DRK - Excessive "Conditional" Effects

[MauvaisOeil]

I think that if you have to work harder, with a greater risk of personal loss or failure, the payoff should be proportionately greater. Its really simple. Working harder to attain results equal to, or in some cases worse, than the other jobs in your role, to me, is not fun.

That's the common belief, but that works poorly in MMO's where the dispredancy only lead to the hardest but more rewarding job beeing the top choice, everyone (good or bad) switching to it and neglecting and refusing the other jobs that are "not so worse" but considered inferior and useless.

People only wants to choices, even if they are miles over their ability to play, and since in FF the tank DPS matter for more than a reasonnable choice, it means if DRK is superior when player accordingly, most people will only want that job and none of the other (or another for LB purpose and choice of spells).

That's the "hair I'm cutting" here, you don't want balance. You want DRK to be better at the expanse of the other jobs, whether it is merited or not, it's simply not fair as is the current clunky situation.

While it used to be a credo in many, many games, the "I't's harder so it must be better in the end" credo ended poorly when people shared logs, guides, rotations, Gcd per gcd studies which ended making anything suposed "hard" an easy to learn bargain. No one will pick a lesser job because it's too hard for them to even waste time on the hardest job.

And because of some communication before the launch of SB, I don't think a hardest job will again be held as the topmost one.

For example purposes, let's look at the respective immunities.

Hallowed Ground; 10s; 7m CD
Holmgang; 6s; 3m CD
Living Dead; 10-19s; 5m CD

At face value they all are relatively even. However, once you look at the effects, you start to see the issue. Paladin requires nothing from anyone since it literally takes zero damage. Warrior, meanwhile, can self-heal if absolutely necessary. Dark Knight is the only tank entirely dependent on a healer to survive its own immunity. Say you're in a scenario where people have died, including one of the healers. Paladin and Warrior can use their abilities to save the day. Now Dark Knight technically can, but you've also put a huge burden on the one healer to heal you within ten seconds. Warrior just switches to Defiance, uses Equilibrium and Inner Beast to buy itself some time.

This is the issue when people talk about how unrewarding Dark Knight can actually be. Nearly every hallmark ability in their arsenal requires more work for only equal to even worse results.

Like you said, it's an example purpose. Because it's the worst one (healer depandancy, death if badly executed), the rest of the DRK toolkit is far from beeing that costly and problematic. LD simply doesn't deserve such a long cooldown, if they don't want to change how it works.

But should the DRK loose it's "costly nature" ? I think not, that would be playing another job.

Should it be best tuned ? Yes.

Should the job be better than the others ? That's not up to me either, but it will only weight the imbalance. I don't mind if the DRK is harder for the same results as others, but making him better will only cause the previously stated problem that cripples the game and the mindset of players.

Of course, everyone wants his main job as the better, and everyone allways have a wagon of reasons that seems plausible to anyone with the same mindset. But is it objective ?

[SyzzleSpark]

snip

You're misrepresenting my argument to advance your own.

What you are hearing me say is that what I want DRK to be pretty much the best tank, because we make sacrifices in a few key areas.

What I would like is for the areas in which we do make these sacrifices to be areas where we attain a greater reward.

You are saying that this would, in the end, result in DRK just being the hands down top tier tank, which is an exaggeration.

If it is your opinion that DRK is fine, or that all it needs is another 10 potency on Souleater, then say as much.

I, on the other hand, do care about balance, and while yes, I want my main job to be better than it currently is, significantly better even, I do not want it to usurp the niches of the other tanks (PLD's raid mitigation and utilities, WAR's burst damage or high uptime CDs, etc.) DRK is far enough behind to make it significantly better in at least one area while still leaving the other tanks plenty of room to shine. This argument that because I want DRK buffed/fixed/re-designed, I want DRK to be the omni-tank, because its my main, is borderline ad hominem and at the very least just misses the point entirely, to say nothing of the fact that, again, (i reiterate) I suggested little-to-nothing in the way of buffs here, merely design flaws. You've yet to even properly analyze the actual implications of changing any of the problems I listed, and thus you've yet to make a counter-argument. What your posts have amounted to so far is basically generalized anti-buffing rhetoric and question-begging.

The imbalance of things like LD, TBN, Delirium, etc. are representative of only a very small part of our toolkit, and if all the things in the OP were completely addressed, all it would really do is boost our DPS and make our sustain/invuln slightly better. It wouldn't even come close to making us the "best tank".

[Shurrikhan]

For example purposes, let's look at the respective immunities.

Hallowed Ground; 10s; 7m CD
Holmgang; 6s; 3m CD
Living Dead; 10-19s; 5m CD

At face value they all are relatively even. However, once you look at the effects, you start to see the issue. Paladin requires nothing from anyone since it literally takes zero damage. Warrior, meanwhile, can self-heal if absolutely necessary. Dark Knight is the only tank entirely dependent on a healer to survive its own immunity. Say you're in a scenario where people have died, including one of the healers. Paladin and Warrior can use their abilities to save the day. Now Dark Knight technically can, but you've also put a huge burden on the one healer to heal you within ten seconds. Warrior just switches to Defiance, uses Equilibrium and Inner Beast to buy itself some time.

