DRK feels weak

[AC9Breaker]

You two above need to make your case for why it is good, not just troll. Saying something is strong without backing it up is not worthy of a forum meant for discussion and open dialogue. Please stop trolling.

Nah,brah we can say what we want. Just like people can retort "you don't pay my sub" when you give them friendly advice. If my opinion makes you think I'm trolling then maybe you need to take a step away from the topic being discussed. Especially when you got low ass tier threads like this clogging up the boards when there's already a handful of active threads of similar nature on the board.

[DarkDredgen]

Nah,brah we can say what we want. Just like people can retort "you don't pay my sub" when you give them friendly advice. If my opinion makes you think I'm trolling then maybe you need to take a step away from the topic being discussed. Especially when you got low ass tier threads like this clogging up the boards when there's already a handful of active threads of similar nature on the board.

Do you think the fact that there are so many "low ass tier threads like this clogging up the board" that it could be indicative of legitimate and justified concerns perhaps?

Or nah brah?

Also, what's your definition of a "high ass tier thread" and who among us is allowed to start one?

[Danelo]

Nah,brah we can say what we want. Just like people can retort "you don't pay my sub" when you give them friendly advice. If my opinion makes you think I'm trolling then maybe you need to take a step away from the topic being discussed. Especially when you got low ass tier threads like this clogging up the boards when there's already a handful of active threads of similar nature on the board.

What opinion in this thread did YOU give? Did I miss it? You said something to the effect of “this guy gets it” to another who said “they are strong”. I only think you or others are a troll when you make or endorse unsupported or poorly supported statements which add nothing to the “low ass tier threads” otherwise known as polite discourse. As far as the thread clogging up the boards... what do you think the forums are for? They are for players to, usually, express displeasure. Lastly, I could say something cliche like: Don’t “brah” me ‘cause you don’t knah me... but seriously, don’t degrade your viewpoint by cursing or using slang to address someone you are writing in opposition to.

[Ultaniku]

To the above, yes offensively they are strong. Great dps is always nice to have, but it doesn’t take away from the elements that make the job feel clunky or less satisfying. DRK is my main tank, and while I love seeing beefy dps numbers it doesn’t detract from Blood Weapon not feeling good, or Oblation having to be paired with another CD to feel even slightly useful. Then there are the other issues that it possesses that could use some work. Strong doesn’t equal fun and satisfying. At least not for everyone.

[Danelo]

To the above, yes offensively they are strong. Great dps is always nice to have, but it doesn’t take away from the elements that make the job feel clunky or less satisfying. DRK is my main tank, and while I love seeing beefy dps numbers it doesn’t detract from Blood Weapon not feeling good, or Oblation having to be paired with another CD to feel even slightly useful. Then there are the other issues that it possesses that could use some work. Strong doesn’t equal fun and satisfying. At least not for everyone.

No doubt, everyone agrees DRK is offensively strong. Just saying they are strong is not very clarifying was the point. The troll messages are less than helpful in the eyes of those that have played the job a long time and would like to see it improved for a bunch of reasons.

[Mekhana]

Self sustain draining was actually a big part of DRK's kit and a source of a lot of nostalgia (also salt, no darkness) from the DRK community. The sad thing is that even if we were to get sustain these days, likely it would be just be a carbon copy of WAR because the developers are creatively bankrupt.

[Shurrikhan]

Mitigation is literally how much effective HP you have.

Sorry to bring this back up, but it's not.

Mitigation adds current and maximum eHP. It is not, itself, eHP. eHP is eHP. There's a perfectly functional term for it; we don't need to conflate the two.

Mitigation is the amount by which the impact of an attack or span of attacks on your actual HP pool will be reduced. Barriers, temporary max-and-current-HP increases, and percentile mitigation are all mitigation. All mitigation is a form of barrier, max-and-current-HP increases, or percentile damage reduction.

Nor is mitigating 30% damage equivalent to having 43% more eHP generally; it affects only healing received and consumed over that duration. Any HP not consumed within that duration did not amount to a greater per-point value.

