Bill Z Bubba

[ QUOTE ]
Dig that car in the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aye. Looks like it moves like a fish and steers like a cow.

Arcanaville,

Isn't the whole Going Rogue thing going to force the developers to reconcile the archetype issues created by the CoH team model versus CoV self-reliance model?

In other words, aren't they going to be forced at some point to deal with the questions raised in this and many other threads regarding the sudden cohabitation of all archetypes?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

brutes must play non stop. there is no waiting for people to res. no waiting for people to catch up. no waiting for fulcrum to recharge. no waiting for a fresh sb/fort/forge. no waiting.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey this sounds familiar.....WAIT A MINUTE that's how I play my SCRAPPERS...all of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me, too. But we don't have to. As a scrapper I can get up from my desk and go have a smoke. When I come back, my damage will be the same on my next attack as it was when I got up.

That won't be the case with the brute.

How many times have we heard someone state that they just don't like brutes because of the playstyle that the fury mechanic mandates? We've heard it from folks that have posted in this thread.

It takes more work to be a brute and dish out scrapper damage. This is a fact. I enjoy the extra work. My enjoyment of the work is irrelevant when concluding that there must be some other benefit for the brute because he must work harder.

[ QUOTE ]
This got me thinking. If a brute is not playing like a scrapper, then how else can it play like? I'm sure it can also function as a tank since I've seen it before. Also, I'm unclear of what it means by "capable of handling the same conflicts." Does this mean able to survive said conflicts, or resolving said conflict in a certain amount of time?

[/ QUOTE ]

It goes back to a point made earlier. In order for brutes to maintain their damage output parity with scrappers, they must play like brutes. Meaning running from spawn to spawn resting as little as possible in order to maintain fury.

Scrappers can go about missions far more leisurely since their damage output is constant.

[ QUOTE ]
Billz, you're conclusions are so blatantly wrong and lopsided that I'm not even going to both explaining it to you. Please, have fun not playing any more. It will be nice not to have to deal with all of your juxtaposed and misapplied conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for giving up. You were really beginning to embarrass yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
Team contribution is a valid point of balance for all ATs. Any amount in which you are capable of force multiplying your allies is factored in to balance. Taunt is a force multiplier for defense. It's focusing as many attacks as possible to the, ostensibly, most survivable party member.

The problem here Billz is that you've got the cause and effect wrong. You don't get higher mitigation because you've got a native taunt. You get a native taunt because you've got high mitigation and can stand the extra damage you'll have incoming. Brutes also get the side benefit of improving their damage thanks to Fury from being attacked, which means that they get even more than tanks do.

A Brute with Scrapper level hp and caps would still be just as survivable as a normal Scrapper. They're going to be facing the same encounters and the same amount of damage is going to be coming at them. The only "increase in risk" is the additional level of risk accepted by the Brute by going in to a fight unprepared because they don't want to lose Fury. That's not a designed risk. That's a player generated risk. Player generated risks aren't part of balance considerations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your opinions on the chicken and the egg scenario make absolutely no sense.

Tanks have a role. To fill that role they are given specific tools and are balanced accordingly. They are given aggro management and the mitigation to survive it. If I remember my CoH history, tank taunt used to be single target and they didn't have gauntlet, correct? But at that time, they were unkillable as well.

The devs decided that this lacked balance all over the place. So they decreased the mitigation side and increased the ability to control aggro.

Now tanks can fill their role but still be taken down IF the incoming damage surpasses their extreme mitigation.

Still with me? More aggro management means more mitigation.

Scrappers are the flip side to the tank. They don't have gauntlet. Their only taunt is single target. They have very low aggro management. If we left them at that, no one would ever play a scrapper. So what do they have to balance the AT? High damage.

Then we have the brute. It starts out doing less damage than the tank, with less aggro management than the tank and the same mitigation as the scrapper. As with the scrapper, if we left it like this, no one would play it. So it, too, has the ability to do more damage, but unlike the scrapper, it must WORK FOR IT.

You refuse to accept that this WORK should be accounted for when considering the balance of the AT. Just as you continue to refuse to accept that higher order aggro management necessitates higher mitigation.

