In so far as we are including ALL powers in the discussion, did anyone take into consideration the bonuses a brute can get with darkest night? That and dark oblit need to come to scrappers ASAP 
. To heck with the numbers...
Miss Arc #147491: Rise of Bedlam
AKA Iron Smoke @Champion Server
Brute dps, scrapper dps... meh, close enough. I think there are very valid reasons for a brute to match, or in reasonable cases somewhat exceed scrapper damage. To me this feels right as is, and is not worth fighting about.
What IS a problem, at least from this data, is firey.
Why are we muttering about a highly unclear case (and no I reject any suggestion that brute/scrapper damage is "clearly" unfair in either direction) when the set with by far the weakest mitigation, and really, not even the "best" AoE damage has anything other than the top DPS? [edit
h and I'd best not forget the generally poor IO slotting options]
But fire is energy efficient?
Sure it is. Does that seem like enough justification to you? I know it doesn't to me.
The cake is a lie! The cake is a lie!
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Actually, the high recharge builds we are talking about have better than 33% up time for Build Up powers and almost perma-Soul Drain. I'd call that significant.
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
~ One thing to keep in mind is that Brute Fury will be pegged during all the stress tests that we tend to use to drive the game designers nuts. Really if the Corruptors are killing stuff on a team so fast that my Fury keeps dipping do I care what my damage output is? I should probably be more concerned with punchvoking stuff off the squishies. On the other hand I can pretty much count on pegged Fury on EB's, AV's, solo Rikti spawns at level 54, ridiculous AE missions with 15 mob ambushes, and all the other crazy stuff.
~ Even if you argue that Brutes are too good are we really looking at the fact that Gloom is too good? Granted DB and War Mace don't use it but everything else relies on it pretty heavily.
Moonlighter
50s include MA/SD, MA/SR, DP/Elec, Claw/Inv, Kat/Dark, Kat/Fire, Spine/Regen, Dark/SD
First Arc: Tequila Sunrise, #168563
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Actually, the high recharge builds we are talking about have better than 33% up time for Build Up powers and almost perma-Soul Drain. I'd call that significant.
[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't you (or someone else along the same line of debate) say that we should ignore the high recharge outlier builds because they're not indicative of normal performance?
[ QUOTE ]
~ Even if you argue that Brutes are too good are we really looking at the fact that Gloom is too good? Granted DB and War Mace don't use it but everything else relies on it pretty heavily.
[/ QUOTE ]
In all of my calculations, I have specifically regarded scalars, which are a much better tool of baseline number comparison than attack strings. The chains that Billz has done are looking for absolute peak performance over time. I've always tried to use average performance across as many conditions as possible, which is what balance considerations pay attention to as opposed to absolute peak.
[ QUOTE ]
6:22
How's that for Claws DPS?
Softcap to all - Endless endurance...
Yep It's All Good!!!
Gots me a vid for the doubters...
uploading now...
[/ QUOTE ]
That is sick man, I love it
Got my time down to 12:22.
The build is still unfinished, I finally broke down and went Hasten
Using the FU>Slash>Focus>Slash>FU>Focus>Sl ash>Focus attack chain.
I think with practice and some luck I can get under 10 minutes with my current build, but 6:22 good god I'm impressed.
why would you remove the peack ability of a build up power ?
With just standar SO and hasten (well kinda normal build), build up will be used every 30 to 45sec.
In a "average" pick-up team what mean 30-45 sec ?
Well kinda every 2 group of mob.
To Kill all in 15-20s seems not too unreallystic (and at high lvl it will be less)
So basiclly when you are using it, it will last half of the fight every 2 fights.
Or with a good dmg team, build up will last all the fight every 3 fights.
It's not unsignifiant.
[ QUOTE ]
why would you remove the peack ability of a build up power ?
With just standar SO and hasten (well kinda normal build), build up will be used every 30 to 45sec.
In a "average" pick-up team what mean 30-45 sec ?
Well kinda every 2 group of mob.
To Kill all in 15-20s seems not too unreallystic (and at high lvl it will be less)
So basiclly when you are using it, it will last half of the fight every 2 fights.
Or with a good dmg team, build up will last all the fight every 3 fights.
It's not unsignifiant.
