Cyber_naut

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's rather interesting that even the "easiest" AVs are stoppers for us without IOs (thus far). I'm certain other ATs can solo AVs with only SOs

[/ QUOTE ]

If by 'interesting' you mean sad and thematically wrong, then yeah. If other at's can solo av's without IO's, you would think the at that was supposed to be the best soloing at should be able to do it.

By the way, I rerolled the kat/da as a kat/wp, and so far the leveling up process has been MUCH easier than on the kat/da (at lvl 38 currently). And looking at my mids end game build, io'd up it should be stronger as well, ill let you guys know if it plays out that way in actual practice.

[ QUOTE ]
<QR>


I am not asking for a set overhaul.

I think Cloak of Fear could use some tweaking. It seems a lot of people agree.

I think Dark Regen could use a slight dip in End cost. People seem to have mixed feeling about this one, with many people saying leave it alone.


As for the question of toggle management, I personally believe that the intention of the current Dark Armor set is that players turn on their toggles and go to town, much like the other defensive sets. The concept of exclusivity through end cost or other means has been exorcised from the set.

So here's my next question. Let's assume we look at each set as a total package; we assume that the people will run everything and we can base the effectiveness of the total package based on how all the defenses, attacks and utility it provides mesh together. That leads to a couple of questions:

~ When considering the entire secondary package including attacks, defenses and utility, do people think it is okay for one set to be "more powerful" with a corresponding increase in endurance use?

~ Do people think /DA running all toggles is more powerful or useful as a whole package than the other scrapper secondaries? Considering how hard it is to do a straight comparison because of the dramatic differences between sets, does DA *feel* more powerful than the other scrapper secondaries?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your first points. DM was a decent set that got a few buffs and now look how popular it is (though some cry overpowered now lol). I think DA could use a similar refreshment.

The second part of your argument, the comparisons to other sets, is where the problem of da's uniqueness making comparison difficult comes in. Without IO's, you're not running all of da's toggles, unless you have rest 3 slotted with recharge, lol. I have a da IO'd up with purples, and I've also got a comparively slotted SR and SD. The SR and the SD are both more survivable in more situations, and were much easier to get that way, and the DA is katana that uses divine. Even in damage dealing ability, I'd take the SD over the DA because of shield charge and AAO. Overall, io'd out or not, I'd rate SR and SD as better than DA, which might explain the popularity disparity between sets, lol. I can solo av's and do the crazy stuff with my io'd up da, but not as well as some other sets and it was harder to get there. And leveling up a da is no picnic either, even when using recovery uniques. That's why I support some tweaks for DA. I don't have an IO'd up inv scrapper (i do have a brute), but we've seen plenty of examples of inv's doing crazy stuff, same thing with regen and willpower. The least set you hear anything about is DA, and there are reasons for that beyond the fact that fewer people play the set. The reason I didn't mention fire is because I think fire is in the same boat as DA, but maybe to a lesser extent.

I'm not arguing that da is broken or gimp, it certainly is not. Just that it could use a few tweaks to maybe get more people to try it out.

Dark armor absolutely can be made great and has a great top end, but really that is true of any set. The problem with dark armor imo is that it does have too many negatives in the 'leveling up' stage, without lots of slotting and io's.

I would suggest a few tweaks to a set that hasn't gotten much of anything during it's existence - so how bout a little DA love devs?

Here is what I would do:

1)Turn cloak of fear toggle into radiate fear, an aoe click power. I personally would put it on a long recharge with high end cost and give it a high enough mag to affect bosses, but you could have it on a faster recharge and low end cost and just have it affect minions. This could reduce the sets end usage and give the set better mitigation vs lt's and bosses. As it is, CoF is just too similar to OG and costs far too much to run for what it does, imo.

2)Have cloak of darkness make the user only slightly transparent instead of invisible, which leaves the toon a walking dust cloud. For those who enjoy the dust cloud look, add an invisible aura to the costume creator.

3)Give the set a decent tier nine by making soul transfer usable while alive. When dead, the power would work as is. If used while alive, the power could apply a low mag stun (that would stack with OG) and drain end which would transfer to the caster. This would add mitigation vs lt's and bosses, improve set synergy, lessen the ridiculous endurance burden the set faces now, and give DA a tier nine on par with other sets.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It could be worse. You could have been playing an EM/EA Brute, left for a while, and then come back to discover that your ability to bust out a staggering amount of ST damage in a very short time has been horribly nerfed, with no gains in the AoE department to compensate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brute Energy Melee is still a top contender in ST damage, but you are right about the lolaoe.

