[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ChaosString:
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I reach 90% all the time during missions, and exceed it during some types of encounters
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't "exceed" 90% Fury, I think at best Fury caps out at 95% (I actually believe it's 90%) due to either a "bug" or design. So you're not going to "exceed" 90% Fury hardly ever, IF ever for that matter.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, you do. You just don't get Fury from attacking if you're over 90%. You have to get it from being attacked which, if you're on a team, isn't a difficult thing to do unless you're */Energy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hence, "during some types of encounters."
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ChaosString:
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I reach 90% all the time during missions, and exceed it during some types of encounters
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't "exceed" 90% Fury, I think at best Fury caps out at 95% (I actually believe it's 90%) due to either a "bug" or design. So you're not going to "exceed" 90% Fury hardly ever, IF ever for that matter.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, you do. You just don't get Fury from attacking if you're over 90%. You have to get it from being attacked which, if you're on a team, isn't a difficult thing to do unless you're */Energy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hence, "during some types of encounters."
[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, it can be done, but it's extremely rare...and I don't think that "extremely rare" counts as a "balance issue" by any stretch.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm beginning to seriously doubt the belief that the two different types of DR debuff procs stack.
[/ QUOTE ]
They stack.
You're just doing it wrong, Bill. 
Scrappers may crit 5 times in a row too.
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly man, you're really showing your "bias" here, and it's coming off as alot of crying.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it's exasperation at a vast majority of the player base being incapable of seeing what is mathematically apparent! I've shown repeatedly that Brutes are numerically superior to Scrappers thanks to everything they've got. The fact that I find that imbalancing makes sense to me.
[ QUOTE ]
The reasons as to "why" Brutes may be able to reach higher damage levels than Scrappers do not, in any way, un-balance them to Scrappers, simply due to the truth that SO MANY factors are required for that to happen...AND they CANNOT be done solo and DO require a TEAM to achieve, as well as constant monitoring (Fury drops below a certain level and there goes that damage). Per the Dev's, needing "multiple" team-mates to be able to achieve certain performance levels is in not any way "un-balanced."
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the big factor is that, in order to achieve their absolute peak performance they may need this. However, given the same buffs as a Scrapper, the Brute will be more survivable and, except for a very specific range of +dam buffs, will do more damage than the Scrapper. They may need multiple teammates to achieve their absolute peak performance, but so do Scrappers.
The other point is that we're arguing about caps, which are a team exclusive point of contention (unless we bring in greater performance of tier 9 powers and inspiration use). As it stands, Brutes have more to gain from everything simply because they have better caps for damage (and a better potential scalar to go along with it) and better baseline and cap survivability. That's not parity. That's broken.
[ QUOTE ]
Grant a Scrapper the same type of "buffs/debuffs" and thier performance level damage wise will be just about as good and they'll be "un-killable" as well...so I don't see what the problem is...other than you are upset (or jealous?) that another melee AT can reach your Scrapper's potential with effort.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, that's where you're wrong. We've done the math. Even assuming that they have the same damage and mitigation values (a stretch, considering how easy it is to push resist based Scrappers above their resist caps with the +res shields), a Brute still wins out on survivability because they have more hit points.
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see a problem with a Brute (who uses many IO's and teams) being able to perform at levels comparable to a Scrapper with the same types of buffs. That's fine game balance imho. Teaming should never be nerfed.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't either if they actually performed at the same level. The problem is that they don't. Brutes perform better. They achieve similar levels of average damage and higher levels of peak damage all the while maintaining significantly higher survivability.
[ QUOTE ]
I suppose next we should nerf the abilities that a "full" Corruptor team can achieve right? A full, well built, IO'd Corruptor team can achieve things that most AT's can only dream about. Defender teams can too.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's simply an illustration of the power of stacking force multipliers. That's a simple issue with how the game operates (and we're getting into the realm of buff v. straight effect balancing, which is a whole different argument). You're comparing a straight attack/defense AT comparison (Scrapper to Brute) to a hyper optimized buff/debuff team comparison. They're only marginally related.
Let me make it simple for you: the big thing that you (and many others that want to use anecdotal evidence in balance considerations) seem to be ignoring is that, while the Brute and Scrapper do similar levels of damage across all +dam values (Scrappers win at "moderate" levels, Brutes at "low" and "high" levels) but Brutes are always harder to kill because they can take full advantage of tier 9s and have higher base and cap hp. Any argument that they've got the same survivability as a Scrapper because they have the same self protection modifiers is blatantly untrue because Brutes have a larger pool of hit points to work with in all situations which increases the effect of their heals and regeneration and requires 12.5% more damage to penetrate their mitigation before it actually kills them.
