Psiphon
-
Posts
709 -
Joined
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Hopeling
SS should have LESS of a gap between its performance for Tankers and Brutes, because Rage somewhat dilutes the effect of Fury (and this does match my own experience with the set).
Tanker Foot Stomp (95% damage enhancement + Rage): 63.17*(1+.95+.8)=173.7
Brute Foot Stomp (95% damage enhancement + Rage + 80 Fury): 59.22*(1+.95+.8+1.6)=257.6
Brute Foot Stomp does 48% more.
By comparison, Brute Whirling Smash does 71% more than Tanker Whirling Smash:
Tanker Whirling Smash (95% damage enhancement): 60.89*(1+.95)=118.7
Brute Whirling Smash (95% damage enhancement + 80 Fury): 57.08*(1+.95+1.6)=202.6
...which isn't to say that TW is bad on tanks, nor that SS is bad on brutes, or any such thing. And of course that exact ratio will not hold for different amounts of Fury, or if you use double Rage instead of single, or if you include Bruising, or et cetera. But the damage gap between Brute SS and Tanker SS is smaller than pretty much any other set they share, until the Tanker's lower damage cap comes into play (which, granted, it does for SS much more easily than other sets).
Based on the damage difference between Tanks and Brutes I'm seriously considering rerolling my main SD/SS as a Brute and wanted to confirm the survivability difference.
The way I see it both can hit the defence soft cap easily so the the variation in resistance and HP will only come into effect on the 5% damage not mitigated.
So an extra 20 % resistance will only be applied to the 5%. So 20% x5% = 1% difference. This would also apply to HP so roughly a 2% loss in survivability for the additional damage.
Is this right or am I getting this totally wrong? -
Quote:IMO it would be far less disruptive to simply swap out the +def in the two unique +def IO's and add the equivilent resist or new absorb.Originally Posted by Rakeeb
I'd honestly go with that, swap out some of the +Def for +Res. The diversity would do the IO system good.
I'd still want to turn down the numbers, though.
This would make it harder to softcap builds and add value back to tanks higher base numbers. -
If you want a low cost, survivable build the tank is an option. If you're going to plough some money into it go Brute; nearly as survivable and way more damage.
-
Hi all,
A quick question - I'm sure that I've seen that these were in development; was I right?
If so have we got a concrete list of powers and a timescale for release? -
Personally I think that they should shave a second off of the animations of both ET AND TF.
I've seen all of the maths, however this fails to take into account the fact that AoE is king, given that EM has such poor AoE it needs excellent ST to even make it usable.
With the changes mentioned it would still clear missions slower than SS or TW. -
Quote:Looks good to me but what is the mag of Detention Field?Originally Posted by Seldom
My personal suggestions:
Force field:
- Give all defense buffing powers -def resistance. This makes forcefields' defense protection the most reliable, as it is far more immune to cascading failure.
- Give force bolt and repulsion bomb 'bruising' properties, lowering the damage resistance of the targets they hit.
- Change detention field into a toggle, lower its recharge.
On the basis that it doesn't phase AV's then get it to apply -regen -resist. On the basis that the target is semi-phased and has these debuffs applied. -
Personally I'd go with Dark/Sonic, especially if this is a levelling build. If it's more for high level play then they are both great.
I can't comment on Cold but:
Dark matures earlier than Time
Is more End friendly
From a play perspective Dark would work better with Sonic. Sonic has lots of cones which would work well with Fearsome Stare. -
Quote:Thanks guys, that was a great help - I'd missed that completely.Originally Posted by StarGeek
Managed to go straight to Tier3 Alpha.
-
Hi all,
This may well be a dippy question - where do you get Alpha drops aside from bonding shards in normal content?
Running iTrials gives content for post Alpha slots and they use mutually exclusive components.
I've unlocked the Alpha and running itrials i can unlock and slot the others quickly but the Alpha is taking ages - also threads can't be converted to shards - not that I can find anyway.
Thanks in advance -
Quote:I agree completely with this!Originally Posted by Starsman
This is just history, does not change the current state of the game, but your statement is wrong.