I do not understand why you continue to refuse the validity of these points.

I don't have the cause and effect of anything wrong. You are incapable of understanding archetype balance.

A brute is ONLY as capable of handling the same conflicts as a scrapper if he PLAYS like a scrapper and gives up the fury that he needs to equal scrapper damage output.

Continue to ignore that fact all you like, but you'll still be wrong.

Well... yea. I wasn't planning to take it on my claws/invul either.

But would you take it if the cap was 80%? I still wouldn't.

Taunt is only beneficial for teammates. It is detrimental to the taunter due to the increased incoming damage. You obviously understand this. You also admit tanks get higher mitigation because of it.

This and the mechanics of fury generation are why brutes should have higher mitigation (hello extra hit points) REGARDLESS of the parity in damage output.

Tanks get lousy damage output because they get gauntlet, they get taunt, but much more importantly, they get higher base mitigation values, higher base HP and higher caps. I repeat, again, tanks do NOT have damage parity so they must get something ELSE for their higher risk. They do. They get higher base mitigation values, higher base HP and a much higher mitigation cap.

Brutes DO have damage parity but STILL experience higher risk in order to attain that damage parity. So they, too, must have something over scrappers. They get higher hit points.

It should have stopped there. Allowing brutes to have tanker caps was a mistake that should have never occurred.

Remove the disparity in mitigation caps and scrappers and brutes will have FULL parity.


Sarrate,

If the invulnerable scrapper can handle life with unstoppable capped at 75% why can't an invulnerable brute?

Would raising scrapper cap to 80% be necessary? Absolutely not. We live with it now. By meeting the brutes at 80% I was only attempting to separate the melee from the squishy further and lessen the blow to brutes.

But if lowering brutes to 75% is what must occur, fine. However, I still think that's crap. I do not believe that scrappers and brutes should have the same cap as squishies.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Bill sorry if this is a noob question, what do you mean by canel your sub?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really hope there is more to your unsubbing Billz then what was not contained in Issue 15, cause that would be lame.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's the first day of beta. That's why. If you've ever been apart of a closed beta here, you should know things change especially after the first day.

It's not like I15 takes anything away from CoX. We still get to play the same game with some new TFs/SFs.

But, to each their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many betas do you think I've been involved with around here, Clouded?

What hits open beta beyond minor tweaks is what goes live.

But, hey, way to ignore the rest of the post.

You could be right. But if we've learned anything around here when it comes to powerset/archetype balance, if you don't back your concepts with math and logic, you really won't get anywhere.

Different goals. I think giving scrappers more damage is a ridiculous idea.

The tank contingent that's pushing for more damage would be even MORE up in arms than they already are.

My solution would quiet the most people, I believe.

Tanks get to be top dogs with mitigation caps.

Scrappers would be happier with that extra 5% possible dam-res and take their place as melee specialists with caps above the squishies.

Most brutes wouldn't notice the difference in survivability.

While I agree with throwing more damage at dominators across the board and yanking it from domination, I don't feel that throwing more damage at melee ATs is a solution that should be entertained.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, you're ignoring the fact that Brutes have 12.5% more hit points at base, which means that they're going to be more survivable in all equivalent situations. That is my primary point of contention. Brute damage scales with situational danger: more attacks coming in, more damage going out. That doesn't necessitate greater survivability. All it necessitates is for Brutes to have a greater need to be in higher risk situations in order to achieve peak damage. That's just like Blasters with old defiance. A need to be in a more dangerous situation does not equate to a need to be more survivable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Old blaster defiance doesn't exist. They saw how stupid it was. Therefore, brutes get more hitpoints due to higher risk necessary for damage output parity.

It's also impossible for me to ignore higher brute base hitpoints when I've specifically mentioned it several times in this thread alone that it should be there as a concession to brutes having to take on higher risk to maintain scrapper level damage output.