That's not balance. That's a definite imbalance. Damage roughly equal. Survivability obviously imbalanced in the favor of Brutes. Learn to pay some [censored] attention to the game mechanics and the numbers before you accuse me of generating conclusions based solely on an unimportant bias.
[ QUOTE ]
That's not balance. That's a definite imbalance. Damage roughly equal. Survivability obviously imbalanced in the favor of Brutes. Learn to pay some [censored] attention to the game mechanics and the numbers before you accuse me of generating conclusions based solely on an unimportant bias.
[/ QUOTE ]
And again, here you are getting extremely passionate about your anger over Brutes, once again showing your bias, and once again I'm not seeing this "severe imbalance" that you so cry about.
Maybe cry less? Dunno..you sound pretty heated. A hug maybe?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not balance. That's a definite imbalance. Damage roughly equal. Survivability obviously imbalanced in the favor of Brutes. Learn to pay some [censored] attention to the game mechanics and the numbers before you accuse me of generating conclusions based solely on an unimportant bias.
[/ QUOTE ]
And again, here you are getting extremely passionate about your anger over Brutes, once again showing your bias, and once again I'm not seeing this "severe imbalance" that you so cry about.
Maybe cry less? Dunno..you sound pretty heated. A hug maybe?
[/ QUOTE ]
How about you actually look at the survivability disparity and realize that you're wrong?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not balance. That's a definite imbalance. Damage roughly equal. Survivability obviously imbalanced in the favor of Brutes. Learn to pay some [censored] attention to the game mechanics and the numbers before you accuse me of generating conclusions based solely on an unimportant bias.
[/ QUOTE ]
And again, here you are getting extremely passionate about your anger over Brutes, once again showing your bias, and once again I'm not seeing this "severe imbalance" that you so cry about.
Maybe cry less? Dunno..you sound pretty heated. A hug maybe?
[/ QUOTE ]
How about you actually look at the survivability disparity and realize that you're wrong?
[/ QUOTE ]
I realize that Brute's have greater survivability "possibilities" yes. But what you seem to imply is that Brutes come out of the box spitting 850% +dmg buffed fireballs from hell 110% of the time without fail...which is so far from the truth it hurts my sides from laughter. The "case-by-case" scenarios, un-predictability of damage ratios and team/buffs, as well as basic un-predicatability of how any given mob will respond is why Brutes are balanced with what they have. During ultimate-optimal-sweetass conditions, they can perform better than Scrappers, sure, but that's such a circumstantial event that it's not something we can "count on" for average play. So when are "you" going to realize that you are wrong and just angry?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about you actually look at the survivability disparity and realize that you're wrong?
[/ QUOTE ]
I realize that Brute's have greater survivability "possibilities" yes. But what you seem to imply is that Brutes come out of the box spitting 850% +dmg buffed fireballs from hell 110% of the time without fail...which is so far from the truth it hurts my sides from laughter. The "case-by-case" scenarios, un-predictability of damage ratios and team/buffs, as well as basic un-predicatability of how any given mob will respond is why Brutes are balanced with what they have. During ultimate-optimal-sweetass conditions, they can perform better than Scrappers, sure, but that's such a circumstantial event that it's not something we can "count on" for average play. So when are "you" going to realize that you are wrong and just angry?
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, they outperform Scrappers concerning damage at 750% +dam. They constantly outperform Scrappers on survivability thanks to a higher base hp, which can't be accounted for anywhere for Scrappers.
Nice try with the absurd hyperbole though. Next time, try to actually get some real, verifiable information to support your outrageous hypothesis, especially since you're arguing with a plethora of other information that's already present.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not balance. That's a definite imbalance. Damage roughly equal. Survivability obviously imbalanced in the favor of Brutes. Learn to pay some [censored] attention to the game mechanics and the numbers before you accuse me of generating conclusions based solely on an unimportant bias.
[/ QUOTE ]
And again, here you are getting extremely passionate about your anger over Brutes, once again showing your bias, and once again I'm not seeing this "severe imbalance" that you so cry about.
Maybe cry less? Dunno..you sound pretty heated. A hug maybe?
[/ QUOTE ]
How about you actually look at the survivability disparity and realize that you're wrong?
