Would you play a DK if they did more damage than a NL?

I am actually torn between DK or Hero, I like their identity, brandish is flashy and cool and DK as a concept looks very fun to play. I wouldn't mind a damage buff, but I do want to see content that is more desirable for them like auf or cwk where cleave is really, really good or mandatory. I will also answer the question directly and say that a damage buff to either will make me play them, but a nerf too, cause at some point I do wanna try all the classes anyways :3

 

I probably would not play the class myself, but I would definitely recruit more DK (or hero) for bossing content if they were able to consistently output more damage than a nightlord.

 

My guess is that no matter how much DKs are buffed, they will always remain a relatively small group on the server simply because their sweaty playstyle isn't for most players. We already see this playing out with sair, a very strong class that has almost no presence on the server.

Personally, I would play DK if they were even top 3. In their current state, the idea of working hard for no real payoff is just a huge turn off for me. If they were buffed significantly, I think you'd see some of the end game veterans, at least the ones who aren't staunchly in the NL-or-bust and/or multiclient attacking camps, play the class but there probably wouldn't be as much movement from the larger, more casual demographic, which is perhaps unfortunate for the challenge system.

 

Personally I play classes because they're fun to play, not because of their dps.

Buffing them to do as much dpm as a nl would make cleave extremely broken because they would essentially be able to take down 3 targets in the same time it takes a nl to do 1.

I think a better solution for all cleave classes would be to implement the following:
Multi target attacks do more damage if there are less targets. Ex) If hitting 3 targets the damage is the same as it is now, if hitting 2 +25%, if hitting 1 +50%. (These are just placeholder values the % bonus would have to be balanced/tested).

 

Im making a dk (very slowly) cause i wanna experience 3rd job.

to each their own

 

I would consider playing DK even if they were 1.25x NL. 1.5x or 2x? no question. The class itself actually looks interesting with hyperzerk, and I'd imagine it'd actually be pretty rewarding playing it well, but currently there's not really any incentive to do so if you're just going to squirt out piss-tier DPM.

 

only if u include flash jump

 

i can't do damage when i'm dead

 

There was a point where DKs did outperform NLs as the only end game content was HT. Even NT release had such trash rewards that only HT mattered, and you'd have runs with multiple DKs all consistently pulling numbers greater than any NLs at the time.

They haven't actually recovered since the arm changes to HT. It was probably one of the biggest cleave nerfs in the game and any buffs made afterwards have all been cope.

 

I wouldn’t play DK because I play the class I want to play regardless. I find melee classes boring so I never end up getting that far on them.

If I had an NL, I would still stick to that but I would probably ask staff to revert the star price changes since the damage output of NLs is the only justification for those changes in my opinion. Other than that, I would be fine with it honestly. Since NL is no longer the undisputed best I would hope the prices on gear to go down a little.

If anything, I’d expect the players of every other class to be in shambles since NLs are still the second best. What reason is there to play a sair after those kind of changes? But that is a different discussion.

 

It's amusing to see this kind of mentality bleeding into ML. You see this a lot in games like WoW where bleeding edge content requires you to min max to absolute peak levels, so you choose the absolute best of the best classes even if the advantage over other classes is .1% difference in damage. This eventually leads to a mindset where casual players think those 4th, 5th, 6th place classes are entirely unviable when the difference between them and the best classes is often under a 1% margin.

The reason to play two things that are close in overall strength is you enjoy one or the other. Sairs and NLs would both be fine even if DKs do more damage than them because they're fun in their own ways, still do incredibly consistent damage, and are more useful in specific fights. The problem right now is DrKs are not within 1% of the top classes, or even 5%. If you choose a Sair right now instead of an NL, you're not putting yourself at an insurmountable disadvantage. You're giving yourself a selective edge in some boss fights in return for being weaker at others. If you choose DrK on the other hand, you're usually just there for HB.

 

Believe me, I know the strengths and weaknesses of sairs very well. The only thing you provide in bossing is damage. And to get that damage, you actually have to pay a lot of attention compared to other ranged classes. You get hit way more often, scale way later, and work way harder for a decent advantage over NL in some situations.

Even with DKs having 1.25x as much dmg as a NL, you are basically already as strong as a sair in ideal circumstances. But you also get way more utility in HB + cleave + rush and will still perform just as well in situations where sairs are worse or on par with NL.

So the reason I say there is no reason to make a sair is because you are sacrificing all the QoL of playing NL to be on par or worse damage than DK in all circumstances. Of course you can still play sair but on paper you might as well play DK or NL.

 

If you think about it, theoretically corsair does more damage than NL on several bosses, but most people don't like it because of the gameplay, maybe some people who like playing with ranged char vote no because don't get used to melee itself

 

Honestly that's fair. I will say Sair should still have the edge in terms of damage over NLs in something like HT or CWK and the edge over DK in terms of pot usage for something like Auf. I wouldn't consider Sair completely irrelevant but I wouldn't complain if Sairs also got more damage. IMO classes like Sairs and DrK that have highly active gameplay should be rewarded for their efforts, especially when compared to NLs.

 

I always wanted to make a drk and was actually going to when I first joined ML, until I found out they have to live on the edge of dying to do any damage. It seems redundant to play a Melee class that is known to be tanky, then intentionally cut yourself at the knees to maximize dpm. For how active the player needs to be it's not worth it.

A high level good friend of mine mains a drk and she is quitting it once it hits 200, because for the effort she puts in just to receive toxic ass hats in content she feels isn't worth it. Ironically she is rerolling to a hero so she can have a better QoL/AFK gameplay instead. From what she explained Drks are subpar pinners in NT, surpassed by heroes in cwkpq, needed but "meh" in HT. (If party needs HB it's alot of work for her if the people are too lazy to move towards the drk)

The class need's a significant advantage above other warriors to be appealing, it should be the "NL's" of the warriors imo if challenge's are going to be a success, and that's coming from someone who is making a Paladin.

I would say it depends on how the class changes if I were to main a drk. Personally if I wanted to live on the edge of dying everyday I'd play on my unwashed BM. I would rather have a class with better QoL than a drk.

 

id play dk if berserk didnt exist

 

I have a dk and it is fairly difficult to boss to sustain the right hp levels and keeping up with party members for skills. But I do feel like my dk does more damage than most NL’s if I had si. Level 181 and I hit anywhere from 80k-100k each time I strike, I feel that isn’t bad at all, but again that with si. I guess you could argue the same for NL’s when we talk about SE and non-SE. dk just needs more love man

 

I'm a paladin, but there came a point where my best gear upgrade was having a bucc to give me SI

 

I personally voted yes, I'd play DK if it did more damage than a NL, but I'm not the most efficient player around

It's hard to consider playing DK as anything more than a labor of love, or maybe plain masochism. At a certain degree of sweatiness, a player consciously dedicates the majority of their playtime to progression. A DK is fighting the same bosses as everyone else except you spend more time, more pots, more mental energy, need more buff mules (which in turn also cost more pots and mental energy) all for the same reward in the end. And this is to say nothing about multi-client attacking, where they lag far behind the rest of the pack. I genuinely think their 1 edge above the rest was pre-nerf roar, but post-nerf you might as well use a low level bishop for maps you would roar, or a Shad for maps that you would cleave.

DK's DPM would have to be a LOT higher to change their fundamental role in the meta. We already know by the number of Corsair players that even ~30% more DPM and SE independence is not enough incentive for most to pick Sair over NL, and my guess is that's largely because a NL gets the job done for less effort and less cost. The trouble is I don't think it would really be balanced to make DK deal like 50% more damage than a NL.