Healing adds eHP, up to its existing cap, but is not mitigation, because it cannot also increase maximum eHP. That's why we have separate terms for it.

There is no such thing as a reactive mitigation. You cannot later reduce the damage of what has already hit you. You can only heal its effect.

There is mitigation, which must always precede damage to affect it but is not capped (because it increases maximum eHP), and there is healing, which can be used at any time one is alive but is capped.

There is no need to turn two distinct things (mitigation and healing) into adjective+noun forms of the one term ("proactive" and "reactive" mitigation, especially given that the latter is paradoxical).

This is why drain tanks exist in several games.

They exist only in what games also give them sufficient mitigation. Healing, which does not increase max eHP, does not remove the need for sufficient max eHP. The moment they lack that on the basis that "their mitigation is just reactive" (again, paradoxical), they end up barred from any serious content.

:: We've hashed this out already, and I doubt I will ever convince you, to use an earlier analogy, to call blue "blue" and red "red" instead of "cool purple" and "warm purple" respectively, so please do ignore me.

__________

On the larger topic:

Yes, more DRK self-healing, please.

[Tarrick]

Sorry to bring this back up, but it's not.

Mitigation adds current and maximum eHP. It is not, itself, eHP. eHP is eHP. There's a perfectly functional term for it; we don't need to conflate the two.

Mitigation is the amount by which the impact of an attack or span of attacks on your actual HP pool will be reduced. Barriers, temporary max-and-current-HP increases, and percentile mitigation are all mitigation. All mitigation is a form of barrier, max-and-current-HP increases, or percentile damage reduction.

Nor is mitigating 30% damage equivalent to having 43% more eHP generally; it, and healing received over that duration. Any HP not consumed within that duration did not amount to a greater per-point value.

Healing adds eHP, up to its existing cap, but is not mitigation, because it cannot also increase maximum eHP. That's why we have separate terms for it.

There is no such thing as a reactive mitigation. You cannot later reduce the damage of what has already hit you. You can only heal its effect.

There is mitigation, which must always precede damage to affect it but is not capped (because it increases maximum eHP), and there is healing, which can be used at any time one is alive but is capped.

There is no need to turn two distinct things (mitigation and healing) into adjective+noun forms of the one term ("proactive" and "reactive" mitigation, especially given that the latter is paradoxical).


They exist only in what games also give them sufficient mitigation. Healing, which does not increase max eHP, does not remove the need for sufficient max eHP. The moment they lack that on the basis that "their mitigation is just reactive" (again, paradoxical), they end up barred from any serious content.

:: We've hashed this out already, and I doubt I will ever convince you, to use an earlier analogy, to call blue "blue" and red "red" instead of "cool purple" and "warm purple" respectively, so please do ignore me.

__________

On the larger topic:

Yes, more DRK self-healing, please.

You're being pedantic. Mathematically they are exactly the same. If a hit takes off 50% of your max health and then after using an ability it takes off 41.67% of your max health, that's 16.67% mitigation. It doesn't actually matter what the specific numbers are, only how those numbers relate to your health pool which is what will determine how many hits you can take and how quickly you will die. You would have a point if that ability made that damage twice as difficult to heal back up but it doesn't because that is compensated for as well. It literally boosts everything else in the equation. That has the exact same effect mathematically as reducing the damage done.

[Shurrikhan]

You're being pedantic.

And relabeling perfectly fine terms like "mitigation" (literally, reduction) and "healing" into, respectively, "proactive mitigation" and "reactive mitigation" is not?

We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.

And for what it's worth, the word "mitigate" literally means "to make less severe or painful or to lessen the gravity/effect of" and heals in this context perfectly fit that definition. Healing of the aforementioned type does in fact lessen the severity, pain, and gravity of the damage taken."