[/ QUOTE ]
First off, good god man! English! Learn it!
Secondly, Build Up's contribution isn't as impressive as you would actually think. Assuming 100% recharge, that's a 45 second recharge and 1.32 seconds activation time. The buff lasts 10 seconds, so that's 10 seconds (slightly less actually because the buff hits in the middle of the activation rather than right at the end) of 100% or 80% +dam every 46.43 seconds. That's only 21.54% +dam for a Scrapper normalized over the recharge and 17.23% +dam for a Brute. It doesn't get much better at high recharge.
Soul Drain and Follow Up, on the other hand, have to be factored in because they achieve much higher number and get vastly better with more recharge because they have much better baseline uptime:downtime ratios than Build Up does.
[ QUOTE ]
Didn't you (or someone else along the same line of debate) say that we should ignore the high recharge outlier builds because they're not indicative of normal performance?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not me. I usually favor balancing top of the line performance because, really, who cares if my level 35s are doing radio missions and Sky Raider arcs 10% faster? I am more concerned with top line potential of builds; what in the long run can I achieve. But I am the type of player who can work through painful times if the end result is impressive.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
~ Even if you argue that Brutes are too good are we really looking at the fact that Gloom is too good? Granted DB and War Mace don't use it but everything else relies on it pretty heavily.
[/ QUOTE ]
In all of my calculations, I have specifically regarded scalars, which are a much better tool of baseline number comparison than attack strings. The chains that Billz has done are looking for absolute peak performance over time. I've always tried to use average performance across as many conditions as possible, which is what balance considerations pay attention to as opposed to absolute peak.
[/ QUOTE ]
But arguing against using top of the line builds in your "Brutes versus Scrappers" discussion (while interesting) seems to run contrary to the thread's "best attack chain possible" origins, which is what drew me into the thread. That's why I am typing with best build/ best attack chain in mind. That's what the thread started as. When you look at that Gloom is a big reason Brutes perform so well top end.
Moonlighter
50s include MA/SD, MA/SR, DP/Elec, Claw/Inv, Kat/Dark, Kat/Fire, Spine/Regen, Dark/SD
First Arc: Tequila Sunrise, #168563
[ QUOTE ]
The entire point of my "some kind of parity needs to exist" is that, between Brutes and Scrappers, there isn't really any at the top end.
[/ QUOTE ]
And the question remains: why does there need to be, when the vast majority of the player base doesn't operate there?
Even if the playerbase did operate there, the devs don't (and arguably should not) balance on the basis of parity in this way. When both Scrappers and Brutes are arguably both more damaging and more survivably than they need to be to be successful in the mainstream game, why should they be convinced there's a need to ensure mathematical symmetry in their relative damage and survival?
That's not compelling on its own. You need a reason for them to care about that symmetry. If it results in real, measurable problems for the ATs, such as a mass migration from players of one AT to players of another, then the devs can see that and perhaps choose to make some sort of change to improve on that.
[ QUOTE ]
I take Brutes doing just as much damage while being 12.5% harder to kill at the very least, thanks to their higher hit points, with a grain of salt. This is something that many of you who currently see parity are missing.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see parity. I see a lack of parity that doesn't concern me. If parity were all-important, I think no one would have played (or perhaps still played) either Blasters or Tankers, and I think no one would play a Defender when they could play a Controller instead.
I understand the math. I do not believe the math points to the same basis for concern.
[ QUOTE ]
Brutes and Scrappers do the same damage. They shouldn't be. Brutes should be doing less because they're harder to kill even excluding power sets. That's what parity is.
[/ QUOTE ]
See above.
[ QUOTE ]
Because of this obvious advantage, it screams to me the need for a change.
[/ QUOTE ]
Obvious numbers do not necessarily indicate obvious conclusions.
[ QUOTE ]
The only reason we're not going to see the changes to the AT to see some actual parity is because Castle doesn't want to rock the boat.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this, but not for the reasons you probably hold it true. You believe that Castle should address imbalances simply because they exist. Castle (and the other devs) believe they should address things that operate outside possibly loosely-defined boundaries of minimum and maximum performance. Doing otherwise "rocks the boat" to little benefit to the game as a whole.