During CoV beta, the devs attempted to clear that no villain AT was designed to be "tanker" in the traditional sense. The only AT they intended to work as a meat shield of any sort was Masterminds, via pet tanking.
Brutes have a version of tanker Gauntlet for a very simple reason: they are literally a copy and paste from the tanker AT. Once they went through the powers they just removed the AoE aspects without removing taunting capabilities. They justified it by the fact that brutes needed some aggro to generate furry, but that they didnt have "the survivability" to actually tank. The higher HP was intended to compensate also for the fact that brutes would need to take damage to deal damage. Brutes were intended to compare (not be equivalent) to scrappers.
During GR beta, the devs fiddled with Brutes to nerf them. They tweaked rage generation (I attempted to convince Castle to make the formula less dependent on Aggro but I take it time constraints prevented that.) Resist caps were lowered a notch to 85%, and something else got buffed up... base damage? Cant remember exactly. At the end it was considered the change was not giving the result they wanted and it didnt go live.
I found recently the damage cap got lowered in the next issue (I quit the game a week before GR launch so didnt keep up.)
Point is: Brutes becoming tanks was never intended, and their damage dealing capabilities also have been considered too high. The fact that the devs fiddled with the AT in between GR and the next issue shows it was always a concern.
The game is 8 year olds now, though. The AT has worked as is for years. Other than minor changes, anything would be too disruptive to the most played villain AT. I would not be shocked if today it was considered the second most played AT.
Today tankers are paying the price of that mistake. Masterminds never suffered it because they did some considerable damage output with their pets, on top of having a buffing secondary set that secured a role in teams.
I repeat: that wont happen. But it's expected for that line of thought to show up in this kind of conversation, simply because that is the root of the problem. You can rest assured, no matter what anyone suggests, Brutes wont be nerfed for Tanker's sake. (If they get nerfed it's due to internatl AT issues, I have not heard anything on that line though.)
I've been calling for a nerf to Brutes for reasons of balance as part of the discussion and I firmly believe that it's justified.....however do I honestly believe that they will nerf Brutes? No definately not!
On the subject of buffs for tanks, I've always considered Tanks more AoE centric, as such would either of these be possible?
Increase AoE target caps for Tanker versions of attacks?
Increase range/AoE?
Add splash damage to ST attacks for more AoE?
I'm assuming no, but just asking. -
Quote:So you want the damage mitigation of a Fire Tank while dishing out twice as much damage - and that's not overpowered!!!!!!!!!Originally Posted by planet_J
No, actually, I like my FA brute being able to shunt all but 10% damage from fire...Elec Armor would be even more gimped as Energy damage is extremely common these days.
Well we can all see your true colours now! -
Quote:And then after delving more deeply into it Claws later revised his thoughts to this.Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Looking at the caps and scalars of all 4 melee ATs, here is what I would do:
1) Increase Scrapper and Stalker resistance cap to 80%. This would put Scrappers at somewhat less than 80% of Tanker survivability.
2) Increase Tanker damage scalar to .9, which would put them at exactly 80% of Scrapper damage, and would have nearly the same net result as Johnny's proposed 545% damage cap. It would also help Tankers who are not sitting at their damage cap consistently. Raising their damage cap to 450% from their current 400% would not be particularly unbalancing.
3)Adjust Brutes accordingly. I would start by reducing their resistance cap to 85%, and their damage cap to 700%.
Given the same attack with a base damage of 100, at those damage caps a Scrapper would deal 562.5 with that attack, a Brute 525, and a Tanker 486 (to a Bruised target). That's a 37.5 point difference between Scrapper and Brute, and a 39 point difference between Brute and Tanker. Stalkers would come in at 500 damage with that attack, but their ability to land a crit when they want to more than evens the score, and actually puts them on top (because a Stalker player will leverage things to deal 1000 damage with that attack)
With the Scrapper and Stalker resistance cap increase to 80%, and the Brute decrease to 85%, it would put their survivability in reverse order, by just about the same margin of difference between them. Stalkers don't really need much, but it wouldn't be fair to increase Scrapper resistance without giving them the same.
Voila. Everyone but Brutes win, and Brutes just don't get to be overpowered compared to their melee brethren anymore. I would call that balancing rather than nerfing. It would put Brutes exactly between Scrappers and Tankers, where they are allegedly supposed to be anyway.
