Starsman

It is resistible, but it ignores purple patch. Reason it ignores the purple patch is because it is a granted temp power that makes the target debuff himself, making the target (the critter himself) technically even level.

If the foe has resistance, though, the debuff will be resisted.

Keep in mind, though, that even when the foe has resistance you are still boosting your damage by 20%.

Quick example:

foe with 90% smashing resistance

A punch that does 100 points of damage will now do 10 points of damage.

The resistance will make the -resist -2%, making the foe 88% resist.

At this point the 100 point punch becomes 12 points, a 20% increase to what it would be without Bruise.

This is why I say it's a flat 20%* damage buff despite level.

*Attack chain changes can make the true impact of the buff less than 20%. In some early testing the worse situation still yield a 12% buff.

The one really good thing about the Bruise effect is that it ignores the purple patch, meaning it's always a 20% damage boost. This aporach would make the stackable segment be subject to purple patch degradation.

The max debuff I'd give a team of 8 tankers would be 60%. Anything after that may be "too much." I guess if the 5% stack-able was on top of the 20% instead of a portion of it, it would work nice (20% + 5%*8 = 60%)

Actually, perhaps if the T1 added this strong bruise, and every other tanker attack landed a -5% for CastTime + 1 seconds...

There is a "curve" change (the curve always existed it just kicked in at 90%.) The first chunk of fury may be faster to get (specifically, the fisrt 40-50%) but after this it starts to get slow to get past 60% (the point brutes tie up with scrappers in damage.) Given they will want to get there as fast as possible, they will still desire aggro for longer.

In fact, the reason some people argue against improving tank aggro management in the beta forums (and the slip in this thread) is that brutes don't want the tanker stealing the possibility of them retaining as much aggro as they want without any effort (they seem to accept tankers using taunt to do it but they refuse to use taunt to get aggro off gauntlet.)

I honestly don't blame them, because fury generation from offense technically caps lower than fury generation from tanking.

Brutes were also changed. They need much more time to build up fury, meaning an alpha is no longer enough.

You could cap it but you would also have to prevent the tank from being able to use bruise again until the previous bruise expired. So let's say Bruise lands, you could not bruise a secondary target for another 10 seconds.

This would open the doors to set a cap of, lets say, 3 stacks of bruise. Anything higher than 3 stacks would fall into the "way too much" territory.

Now, if all tankers would have bonus damage against bruised foes, making a second tanker take extra advantage of another tanker's bruise... that would be a more controlled way of "stacking tanks."

It is a buff, yes. It's not enough to compensate for the introduction of Brutes to the everyday hero life.

Also:
They are POTENTIALLY. That HP buff is very situational in benefit and just makes sure a brute with a lot of ice corruptions buffing him can not be stronger than a tanker in the same condition (and also helps tankers who are hitting the HP cap too easily at high levels.)


20% is not that strong of a force multiplier, specially on a single target base.

Let's assume a tanker can keep bruise 100% of the time in a foe, so every single hit by his allies is amplified by a full 20%, and no one ever hits an unbruised foe (this means just pure ST fights and the tanker always being the first to hit and not miss.)

To keep things simple, lets imagine a team of one tank and all scrappers, compared to pure scrappers (we could do the same with blasters or any other AT but I picked scrapers just for simplicity)

So with 7 other DPS you could bring up to about 15% extra ST damage, if everyone is attacking your same target. Lot's of if, impossible lots of if. This can just go down to AV fights.

If there are brutes in the fight, unless you spam taunt (and pray none of the brutes is doing it too), you will not hold aggro from the brutes, so you are there just dpsing and bruising. Would you consider, 15% more dps during AV fights, reason enough to make tankers better support ATs than:

Controllers
Dominators
Defenders
Masterminds
Corruptors

Specially since almost all of the above (exception being dominators, who can push a lot of damage) can bring insanely stronger damage buffing to the team?