Only a few of the dev-checked boundaries seem to be relative measures. The devs are not especially concerned that AT A outperforms AT B. They are only concerned that both AT A and AT B perform within some band of "normal" performance for the metric in question.
Remember, it's not as if we don't already have some role overlap in heroside ATs already - see earlier references to the Defender/Controller comparisons and other ongoing threads on Tanker/Scrapper comparisons.
[ QUOTE ]
Which is all [censored] stupid.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which really doesn't cast you as objective in this.
[ QUOTE ]
Brutes are too strong as they are now.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would argue that the same can be said for Scrappers. Do you really want them to go fiddling with an AT that's more "broken" and hope they'll turn a blind eye elsewhere?
[ QUOTE ]
we've opened up the "AT power disparity can o' worms" and Castle is unwilling to put forth the effort to address it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're conveniently ignoring that "AT power disparity" has existed among heroes for a long time, and it doesn't seem to have done anything unfortunate to the game or the ATs involved. You just seem particularly agitated that it's now going to exist for an AT that either didn't face it before, or was the commonly-accepted winner in a lot of previous comparisons.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
[ QUOTE ]
Fark a video. Post the damn build. That's 228.2 DPS.
Now the $100 question. Get those same buffs you're using for that build and dump them into a dm/sd build with portals popping SD/AAO fuel.
What's that DPS going to hit?
[/ QUOTE ]
But wouldn't you wanna atleast see who was wishing me luck? 
Video
Edit:
Werner!!!
You really need to clean up your mail box.
Edit 2:
A heck with this...
I'm heading out to work so here...
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>| Copy & Paste this data into Mids' Hero Designer to view the build |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|MxDz;1409;696;1392;HEX;|
|78DAA593C9521A5114862F0241A10111E7090714106925536 558A42A31A63462885|
|8AE925804AF805248D158D15D1E20AB8C9B6497F1115259E5 B9329073CE7F71912C|
|D305FF77EFE933DD3EDDB993154BA9A737942B74AB56749CD D42A9596C3474D39B2|
|B96ABA5BE7CB1D5AC960EA7568F9BA753C9957C21E5534AF5 77BC7673BAA6B54DA1|
|4F9CD8997145EFEBBAA3EDC231EFB6F47E4D9F6827B256AFE 8A6AEB7ECCEC2CA1F1|
|DD5ECD56AABAE1D276836E54AAB5A2F8765B7A18B7BBAE954 AA0DBFEC0B0DADF722|
|B71BD5927DF368EF743757745ABA793A4C2DA5E85FE1DEE46 AD38F2E95638B4B2C5|
|E15A24556F5860571BF2011008282EC80E0C0678228CA75A8 D8D475009405A17D60|
|BE4B327E2744D52645B94D2D376A7950CB8322E750F21C6A5 9A8758FA2BC88525E9|
|86A64F249036DAF2F2D25BA178084C09F0452020BADE529AA C71CBE675A4C5E3205|
|4CEE40464C3E320561720777A4DCC23A21A196D604D93B82F BE417869F2B8CB652F|
|D823ADD89988713C94A077DCBC0A260D8168C6780B78AF375 5354D43C9CE81BB9D3|
|FF1C7821187C0DBC448E57822D8A1A300718C0015C641A427 9CFD0A678A5D681BB8|
|2850D20277093FB0832748D0CD162428DC6E584A30941811C C68CC3180E9AC14197|
|22181E394C98CE2730D6498C7512F39CC474A72D00D36D505 4CCB419BB24AD4C5D0|
|42E00E705D39705DBE43E638ACCA0C82C8ACCA2C82C8AC491 3D8E5A871435674631|
|D79644F3CA2DF881DD4F41E29720FB1B63A2A8A4795192785 1A2644A9B44E94FE2B|
|5F811F800BC17643E035F043314659B77C44E4BA225A0404D 2C9B12CB308D7BFEFE|
|3637FEB1E43D67DF9D728925E639FB7EFFEBFA6A75F2F46CF 949B759F224AE1D5E3|
|D6079C8DB47BC2AB23CE66D8957ED6F56A7D3F0156EE82ACB 3596EB2CCFD8C91720|
|09B0582C4196104B98A59725CA32C832CAF28EA5FD078827F 4AB|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|</pre><hr />
I'd be interested in seeing how this translates to one enemy, two, three, etc. battles, like a DPS/per target calculation, to see how this translates to battle.