[ QUOTE ]
You're also ignoring that you've only generated a single set of data points for Brutes. You're ignoring the numerous other data points that have been posited as needed, including various buff states and other points that need to be shown (we got a little in to this in the DM/SD Brute v. Scrapper debate a couple weeks ago). Those showed that the Brute and Scrapper combinations in question were approximately equal. The Scrapper had advantage in the middling regions whereas the Brute had a distinct advantage in the top end and bottom end regions. And that was based exclusively off of damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've given two distinct data sets, 3 if you count that I changed scrapper critical percentages. And now you mention more showing brutes and scrappers damage output being equal. Yes, we've agreed on this all along, there's no point in bringing it up anymore.

I'll put it in bold so that we can move past it:

SCRAPPER AND BRUTE DAMAGE OUTPUT IS EQUITABLE. IT IS EQUAL IN THE LONG RUN. IT HAS PARITY.

Why you think I'm arguing against that fact after putting forth my own comparisons showing it to be true really has me wondering what you're going on about.

On the rest of your post, a generic brute can NOT replace a generic tanker UNLESS that brute has teammates buffing it.

Thanks for agreeing with me that taunt increases the amount of damage a taunter will receive. Since brutes are given an aoe taunt rather than a single target taunt, those brutes that waste the power pick on it and use it will need the extra hitpoints given to the AT, won't they?

And we agree that brute mitigation caps are too high when considering their damage output.

Good. Glad to see we're on the same page.

So, what exactly are you arguing with me on again?

Brutes live with more risk than scrappers due to taunt and the mechanics of fury.

Brutes get higher base hit points because of this.

Scrapper/brute damage output is generally equal.

Brute mitigation caps should be the same as scrappers.

Lots of agreement there.

So do you agree that scrappers, and thus brutes, should have higher mitigation caps than squishies? If you do, then there's absolutely nothing left for us to argue about is there?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Bill sorry if this is a noob question, what do you mean by canel your sub?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really hope there is more to your unsubbing Billz then what was not contained in Issue 15, cause that would be lame.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

Part of the problem is that which IS in I-15.

I only came back for MA and what I saw as an amazing tool to get around the main problem I have with the game these days with the painfully boring low levels. I hung around during the freebie week and said to myself that yes, I can run with this for a while.

And then Positron screamed at me for utilizing the MA in a way he didn't like. All I did was crank two characters on two different accounts to levels 22 and 24 respectively. That 22 is now 28. It took two hours to get him to 22 and another 12 hours to get him to 28 doing my normal thing.

And then I-15 hit test and I ran the TF there and was confronted with yet another TF that followed the same tired pattern as earlier TFs. This saddened me. The ITF, I felt, was the proper direction to go with all future TF/SFs. New idea, new story, fun combat.

There's nothing new at all in I-15s TF except that the 5th hit harder and more often. I can build that for myself in the MA.... well, I could but it would probably be called a farm.

So instead of hanging around arguing about this or that, I'll go back on my break and come back fresh and ready for I-16. Hopefully it, too, will be fresh and ready for me.

By then, all the MA garbage will be settled down, hopefully I'll be able to determine by then exactly what is allowed and what isn't. Right now I have to wonder if my new FM/SD brute is going to be deleted for the two hours of powerleveling I did to get him to 22.

I seriously doubt it, but the question is there and left unanswered. If 22 levels is allowed, why not 30? 40?

If 2 hours to 22 is ok, what about 3 hours to 30?

If the devs are only datamining "level 50 in under X hours" then what stops me from powerleveling 10 levels and running a single series of paper missions and a mayhem, slowly taking my time with lots of AFK and then repeating that process at each 10 level period?

I love this game most of the time. I wouldn't keep coming back if I didn't. But I learned a while back that it's better to only stick around during the times I love it instead of hanging around when I don't.

My gut tells me that I-16 is going to blow me away and I'm really looking forward to it.