[/ QUOTE ]

In mathland when you're by yourself, absolutely. When you're playing the game on a team, not so much. A lot of EM's single target goodness is wasted on glacially slow attacks, which means your target gets wiped out by team mates in the middle of attack animations far more than you'd like (especially on what was once the sets defining power, et - but as a bonus, even if your target is killed by someone else, you still get to eat the self damage, lol).

Nice lookin' poster.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No end recovery, no heal, no 'tool' powers - so after level 32 SS had better be doing better aoe damage/mitigation than DM - but if you nerf footstomp, what exactly does SS have on DM? Not much if anything imo.

[/ QUOTE ]


You're one of those people that lolhandclap aren't you?

People knock HC alot around here but that power offers ALOT of mitigation. Take off your blinders.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it wasn't knockback it would be a decent power. As it is, it does no damage and scatters everything. Use it regularly on an average team and see how popular you are, lol.

And yes, I'm one of those people, because the power blows in most cases.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
re: Footstomp should be left alone "as the only AoE"
Check the other sets that are being talked about. Stone Melee? One AoE. Energy Melee? One, and it's also the only AoE mitigation, with a low percentage at that. Dark Melee has 3 AoEs - one is a small melee cone and the other two have a 2- and 3-minute recharge.

And as pointed out above, just because you choose not to use the AoE mitigation power in SS doesn't mean it doesn't have one, and by saying that it doesn't you're simply whining over nothing.

Do I think Footstomp really needs to be changed? No. But your case for leaving it alone is extremely weak and ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stone melee only has one aoe power? Looks like I'm not the only one who forgets about additional aoe powers. And yeah, I did forget about handclap, like most players who completely ignore the power because it's so pitiful.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're only counting AoE damage powers, yes. I was conceding the point that SS only has one AoE damage power, but also saying that it makes a pathetic excuse as to why it should be left alone, and pointing out other sets with similar issues.

And yes, I have played Dark Melee recently. It's AoE potential is still crap, which is what you were talking about. How nice of you to change subjects when the facts don't support any of the garbage coming out of your mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, sounds like somebody needs a hug.

The post you were referring to, mine, was talking about aoe powers, and part of the discussion was damage mitigation through such powers, so clearly the discussion was not just about damage dealing aoe's. No subject change on my part.

And pointing out that SS has only one viable aoe power, for both damage and mitigation is definitely a strong point to consider when talking about nerfing said power, as it would have a far more damaging affect on the set than if you nerfed say one of electrical melee's many aoe powers. And again, the fact that it is the only good aoe power in the set, and the fact it comes last as a tier nine power, further justifies the FS's strength, and further explains why other competing sets do not have a singular aoe power that is as good, because they get several aoe powers, many of which are available much earlier than FS is for SS. (And again, I would exclude EM from the discussion because after [censored] ET, EM's pitiful aoe output is no longer justifiable by any reasonable person)

And in talking about DM, if you still think DM has poor aoe ability after the range increase, then you just need some practice with shadow maul. And no, you won't hit as many baddies with it as you will with FS, but it does have some pretty nice advantages like recharging every 8 seconds instead of 20, doing some lightly resisted negative energy damage, AND BEING AVAILABLE AT LEVEL 2 RATHER THAN LEVEL 32. And on a decent sized team, properly using soul drain, you'll be doing better single target damage too, with most of it lightly resisted negative energy. Plus you get a great heal that does insane damage as well, a fear, and an endurance recovery power. SS gets a soul drain like power with a crash, smashing damage, and footstomp at level 32. No end recovery, no heal, no 'tool' powers - so after level 32 SS had better be doing better aoe damage/mitigation than DM - but if you nerf footstomp, what exactly does SS have on DM? Not much if anything imo.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

All I can say is prove it. I simply dont make invuls anymore because they cant take the same kind of beating a WP can overtime. Outside of Unstoppable invulnerability for scrappers sucks. WP was the smoothest ride to level 50 I have ever had with any toon. Invul not much so. Basically if it isnt smashing lethal you pretty much die or get overwhelmed. With IOs that could be different but WP with IOs is godly so it still comes out a head.