Bruising is good, I wont deny it. But it wont make you even the second best option support AT. If it applied to all Gauntlet effects, making it AoE, then perhaps things would be different, but it seems the devs intentionally don't want this (not to mention it would amplify FURTHER the redundancy of a second tanker.)

The presence of a Brute make tankers role unreliable, and I don't think this will change based on this quote:

[that was in response of a long chain of posts about Taunt being mandatory to taunt for Brutes that wanted the tank to tank for them]

So the fact that brutes will steal aggro constantly from tanks seems to be "meant to be."

Off course, when Controllers cant be 100% effective at Crowd Control they still can be insane power multipliers thanks to their buffing secondaries that have no stacking restrictions, but that's a point for another to argue.

Oh but all this goes to this:

Not all brutes are IOd to the gills. Tankers are meant to support the team by using his extremely high survivability to soak in the damage. Villain side, brutes have 3 ATs babysitting them: Corruptors, Masterminds and Dominators. Without this babysitting, brutes end up not being able to survive all they take in, and the tank can't provide this support for them. 4 of the alternative support options(Corruptors, Masterminds, Controllers and Defenders) can make the brute into a tank replacement.

Finally: If tankers are only meant to protect the "squishies" (and I heavily disagree with the point,) then you are further narrowing it's team utility to a point where the tanker is even less useful of a support AT, making tankers even less useful for a team that is not composed of pure blasters.

Edit to add:
I already posted a lot on this, I have nothing new to say. Just posting my opinion in the open forums. You disagree? Then enjoy the game.

This.

My short but strong list of tanker issues until today:

1. Gauntlet does not grant too much benefit solo (i never agreed much with it)
2. Tanker, at least solo, is meant to leverage slow killing by surviving longer, but pays the same endurance for less damage than any other AT (except defenders) making it not realistic to honestly "last longer" fighting.
3. After you have the first tank, the second tank is arguably the lest optimal choice you can get on any team. A second tank is to be picked only under the following conditions:
   1. Nothing else lfg and need to fill
   2. Buddy wants team
   3. First tanker just refuses to tank and dont want to kick him.

With Going Rogue and Bruise this gets slightly modified.

Item 1 gets removed as now solo, gauntlet does something.

Item 2 also improves. Solo endurance issues, get alleviated (at tops, this sort of increases endurance efficiency by up to 20% in single target)

3 does not change.

A new item gets added: Brutes are now hero side. Their fury generation heavily favors grabbing aggro, making tankers in a team wit a brute counter-productive.

In addition to that the brute gets to generate more hate than the tanker (taunt duration [same for both] * threat mod [same for both] * damage [much higher for brute]) meaning a tanker can only provide tanking service for a brute if the tanker spams taunt and the brute never uses taunt. This means brutes are nearly immune to the benefits of having a tanker in the team, while at the same time any other support AT (all of them buffers) can turn the brute in a tank. Brutes are a popular AT and in many teams the tanker will be considered the worse support AT to pick and the worse dps at to pick.

In theory you could argue that a tanker at least can bring Bruise, but a small calculation of team sizes show that in no case is the buff enough to make the entire team do more damage than replacing the tanker with any other AT. Much less when you consider Bruise is Single Target.

All this rolls up in one new item:

1. Due to Brute incompatibility, Tankers are now the worse support AT and the worse DPS AT with only survivability as a selling point.

For one its definitively made to help more with players that are not boosted with recharge to the hills, nothing in this game should be balanced around such builds, anyways. Second, any set that's not claws will be happy to shave a few more seconds off Build Up.


First off, I said it would only work while hidden, it would suppress in combat. It's more about adding the stalker more mobility while hidden. If solo their biggest pro is being able to get to the end boss faster and finish the mission quickly, may as well make sure they can do this faster than anyone other AT with Stealth (unless they have super speed and stealth.)


That may kill more teammates than you may think. Imagine: team dependent on tank to keep them save. The stalker placate, removes everyone from hate list, even tank. Next clock cycle the critters see random players and attack whoever they see first.