Planet_J I'm still after an answer from you as to why you feel that a Brute should have the same damage caps as a Scrapper and the same resistance caps as a Tanker.
The balance between damage and survivability potential (caps) is like a slider of X length. If you slide it one way you gain resistance/health if you slide it the other you gain damage.
A Scrapper is balanced in that it does alot of damage but to gain that it gives up health and resistance.
A Tank has alot of resistance and health potential (cap) gives up alot of damage for that.
A Brute has the same resistance potential (cap) as the Tank and the same damage potential (cap) as the Scrapper. From the perspective of potential all it gives up to the Tank is the a small amount of health while gaining alot more damage.
All I'm talking about here are the caps not base values of each, that is a seperate issue.
Currently Brutes are broken because in regards to their caps they are too high either side - basically the slider they use is much wider than other AT's using the same mechanics.
They need the caps for both resistance and damage brought in line with other AT's.
Claws proposal is spot on!! -
Quote:IMO Claws nailed it with this proposal!Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Looking at the caps and scalars of all 4 melee ATs, here is what I would do:
1) Increase Scrapper and Stalker resistance cap to 80%. This would put Scrappers at somewhat less than 80% of Tanker survivability.
2) Increase Tanker damage scalar to .9, which would put them at exactly 80% of Scrapper damage, and would have nearly the same net result as Johnny's proposed 545% damage cap. It would also help Tankers who are not sitting at their damage cap consistently. Raising their damage cap to 450% from their current 400% would not be particularly unbalancing.
3)Adjust Brutes accordingly. I would start by reducing their resistance cap to 85%, and their damage cap to 700%.
Given the same attack with a base damage of 100, at those damage caps a Scrapper would deal 562.5 with that attack, a Brute 525, and a Tanker 486 (to a Bruised target). That's a 37.5 point difference between Scrapper and Brute, and a 39 point difference between Brute and Tanker. Stalkers would come in at 500 damage with that attack, but their ability to land a crit when they want to more than evens the score, and actually puts them on top (because a Stalker player will leverage things to deal 1000 damage with that attack)
With the Scrapper and Stalker resistance cap increase to 80%, and the Brute decrease to 85%, it would put their survivability in reverse order, by just about the same margin of difference between them. Stalkers don't really need much, but it wouldn't be fair to increase Scrapper resistance without giving them the same.
Voila. Everyone but Brutes win, and Brutes just don't get to be overpowered compared to their melee brethren anymore. I would call that balancing rather than nerfing. It would put Brutes exactly between Scrappers and Tankers, where they are allegedly supposed to be anyway. -
Quote:Just out if interest - if Brute damage is comparable to those of a Scrapper why do you feel that Brutes should have any surviability advantages?Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
The only thing I really want to see is the resistance cap lowered to 85%.
The damage isn't incredibly out of line, and in normal gameplay Brute damage is comparable to Scrapper damage.
Tankers getting a little more damage wouldn't break things, and Brutes being a little less tough wouldn't break them either. I still think increasing the Tanker damage scalar would be more beneficial to more players than a damage cap increase, as you wouldn't have to already be at the bleeding edge of performance to notice an improvement.
And the devs were already going to reduce Brute resistance to 85%. I'm sure outcry from the Brute players stayed their hand in that regard. It's not like it's an arbitrary amount either, EATs are already at 85%. Perhaps Tankers being the only AT able to reach 90% resistance would help make them feel a little more special, and strengthen their position as the toughest things in the game (since you can't really make them much tougher, the only realistic option is to reduce the max potential of their only challenger for the title)
Scrappers are fine as they are. My reason for suggesting their resistance cap be increased to 80% was assuming Tankers got a significant damage cap increase. If that doesn't happen, Scrappers don't need their resistances increased either. My reasoning is that Scrappers and Tanks are the only ones of the melee ATs that are visibly in balance with each other. Scrappers get 75% of Tanker survivability, and Tankers should have 75% of scrapper damage (which would work out to something like 80% of Brute damage). In order to make that balance point work, Tankers should get a damage scalar increase to .85 from their current .8. They would deal slightly more damage both at their cap, and in general gameplay. I would not argue with a damage cap increase to 450% from their current 400% either. That would put their damage for my hypothetical 100 damage attack at 462.