[/ QUOTE ]

(This is from the perspective of an IO'd build that concentrates on defense.)

My Invuln at 48 already has a base 35% def in all except Psi. By the time I finish the build I expect to have, with one enemy in range, around 40% in F/C/E/N and around 35% in S/L. My S/L resist is ~70% and my exotics are ~23%. The only thing I lack is a self heal; I decided early that non-Inspiration play was not a goal for this particular character and went with Hasten instead. (I plan on popping greens.)

If I ever obtained a PvP IO I could jump to ~38/43/43 defense.

With that much base defense (one mob in range) it means I am capping my defense at 3 or 4 mobs. Against S/L I am virtually unkillable against anything short of an AV, and have no issue tanking AE Dual Blade Lt. ambush missions where spawns can get as high as 20-30 level 52 Lt custom mobs. I am not yet Stamina efficient enough to go after big game; I simply haven't obtained the Numina and Miracle Uniques for that particular character.

I also cap out Hit Points with Dull Pain. It has a 4 second downtime which I can probably shore up. That jacks my regen rate. In a whole map full of custom Lts. tanking 20 52s at a time I needed to pop a green inspiration only twice when they got lucky with combos, and I certainly could have simply jumped out of the mob and hit Shockwave instead.

If my primary was Dark and I could use Siphon Life the build would probably be as tough as my /Shield, significantly better against S/L, slightly better against F/C/E/N due to higher health leading to better regen and Siphon heal, and significantly worse against Psi. That does leave Shields with much better damage, but it has that advantage over every secondary.

Plus I'm not sure we want to start saying secondaries are insufficient because they aren't as good as /Shield.

That also leaves my Invuln significantly better most of the time than my SR, with the Psi hole being matched by "untyped" damage. The much higher hit point total means Invul gets more bang out of regen and heals and survives alpha strikes from most mobs better. Also, against custom EBs my SR tends to get taken out by Build Up cycles if I am slow. My Invul has the resistance and higher health to suck those up; against S/L I don't even think I'd have to interrupt my attacks.

I used to be very down on Invuln, but seeing my high performance Invuln operate I am a believer. My SG mate had the same crappy experience with Invuln and was going to reroll until he saw me on that mission; he simply didn't build towards typed defense. If I dropped Hasten and went with Aid Self I would be significantly more survivable most of the time over my SR. I might have to watch out during the Dull Pain down times against exotic damage types.

Invuln *does* require a bit of thought because you do have to herd a bit to cap defense. It means against AVs you will want to keep some minions around, but to anyone used to doing that for /Shields AAO it really isn't a hardship.

[/ QUOTE ]

Defense is the name of the game in regard to top level survivability. Once you softcap, everything else is gravy, and you measure the sets against each sets gravy level at that point. Once wp and inv are near or at softcap, they are pretty even imo. Leveling up and not soft-capped however, I would give the advantage to wp thanks in large part to quick recovery and better overall survivability, especially on teams.

[ QUOTE ]
Another good one would be Combat Jumping, with a single slot and 50 IO adds 2.35% more defense for minimul end usage. Change Swift to Hurdle and you can use it and CJ to jump around missions without having to toggle fly

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'd switch to jumping to stack as much def as possible, unless you're stuck on fly for concept or something. Get some def uniques in there too if you haven't already and you can get some pretty good def numbers with WP and IO's relatively easily.

Caltrops is a great idea, imo.

If you need a taunt playing spines... you're doing it wrong.. lol.

Pet. gaze? By the time you use that you should be decimating the entire mob with aoe goodness.

Hasten never hurts, but doesnt do much for wp.

Assault is mediocre, while manuevers could be useful if you are building up your defense.

What about torrent for some more aoe and a bit of damage mitigation?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you really 'love ss', then you shouldn't be asking for changes. Are you new, lol? The last time the devs tried to 'fix' rage, they added a -recovery that made the crash flat out deadly, so deadly in fact, that the devs, who rarely ever reverse a move, reversed the move, lol.

[/ QUOTE ]The change never made it to live. It was on test. They tested it. And shock and horror, after testing, they decided not to do it. Not quite the same scenario you outline, which I know is kinda bad because it makes your point a bit weaker, but still.

