William_Valence

My usual attempt to prove the survivability gap is a bit anecdotal, but I still like it.

The fact that they were the aggro generating AT redside from introduction to the addition of side switching. Unless Redside is commensurately easier to compensate, the fact that Brutes could generate aggro the way they do and did (and wanted to due to their mechanics) as well as evolving into the accepted redside tanking class, the survivability gap is indeed trivial.

You can feel the difference when you play, yes, but the ability fill the role just as well and get some extras means there's an issue. I disagree with the thought they need more damage, but I do think there is reason to believe that they are not up to snuff. Are they a priority? Probably not, but arguing with J_B because he is insufferable, and often absolutely bonkers, isn't a good reason to ignore the issues that -do- exist.

My personal opinion is that MM AI and MM inter-powerset balance issues should be the priority should time open up to address any AT issues.

*Sigh* Then I'll retract my previous characterization of the post. I missed the dev statement that it'd be a Trial only unlock.

He knows, but all the good names are taken

*Snrk* Superman wouldn't need to break line of sight!

Seriously though, if you're saying that any tanker primary, when played by the average player with SOs, is unkillable in 95% of the games content, you're either deluded or outright lying.

Sets have strenths and weaknesses, Invulnerablility isn't going to do so hot against Carnies, Psychic clockwork, and other Psi damage enemies. Dark has issues with energy damage. There are weaknesses in all the mitigation sets, and there isnt one that ignores all content with ease, let alone all of them doing so.

Right right, kins. I forgot that individual powerset balance, and cross AT powerset balance was based on what they can do with a pocket kin. Because every team has one, all the time, no matter what they're doing!

If that's the case, Brutes -DO- exist at their caps. Stone brutes with a pocket kin or two? Hoo-boy!

Here's the thing, some ATs get more from some things than others. There's a reason why Shields is a better Scrapper set than a Brute set, and the reverse it true for Fire. Hybrid is screwed up to begin with, as it doesn't actually help shore up weaknesses, and is ideal for doubling down on what you're already good at.

To answer you're question more directly; why? Why should they get great benefit when Tanks don't? Because they're supposed to. That's they're whole schtick. They do amazing while buffed, that's what a brute is; something that has an amazingly high celing for buffs. That's one of the reasons (But a very minor one) why lowering the Brute resist cap isn't something I'd suggest. Not only would it accomplish very little, it would go against what Brutes are supposed to be.

I didn't, you said they could reach their caps, and needed a cap boost so they could benefit from all the damage boosting powers available to them. I gave exaples of others who could reach their damage cap, that don't get a cap boost, thus not benefiting from all the damage boosting powers available to them.

Thing is, they're not your baby, so they shouldn't get this super special consideration.

I was comparing apples to apples, stop trying to paint one of them orange I'm not buying it.

People hate nerfs. They just do, and most players (which includes me enough times) don't know enough about balance to gauge what the performance hit would be from the whining about the buff.

That clears up my confusion. My argument isn't that they can do 4/8. My argument is that they can do the Tanker role, and do more damage. Take damage away from tankers. Now take aggro management away from tankers. What's left?

Because Brutes don't exist at their caps, yet still manage to fill the role of the Tank, that tells me adjusting the cap is the wrong way to go about addressing the issue.

If they made tankers gainfully more survivable than brute, I mean you can really feal the difference survivable, in at least one area; as well as making them the kings of aggro management, they would be more fun to play.

Maybe not for you, but you've show a bit of hate for the aggro management roles. That's ok, because you don't have to play a tank.

If you went with my previous suggestion, of Tanks resisting unresistable damage and avoiding autohit damage, that would seriously change the feel of the AT.

The ability to Brush off a disintegrate one of Maelstrom's Marked for deaths, while a brute has to run around like they're about to die, would be a huge change in perspective.

Again my counter-suggestion; which actually fixes the issue with tankers.

Make Tanks the kings of aggro management. A brute should never pull an enemy of a tank that the tank doesn't allow, not the other way around.

Make Tanks stronger against the most dangerous types of attacks, specifically autohit attack and unresistable damage attacks, which should greatly change the feel of the AT for the better.

Forget the damage cap, all it helps is some SS, and Shield tankers. Its a waste of effort for too little return, and ignores the fact that these characters are not the only ones to be able to cap their damage themselves (thus making additional outside damage buffs pointless) yet I don't see Warshades, defenders, or corruptors getting a damage cap buff.

I don't get what you're saying about 4/8; are you thinking that the balance is 4/8? Even then, do you think that an AT that does Solo ITFs and such is incapable of running at 4/8 against only "easy" groups? Even without IOs and being buffed by a team.

Thing is, even if the answer to both or either of those questions is yes, it doesn't matter. We know Brutes can tank for teams; they've been doing it this isn't theoretical. We know they have better aggro generation capabilities. We know they have better damage potential.

What do Tanks have? More survivability? Doesn't matter, because tanks have enough to fill the role as team damage taker. Damage? Brute have the ability to do more damage than tanks. The ability to move enemies about, as if on a leash, and manage aggro? I'd tell you if tanks could or not, but that brute won't let me take the aggro of her and wants to do it herself.

This is all without consideration of caps. Who cares if the Brute can "only" get 85% resistance; when anyone being honest in the discussion (and this was brought up against J_B's attribute cap argument) knows they don't realistically play at their caps.