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the whole thread and I haven't really played a Brute past low levels so forgive me if my question has been answered or seems over simplistic. From what I've garnered here, some in the scrapper community are upset that Brutes have the potential to become better than scrappers in every way, damage, survivability, and aggro management. The justification that I see being put forth is that Brutes are meant to tank and thus require the better survivability, aggro management, and potential to do higher DPS. Now I understand and can agree with the need for the survivability and aggro management as the Brute is red sides tank. I guess I 'm failing to see the justification for the potential to do higher DPS? Isn't the Brute supposed to fall somewhere between a tanker and a scrapper? I can see it being justifiable to reach scrapper DP with max fury but if a pure DPS class can be surpassed by a hybrid relatively easily from what I understand, I guess I don't see the justification for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the crux of the argument, yes. However, from what I see scrapper and brute damage is in the long run equal. Brutes, due to the fury mechanism, must place themselves into a position of more risk to maintain that level of damage. Scrappers can relax as they see fit and never waver on their damage output.

For me, brutes having higher base hit points is the only concession needed. The higher mitigation caps have never made sense to me. At the same time, I see no reason for scrappers to be capped at the same level of defenders and controllers.

Thus my call for both scrappers and brutes to be set at 80%.

Umbral,

YOU just flatly ignored that brutes have the EXACT same base mitigation values and preceded that by accepting that my analysis based on 75% fury showed equitable damage output.

Do I agree with you that the general populace can't decide on what value of fury should be used? Sure. But I don't really care what number is decided upon. The end outcome from two different takes on the analysis didn't show a huge disparity in either case.

Where are you getting that better aggro management, in the form of taunt, will EVER lead to better utility and less damage for the taunter? That makes absolutely zero sense to me. Taunting ONLY means more damage for the taunter. What it means for teammates is irrelevant to the comparison of brutes and scrappers.

As for having many of the same sets? Also irrelevant. Especially as more and more are being proliferated. Which fiery melee is more like brute fiery melee? Scrapper or tank? Scrapper, of course. Both have cremate and lack combustion.

Where are tanks sitting on damage output when compared to brutes and scrappers? WAAAAY back in the back while brutes and scrappers share near equivalence.

So what's REALLY the big green elephant in the room? Only the fact that brutes get tank mitigation caps. A fact that I've noted repeatedly that I disagree with. Just as much as I disagree that scrappers should have the same mitigation caps as squishies.

Set them both to 80% and call it a day. Then tanks can stop griping because they'll have the highest caps in the game and higher base mitigation values to offset their sucktacular damage output while brutes and scrappers will be completely interchangeable without stepping on tank toes.

And you continue to consider there to be an imbalance while ignoring everything that's been shown to be in place that gives the situation balance.

You state that brutes get better aggro management. True. This means they end up having more incoming damage than scrappers. More incoming damage means a need for more mitigation. Balance.

It takes X time to reach the fury value needed to match scrapper damage output. As more buffs are added to the scrapper, the amount of fury needed rises higher, thus increasing the time it takes the brute to catch up. Balance.

The only imbalance that exists is the one you are perceiving, and your perceptions are clouded due to ignoring pertinent data.

[ QUOTE ]
fact: pooping keeps you from dying of poop poisining

[/ QUOTE ]

The toxins will kill you. Purge at least once a day or surely ye shall die.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If brute taunt's range debuff is only affecting the targeted enemy rather than all foes hit, then it's bugged and should be reported to Castle.

[/ QUOTE ]

But Castle specifically designed it this way. There was a post a while ago, well before the -range was implemented, that stated that all 3 ATs were getting the range debuff and that only Tankers could apply it to all targets.

This is a distinct difference between Brutes and Tanks, one that further cements a Tank as the superior agro magnet/spawn diver. And it is for this reason that I feel an agro grabbing Tank should take Taunt now-- it's just that good at what it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fine with that. If it's working as intended then the text is bugged and needs to be updated to show it and CoD needs to be updated as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Now all I can do is wait for Going rogue, and keep myself occupied by making MA missions which feature Positron as a rescue escort, and hitting phase shift as we're ambushed and watching him get beaten to a pulp....

[/ QUOTE ]

I ran the new TF last night on test. About 5 minutes after we finished I canceled my sub again. I'm going to play my FM/SD brute til the 4th and then come back when I see I-16 hit beta.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
, bacause from my in-game experience there are three tiers of "Taunts" available:

Confront/Scrapper-- single target taunt, single target-75% range
Taunt/Brute-- AoE taunt, single target -75% range
Taunt/Tank-- AoE taunt, AoE -75% range

[/ QUOTE ] Seizure is completely right about this.