So, my revision is:
Scrappers unchanged
Brute resistance cap reduction to 85%, no other change.
Tanker damage scalar to .85, damage cap to 450%, no other change.
Stalkers unchanged.
Are you simply trying to come up with a compromise without annoying the Brute comunity? -
Quote:Seems OTT to me as it doesn't take into account the difference in base values.Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Nobody is asking for Tankers to do more damage than Brutes at the cap.
I'm asking for the Tanker damage cap to be raised from 400% to 545%, which would, if my math is correct, put Tanker single target damage at the cap (after Bruising) to 90% of what a Brute can do at their cap. I think this is fair because Brutes get 90% of Tanker maximum HP at the cap, and are otherwise numerically identical.
. -
Quote:Brutes should do more damage than Tanks - quite alot in fact... but not be as survivable as they are doing it.Originally Posted by planet_J
So then...go ahead and ask for a damage cap bump...because you want to do more damage than brutes as tanks that's an ok excuse I suppose...don't know how well it will fly...because Tanks are clearly more survivable...if they did MOAR damage than brutes that would be a bit OP don't you think? If the cap now is 300% I could see maybe 400%...but a 100% damage cap increase is ALOT.
-
Quote:I play Brutes I know the damage that they do...aBrute can hit 10-15% simply by passing wind!Originally Posted by planet_J
Johnny...you do realize that tanks base damage modifier is higher than brutes right?
Brutes have to have 10-15% Fury to do the same damage as tanks...
Brute base modifier 0.750
Tank base modifier 0.850
For grins and giggles one more time...
Scrappers base modifier 1.125
Stalkers base modifier 1.100 (this is what I could find off hand not 100% certain the number hasn't changed since i23)
That's the numbers behind it...so...ask for buffs all you want...but you have to maintain fury to do more damage than tanks on a brute...
To approach scrapper/stalker numbers...you have to seriously be knee deep in bodies and wailing away...and be taking damage...in order to get in that zipcode.
So, where's your argument now? You get to run around with all your defensive bonuses, AND do damage just like a brute at 10-15% fury...
Happy yet? I can imagine you're bitter that brutes don't do near the damage you had thought in your head actually... -
Quote:I was talking about the softcap which is the same for all - 45% in normal play - non-incarnate. Brutes are as capable as Tanks of hitting this with the +def uniques.Originally Posted by planet_J
The Cap for Defense is well over 100% you can't hit the cap...on SO's many armors cannot even get close to the softcap...like electric/fire for example that are 2 of the most popular ones...and basic IOs provide no set bonuses...
When I play a Tank I'm happy to give up damage for survivability. My argument is simply that outside of solo play on SO's Brutes don't give up enough survivability for the extra damage that they gain.Quote:Originally Posted by planet_J
In this scenario a brute would technically kill faster, but the tank would far and away have less survival worries...if you want to do more damage you have to give up survivability...play a brute if it's that important to you.
Oh and I do play Brutes - currently levelling three.
They do but Brutes can hit 45% Def the same as Tanks due to the prevelence of +defence IO's. Orange inspirations and buffs allow them to hit the same resistance caps leaving only the Health cap difference - again not enough of a difference considering the damage cap difference and the Brutes ability to deliver that damage through Fury.Quote:Originally Posted by planet_J
They don't have the same levels of Defense...tanks have 20-25% more defense and resists...always...this example is flawed at best...Brutes DO NOT have the same survivability as tanks...never will.
In a well buffed team the only differnce is the health cap.Quote:Originally Posted by planet_J
High end IOs the tanks still win...set bonuses help them be even more survivable...as they do brutes...and tanks have about 20% MORE hp/res/def...Brutes can survive well...but in some Itrials, even tanks die...
If Brutes can't hit the cap they why are you so concerned if it's lowered?Quote:Originally Posted by planet_J
The problem is here...you're complaining about a resist cap that brutes essentially CANNOT get to...so the only time the survivability is even close...a Tank would be similarly buffed to the gills and the results are the same...