Reducing the Brute's cap would be a cop-out that would not change gameplay in any meaningful way.

Again, I've got to ask. What does this actually do?

As much as J_B likes to carry on about the caps; the issue doesn't come from the caps. The issue is the level of survivability Brutes can achieve combining with the aggro management tools that they've been given, which allows them to do the job of a Tank, while keeping superior damage.

A brute doesn't need to be at their caps to tank for a team, and they've been doing it since before IOs.

Add to that, the potential to be "Survivable enough", getting to the point where an equally built Tanker's mitigation advantage becomes rather pointless, and you've got my current perspective on the Tank vs Brute topic.

It could be a mentality thing, but I don't see a disparity so much as a difference. Seekers do kinda suck nuggets, but I don't see the difference in damage between ATs as the problem.

This is an issue. The devs do indeed balance with IO's in mind, and I've never actually seen a dev use the "This game is balanced around SOs." quote. The game "Was not made more difficult with the addition of IOs."

Even with that said, sniping numbers for size, I don't agree with much of the mentality. Most importantly:

Using PB consistancy and self contained nature to justify, on a medium recharge build where the gap would decrease as IOs are added, such a small gap as you described as the "higher high" is a bit off.

This is also a part of the "Higher High" and sort of what I was getting at with the question. User error is part of the gameplay. Use the powers at maximum, and you get your "higher high" make a mistake and you suffer. It also ignores the fact, that I didn't mention as I didn't feel the need, some enemies don't leave bodies. Preventing the power's use; which isn't user error.

Giving PBs an power thats 80% EE, with the potential to be EE+, is not the way to go.

As much a people might not like it, PB damage is as self contained as it's survivability. However PBs surviviability can cap resistances now, I believe cap health, and has a reliable heal. Apparently PBs have enough survivablility and self buffs that they don't need a counter to Stygian circle; that just tells me that their "self contained" survivability is at least the level of the WS "Higher high".

So, I guess the question is:

Why damage? Right now PBs are self contained with Damage and survivability, and are supposedly supposed to be lower than WSs max with "Bodies!!" but much more reliable with less ability for user error. That doesn't seem to be the case with survivability, as they seem to have at least as much as the WS high. Do we really need to close the damage gap; that's actually supposed to be there?

Right now Warshades have very strong control capability, as well as some debuff potential and no outside buffs.

Peacebringers have much weaker control, a decent bit of debuffs, and some outside buffs.

Wouldn't that be a better target? Make PBs better at some utility area than WSs, likely outside buffs.

Ya know, there's no MoTriumph badge? At least not yet. Use some server swap mojo, and hop over to virtue; we have catgirls, and if there's anything the Tin Mage TF taught us it's Catgirls are stupid overpowered when pissed off.

There's a few leaders, one that stands out more than others, that lead MoiTrials with a semblance of regularity and they succeed with about the same regularity, and a hell of a lot of flair.

Alrighty then, a few questions

What numbers did you use to compensate for the fact that EEs can fail to summon whereas these would always summon?

How did you come to 45s, which if I'm not incorrect, would be a potential 3/4 uptime with a recharge build; with 3 pets immediately; and compared to the WS version that has to work up to 3 pets?

How do you justify, three of the same pet that WSs get, 3/4 of the time, with a large burst damage as a part of their summoning, or does the burst damage get reduced?

One of the bigger weaknesses of EEs is the fact that it actually suffers when WSs plays to it's strengths, mainly in the case of "Moar Bodiez!!" picking up stray aggro and getting killed. This becomes more problematic, with the recharge time of the power and the fact you only get one at a time. The suggestion you've given, as I read it, would recover from such an issue faster to full strength (considering three pets full strenth) is this an intended strength or an oversight?

If by soonish you mean around i25-i26 range then I agree. Going by information that can be scraped together, they are scheduled at least that far out and if you believe the "I'd like to do it, we just don't have time to schedule it" comments, it's not something currently on the to-do list.

I was thinking more along the lines of a pet pulsing 5% heal and +end, with the ability to get out about the same ammount as a Warshade can Get Fluffies.

Summon Seekers and...Boom! While that happens, one of these pets is summoned on you.

Then you get a consistant Heal and Endurance pulse as long as they survive. With enough recharge, a PB could see 2-3 on their own, and up to 4 in iTrial level buffage. Similar to WS pet availability.

Yup, when I make a new character, as the Badges ding and ding, it's /wdw_load and /chat_load then adjust the UI colors for the character.

Poor example IMHO. Better example:

STF with old SKing rules. Bring along some 47s, but don't have enough people to mentor. You could do it, but it wouldn't be wise and I don't believe anyone would be against a leader not agreeing to form such a team.

AVs conning +6-7 to much of the team is a huge disadvantage.

Another example, is it wrong to make all participants of a TMTF or Apex have alpha slotted?

Leaders form groups, and they get to make their rules. I may not agree with the strictness of said rules, but that just means I can start my own and pick up the people that weren't allowed into the restricted trial.

Could you link? I seemed to have missed this part of things. The only weakness I've heard was from the using the fast path, and being controled. LG said the weakness to the slow path was tasting power and being tempted into the Fast path.

Never saw nothing about getting cut off and dying.