Placate could become a cone, but it will never become a PBAoE. For one, the animation does not fit a PBAoE. Second, such a thing would intrude with Ninjitsu's gimmick of having a PBAoE placate effect on a high recharge timer.

That would be an insane boost in burst damage.

100% enhancement is not 100% bonus to movement. It would just make the buff from powers like sprint give twice their base boost. Example numbers just for example purposes (not real numbers)

Base speed being 3x per minute.
Sprint adds 4x per minute
Total of 7 x per minute.
With 100% enhancement from Hide you make 12x per minute.

Says some one who's post history shows enough posts during weekdays, from 6 to 5, to get him in trouble with most companies that do these kind of scrubbing.

Even if you used Lunch Hour as an excuse (note: you have many posts spanning outside of any realistic "lunch hour") I highly doubt you are in the minority that lives close enough to work to go there for lunch, catch up with the forums and comes back to the office, therefore you are still using company resources to access the internet. I could be wrong, you could work extremely odd hours, but that would almost take you out of the entire "standard desk job" category I was talking about.

Heck, if these where Blizzard's RealID forums and I was a troll, and y ou happened to have a realistically easy to track name, I could end up sending your employer a list of all the posts you been making during work hours (you can be sure we can get that info to make a reliable report.) Only the most family-like workplaces would ignore such a report, if presented properly.

That brings to mind, if more companies follow suit I could make my own reporting startup company selling this information to employers! Hmmmm

That is indeed an interesting story. Although to a point I can see the guy preventing that one, unless he was ignorant about the "friend of friend of friend being able to see your name" with the RealID feature. I know I didn't know that until yesterday either. Fortunately in game I just keep a real life friend hooked in RealID and he only has me in his list too.

Perhaps you dont really have a clue what it is to work at an office. There is no desk job that is hecktic enough to keep you working every minute of the day. There is a lot of iddle time across the month. A lot of salary workers are paid of the idea that they are expected to complete tasks when needed, not because they are expected to grind their butts.

Additionally, mental exhaustion has been found to be worse for an employee than physical exhaustion. It is expected for most of these employees to chill out a bit.

As one of the IT guys I can assure you: EVERYONE, WITHOUT EXCEPTION does this. The issue is, execs don't really think much along those lines. Companies have taken the policy to snoop around the web for your footsteps. Even if your manager is perfectly fine with you browsing the web 80% of the time (yes, there are positions that are so important that we pay them salary to be there 100% of the time, only so they are at hand when needed even if this is just 20% of the time.) Do you expect a full time receptionist to just sit there reading magazines all day long if there is no one to attend to? Our receptionists are idle about 90% of the time. We just need them there for that 10% of the time when some one calls in or a package arrives, or some one may show up for a meeting or interview.

It wont matter at the end how legitimate or even how manager approved the use of the internet at work is, though. I am still to see a single contract that does not clearly specify the use of any network resources for not business use to be strictly forbidden, and an employer will use this against you.

Many companies have actually gotten in trouble for this, at the lesser case they have been received public degradation, but the repercussions have not been drastic enough for them to stop doing it. Many execs think they are doing "the right thing."

Also keep in mind, not only is too much online activity linked to your name during work hours that can get you in trouble. Co-relating your name to company bashing of any kind can also get you into disciplinary action. This can be things as simple as you saying "i hate my job." (One of the queries that is specifically looked for, btw.)

I'll stop here though, because truth be told, if you honestly think the way you post, you have zero experience in a job that sets you in front of a computer for 8 hours nearly without any human interaction.

Wow... didnt know about that....

It all depends what AT you play and what you are looking for in the power.

In the hands of a tanker, who is best at self protection, Combat Jumping offers 2.5 defense at .07 endurance. That's 0.028 end per delivered defense point.