This is the issue when people talk about how unrewarding Dark Knight can actually be. Nearly every hallmark ability in their arsenal requires more work for only equal to even worse results.

But let's consider also: with Benediction at the ready, Living Dead provides up to 19 seconds where you do not need to be worried about your tank. If he dies, he only "dies", and he can absorb infinite damage between having "died" and the end of Walking Dead, just like Holmgang. Chalk up a second to reaction time and latency and you've got almost twice the duration for less than half the cooldown, plus that an additional period of safety before Walking Dead even begins because you know that Walking Dead will eventually take effect anyways. That seems pretty balanced to me.

Now, we could reduce the issues involved in that by reducing the healing requirement thereafter, showing the healing requirement yet required, displaying the Walking Dead timer more clearly, or even making Living Dead (just that pre-activation portion) itself last... infinitely (but only beginning its cooldown upon entering Walking Dead), or even make it a passive that activates upon death with a 5 minute ICD, but at that point (or even just half way to that point) it'd not only free up healers the most over time, especially with a WHM or even AST, but would also be the easiest to use.

I like that a more complicated ability may have the highest potential throughput, situationally. Heck, I'd like there to be more ways to do Living Dead "wrong" or "right" that aren't simply due to latency or awkward HoT crit ticks or the lack of on-screen graphics or buff sort orders, in order for it to warrant that.

I just don't like the idea that because a job as a whole is more complex, it must also be rewarded as a whole, and outpace all less complex opposition, which is an altogether separate thing that I hear asked for widely and consistently... until it's given -- at which point it has become a point of public outcry every time I've seen it.

You're misrepresenting my argument to advance your own.

What you are hearing me say is that what I want DRK to be pretty much the best tank, because we make sacrifices in a few key areas.

What I would like is for the areas in which we do make these sacrifices to be areas where we attain a greater reward.

Until reading this, I too was under the impression that the prior was what you wanted.

I'd be totally fine with the areas that require the most precise control (over our class) to also be the areas in which... we are capable of the most precise and helpful control (over our circumstances).

[MauvaisOeil]

You're misrepresenting my argument to advance your own.

What you are hearing me say is that what I want DRK to be pretty much the best tank, because we make sacrifices in a few key areas.

Which you are doing yourself, on the very same sentences you're willing to correct me.

The fact is : I only take your sentence as litteral. You said yourself you don't think working more for the same results is fun to you, which cannot be solved by equality of performances between tanks with a different and harder gameplay for DRK. Which then means, if DRK has to sacrifice or pay, he must have greater rewards and greatest performance.

The point is : I don't have much of an argument here, except "Tank balance is a tiny thing people pay to much attention", you were hyperbolic during month for a less than 5% dispredancy with PLD, now due to warrior having grown to 5% more than PLD and thus, about 10% more than DRK, you're doing even more.


DRK is not fine, because his toolkit is clunky, incomplete, and lacks synergy. The balance of mitigation and damage is thin enough to be working, and could be tuned somehow else. But as your words were : "If it cost more, it should reward more" and not "If it cost a lot, maybe it just costs too much".

[SyzzleSpark]

"If it cost more, it should reward more"

I still stand by these words. Where you're losing me is how that statement, as it applies to the handful of abilities I listed in the OP, implies a belief that DRK should actually be 100% better than the other tanks.

you don't want balance. You want DRK to be better at the expanse of the other jobs

I don't want DRK to be the best tank because we make sacrifices in a few key areas.
I'd like those few key areas to be better.

The alternative is to simply make them less costly, which is an option, but not one that many people want, because then it robs the job of an aspect of its identity that drew people to it in the first place.

DRK required a lot of work and sacrifices in 3.x, and the payoff was huge, and yet it still somehow refrained from being the "Best tank" or imbalancing the game in and of itself, or robbing either of the other tanks of their niches, so it appears that history disagrees with your assessment. It still had its fair share of weaknesses and flaws, many of which are still present in addition to those that were added in 4.x. There's no reason that I'm seeing that it cannot have this same dynamic in 4.x that people enjoyed in 3.x.

[Launched]

Otherwise its not "risk-reward", its merely "risk---"

DRK does have rewards/benefits to the skills in the OP.

TBN is available every 15s. That's more often than Sheltron, and Sheltron is only really great against tankbusters while TBN works well on everything: tankbusters, boss autos, and trash packs. A 10k+ shield (closer to 12k at i340) every 15s is a lot of mitigation and it doesn't even have diminishing returns when stacked with a % mitigation cooldown. Sheltron only works on a single hit so it's not amazing against autos and bad against trash. IB is the best mitigation of the 3, but it's also a guaranteed DPS loss because it requires tank stance unlike the other two and also uses a DPS resource that won't get refunded. So for the risk of a small DPS loss you get a great cooldown that's almost always available and works in pretty much every situation. Converting MP to Blood also stops DRK from being as boring as it could be by letting you use Bloodspiller/Quietus instead of another Dark Arts/Abyssal Drain.