[/ QUOTE ]
I realize that Brute's have greater survivability "possibilities" yes. But what you seem to imply is that Brutes come out of the box spitting 850% +dmg buffed fireballs from hell 110% of the time without fail...which is so far from the truth it hurts my sides from laughter. The "case-by-case" scenarios, un-predictability of damage ratios and team/buffs, as well as basic un-predicatability of how any given mob will respond is why Brutes are balanced with what they have. During ultimate-optimal-sweetass conditions, they can perform better than Scrappers, sure, but that's such a circumstantial event that it's not something we can "count on" for average play. So when are "you" going to realize that you are wrong and just angry?
[/ QUOTE ]
By your logic from this post and posts before it, you're saying there's nothing wrong with the fact that Brutes can attain similar or better damage than Scrappers and better defense than Scrappers, because it requires support (read: buffing) to do so.
So by that logic, if nothing but Scrapper's maximum Resistance values, HP, and Damage cap were raised, you would have no problem with it? Because after all, Scrappers, without buffs, aren't being changed at all. They're just being made to be able to be buffed in a way that equals Brutes.
So there's no problem with that, right? You wouldn't care or think it's wrong to do so?
I cannot believe I am doing this but on this point I have to agree with Umbral.
I have played both scrappers and brutes of all shapes and sizes and brutes are more survivable even at lvl 1 just because of the added HP.
As far as damage goes, scrappers will do better in teams for damage than brutes. I have found that even with a kin on the team, it is rare for me to see they +damage stat cap out on my brutes. With a Kin on teams with my scrappers I see it all the time.
[ QUOTE ]
As far as damage goes, scrappers will do better in teams for damage than brutes. I have found that even with a kin on the team, it is rare for me to see they +damage stat cap out on my brutes. With a Kin on teams with my scrappers I see it all the time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that the listed +dam on Combat Attributes doesn't actually include +dam from slotting. If you've slotted for 95% +dam in your attacks, you only need to attain 305% +dam on a Scrapper and 655% +dam on a Brute.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm beginning to seriously doubt the belief that the two different types of DR debuff procs stack.
[/ QUOTE ]
They stack.
You're just doing it wrong, Bill.
[/ QUOTE ]
Huh. Maybe both parties are right in this case?
What I'm thinking is that Bill had to have both of the procs in Slash (since it's the only Claws attack with -Def), while your BS build may have had them in two different powers. One in Hack and one in Slash for example. If that's correct, maybe the procs only work when slotted in seperate powers. This would hurt our theorycrafting of Claws quite a bit.
Hardly ever gets over +600 on my SS/WP brute with FS, with double rage and a nearly full fury bar. It just aint easy to get that much + damage. On the other hand in that same situation the FS would take the scrapper to the cap and they would be doing more damage.
[ QUOTE ]
What I'm thinking is that Bill had to have both of the procs in Slash (since it's the only Claws attack with -Def), while your BS build may have had them in two different powers. One in Hack and one in Slash for example. If that's correct, maybe the procs only work when slotted in seperate powers. This would hurt our theorycrafting of Claws quite a bit.
[/ QUOTE ]
Achilles' Heel is a Def Debuff IO. The Fury of the Gladiator proc is a PbAoE IO. There is no power available to Claws that can slot them both. The BS build however can slot them both in the same attack because both Headsplitter and Slice accept Def Debuff and PbAoE sets.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I'm thinking is that Bill had to have both of the procs in Slash (since it's the only Claws attack with -Def), while your BS build may have had them in two different powers. One in Hack and one in Slash for example. If that's correct, maybe the procs only work when slotted in seperate powers. This would hurt our theorycrafting of Claws quite a bit.
[/ QUOTE ]
Achilles' Heel is a Def Debuff IO. The Fury of the Gladiator proc is a PbAoE IO. There is no power available to Claws that can slot them both. The BS build however can slot them both in the same attack because both Headsplitter and Slice accept Def Debuff and PbAoE sets.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, that's what I get for not looking into the new IOs very well. >_> I'll blame the lack of a Mids' update.
[ QUOTE ]
So by that logic, if nothing but Scrapper's maximum Resistance values, HP, and Damage cap were raised, you would have no problem with it? Because after all, Scrappers, without buffs, aren't being changed at all. They're just being made to be able to be buffed in a way that equals Brutes.
So there's no problem with that, right? You wouldn't care or think it's wrong to do so?
[/ QUOTE ]
Stolid, I have been pushing for Scrapper resistance caps and HP caps to be "raised" to Tanker (and now Brute cap) values for as long as I can remember. I have always thought that a Scrapper should have the "ability" to attain those levels of survivability, given a "teaming" environment rich in buffs.
