Its what balance is. Trying to change balance outside the context of the content is flatly wrong because it leads to in-game imbalance (Halone/Delirium=Balanced....on paper. In content it was not. Which one is the important one to balance?). Balance for the content otherwise its not balance.

[Chrono_Rising]

Bleh to much simultaneous editing I guess.

Fair, I have to read things 1000 times to find all my terrible typing. Perhaps I was too quick to jump to conclusions.

Im trying to point out that Balance is not a theoretical issue. It is a practical one. I return to the original comparison for context. (Old) Halone/Delirium had different but identical power effects. -10% to an enemy stat. They were 'balanced' in every sense of the word. But when pld was on the bottom, people cited halone as one of the issues because most raid aoes and many TBs were magic and the fluff AAs that halone mitigated didn't amount to much.

You HAVE to balance based on the content. That's not some semantic BS. That's how balancing works. They need to be balanced in a practical way, not a theoretical way. Halone WAS weaker than delirium back then because the encounters said so. We can 'what if' till the cows come home. Can you imagine this same argument being used on Halone?

Pld: Delirium is to strong! Halone needs a buff!
Drk: Delirium isn't strong! Its the same as halone. What if next tier all raid AOEs and tank busters are phy? Its fine!

I agree, these abilities were much better balanced after Gordias when they moved towards a healthier mix of abilities.

Welp:
Me: Dark mind is fine! Its a good and useful CD
Drks: Dark mind isn't strong! What if next tier all raids stop doing heavy magic damage!

Balance isn't theoretical about future what ifs. Balance is only ever relivant to the content its played in.

Balance is a bit of both, they moved paladin out of their physical damage niche, but not dark knight out of its “magical niche”. But we know this type of design is problematic, so why keep it? I think we should parry magic as well, which would be a buff to warrior primarily. The point is based on the current content dark knight is in need of something, and having run this content on both dark and paladin, I can definitely feel the difference in mitigation. People are turning away from dark knight for a reason and they are right to do so, the extra shields, the extra mitigation, extra utilities, and the damage just makes things easier.

[SyzzleSpark]

Me: Dark mind is fine! Its a good and useful CD
Drks: Dark mind isn't strong!

People hold this view because DM provides nothing in the way of fluff mitigation. In fact most of DRK's CDs fall flat in this regard. They're all very short duration "use me on a tank-buster b/c I'm not that good for much else" kind of buttons. People are suggesting changes to DM to have it fill this hole, not because DM fails in the context where it has always been used. Nobody said "Dark Mind sucks for mitigating big magical tank-busters!" DM isn't the only option here. They could cut Shadow Wall's recast or reinstate Dark Dance+Reprisal in some form or another. Dark Mind is aging however, because whereas it used to be a tool unique to DRK that gave it a niche, now the other tanks can mitigate magic just as well (WAR always could, actually, but that's another topic). So its not really that special, especially when the equivalent abilities that other tanks would use on magic busters, do not cease to be useful on physical busters, or on the AAs before/after.

At this point we are carrying on totally different arguments and you've completely lost me with your metaphysical pontificating about what balance actually is. You still haven't really done much to disprove my original point, which was that the ease of the current content and its magic focus is a likely cause for DRK's issues not getting very much attention. And I only ever implied that this was probably a contributing factor, not the sole reason. And my statement about "if we get another tier like Midas" was me wondering out loud if such a scenario might get more people to pay attention. And that's where this whole derailing argument about "what is balance? no, but like, DUDE, what is... like, BALANCE?" came from.

If you don't wanna see Dark Mind changed, cool! Fine. Suggest something else.

DRK works in practice because of raid design.

Yes. It does work. It can clear all content fine right now. But we still realize it has problems, but some people might not because...

This past raid tier was one of the easiest in the game.

So unless content doesn't change or get easier, more people might see problems in the future. I fail to see anything unreasonable about this statement.

As soon as we get something more on the level of Midas, that isn't overflowing with TBs that are Dark Mind Bait, I guarantee you'd start seeing problems.

And you would. But it hasn't happened yet as you keep pointing out. But I'm not permitted to wonder if people that aren't seeing the problem now, might see the problem were content to get harder? Also, by your statements, am I to infer that even though you claim to want DRK to be buffed and that it is not fine, we are supposed to wait until content is released that DRK underperforms significantly in so that it is no longer a "what if"?

It hasn't happened yet. It might not ever happen. What does this have to do with DRK being 100% inferior to both of the other tanks again?

[Aana]

Fair, I have to read things 1000 times to find all my terrible typing. Perhaps I was too quick to jump to conclusions.

I agree, these abilities were much better balanced after Gordias when they moved towards a healthier mix of abilities.


Balance is a bit of both, they moved paladin out of their physical damage niche, but not dark knight out of its “magical niche”. But we know this type of design is problematic, so why keep it? I think we should parry magic as well, which would be a buff to warrior primarily. The point is based on the current content dark knight is in need of something, and having run this content on both dark and paladin, I can definitely feel the difference in mitigation. People are turning away from dark knight for a reason.

