Dark Knight: 5.0x Feedback Thread

[Chrono_Rising]

I am going to assume that you mean that block rates went up by 10% last expansion. Which is an interesting fact that I was unaware of but did we also have blocking being nerfed at the start of last expansion too? Also it is a very critical assumption as your entire argument about whether or not Sheltron is able to mitigate more than TBN hinges on this fact. Why do I say this?

Yes, we had a nerf first. This is the typical rebalancing we see every expac. We need 3300 block strength for 30% mitigation. We started the expac with 1447 and are currently at 2200, over 50 ilvls we gained 800ish block strength. 25% is hardly a stretch, for that we need 2750 block strength. Going from ilvl 430 to 450 yielded more than 100 block strength, my guess would be that tome gear will have more and the 475 will have more still. To be clear, I’m not claiming that at the end of this tier we will have 25% block mitigation; but I feel safe in saying we will have more than 20%, and we will likely reach 25% at some point during the lifespan of the expansion. Blocking effectiveness drops with lvl. It isn't readily apparent. If you equiped the ilvl 400 shield at 80 and blocked something you would see it blocking for 13%. 50 ilvls later we are blocking for 20%. The leveling range hides this because each level you gain changes how much you block for, and it decreases: so as you level you may not have noticed this as you likely got better shields over time canceling out the effect. The 1% increase your cotank was likely seeing is actually at 7% increase when compared at the same level (that level being 80), using the ilvl 400 shield from stormblood.

*** However, what could be wrong is my assumption that block strength continues to grow. If it remains constant then the argument about 21% and higher is defunct.***

It's because I do understand your point that there is such a point that Sheltron will mitigate more than TBN. However you have not understood my point, which is that this point when blocking with Sheltron becomes greater than the shield of TBN is so high that you won't realistically be able to hit that point with current numbers. If I mitigate the 25,000 with Sheltron that means that I am taking 100,000 damage which is the assumed value of my max HP in the example that we have been using. This means that even if it did mitigate more, it doesn't matter because you are still dead. Allow me to show the math behind this.

Dmg Req=(TBN shield)/(Sheltron %) =with numbers=> (100,000*0.25)/0.2=125,000
Remaining HP = (Max HP)+(Mitigation amt)-(Dmg Req) =with numbers=> 100,000+25,000-125,000=0

Your analysis is based on incoming damage being less than 125k and coming in in the form of spike damage that gives no opportunity to heal through. This is fatal without mitigation and TBN is effective in this scenario, we have no disagreement in this scenario. I am not talking about this scenario. I am talking about damage which can be taken over a period of time: as in dungeon pulls with large pulls and a healer.

I gave an example of how this can be gotten around with numbers already. I'm not repeating it. To be more clear: At this time I concede that in a one hit scenario, which is analogous to the one you are analyzing here, TBN will mitigate more than Sheltron at 20%. I have gone as far as to state this already in an earlier post. As I am becoming accustomed to in this discussion, I will remind you again that there are other resources at a tanks disposal which we are ignoring in this analysis of a 125k spike, like a healer who can heal damage over time. In instances where you take damage over a period of time your analysis is missing something. Why? You can receive a heal to bring you back up to more HP while still mitigating more damage. I can take two hits: one for for 99,999 and then one for 10k and live with only 100k hp without using mitigation. How? Get a heal between them. A single hit scenario is still not what I am talking about in trash pulls. You keep saying you get it, and then go back to a single hit scenario which is limited and ignores replenishment of HP.

Another example even though I started this by saying I wouldn’t. Lets say you take a 70k hit, get a 40k heal and then a 70k hit. Which is mitigating more 20% sheltron on 140k damage or 25k TBN? Sheltron does, and you survived with a heal between the two hits. We took more than 125 damage and lived; we just did it over time getting heals in between. This would be a single target situation; again our context is trash pulls but I want to cleanly demonstrate what I’m saying. Thought 20% mitigation will not beat a 25% shield in a situation in which we take a spike of 125k damage, in realistic situations with a healer, like dungeon trash pulls, you may be able to exceed taking 125k damage by receiving heals at some point over the 6 seconds.