On the other hand, constantly repeating 'the set is weak' doesn't make it true. The set is out of whack, yes - KoB and Foot stomp and Rage all behave differently to what they look like they should - but to act like the set needs to be so ridiculously powerful because otherwise it would be feeble and weak is disingenuous.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, how exactly did you get 'the set is weak' from me saying the set is 'fine as is'?

And there was nothing inaccurate about what I said regarding the minus recovery to rage change they tried out. It was so over the top that they reversed themselves on it, completely. I remember arguing that would be the case (that the nerf to rage would gimp the power and set) before they even tested it, and having many posters come in and claim it would be fine and not cripple the power or the set...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One, the question was on the one specific power, that was why I mentioned taking it out of the set, and commented on not really being overpowered.

Two, SS in not fully balanced on rage. SS has a quick recharge power as it's first power, and lacks a third tier attack on a 10-12 second timer. Other sets with a 2-3 second at the start tend to have more quick recharging attacks to build an attack chain sooner. Really looking at the numbers SS actually does fall in line with most brute attack formulas before Rage, which makes me think rage is overpowered before double stacking.


Three Footstomp is overpowered, it doesn't follow the aoe attack formula. It's radius is out of proportion.

I also disagree that it is fine as is. Rage needs to lose the -defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bottom line is, WITH rage, SS does damage on par with other top sets like SM and EM, which has been shown in several calculations by many posters on these boards. In fact at the top end, even with rage, it does less damage than sets like stone melee. Without rage, SS would be a bottom feeder in regards to damage dealing ability. So clearly, SS was in fact balanced with rage in mind, or maybe the devs just got really, really lucky.

And I do not agree that footstomp is 'too good'. Again, it's SS's only aoe power and only real dmg mitigation, and it's the set's teir nine power - it should be very good and it is. And the idea that it doesn't follow some inconsistent 'formula' and that makes it 'too powerful' is nonsense. They put in a static 'formula' in pvp, how'd that work out?

Could SS be redone and rebalanced? Sure. But why, lol? SS is a set the vast majority of players are very happy with, outside the kiddies using competing sets who have some kind of bizarre set envy, lol. As I've said, the devs would be wise to focus their time and effort fixing the things that are not liked by players rather than messing with things that most of the players like. Or they can keep listening to the nerf monkeys and keep running off customers. If the devs are really worried about SS with all the problems and underplayed powersets in this game, then COH is headed in the wrong direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I'm not disagreeing with you, this line of thinking holds no water with the powers that be.

I think they have moved away from balancing sets "as a whole" (for damage dealing sets) and have moved much more toward a power by power standardization/balancing system.

Everyone knows when SS gets "adjusted" it is going to come with a lot of dev hate. It might be the most popular set in the game! That's why I say Castle will hide it in the patches that follow shortly after Going Rogue.
*by hide I don't mean stealth nerf I mean distract with one hand (GR) while you pull your trick with the other (nerf SS).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your analysis. They are trying to impliment some kind of static formula, and we've seen an extreme version of that in pvp, and the results were a bit less than well received by their customers (though they do seem oblivious to that fact... lol).

But the bottom line is, it's a really bad idea to mess with stuff that's really popular unless it's clearly 'game-breaking', and FS and rage are not game-breakers.

[ QUOTE ]
re: Footstomp should be left alone "as the only AoE"
Check the other sets that are being talked about. Stone Melee? One AoE. Energy Melee? One, and it's also the only AoE mitigation, with a low percentage at that. Dark Melee has 3 AoEs - one is a small melee cone and the other two have a 2- and 3-minute recharge.

And as pointed out above, just because you choose not to use the AoE mitigation power in SS doesn't mean it doesn't have one, and by saying that it doesn't you're simply whining over nothing.

Do I think Footstomp really needs to be changed? No. But your case for leaving it alone is extremely weak and ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stone melee only has one aoe power? Looks like I'm not the only one who forgets about additional aoe powers. And yeah, I did forget about handclap, like most players who completely ignore the power because it's so pitiful.

So in summation, SS's FS is balanced by the lame that is HC, which puts it on par aoe-wise with SM, imo. Pretty much every other set has more than two aoe powers, with the lone exception being EM. And you bring up DM like DM is outclassed by SS which is just silly if you've played DM at all after the recent buffs. So again, the idea that FS needs to be nerfed doesn't mesh with the facts.