I (personally) think that having those differences adds some character. SE 'could' balance things by making sentinel cross class and remove wall/vengeance. Make mind/raw int both block phy/magic. Etc. I would rather not see more homogenization, but that means that a fight like D3 will favor a Raw int while a fight like V2 would favor dark mind. I'm OK with that. You always need 2 tanks for raids. Swapping which of the 2 is the MT for each doesn't seem bad to me. Double stacking jobs becomes less desireable etc. I don't think having (minor) stregnths and weaknesses is actually bad. As long as all 3 tanks 'can' tank anything, I don't mind there being preferences like War is the MT physical boss in 3 and Drk can OT the magic damage adds more comfortably.

They still need a slight power bump to reach parity with war/pld (WTF Shadowall? Y U so bad!?), Damage a smidge low, and some QOL things. TBN could be more reliable (longer duration, half the blood up front, maybe reduce the shield break requirement to half for refund etc). WTF at the absurd number of actions and convoluted interactions just to do some AOE.

Tanks are closer than ever to actual parity. Lets just bring up drk a smidge and then everyone can play the game.

[SyzzleSpark]

Lets just bring up drk a smidge and then everyone can play the game.

But, define a smidge? Because a smidge to most people is the Souleater and Quietus buff we saw a couple months ago, which was considered pretty paltry and really only effected performance in dungeons and didn't fix the myriad of problems people were complaining about at the time, and still complain about now. The buffs that DRK actually needs to catch up to the other tanks, who bring better mitigation, better dps, and better utility qualify as a little bit more than what most would call a "smidge".

If we're wanting DRK to not homogenize with the other tanks (have all CDs work on all damage, make Shadow Wall a copy of Vengeance, do exactly equal DPS, and get a Divine Veil rip-off) then it requires buffs considerably larger than a "smidge" in one particular area in order to push it ahead, giving it a niche, in spite of the other 2 categories where it is behind. It sounds like you're not necessarily in denial that DRK is in a bad spot, but definitely in denial about how insanely better PLD and WAR are.

PLD's CDs work on all types of damage. All of them.
Clemency is a DPS loss, but PLD has the option to heal itself and party members, and even if you took away Clemency, PLD would have the same number of CDs as DRK.
PLD has DV, Clemency, Cover, Intervention, and PoA - it has more party utility and mitigation CDs than DRK has personal mitigation CDs.
PLD does more damage.
^^^^all of that is a lot more than a smidge's worth of fixes to DRK.

WAR's CDs for the most part last considerably longer and/or have shorter recasts than DRK. Raw Intuition is physical only, but its a joke to say that it is anywhere near as situational as Dark Mind
IB is a DPS loss, but just like Clemency, WAR has this option in its toolkit, and if you took it away, WAR would have the same number of CDs as DRK.
WAR has a party shield that is free, and has a shorter recast than most of PLD's utilities, in spite of it being the only one.
WAR has a slashing debuff. Not great, but it opens you up to compositions that don't already possess one.
WAR does more damage than PLD *and* DRK.
^^^^again, all of that is a lot more than a smidge's worth of fixes to DRK.

We're actually a lot farther from parity than we were at the end of HW. Throughout Midas and Creator there were numerous fights where PLD was better than DRK. They both had a niche. Even though DRK can clear all the content right now, there's not a fight where it is better than PLD or WAR in any meaningful way.

[Aana]

And you would. But it hasn't happened yet as you keep pointing out. But I'm not permitted to wonder if people that aren't seeing the problem now, might see the problem were content to get harder? Also, by your statements, am I to infer that even though you claim to want DRK to be buffed and that it is not fine, we are supposed to wait until content is released that DRK underperforms significantly in so that it is no longer a "what if"?

It hasn't happened yet. It might not ever happen. What does this have to do with DRK being 100% inferior to both of the other tanks again?

Things that 'might' be a problem are not actually problems in balance for games. I dont know how else to say it. The fact that A4 was ENTIRELY magical contributing to making Drk OP (at the time vs pld) has ZERO bearing on Drks current relative weakness does it? No. It doesn't. Just like some future fight imaginary fight also has ZERO bearing on the current state of balance. I don't know how else to say it. Things that haven't and may not happen are not justification for anything regarding balance.

So we balance for now. Because now is all that matters. Drk mind is a good skill NOW. It doesn't protect against fluff AAs. As a magic centered skill, I don't see why it makes sense that it should. Ive already listed my list of changes like 4 times, but here it is again since you keep asking.

* Shadowall: 40%. Match pld. EZPZ.
* TBN: Make it 'safer' to use without an explicit power buff. Increase shield duration to make it easier to break. Maybe something like cut the shield into 2 shields and if 1 breaks you get the refund or something to make it 'safer' to use and reduce the risk in using it.
* Sole survivor: Shake it off treatment. Its a bad skill that can be used to fill any hole left over. Damage. Mitigation. Utility. Rework.
* Passenger: Costs to much because it gives blind. debuffs don't work on bosses so the skills shouldn't be balanced around them.
* AOE skills. To many. Convoluted. Trim that crap down to a more usable set of AOE skills. Variety of ways to adjust.
* Damage: Increase it a smidge to match other tanks. ~5% or so should do it. Potencies or through the above changes. (ie: if survivor is a trick attack, don't buff direct damage quite as much etc)
* If slight buff to mitigation isn't met through above changes then delete one of the AOE skills and add some light fluff CD like a parry move.