Um, no I didn't propose 25%, you did. I stated that you were making the assumption of reaching 25% while not having enough evidence to back you claims. I stated that 50 ilvs of change only netted 1% and that you'd have to get to another 5% to be equal to what you were assuming. Pretty sad that I have to point that out since you literally quoted where I said this. Another thing, 25% is cleaner? Not even sure what you are trying to say with this. Being cleaner is irrelevant. Just plug the numbers into excel and then you can play with the Sheltron % to see how it will come out. I guess you must be the pot trying to call the kettle black on ignoring facts that don't support your opinion and just make assumptions that work toward your argument.

Unless I’m missing something:

Excellent point Xiaoki, I would have pointed out the same for the OP. Unless the block on Sheltron somehow gets to 25% it will never be as good as TBN.

This is your quote yeah? Can you quote me saying 25% blocking cutoff from before this? In response to this quote I showed at 25% it is already beating TBN in certain damage ranges. If it is beat TBN in a range from 100k and above what does that say about 24%? It isn’t an on/off switch. Run the numbers .24 mitigation on a 120k hit is 28.8k mitigated. At 110 its 26.4k. You’ll find for a block mitigation of 24% the cutoff is above 104k damage. There is a different cutoff for 23%, and 22% and 21% in which sheltron is better and we live. The window does get smaller with less blocking mitigation, but it still exists. Again from the start of this post I have provided reason to believe that we will be going up to block mitigation as high or higher than 25%.

Hate to break it to you but this isn't an assumption that I was making. Your examples are worded differently and are not analogous to your original statement. Here is the difference.

Saying I make less money than someone doesn't mean I'm poor. vs Saying I am poorer doesn't mean I'm poor.

Both phrases are very similar but the first one indicates only that you are making less money but the second one indicates that the subject posses the qualities of being poor. So by saying that Drk was "squishier" vs "takes more damage" you did, in fact, imply that Drk had the qualities of being squishy. English is tricky that way.

Words often have two meanings. Take poorer for example.

2. worse than is usual, expected, or desirable; of a low or inferior standard or quality.

I would be using the second definition. This definition does not imply the quality of being poor, rather it points to worse than expected. Once again, you aren’t considering all the possibilities and instead of clarifying meanings where ambiguous, you made assumptions. This is what I mean that this is not an implication of the statement but an assumption of the reader.

I don't recall saying whether or not soul eater's healing capacity compared to Clemency's. My exact statement was that they were both options that go towards survivability. They do in fact both provide healing and so regardless of the quantity of healing done, they can contribute to how long you can survive. That said I also stated that you shouldn't be using either one under normal circumstances. If you are in a trash pull and Rampart has the time to come off CD then your DPS really needed to step up their game. Can't say that I've ever had pulls take that long. Heck I've had cases where I've had to do a smaller pull just because things haven't come off of CD fast enough for how fast things are dying so I just let TBN carry me through a small pull and let them reset.

You say that they are both options with no analysis which states how unhelpful soul eater is in a large pull. So I’ll do it here. The main issue is still that Soul eater is no comparison to clemency. A 5k heal will save you from 1 extra auto and take in the neighborhood of 5 seconds to 7.5 seconds to build up to go from aoe to ST rotation, and Clemency will save you from several autos while taking half the time. In fact if you factor in being able to clemency for the same 3 GCDs you would see that clemency would heal you for 50k to 75k while soul eater nets you 5k. They are an order of magnitude apart in survivability which is not readily apparent from what you wrote. And again, I use pf for dungeons they aren’t my dps I have no control in this situation and I cannot know this will be the case until the first pull.

This is the scenario that YOU created: 7 seconds of duration, 10 enemies, 50k per 3 seconds, and Sheltron/Hos mitigating for the full 7 seconds.