So no, I really wouldn't have any huge quarrels with that. However, even after all of that, the fact of the matter remains that while a Scrapper's damage is quite steady, predictable, un-wavered by aggro/or attacking, and even dependable, a Brutes is not, which is suppose to be the "balance" for this case and their ability to "attain" Tanker level caps (either via a couple team-buffs or for a short while with a Tier9).
That said, allowing Scrappers to have the ability to reach Tanker level res/hp caps, means that they would now "severely" outperform Brutes in EVERY WAY possible, in that their damage is "non-dependant" on any factors outside of basic "resistance/debuff" factors which everyone has to deal with anyways, Brute or Scrapper. So essentially, you'd have a 100% of the time damage capped Brute equivalent of a Scrapper running around with Tanker level resistances/hp at all times given he has 2-3 defenders buffing him and that's all it'd take.
It's not quite that simple for the Brute. The Brute would need 2-3 buffers shielding him in order for him to cap all resistances outside of his tier9, along with full fury which also means proper/perfect aggro management on a team, along with +dmg buffers in order for him to reach his cap. If the +dmg buffers are Kins then his +dmg buffs will be very dependant on exactly "how big" a spawn is for how much +dmg he recieves, and being hit by all FS's in order to "cap" his damage can become tricky at times (but not always of course).
As one can see...there are ALOT more clauses for the Brute to deal with in order to maintain his most ultimate level of performance than the Scrapper. The Scrapper with the same res/hp caps could simply have 2-3 buffers buff him to the cap, and then just flip out and go crazy right out the gate, which as I explained above is not the case with the Brute.
Again, though, I could honeslty care less if Scrappers got their res/hp caps raised. I've wanted the +res caps on Scrappers to be at least 80-85% for the longest time...
Your answer is: Why no, I would have no problem with it.
.. BUT..
.. Of course, I have no problem with it.
You can see where it falls apart, right?
If Brutes and Scrappers have the same secondary set numbers (which they do, to my knowledge), it means they take the same amount of buffing to reach their respective caps (ignoring HP capping here, because that's both uncommon to do, and largely irrelevant considering the closeness of their base HP's, which would mean it'd basically take the same amount anyway).
You're trying to say that because Scrappers are blueside (able to team with Defenders), it's not the same as with Brutes. .. Because they can't team with Defenders.. what does that have to do with Scrappers, again? I think it's an unfair comparison to make between the sets, mainly because you're then quantifying things based on the support they're receiving.
It shouldn't be about prevalence, but about maximums--after all, we *are* talking about ideal conditions and maximum potential of Scrappers and Brutes. Trying to say it's more 'okay' for Brutes to have a cap than it is for Scrappers because they don't have Defenders is ignoring the focus of the discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
As one can see...there are ALOT more clauses for the Brute to deal with in order to maintain his most ultimate level of performance than the Scrapper. The Scrapper with the same res/hp caps could simply have 2-3 buffers buff him to the cap, and then just flip out and go crazy right out the gate, which as I explained above is not the case with the Brute.
[/ QUOTE ]
If by clauses, you mean there's a lot more potential buffing able to be done to them than Scrappers, then yes, you're right. Of course, if we raise Scrapper caps to the same levels, then that's not true, soo...
[ QUOTE ]
It shouldn't be about prevalence, but about maximums--after all, we *are* talking about ideal conditions and maximum potential of Scrappers and Brutes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ideal conditions and maximum potentials don't, and shouldn't, inform the balance between ATs.
This is why the comparison here looks so slanted in favor of Brutes--we're only comparing peak performance of Scrappers vs. Brutes. And in that case, yes, Brutes are clearly better. One might say that when pegging out at full Fury, a Brute is just like a scrapper, but superior in every way.
But Brutes' baseline performance is clearly worse than that of a Tanker. Lower damage multiplier, fewer hit points, lower resists. One might say that at zero Fury, a Brute is just like a Tanker, but inferior in every way.
In practice, of course, a Brute is going to spend most of its time somewhere between the two: doing better damage than a Tanker but with less survival; also doing less damage than a Scrapper but with more survival.
The question is, what's a good "average" level of Fury for a Brute, around which the AT is, or should be, balanced? For the sake of argument, let's say it's 75%: that the average brute with the average SO build inside the average door mission will average about 75% Fury.
Now, the Brute has at least 12.5% better survivability than a scrapper. So, the question is, does a scrapper do at least 12.5% more damage than a brute at 75% fury?
If indeed 75% is a reasonable figure (again, average player, average build, average situation), then such a comparison would be more compelling than one which stipulates that the Brute wakes up in Mercy at 90% fury and stays there for the rest of his life.