In regards to EM, I've stated many times that after the devs gutted ET they should have buffed it's aoe capabilities, because the set as is, is a clunky, slow as molasses mess with pitiful aoe abilities. Hey, there's a set that could use some dev attention...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's absolutely not overpowered when you consider the sets, and you have to consider the sets... to compare sets... and then claim 'overpowered', lol.

Rage simply allows SS to do damage on par with competing sets - without it, it's clearly sub-par. With rage, its a top damaging set, but to achieve this, you have to use an entire power, and slot it, just to do damage similar to that of competing sets like SM, that don't have to use the extra power and slots. Now the to hit bonus is great, but SS definitely pays for it with an end crash, 10 seconds of uselessness every couple of minutes and a defense penalty every couple of minutes.

Then people complain about footstomp, and yeah, it's a great power, but it SHOULD be, because it's SS's only aoe power and it's the sets tier 9 power. Remove footstomp from SS and the set is pretty damn lackluster, with a bunch of pitiful single target attacks with little to no damage mitigation.

The bottom line is, SS is fine as-is. It's a popular set that many players/customers LOVE. If it aint broke, don't fix it. This game would be a HELL of a lot better if the devs focused on fixing things players didn't like, or sets that players/customers didn't play (by improving them and making them more attractive) rather than nerfing and messing with sets and powers their customers clearly enjoy, as evidenced by their popularity.

Or maybe the devs will focus all of their efforts on i16 'Calming the Rage' that will consist of SS nerfs, more badge removals and a new hat costume piece with matching boots. Then they can move on to i17 'Where the hell did everyone go?'.

[/ QUOTE ]

So having one power that basically validates your otherwise crappy primary is a good thing? Gee, where does this sound familiar...

If I didn't love SS, I wouldn't have taken it to 50. But I wouldn't complain if Rage got dialed back in exchange for the rest of the set getting a buff either.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really 'love ss', then you shouldn't be asking for changes. Are you new, lol? The last time the devs tried to 'fix' rage, they added a -recovery that made the crash flat out deadly, so deadly in fact, that the devs, who rarely ever reverse a move, reversed the move, lol.

[ QUOTE ]
yeah. the other set you mention - mostly SM - doesnt have rage and tremor PALES to footstomp in that if you actually use tremor, you lose fury. nearly three and a half seconds to fire it off, about the same animation time as shadow maul.

[/ QUOTE ]

And even without rage, SM has been shown to outdamage SS. And yeah, I'd agree footstomp is better than fault, but sm has another power for aoe dmg mitigation, SS doesn't, so I would hope SS's one aoe power was better, since it's using the other power just to keep up with SM's damage output while taking on negatives (end crash, minus def and 10 seconds of impotence) that SM doesn't have to deal with at all.

[ QUOTE ]
One, the question was on the one specific power, that was why I mentioned taking it out of the set, and commented on not really being overpowered.

Two, SS in not fully balanced on rage. SS has a quick recharge power as it's first power, and lacks a third tier attack on a 10-12 second timer. Other sets with a 2-3 second at the start tend to have more quick recharging attacks to build an attack chain sooner. Really looking at the numbers SS actually does fall in line with most brute attack formulas before Rage, which makes me think rage is overpowered before double stacking.


Three Footstomp is overpowered, it doesn't follow the aoe attack formula. It's radius is out of proportion.

I also disagree that it is fine as is. Rage needs to lose the -defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bottom line is, WITH rage, SS does damage on par with other top sets like SM and EM, which has been shown in several calculations by many posters on these boards. In fact at the top end, even with rage, it does less damage than sets like stone melee. Without rage, SS would be a bottom feeder in regards to damage dealing ability. So clearly, SS was in fact balanced with rage in mind, or maybe the devs just got really, really lucky.

And I do not agree that footstomp is 'too good'. Again, it's SS's only aoe power and only real dmg mitigation, and it's the set's teir nine power - it should be very good and it is. And the idea that it doesn't follow some inconsistent 'formula' and that makes it 'too powerful' is nonsense. They put in a static 'formula' in pvp, how'd that work out?