Maneuvers, though, will yield the tanker 2.275 defense for .39 endurance. A Hefty .171 endurance per defense point delivered. However, if the tanker is in a full team, you multiply that by 8, at this point Maneuvers is delivering 18.2 defense (distributed through the team) for .39 end. That's .021 defense per endurance used. That's actually darn frigging efficient, once the power does what it was intended to do: buff teams.

If you are a defender, things get even better. The defender yields 3.5 defense to each user. Once you apply that to 8 teammates, we talking about 28 total defense for .39 end per second, or .014 endurance per delivered defense point.

Closing point: Maneuvers is very well balanced as long as you use it for what it was designed for: buff groups.

Here are the most recent charts I made:

50%
250%


The charts where they were at spot 7 must be an older one where I had all sets regardless whether they were available for scrappers or not. I intentionally round my results to 1 decimal point now because I don't like people quoting a set is lower than another just for a .001 difference that is on itself just a "ballpark" estimate.


Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, as I have not been keeping up a lot with the thread, but not all things are supposed to be the same. There is no magic formula to balance all aspects of the game, just rules to attempt certain things to get out of hand (like damage.)

To maintain fury, you need to maintain combat. You cant just jump without aggroing anything and without anything being aware of you with full fury.

From this point on, refer to the stalker notes that I have made twice already.

Since the topic actually makes more sense from tankers to scrappers, how does perma Blinding Feint affect the tanker/scrapper correlation? 6% (X * 1.46) instead of 10% (X * 1.50). You may find a trivial issue, however DB was designed, for some crazy reason (balance perhaps?) to be lower ST dps even with this tool. Same goes for claws.

Oh and for the sake of it, if you go into double stacked rage, then you jump into X * 1.56 instead of X * 1.50.

The statement: "if it's balance in one AT it's balanced on all" stays narrow minded.

Look at Fiery Melee. Set that is available for all 3 ATs. Look at the differences between ATs. Look at the differences in powers and numbers. You will see how the devs do draw lines and they alter sets for different ATs just to make sure the new user is not broken, because something IS considered OK for one AT but not the other.

I got to say I almost replied with the same lien as Umbral did.

As for the shared set, if you mean FA, that set is under-performing on all ATs, at least since the arrival of Shields.

False and narrow minded statement.

The devs can be confortable with a player doing 435 damage at level 50 (interestingly just 5 more damage than a minion), but not comfortable with giving any player a power that does 657 damage (what a non-crit KoB with rage would do for a scrapper.)

Just because some rules apply to one AT does not mean they should apply to all ATs. The only thing you can argue is about sustained DPS, in theory, if a tanker is allowed to do X dps then a scrapper should be expected to do
X * 1.4 dps (before criticals), since that is the currently defined correlation between tankers and scrappers .

Note this would not be the case with SS. SS is expected to have perma rage, that means a direct port would be X * 1.5 due to the self-damage modifier. That alone breaks the correlation between scrapper and tanker and is enough reason to review the port.

Modifiers are not the only tool that the devs use to do cross-AT balance, it just happens to be the most used one. They have many other criteria that dictate what is OK for one AT and wrong for another (like forbidding heavy sustained AoE for stalkers.)

Now, the devs can rewrite this tomorrow and suddenly say "you know what? to hell with it, I want a scrapper that will hit for 1000 HP at level 50!" But up to this date, they have obviously shied away from it.

If this was what my statement implied I would also argue critical damage surpassing it. However there is a difference: fury and double stacked rage (between other factors) are not permanent factors. You cant be 100% sure that your fury will be at X level exactly when you want it (unless you conveniently want it when you already see it's there, after long enough combat has taken it there.) You cant just furry up and jump in a spawn, for instance, and that's the realm of stalker intrusion I specifically mentioned.

Read above: you cant control when a critical goes out.

Werner, not sure if you forgetting that scrappers have 25% stronger damage buffs. This means a direct port of Rage to scrappers would yield a constant 100% buff, not 80%.