For instance, with Scrappers, the attack chains for DM (#1) maximize DPS, but each attack is single target. For Spines (last on the list), 2 of the four attacks are multiple target attacks and 2 are epic powers.
In other words, how does DPS translate in game, with multiple targets?
[ QUOTE ]
And the question remains: why does there need to be, when the vast majority of the player base doesn't operate there?
Even if the playerbase did operate there, the devs don't (and arguably should not) balance on the basis of parity in this way.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with this sentiment. First, a large band of the player base *do* operate there. Those players can now create their own challenging content. Ignoring that band of players is short sighted. There is no reason that Castle can't design with both the normal player and the extreme player in mind.
I am not having any problem moving IOs that sell for 50 million+. Whether it's purples, LotG Recharges, or Numina's Unique these IOs priced competitively sell well and sell quickly. The high end market is brisk. *Someone* is buying all of these high end IOs. That means that a certain subset of the game that operates at that level is active and it would be foolish for the devs to simply ignore them.
(I actually think Castle pays a lot of attention to high end balance. I think people take the mantra "we don't balance the content for IO builds" to mean "we don't attempt to balance the high end builds.")
That band of players also tend to drive a lot of the forum discussions. This forum is one of the best in the numerous forums I read, and that is in large part due to the discussions among that band of players. In terms of marketing a game, dead forums are bad for a game.
I just think waving off high end balance will be destructive to the game.
Moonlighter
50s include MA/SD, MA/SR, DP/Elec, Claw/Inv, Kat/Dark, Kat/Fire, Spine/Regen, Dark/SD
First Arc: Tequila Sunrise, #168563
Basically the same dam-res and defense.
I have 122% more regen.
You have 25% more more global recharge
You have 13% more global damage
The absolute amazement in boxing is a nice touch.
Nice job, Iggy.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
War Mace ranks low because it has redraw and thus can't utilize Gloom. Remove Gloom from the chains and it'll be a top contender, with great AE damage to boot.
They really need to fix the Epic powers for Villains. Check out Dark Blast for Stalkers. It's got better DPA than Energy Transfer! Either that power is horrendously broken or RedTomax has that powers info wrong. The optimal DM chain I found used DB as every other attack.
[/ QUOTE ]
Still reading through the thread, but I thought I'd stop here to correct a misconception that I see pop up all the time with Stalker Patron ranged attacks. If it's already been pointed out, sorry - haven't got there yet.
Are you using Mid's as your basis? It counts it as always hitting a critical - if you want the real numbers you have to edit the database to get rid of that little problem.
With the server ticks accounted for, it's 55.61 damage/ 1.188 sec, or a base unslotted DPA of 46.81 for Stalkers (1.0 modifier).
Bone Smasher has a DPA of 53.15, and it's behind Total Focus (57.68 DPA) and Energy Transfer (87.32 DPA).
Those numbers are taken directly from City of Data and match the numbers provided by the in-game information, so feel free to check them yourself.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
it has gone from unconscionable to downright appalling that we have no way of measuring our characters' wetness.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brillig
It's hard to beat the entertainment value of Whackjob Wednesdays.
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fark a video. Post the damn build. That's 228.2 DPS.
Now the $100 question. Get those same buffs you're using for that build and dump them into a dm/sd build with portals popping SD/AAO fuel.
What's that DPS going to hit?
[/ QUOTE ]
But wouldn't you wanna atleast see who was wishing me luck?
Video
Edit:
Werner!!!
You really need to clean up your mail box.
Edit 2:
A heck with this...
I'm heading out to work so here...