Could SS be redone and rebalanced? Sure. But why, lol? SS is a set the vast majority of players are very happy with, outside the kiddies using competing sets who have some kind of bizarre set envy, lol. As I've said, the devs would be wise to focus their time and effort fixing the things that are not liked by players rather than messing with things that most of the players like. Or they can keep listening to the nerf monkeys and keep running off customers. If the devs are really worried about SS with all the problems and underplayed powersets in this game, then COH is headed in the wrong direction.

It's absolutely not overpowered when you consider the sets, and you have to consider the sets... to compare sets... and then claim 'overpowered', lol.

Rage simply allows SS to do damage on par with competing sets - without it, it's clearly sub-par. With rage, its a top damaging set, but to achieve this, you have to use an entire power, and slot it, just to do damage similar to that of competing sets like SM, that don't have to use the extra power and slots. Now the to hit bonus is great, but SS definitely pays for it with an end crash, 10 seconds of uselessness every couple of minutes and a defense penalty every couple of minutes.

Then people complain about footstomp, and yeah, it's a great power, but it SHOULD be, because it's SS's only aoe power and it's the sets tier 9 power. Remove footstomp from SS and the set is pretty damn lackluster, with a bunch of pitiful single target attacks with little to no damage mitigation.

The bottom line is, SS is fine as-is. It's a popular set that many players/customers LOVE. If it aint broke, don't fix it. This game would be a HELL of a lot better if the devs focused on fixing things players didn't like, or sets that players/customers didn't play (by improving them and making them more attractive) rather than nerfing and messing with sets and powers their customers clearly enjoy, as evidenced by their popularity.

Or maybe the devs will focus all of their efforts on i16 'Calming the Rage' that will consist of SS nerfs, more badge removals and a new hat costume piece with matching boots. Then they can move on to i17 'Where the hell did everyone go?'.

HBD! And at a Gray party, the guests get presents!

[ QUOTE ]
if the devs didnt intend brutes to tank, why do they have:

tanker taunt (but with only single target -range)
taunt auras - including a taunt aura in SR

[/ QUOTE ]

The point was to make at's that could fill multiple roles and be less static than blue side.

The brute was 'intended' to be the melee damage dealer/aggro manager, basically something between a tank and a scrapper. And they came very close to nailing it, but in the end we have an at that overall does similar damage to a scrapper with better survivability and aggro control, so they missed the parity mark. The brute is in between a scrapper and a tank in terms of survivability (and some would argue that they're too close to tanks in terms of aggro control - but thats for the tanker/brute forums), but standing right next to scrappers in terms of damage dealing overall. That's not parity.

[ QUOTE ]
there is parity.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there is not. In the 'non-stop playstyle' brutes are superior at everything, in the 'slow playstyle' brutes are inferior damage dealers while being better in survivability and aggro management. That is clearly not parity, but I can see why logic fails you when you reply to someone telling you to find better players and you say 'not really' then go on to explain the problems you face are due to pickup players that don't build their toons 'properly', lol.


[ QUOTE ]
the dmg advantage brutes gets requires you to PLAY NON STOP. if they dont, the advantage is gone. just having to mess around in a multi-layered cave map or those arachnos base maps with the huge room with multple levels means fury generation is annoying and usually at 30% or lower whiley ou try to find the last handful of guys so you can finish the damned thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, brutes are not 'required' to do anything. The can choose to play the 'non-stop' style, in which case they do everything better than scrappers, or they can choose to play slower, in which case they are equal to scrappers overall because they do less damage in exchange for better survivability and aggro management.

[ QUOTE ]
the extra hp? big deal. apparantly the hp disparity is such a huge issue that it kept powerforge from soloing lord recluse as a +2 av....oh wait!

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's 'not a big deal', then lets just give them to scrappers and call it a day.

[ QUOTE ]
extra hp? are you expected to tank? brutes are (especially since competent masterminds are a rare breed and their threat is unreliable unless they are the even rarer tankermind builds with provoke). if the designers dont EXPECT you to tank, you wont have that extra layer of survivability.

[/ QUOTE ]

The designers specifically have stated they didn't want any of the cov at's to be 'expected' to perform 'specific' roles as you claim. Going further, I believe they stated that the MM is the at they envisioned being the aggro sponge more so than the brute.