Living Dead has a 2 minute shorter cooldown than Hallowed and only activates when you actually hit 1hp so you don't have to be as exact with the timing. In exchange, your healer has to do a little bit of work to keep you alive after. That shorter cooldown means you can use it in places a PLD couldn't use Hallowed, like all 3 Delta Attacks in Neo Exdeath. Then there's Holmgang, which has just over half the duration of the other two cooldowns and also roots you. If you're planning to use Holmgang on a specific mechanic then your healers need to heal the WAR too: Thrill isn't enough HP and you don't want to swap to tank stance for Equilibrium/IB. DRK isn't the only one that requires healing. Tanking isn't just about using your invincibility cooldown as a panic button.

Let's be serious, Sole Survivor isn't "a chance to get healed". It lasts 15s, it's off-gcd, and it doesn't cost anything. You use it on something that's at low HP and you're going to get that heal/MP. It's not Mercy Stroke, it doesn't require you to get the kill with a low potency skill. It's not an impressive skill, but when you have the chance to use it (in every single dungeon and plenty of bosses) it's going to work.

You're also making Dark Passenger sound a lot more complicated than it is. Got a lot of MP coming in from a big pull? Go ahead and use it. Forced to do a small pull with 2-4 enemies (like after the second boss of Skalla)? Use it. It's a boring off-gcd and should be deleted in my opinion, but it's not really complicated or risky.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

But let's consider also: with Benediction at the ready, Living Dead provides up to 19 seconds where you do not need to be worried about your tank.

This doesn't change the argument as Dark Knight remains entirely dependent on a White Mage to maximize its own ability. Considering SCH/AST has been "meta" since Creator, thus popular. It's quite likely you won't have Benediction. Now Astro can handle Living without too much fuss, but the crux of my point is Dark Knight essentially gets punished if the healer can't respond fast enough whereas the same isn't true for Warrior or Paladin. It may not be optimal for Warrior to use Equilibrium and spam Inner Beast, however they have some way to control their own immunity. Dark Knight doesn't.

I just don't like the idea that because a job as a whole is more complex, it must also be rewarded as a whole, and outpace all less complex opposition, which is an altogether separate thing that I hear asked for widely and consistently... until it's given -- at which point it has become a point of public outcry every time I've seen it.

Of course, everyone wants his main job as the better, and everyone allways have a wagon of reasons that seems plausible to anyone with the same mindset. But is it objective ?

Without reward, what purpose does higher risk and complexity serve? If I can achieve far superior results on Paladin without half the effort, why am I going to bother with Dark Knight? There has to be some incentive otherwise its complexity for complexity's sake. Like Syzzle, I'm not looking for Dark Knight to be OP, but competitive. Right now, it's objectively inferior to both its counterparts in every way.

[Shurrikhan]

Without reward, what purpose does higher risk and complexity serve? If I can achieve far superior results on Paladin without half the effort, why am I going to bother with Dark Knight? There has to be some incentive otherwise its complexity for complexity's sake. Like Syzzle, I'm not looking for Dark Knight to be OP, but competitive. Right now, it's objectively inferior to both its counterparts in every way.

I'll agree absolutely that DRK needs certain improvements. I'm just saying that no one is going to accept reduced skill requirement as a excuse for poorer optimal performance. That removes classes from viability in the only content that actually requires tight balancing -- the upper end, much like DRK is pushed out right now. While players do not uniquely invest nearly as much time into a particular job here as in, say, Legion WoW -- wherein even each spec on a given class may require unique BiS gear, over a year of Artifact grinding, and separate playstyle mastery, and no gear, experience, or story progression is shareable between classes to boot -- "your class is easier, so expect to fall behind in the higher percentiles just as you outpaced others in the lower percentiles" almost certainly will not go well. Heck, just ask any dedicated top percentile Red Mage...

To repeat:

I'd be totally fine with the areas that require the most precise control (over our class) to also be the areas in which... we are capable of the most precise and helpful control (over our circumstances)..., and can therefore get the most from them

...but something as broad as highest overall continuous average DPS or should not be a reward, at least by a significant margin, for having more means of control. That complexity should feel like a boon in its own right. If it doesn't, it's probably more "convoluted" than it is finely "complex". Check over these more "complicated" areas of DRK: how many of them actually provide additional, viable choice, rather than just artificial difficulty, or vulnerability to latency, miscoordination, etc.? If primarily the latter, make them more intuitive first and then judge whether they need to be buffed just to bribe people to use them. Let's smooth it out first, and make it feel polished, and then let's up the numbers as necessary, without using any old (or remaining) clunkiness as excuse.

[MauvaisOeil]

Without reward, what purpose does higher risk and complexity serve? If I can achieve far superior results on Paladin without half the effort, why am I going to bother with Dark Knight? There has to be some incentive otherwise its complexity for complexity's sake. Like Syzzle, I'm not looking for Dark Knight to be OP, but competitive. Right now, it's objectively inferior to both its counterparts in every way.

I get your point but turn it sideways :

"Why would I stick with a job that cannot compete with others, because it's easy to learn in design?"


I'm not saying that's the right choice of design, but there are flaw in both choices, either complexity = payoff, or complexity =/= performances.