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>| Copy & Paste this data into Mids' Hero Designer to view the build |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|MxDz;1409;696;1392;HEX;|
|78DAA593C9521A5114862F0241A10111E7090714106925536 558A42A31A63462885|
|8AE925804AF805248D158D15D1E20AB8C9B6497F1115259E5 B9329073CE7F71912C|
|D305FF77EFE933DD3EDDB993154BA9A737942B74AB56749CD D42A9596C3474D39B2|
|B96ABA5BE7CB1D5AC960EA7568F9BA753C9957C21E5534AF5 77BC7673BAA6B54DA1|
|4F9CD8997145EFEBBAA3EDC231EFB6F47E4D9F6827B256AFE 8A6AEB7ECCEC2CA1F1|
|DD5ECD56AABAE1D276836E54AAB5A2F8765B7A18B7BBAE954 AA0DBFEC0B0DADF722|
|B71BD5927DF368EF743757745ABA793A4C2DA5E85FE1DEE46 AD38F2E95638B4B2C5|
|E15A24556F5860571BF2011008282EC80E0C0678228CA75A8 D8D475009405A17D60|
|BE4B327E2744D52645B94D2D376A7950CB8322E750F21C6A5 9A8758FA2BC88525E9|
|86A64F249036DAF2F2D25BA178084C09F0452020BADE529AA C71CBE675A4C5E3205|
|4CEE40464C3E320561720777A4DCC23A21A196D604D93B82F BE417869F2B8CB652F|
|D823ADD89988713C94A077DCBC0A260D8168C6780B78AF375 5354D43C9CE81BB9D3|
|FF1C7821187C0DBC448E57822D8A1A300718C0015C641A427 9CFD0A678A5D681BB8|
|2850D20277093FB0832748D0CD162428DC6E584A30941811C C68CC3180E9AC14197|
|22181E394C98CE2730D6498C7512F39CC474A72D00D36D505 4CCB419BB24AD4C5D0|
|42E00E705D39705DBE43E638ACCA0C82C8ACCA2C82C8AC491 3D8E5A871435674631|
|D79644F3CA2DF881DD4F41E29720FB1B63A2A8A4795192785 1A2644A9B44E94FE2B|
|5F811F800BC17643E035F043314659B77C44E4BA225A0404D 2C9B12CB308D7BFEFE|
|3637FEB1E43D67DF9D728925E639FB7EFFEBFA6A75F2F46CF 949B759F224AE1D5E3|
|D6079C8DB47BC2AB23CE66D8957ED6F56A7D3F0156EE82ACB 3596EB2CCFD8C91720|
|09B0582C4196104B98A59725CA32C832CAF28EA5FD078827F 4AB|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|</pre><hr />
[/ QUOTE ]
122% global recharge
talk about an 'outlier' build
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the question remains: why does there need to be, when the vast majority of the player base doesn't operate there?
Even if the playerbase did operate there, the devs don't (and arguably should not) balance on the basis of parity in this way.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with this sentiment. First, a large band of the player base *do* operate there. Those players can now create their own challenging content. Ignoring that band of players is short sighted. There is no reason that Castle can't design with both the normal player and the extreme player in mind.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd love to see your data on how large that band of players is.
[ QUOTE ]
I am not having any problem moving IOs that sell for 50 million+. Whether it's purples, LotG Recharges, or Numina's Unique these IOs priced competitively sell well and sell quickly. The high end market is brisk. *Someone* is buying all of these high end IOs. That means that a certain subset of the game that operates at that level is active and it would be foolish for the devs to simply ignore them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Appropriately refusing to balance the average performance of the ATs around what is possible at the high end is not "simply ignoring" that subset of the game.
And again, I want to point out, that every character I know of who operates at their high end, nearly irrespective of AT or powerset, operates radically beyond what is needed to play this game. I want to ask - what is the value to the devs in strong focus on relative performance at those levels of performance? More importantly, what is it that makes you think that's how they'd focus their attention on changes in those operating ranges?
If the devs intend to address how things compare at those levels of performance, I think there's going to be far, far more involved than worrying about how Brutes and Scrappers compare.
[ QUOTE ]
I just think waving off high end balance will be destructive to the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you offered no justification for that assertion.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The entire point of my "some kind of parity needs to exist" is that, between Brutes and Scrappers, there isn't really any at the top end.
[/ QUOTE ]
And the question remains: why does there need to be, when the vast majority of the player base doesn't operate there?
[/ QUOTE ]
Then why are the caps there in the first place? The caps exist to prevent players from achieving any performance above a certain mark. Part of this is to specifically dictate role and capacity (Scrappers had a lower cap than Tankers so that, even if the Scrapper had a taunt aura, he wouldn't be able to "tank" as well as a Tanker) but also to mitigate outlier performance. Brutes, thanks to their caps, don't follow any precedent of cap balance. That, in and of itself, at least brings up the consideration of a change.