Healing a hit after the fact literally does nothing to reduce the severity of the blow itself. It just heals it. If I get cancer and am later cured, I didn't get less cancer just because I later recovered. (Had I gotten something else on top of it, there's all the more chance I'd be dead; the recovery was not instantaneous.)

If mitigation was exclusive to shields and percentages then Arm's Length wouldn't be considered mitigation either.

Arm's Length is literally reduced incoming auto-attack rate by 20%. It is a percentage.

I've been hearing proactive and reactive used with the word mitigation since 2007... nobody is reinventing anything. Not to sound like an old man but I've been around the block.

I'm no stranger to MMO or moba jargon, either, and each time I've heard the terms come up, I've heard people ask them to likewise just call healing "healing" and not "reactive damage reduction" or the like.

It's like this.

It's like this. You are purposely using a needlessly convoluted oxymoron that offers no more distinction than the terms already used by the vast majority of the community, all while saying that anyone who doesn't use your rarer nomenclature

needs their tank que times revoked.

Why call healing "reactive mitigation" when your term includes nothing more and nothing less than was already included in the normal term? Simple as that, man.

You've started these off by berating others for using what is literally just the normal definition of mitigation, to reduce. Yes, mitigation and healing, or your proactive and "reactive" mitigation, can amount to much the same thing when you have enough eHP in the first place, just like a discount and a refund, respectively, amount to the same thing when you have enough money. That doesn't make it impossible for that to be a factor.

And even in the contexts in which they amount to the same, why would you go out of your way to 'correct' people, across multiple threads, just for using the word i.e., per its literal and most common definition ("to reduce" -- not, to recover or refund) instead of a 'close enough' approximation that only leads to more convoluted terminology?

I've realize I've done some something alike in arguing that the conventional terms are sufficient and more intuitive, but whatever. Hopefully we're done at this point.

[Ryaduera]

And relabeling perfectly fine terms like "mitigation" (literally, reduction) and "healing" into, respectively, "proactive mitigation" and "reactive mitigation" is not?

We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.

I've been hearing proactive and reactive used with the word mitigation since 2007... nobody is reinventing anything. Not to sound like an old man but I've been around the block and I've played several games and I always play tanks and I always talk about them. These things are often brought up in discussions of mitigations and how healing tools work to make mitigations stronger. And I thought I made it clear my mind cannot be changed, I know certain healing types are mitigation and can use words beyond "No, I don't think it is" to back it up.You are being pedantic as he said, the math always shows the same results. Percentages are some of the easiest things to use in math and all mitigation is is a percentage applied to a fluctuating flat value. It's just numbers, which is what makes it easy to resolve. That alone is enough for me to respectfully disregard your notion as I've really nothing to prove, I'm a good tank and my group agrees. I could stand to improve my DPS a bit, but it's never been a question if I know how to use defensive cooldowns and appropriate my abilities to situations.

It's like this. The sky is blue, but someone might try and say the sky is not technically blue because wavelengths of all colors come through, the particles in the air that cause Rayleigh Scattering are blue. But it doesn't really matter what the source of what I'm seeing is, the sky is still blue.

The only real reason to say healing is not mitigation is if you forget you take more than 1 hit and that all of the damage is not instant. The other factor in your eHP is the duration. How much eHP has to be burned through over a period of 10 seconds? That's very different from how much eHP has to be struck in a single hit. The barrier type mitigations only ever matter over healing in a single hit, meaning tank busters, which every tank can deal with so the question is how well can the tank deal with it, and if they take spike damage but immediately cap themselves off again, which is the tankier tank? The one that ends with more HP is unquestionably more defensively capable. If mitigation was exclusive to shields and percentages then Arm's Length wouldn't be considered mitigation either.

And for what it's worth, the word "mitigate" literally means "to make less severe or painful or to lessen the gravity/effect of" and heals in this context perfectly fit that definition. Healing of the aforementioned type does in fact lessen the severity, pain, and gravity of the damage taken. I cannot be more clear about this. Nobody is reinventing everything. That is the literal definition.