Soft cap is the same for all 45% so as stated only HP cap will be different.Quote:Originally Posted by planet_J
STOP SAYING BRUTES CAN SURVIVE LIKE TANKS...IT IS AN EMPIRICAL FACT THEY CANNOT. They may be able to survive well enough...but that doesn't make a tanker less sturdy than they were before. Under similar conditions...(i.e. apples to apples) THERE IS NEVER A TIME BRUTES ARE AS STURDY...even with both toons at resist caps, Tanks have more DEFENSE and more HP...2 pillars of survivability that are VASTLY more important than Resists in most people's eyes...
Which simply proves my point with both able to cap defence at 45% both are very survivable. The resistance is less important especially as the difference isn't that much, again considering the differance in damage.Quote:Originally Posted by planet_J
How much resists do SR tanks have? None without Tough. Would they have made that set available to Tanks if it was not completely capable of tanking?? Nope. Now it does have a (very) minor reduced scaling resist built in when HP drops...but that was really more a QoL improvement over anything.
Upping the resistance cap to 95% would help to differentiate the two however I still can see no justification for the Brute caps being so high considering that it's their secondary and the damage that they do.Quote:Originally Posted by planet_J
If you want more survival...I would support Tank Res Caps being bumped to 95% so you can stop whining about a cap that is unreachable on brutes outside of extreme edge cases that are less than 1-2% of the total time that a character is played in it's lifetime.
The cap is very reachable using orange insperation, external buffs and is par for the course on iTrials. -
Quote:Although I agree with the majority of what you say here I'm mainly with JB in regards to conclusions.Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
You're right. That choice is made for them.
Unless you're trying to say that the larger base values Tankers get have nothing to do with their survivability advantage.
Brutes get the same base values as Scrappers and Stalkers. In the absence of outside help via teammates or Incarnate powers, they are only slightly tougher than Scrappers, due to having higher base HP.
You conveniently ignore the higher base values Tankers have for survivability-related powers every time this discussion comes up.
The devs cannot guarantee that a Brute or a Tanker will always have a teammate handy to buff them. They CAN guarantee that they will spend part of that time alone.
If you really want to compare Tanker and Brute performance, compare a Tanker and a Brute that are totally alone. No outside buffs from teammates, no Incarnate powers. The Tanker will outlive the Brute every single time.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Saying that Tankers need more damage because a Brute can reach the same survivability when buffed by a Thermal Radiation or Sonic Resonance teammate is absurd. What level of survivability can that Brute reach by himself?
I've compared the two side by side using the same sets. With no outside buffs, Tanker resistance is a full 20% higher than Brute resistance in the majority of cases. The only exceptions there are Electric Armor and Fiery Aura, where both ATs can reach 90% to one damage type. An Invulnerability Brute is capable of reaching 90% to S/L damage, but he has to devote the majority of his IO slotting toward that goal, which gimps quite a few other aspects of the build, and locks them into one particular Alpha slot. They can't do it at all until they get Alpha either.
Saying that Brutes give up nothing is a flat out lie. They don't get the base values Tankers get, and that makes them less survivable by default.
Honestly, I would really like to see some datamining that shows exactly how frequently any Brute reaches the survivability potential you keep saying is so unfair. I would be willing to bet it is less than 1% of that character's existence.
I would also like to see datamining that shows how frequently any Tanker is sitting at his damage cap. I would be equally willing to bet that the percentage of time spent is about the same. There is only 1 build I can think of that can do it by himself, and that would be the Shield/SS build you claimed you did it on (I'm not doubting your claim, but I didn't see it with my own eyes, and I don't report hearsay as fact. I believe it is possible though)
I would also be willing to bet the only reason you could reach the recharge necessary to pull that feat off is because a Shield Defense Tanker needs next to no IO help to reach the soft-cap. And you say Brutes give up nothing? Shield and SR Brutes don't get the ability to reach the soft-cap on SOs and power choices alone like Tankers do. My DA/Staff Tanker will hit 90% to 4 different damage types, all by his lonesome. The Staff/DA Brute that can make the same claim will never exist.
Brutes give up more than you're willing to admit.
IMO Brutes and Tanks are balanced when using standard SO's and in isolation of all buffs, the issue that I have is when this changes.