How the heck is the majority of the forum ignorant to this? Are you all corner pullers on your Tanks, while refusing to take Taunt on a Brute?

Come on people, get with it and learn to play your ATs before debating about them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't play tanks because they're boring. I don't take taunt on my brutes because it's a wasted power pick.

If brute taunt's range debuff is only affecting the targeted enemy rather than all foes hit, then it's bugged and should be reported to Castle.

[ QUOTE ]
Are extra HP really worth the low damage of a Tanker, though?

As I continually point out, the superior defense of a tanker is potentially meaningless on a good team; to use an extreme example, a team of 8 Defenders can steamroll any content in the game through putting out an impenetrable wall of buffs/debuffs.

When the entire team is at soft cap defense from bubbles/leadership with some nice resistance buffs to boot, while the enemy acc and dam are debuffed to the floor, the tank's advantage is simply the quantity of hitpoints.

Are the extra 1500 or so HP that important?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, tankers are completely useless when they aren't needed. No one should play them because everyone is always running around at the softcap on defense and with capped dam-res.

No one should every play tanks and JB can finally quit the game in disgust.

Go join the same argument in part 2 where the builds are easily achievable by 100% of the player population that can hit level 50.

CHVR

[ QUOTE ]
QR:

I am so sick of this entire debacle I honestly wish they would remove MA from the game, just take is all out, strip the badges, I don't care..... just make it gone.

I feel that this is the most serious danger the game has ever been in, due to punitive actions of this and that sort, which have been discussed to death... friends are leaving over the nerfs, let's just roll it back to the way it was and let people try to heal.

The whole thing is a giant negativity-sink and.... and I know they're not going to take it out but I really feel that would be the best outcome. This is going from bad to worse, as in floods of people leaving.

I don't want my MMO to die. And it feels like the MA/related issues are killing it. I'm just very sad

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, the player was right. This isn't anything but a doom post and I'm in the camp that thinks the devs royally farked it all up with the bannings.

On the other hand, it may very well cost dev X his job if enough subs get canceled.

So if you REALLY want your voice heard, cancel now. Otherwise, you truly are stating that you're ok with the decisions being made.

I've figured out I am ok with it enough to stay, regardless of my disgust at this Current situation.

The good still outweighs the bad. That, of course, may change next week.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're invariably ignoring other facets of both AT's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like those ignoring brute damage output variability pointing to the necessity of higher hitpoints.

It's fascinating to me that the arguments for and against some unfair brute advantage are being shown to have the same kind of overall fairness in their logical holes that I see present between the two ATs.

[/ QUOTE ]

At what fury% do brutes do inferior damage to scrappers to justify the survivability advantage, and how often is the average brute playing at that fury%? And even when they are there, I guess when they are resting or the player is afk, they still maintain advantages in survivability and aggro controls. Then add to that, the fact that brutes have the ability to do better damage, have better survivability and possess better aggro control abilities.

What variable am I missing? What 'facet' of the at's am I missing? Yes, in some circumstances (perhaps when the brute is in a coma or mapserving), the scrapper will outdamage a brute commensurate with the inherent survivability advantage brutes have over scrappers, but in those instances, you have parity, because one at is the superior damage dealer, while the other is better at surviving damage damage and controlling aggro. The disparity comes into play when the brute can surpass the scrapper at all of the above, while the scrapper cannot do the same.

And as I've said several times, I don't think the disparity is huge or game breaking, but it's clearly there. Unless someone can point out this 'facet' I'm missing. Do scrappers have a nicer scent or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

That can be answered with math:

Scrap AT mod: 62.562
Brute AT mod: 41.708
cremate: 1.64ds

Scrap Cremate: 102.602
Brute Cremate: 68.401

% buff needed for brute to equal scrap: 50% = 25% fury

When we add 95% enhancements:
Scrap Cremate: 200 .074
Brute Cremate: 133.381

But fury only affects base damage: Brute needs 48.751% fury to catch up.

And so on and so forth.