DRK - Excessive "Conditional" Effects

[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.