Solo SO's/Basic IO's using inspirations:
Brute pops a purple or two, due to the mechanics of defence he can hit the defence cap while doing massive damage through Fury.
Tank wants more damage so pops a red or two and has a moderate damage increase.
In this scenariio against most mobs, the Brute would plough through them much faster than the Tank without risk.
So basically, insperations are weighted more towards survivability than damage and aid Brutes more than Tanks when trying to acheive the same goals.
In a team on SO's/IO's
With buffs and the same Defence (same for all)/Resistance caps
Both can hit the similar levels of survibility, add in a Kin and both can hit their damage cap.
Result, both have extreme survivability but the Brute is doing much more damage.
Solo on IO's - high end build.
Both are extremely survivable but the Brute's damage is far higher.
As you've stated under these circumstances the Brute won't be able to match the Tanks survivability and I agree. As people have stated before though it's survable enough and when you take into account the kill speed it doesn't have to be as survivable because the mobs are taken down much more quickly.
One of the big advantages that Tanks get is the higher base values however this is pretty much negated by the pve and pvp +defence IO uniques. Hitting the defense cap is the most chased survivability aim of melee AT's - with these around the higher base defense is pretty much irrelevent.
As an example one of my mains is a SD/SS Tanker, I hit the Defence cap easily and then went for recharge to gain extra damage. I've seen SS/SD Brutes using the two unique IO's that have nearly as much recharge as my Tank due to the diminishing returns. This is one example but it will exist in other builds.
On a team with IO's - high end build.
Lots of buffs for both, Brute hits the Tank Res cap while dealing massive damage, Tank hits caps and does alot less damage because the damage cap is lower.
Incarnate trials
As above both at the def/res caps and the Brute deals alot more damage.
Personally I think that the damage Cap needs to be raised on the Tank so that on teams with buffs, it at least has ability to get in the same ballpark as Brutes.
I also believe that the resistance cap of Brutes should be brought down to 5% above those of Scrappers. Defense is their secondary I can see no justification for it to be so high considering the disparity in damage that they can output without buffs. -
Is it possible to add splash damage to all Tank ST attacks?
This would give Tanks more AoE damage, thus increase Tank damage without treading on the toes of other Melee alts in ST damage? -
Quote:On a side note - how the hell did Colossus rip off his leg if he has an indestructible Adamantium skeleton ? It's been a while but has something changed?Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
What do you hope to accomplish with this? Tankers do not lack in survivability. Giving them more than they have now doesn't help them because what they have now is already often superfluous. Especially compared to Scrappers and Brutes who get along fine with less, still don't faceplant in the vast majority of the game's content, and aren't heavily penalized for damage and damage potental like Tankers are.
I suggested this, half as a joke and half seriously, in another thread. Give Tankers a click that takes any Absorb on them and dumps it into bonus damage a la Doublehit. With the upcoming Tanker +Absorb ATO and say, a new magical power pool that has a +Absorb click, this could be put to good use on a Tanker, as opposed to more superfluous survivability they don't need.
From the little bit of testing with the Control Hybrid in beta when it had a similar 'Scourge' like attack, I can say this idea doesn't seem to work well in practice on a Tanker. It didn't get a chance to work on lesser enemies like Minions, and didn't make enough of a noticeable effect on harder enemies like Bosses and EBs because it didn't DO anything until you already got their health down half way with your weak attacks.
IMO, the only reason it works for Corruptors is because they have a buff/debuff secondary (and usually more AoE) that synergies with it.
I doubt this would happen. The devs want some mezzes to mez everyone.
No.
Tankers already protect the team by holding aggro. They already buff the damage of anyone attacking the same target as them with Bruising.
Tankers do enough for teams already and pull far more than their own weight. Teams should do more for Tankers, IMO.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the reason some people want Bodyguard is so they can farm with their Tanker and PL their dual boxed squishy and keep it alive and on follow with debuffs on cycle.