Going outside of that means that you are throwing other variables into the equation. If we were to take this scenario with pretty much any tank, you would need a minimum of 2 CDs, both of which would have to have a minimum of 20% mitigation to survive more than 7 seconds and this is assuming that you have BOTH up for the FULL 7 seconds. So how many CDs do you really think that you'd have to survive this? If you were pulling and taking this amount of dmg then you wouldn't make it to the end where you just need to hang on for a few sec. I could show you the math if you REALLY want it. I would say that I have addressed all the points you've tried to raise. So just who is REALLY drawing bad conclusions based on surface examples with admittedly little context?

Still you, I’ve done this pull already. Yes, there are additional variables; there always are, most pulls work with the mitigation we’ve got, but not every pull works the same. Are there healers in these examples? Of course there are; if there are no healers and we are taking that much damage TBN, nor any other mitigation is saving us. I’ve healed tanks taking many adds with no mitigation. It was terrible; I still did it. Heals are powerful; mitigation helps close the gap between pure panic healing and comfortable healing and it doesn’t take as much as you are making it out to be. It is just unfortunate that it happens, it exists, and it is counter to your point and you want to make it out like it is not real or possible and cast some shade on what I’m saying with this “you are adding in additional variables”. The additional variables exist, they are part of the scenario I just haven’t tied them down to a specific case because I took it to be self evident that it could be done. I get it, it isn’t self evident so I put forward a imagine you can live through this example find some parameters that work for it. I later put out some examples of how it could work.

Again, you haven’t considered all the variables that go into doing a pull, my example doesn’t have an obvious conclusion in a vacuum. I gave this example without a full context, my intention is that we live through it so we need to fill in some gaps: What is my current HP? What did we do before? What state is the mob in? Full HP or nearly Dead? Is it half dead and a DPs brought more to me because that seems to be a thing right now? What kind of mitigation do I have? What about self-sustain? I did give a detail free example, you decided it was impossible: I provided contexts in which this can work. I would love to see the math on how in that pull with a fresh asylum, fresh regen and full lilies cannot push out strong heals for a few seconds to bridge the gap between my death and 40k damage per 3 seconds over 7 seconds when mobs are nearly dead; because I’m pretty sure with just a cure 2 spam I can heal through that. Can even take some support away from that example (like no asylum) and live comfortably watching my hp fall slightly. So feel free, lets see your math proving this is impossible to live through in all possible contexts.

Well someone has watched Xeno's latest video. He is wrong and so are you about the risk vs reward. The risk is having lowered your DPS and the reward is being able to produce a shield as big as TBN without causing any significant disruption of your DPS output. I have proven with the above math that within the same time frame the % mitigation can't beat what TBN is doing without getting greater %. The only other way would be to have greater time but if we do this then we aren't really comparing apples to apples anymore now are we?

I've literally been saying this since Stormblood. And no that isn’t what you proved. To demonstrate my point here is a post of mine from 2017.

Core Design Issue 1: Risk Reward
Dark Knight is an active and resource intensive tank, which necessarily incorporates risk/reward into its design. We turn resources into potency and mitigation, and in general we attempt to move towards mitigating what is necessary, pushing potency as we become more comfortable over time. This is engaging and I personally enjoy such min maxing and risk taking.

However, the reward for our risk taking is often too low, after optimizing we come up shorter than both Paladin and Warrior in both damage and mitigation. The risk reward ratio is out of balance with too much risk with little to no reward leading to less enjoyment of the class overall. I feel, fundamentally, that I am a detriment to my party because I am on the class I enjoy. Paladin and warrior can do my job, and they can do it better.

Once again, wrong conclusion. First time I heard that Xeno did a tank analysis was from another post here today. Haven’t watched it. Ok your main point seems to be that it isn’t risk versus reward. So when I prog on dark knight and have only enough mp for one cast of TBN and see the boss casting and pop tbn, to find out it is a 10k aoe that doesn’t pop it, then after tbn wears off I get one shot to a tank buster and have lost both dps and died I would call that a risk. When I gear up and have a new HP and defense and things which use to pop TBN no longer pop it so that my 500 potency worth of mana is just gone that will be another example. When I don’t pop TBN and healers plans have to change because they were expecting me to mitigate some of the damage, that is another type of risk. When I learn to play every turn perfectly yes, the risk is gone. Till then the risk exists.