[SyzzleSpark]

Things that 'might' be a problem are not actually problems in balance for games. I dont know how else to say it. The fact that A4 was ENTIRELY magical contributing to making Drk OP (at the time vs pld) has ZERO bearing on Drks current relative weakness does it? No. It doesn't. Just like some future fight imaginary fight also has ZERO bearing on the current state of balance. I don't know how else to say it. Things that haven't and may not happen are not justification for anything regarding balance.

You actually DO know how else to say it. What you are proclaiming now with the certainty of the rising sun is the same thing you phrased as a question on the very first page of this thread.

Question though. Is it really a balance problem when it only exists in theory?

=/

Also, you went on to list buffs, some of which are to DRK's mitigation, which you have spent the last 3 pages saying didn't need a buff because it was "fine in practice, theoryland doesn't matter". Is DRK's lack of a 40% Shadow Wall or a fluff parry CD really a balance problem when it only exists in theory? This is why I don't understand why you began this debate. You're in agreement but you have this other train of thought going on that is causing disagreement for no apparent reason.

[Aana]

It was a rhetorical question. I then continue in that very post to describe why theoretical balance problems are not balance problems and therefore not justification for buffs/nerfs. Just like it wouldn't make sense if I demanded raw intuition be changed because in A4 it was a useless skill 2 years ago. It also doesn't make sense to say "X needs buff because of a fight that may or may not exist 1 year from now".

Balance is only, can only, be based in the now.

[SyzzleSpark]

Balance is only, can only, be based in the now.

So what is it about the now that makes a physically effective DM a solution to a problem that only exists in theory, but a 40% Shadow Wall and additional fluff CD a solution to a problem that exists in practice?

Both provide the same thing, more mitigation, specifically higher uptime physical mitigation. I do not understand whence cometh the disagreement or why it was worth derailing a thread intended to discuss buffs to the job, hopefully as a united front.

[TouchandFeel]

Balance is only, can only, be based in the now.

That's not really true. I know from personal experience that when trying to design or balance things in a game you definitely try to think ahead, plan for "ifs" and potential contingencies. While chances are you will not think of or catch everything, if you don't even try you are setting yourself up for things to inevitably go wrong. Looking at only the "now" for things like balance just leaves you with your pants down, tripping over yourself as you try to scramble to fix a problem that could have been avoided if some foresight had been applied. It is true that trying to prepare and adjust for every potential is a practice in futility and a huge waste of time, but being able to judge and filter the likeliness and severity of potential problems is a big part of the job. If a noticeable number of the player-base felt something was a potential problem and gave reasons why, I as a developer would at least give what they were saying a good look.

Essentially when judging something like balance, or any problem solving really, you look at the present and pull observable data from it. You then compare that current data to data observed in the past. You look at what worked then and what didn't, what is working now and what isn't, how things have changed and what those changes correlate to. You then use those comparisons of data to provide a guide for how to approach the future, trying to predict potential problems and figure out ways to safeguard against them. While the "now" is the only place that people will directly feel the results of things, the future quickly becomes the present and focusing solely or too much on the "now" just leaves you unprepared and vulnerable to the dangers that were ignored.

In the end it is not the "then", the "now" or the potential "will be"s. It is looking at all of them and how they interconnect, what level of causation there is or may be, etc. and gaining a greater overall view of the situation from which you can map a path to where you want to get to.

A little credence that I like to live by that I feel is appropriately fitting to this back and forth.
"The best way to fix a problem is to avoid having one in the first place."

But most fourms are just filled with baseless complaints about misunderstood ideas or feelings instead of facts. I just want people to drill down to the root and be able to articulate, rationally, what their issue is instead of just parroting what some reddit post said or demanding things because 'feelings' that don't actually make sense or worse, flatly untrue.

I wholeheartedly agree. I just feel that it is best to try to avoid to fall into the trap of regarding all people's voiced opinions in the same light just because so many people tend towards parroting hyperbole.

While I may not always agree with Syzzle on things and I know that at times they can be a bit brusque, I also understand where they are coming from. Syzzle, myself and a number of other posters here in the DRK threads have in the past taken the stance of presenting things clearly, trying to present thoughtful dissections of abilities and how they affect balance and all those things that you say people should be doing, only to be met with being ignored or "shouted down" by others (often players who mained other tank jobs) who weaponized hyperbole to drown out the "opposition". Some of us have gotten sick of it, especially when we see others using this same hyperbolic approach to get heard by the devs, and have decided to "crank up the volume" so to speak.

Believe me, most of us would much prefer to have nuanced and thoughtful discussions on these topics, we have just found them to be ineffective to get any traction.