You bring up a Tanker/Scrapper duo. If a Tanker stands next to a Scrapper, the Scrapper is not only safer, but it does more damage. What does the Tanker get from standing next to a Scrapper? Nothing. Scrappers contribute the damage they do, but they don't make the Tanker's damage any better. Combined, the duo's damage goes up, but Tankers aren't any more damaging. That would be as if Tankers had their superior survivability but didn't pull aggro; sure the overall duo toughness goes up, but Scrappers wouldn't be safer.
In other words, usually Tankers do more for other than others do for them and contribute more to a team than Scrapper (or Brutes), yet are punished for it with crap damage.
Also, I need to point out that Colossus (the Tanker in your words) does way more damage than Wolverine, and usually tears him apart when they fight:
That's why comic book Tankers draw so much attention (aggro) from the enemies; because they're powerhouses and the serious threat. CoH Tankers aren't a serious threat, they're low damage rodeo clowns.
. -
Quote:You say "you guys" as if people that play tanks....only play Tanks - they don't!! Personaly I play all alts and from reading the forums that's true of the majority of people discussing this topic.Originally Posted by planet_J
I have played this game since 2005-2006...to my recollection Scrapper resist caps were never more than 75% since I started. Tanks don't need brutes adjusted down...they need a tune up and a new transmission.
You guys act like these caps are an enormous factor and brutes live it rolling at everything hardcapped...they don't.
If anything you guys do more of that than anybody...so get it bumped
The problem is - all alts should be gauged relative to others, this is quite easy for melee AT's as surviability and damage is based around the same mechanics.
The more survivability an AT has the less damage it should do, inversely the more damage it does the less survivable it should be.
Outside of Brutes IMO this pretty much holds true but when you have:
People playing Brutes (over Tanks) because they are nearly as survivable as Tanks but have alot more damage.
People rerolling Scrappers into Brutes (experienced players such as Werner) for the extra survivability and taunt aura (better ability to leverage damage) while doing similar damage then you have a problem.
IMO the Tank damage cap needs to be raised slightly - still some way below Brutes. Brutes resistance cap needs to be lowered to 5% above Scrappers; damage is after all their primary and defence their secondary. I also believe that their damage cap should be reduced slightly.
They are supposed to be Tank/Scrapper hybrids not as good as either at what they do but good performers at both surviving and damage - IMO at this point in time they are too good at both. -
Quote:I'm sure that there are a lot of farmers who would be more than happy to level up a Werner AT. Move the IO's from Scrapper to Brute and your left only with Incarnates. You'll be there in no time!Originally Posted by Werner
I was playing around with tier 3 Melee Partial Core and Melee Partial Radial, and I definitely want my Melee Partial Radial back for normal play, because I really hate runners. I just felt that Core offered a lot more for pure survivability when seriously debuffed, so that's where I went with my tier 4. And yeah, Brute is then the best of both worlds, taunt and Core, with other survivability benefits as well. I'm not sure I'll make the switch, though, because at my rate it would be a year before the Brute was all kitted out, and by then, maybe the Scrapper would be a better overall package.
Cloak of Fear appears to be mag 2 in Mids' for both Scrappers and Brutes. -
Quote:As the level of the mob goes up Plant may well outdamage Fire due to how confusion works.Originally Posted by Local_Man
1. Fire Control (probably not much debate here). Hot Feet adds up to a lot of damage, and the secondary effect is more damage. Plus three crazy imps who do a lot of melee damage.
2. Plant Control (This one is pretty set, too). AoE Confuse + AoE damage from Roots and Creepers, plus a pet with decent damage.
If playing against even level mobs Fire will/should outdamage Plant but against +4 mobs Fire will be less efficient due to the level difference and damage being direct. Plant will still be effective due to the confused mobs being the same con to each other. Obviously you would get diminishing returns on XP but that isn't the discussion topic. -
Quote:Shield.Originally Posted by Kangstor
Well for SR, I said a little more recharge reduction or a little bit regen but quiet frankly I would be satisfied with practice brawler being a toggle instead of a click. I can alreadydouble stack it and it is already on auto power and I think anyone gets SO's can get it on perma if not sooner so from that side making a toggle is not agame breaking thing however if it becomes a toggle I can finally free my auto-power for hasten or something else. I know it is probably very selfish but other than SR I don't know any secondary that gets mez protection that is not a toggle(or passive in some cases)