Meanwhile, since we're all up in arms about AT balance, let's remember the fact that we've got lots of Scrappers with enough survivability to fight multiple AVs, and enough damage to defeat them all. Tankers? Stalkers?
*tumbleweeds*
Not doing that, as far as I know.
The argument in this thread sounds a bit like scrappers getting all in an uproar because one AT in the game might be even more broken than we are.
Be careful. When one gazes long into the nerfbat, the nerfbat gazes into you.
Interestingly enough Chaos, there has already been a comparison done for the 75% Fury Brute compared to a Scrapper. It still sided with the Brute.
75% Fury = 150% +dam, assuming 95% +dam slotting (this is the assumed slotting benefit)
Brute: .75*(1+1.5+.95) = 2.5875
Scrapper: 1.125*(1+.95)*1.08 = 2.36925
So... under "normal" circumstances, that's 9.2% better damage and 12.5% better survivability. Next please? I'm enjoying being proven right concerning Brutes and Scrappers in all of these situations.
And then they both hit BU and the scrapper does more damage.
Then the brute has to run to the next mob and their fury bar drops, meaning when they get to the next spawn, the scrapper starts out with more damage.
And... how does that factor in the dissproportionate benefit a scrapper gets from buildup/soul drain?
Don't get me wrong, in the general case a hyperagressive brute almost certainly does do more damage, and their playstyle almost certainly invokes more incoming damage than that 12% HP can compensate for.
The cake is a lie! The cake is a lie!
Has anyone done this comparison without using IOs and just used SOs? It would eliminate a lot of variables.
Virtue: @Santorican
Dark/Shield Build Thread
[ QUOTE ]
And then they both hit BU and the scrapper does more damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's specific burst effect. You'd be amazed at how little BU actually contributes to real DPS, especially if you think that BU is going to be an equalizing factor.
[ QUOTE ]
Then the brute has to run to the next mob and their fury bar drops, meaning when they get to the next spawn, the scrapper starts out with more damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, that's the point of using 75% as the baseline average. I find it completely stupid for people who defend Brutes to consistently insist that whatever Fury metric we're using for is flawed because it's going to drop whenever they rush to the next mob. Of course it is, but it's not going to drop from 75%. It's going to drop from 90%, where it should be when the Brute finishes the mob, and, over the course of the all of the fights that they take part in, it averages out to 75% Fury.
As to the argument of "starting out with more damage" that's not really an argument. That's a declared intent of the developers that doesn't really apply since a Brute may be starting the fight low, they're going to eventually hit high Fury if they're even remotely good players. This is why an average is used. It's the assumed median Fury value for Brutes actively fighting.
This discussion would be a lot nicer if the defenders of the Brute numbers actually knew anything about the terminology or the underlying concepts.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ChaosString:
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I reach 90% all the time during missions, and exceed it during some types of encounters
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't "exceed" 90% Fury, I think at best Fury caps out at 95% (I actually believe it's 90%) due to either a "bug" or design. So you're not going to "exceed" 90% Fury hardly ever, IF ever for that matter.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, you do. You just don't get Fury from attacking if you're over 90%. [u]You have to get it from being attacked which, if you're on a team, isn't a difficult thing to do unless you're */Energy.[u]
[/ QUOTE ]
OR...there are a couple of OTHER Brutes on the team splitting your aggro with you, or Dominators on the team locking everything down so they can't attack you, or Stalkers 1-shotting mobs before they attack you or simply them gaining more damage-voke than you can overcome unless right next to the mob, or that Corruptor mez'ing or nuking a mob which cause them to "not" attack anyone or "flee" from the rains fear effect.....
There are literally [u]several[u] different things that can definately (and DO definately) happen when you're on a team which cause mobs to no constantly attack you. I don't care how good you might think you are, you're not always going to have an entire "aggro capped" mob just pelting away at you at liesure, it's just not that simple unless you've "specifically" setup your team for JUST that scenario, in which case we revert back to: [u]Brutes > Scrappers "BUT" only when SPECIFIC circumstances are present and are occuring[u], and those circumstances are specific enough (i.e. hard to achieve) that I don't find a balance issue between Scrappers and Brutes at all.
Hey...have you ever "pvp'd" with a Scrapper and Brute? Scrappers >>> Brutes there hands down for sure. So again, I don't find a problem with Brutes = Scrappers (and maybe a tad more) when the circumstances are just right in PVE being a big deal. It's PvE. There's the balance lol..