And the idea that if an AT is 'expected' to fill a role, they get a certain power or benefit for 'free' and it shouldn't be looked at when judging balance between at's is absurd. Tanks are clearly expected to absorb aggro blue side, but they clearly paid for that increased survivability with less damage compared to a scrapper.

[ QUOTE ]
really, if you think brutes are so much better then go play one. the only thing that keeps me red side is i prefer the zone layouts over those blue side. far easier to get where you wanna go - and much faster. but all my scrappers play just fine. i've got a 50 dm/regen that plays and solo's and teams just fine. no io's. just so's. she's got 55 free tailor sessions i should probably use at some point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do play brutes, and telling me to go play them to round off your argument is like putting a cherry atop your broken logic cake. Oh, are you the telepath who claimed he 'knew' i didn't play brutes or if I did it was a lowbie, lol?

[ 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.

not all brute secondaries can even play like that. MOST have serious end issues especially playing in a team like this. multiple brutes in a team means one has fury, the rest do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

FALSE. Brutes 'must' play 'non-stop'? No, brutes CAN play non-stop, build high fury, and out-damage scrappers AND out survive them AND out aggro manage them, which means they can outclass scrappers in everything. OR they CAN take their time, at which point they do less damage than scrappers, but still retain advantages in survivability and aggro management.

So in those two play-styles, the brute is better at everything in one, while trading dmg for survivability in the other. And as has been mentioned by other posters, the playstyle where brutes are universally superior is a playstyle shared by both at's and the majority of those who play them. If you still consider that parity, then I guess we'll just have to respectfully disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So again, the problem with the balance between these at's that at worst the brute is on par with scrappers but has all kinds of ways to surpass the scrapper, at everything. That's imbalance. That's disparity.

Your suggestion to make res/def caps equal between the two would solve a big part of the problem, but you'd still have the health disparity and additional aggro control. If overall, dmg dealing is on par between the two at's, why do brutes still enjoy a clear superiority in health, def/res caps and team benefits?


[/ QUOTE ]

He told you

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

[/ QUOTE ]

And that explanation is broken logically, imo. Aggro management is a bonus, not a negative, or nobody would be playing tanks, and tanks would be doing scrapper level damage, because all that extra survivability would be written off because they 'need it' to survive all the aggro. But in reality, being able to survive and control aggro is a BENEFIT. As such, tanks get the much better taunt and survivability advantage over scrappers in exchange for much weaker damage output. Brutes get a better (not as much better as tanks) taunt and survivability advantage over scrappers, but as bill has admitted, the same damage output overall as scrappers do. That's uneven. If it were balanced properly, they would have a similar dmg disadvantage to scrappers as tanks do, not as great a disadvantage obviously, because they don't have as great an advantage in survivability as a tank does over a scrapper.

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


[/ QUOTE ]

And that's where the parity ends in comparing the two ats, because brutes have better survivability and team aggro controls.

Brutes don't HAVE to run their fury up. They CAN if they CHOOSE to in order to equal or surpass scrapper lvl damage. If they don't try at all, then often they are on par overall with scrappers because their higher survivability is balanced by their weaker damage.

And the aggro power of a brute is a strength, teams love it because it helps protect the rest of the team and the brute loves it because it builds their fury. Granted, they are not as sturdy as tanks, but they can serve as a better tank than an equivalent scrapper can, if they CHOOSE to do so.

So again, the problem with the balance between these at's that at worst the brute is on par with scrappers but has all kinds of ways to surpass the scrapper, at everything. That's imbalance. That's disparity.

Your suggestion to make res/def caps equal between the two would solve a big part of the problem, but you'd still have the health disparity and additional aggro control. If overall, dmg dealing is on par between the two at's, why do brutes still enjoy a clear superiority in health, def/res caps and team benefits?

I like your equal def/res caps idea, and I totally agree that we don't need to add damage to scrappers, but some kind of team benefit power/bonus for scrappers would be ideal, imo.

[ QUOTE ]
How well an AT handles aggro (if given aggro capabilities natively) is a factored value when balancing. Brutes have team utility (aggro control), similar damage in most situations (Fury makes up for low base scalar), greater top end damage (crazy high damage cap), greater baseline survivability (higher base hp), and greater top end survivability (higher caps). The only things Scrappers get are less variability in damage. That's not parity.

[/ QUOTE ]

NAILED IT.