[ QUOTE ]
Even if the playerbase did operate there, the devs don't (and arguably should not) balance on the basis of parity in this way. When both Scrappers and Brutes are arguably both more damaging and more survivably than they need to be to be successful in the mainstream game, why should they be convinced there's a need to ensure mathematical symmetry in their relative damage and survival?
That's not compelling on its own. You need a reason for them to care about that symmetry. If it results in real, measurable problems for the ATs, such as a mass migration from players of one AT to players of another, then the devs can see that and perhaps choose to make some sort of change to improve on that.
[/ QUOTE ]
One of the primary reasons that this discussion has been brought up now is because of GoRo. In normal play (even co-op), the Brute/Tanker/Scrapper issue didn't really see much consideration because the actual portion of the player base that actively interacted with the other other side ATs wasn't particularly large. The only times you're going to specifically interact with the other side is when you're in RWZ (generally meaning either LGTF or Mothership Raiding) or Cimerora (which pretty much means ITF). In neither of these situations is the marked difference going to be particularly easy to see (not that the average player is even capable of seeing a difference like this). The tools to observe it (peripherals to calculate real DPS and damage avoided) aren't readily available. If they were, I predict there would be much more attention to it, but, as it stands, it's pretty much the exclusive domain of number crunchers.
When players are capable of full side switching (re: GoRo), the differences are going to be more readily present. Back before Scrappers got their damage increased in I2-3 (woo, Critical!), even though the differences between Blaster and Scrapper damage weren't particularly disparate, players still noticed because they were dealing with the differences for the entire duration of their team play.
There is a reason to address the changes. It's not out yet, but the reason is there nonetheless.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I take Brutes doing just as much damage while being 12.5% harder to kill at the very least, thanks to their higher hit points, with a grain of salt. This is something that many of you who currently see parity are missing.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see parity. I see a lack of parity that doesn't concern me. If parity were all-important, I think no one would have played (or perhaps still played) either Blasters or Tankers, and I think no one would play a Defender when they could play a Controller instead.
I understand the math. I do not believe the math points to the same basis for concern.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm curious as to what reasons you think exist for Tankers or Blasters to no longer see play. Tankers are still capable of better unbuffed mitigation and aggro control than any other AT in the game. Blasters are, arguably, the best AoE AT in the game (Corrupters are close because they can buff, but lose out because they have a functional scalar of .95 whereas Blasters have 1.125). There are still reasons to play them from a numbers standpoint. However, if both Brutes and Scrappers are available for all content, there isn't much reason outside of specific play style concerns to go with a Scrapper rather than a Brute. If/when everyone learns that Brutes put out equivalent damage numbers as Scrappers while being significantly harder to kill, many fewer people will play Scrappers than do now. I'd rather the disparity were fixed before it becomes a problem.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because of this obvious advantage, it screams to me the need for a change.
[/ QUOTE ]
Obvious numbers do not necessarily indicate obvious conclusions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then what would you conclude from them? That, even though the numbers show a disparity that no such disparity exists? Care to show any kind of evidence for that conclusion?
A numerical disparity is a tool used to demonstrate a real disparity. If you'd care to use some other tool to denote a lack of disparity in capability and potential, then, please, bring it up. Don't just blow off evidence that is contrary to your opinion because you don't think that there is a reason for the change.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only reason we're not going to see the changes to the AT to see some actual parity is because Castle doesn't want to rock the boat.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this, but not for the reasons you probably hold it true. You believe that Castle should address imbalances simply because they exist. Castle (and the other devs) believe they should address things that operate outside possibly loosely-defined boundaries of minimum and maximum performance. Doing otherwise "rocks the boat" to little benefit to the game as a whole.
Only a few of the dev-checked boundaries seem to be relative measures. The devs are not especially concerned that AT A outperforms AT B. They are only concerned that both AT A and AT B perform within some band of "normal" performance for the metric in question.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then how would you expect to denote a discrepancy in performance unless it's used in comparison with another? The point of comparing Scrappers to Brutes and vice versa (AT A to AT B) is that it illustrates the fact that AT A is operating outside of the band of "normal" performance.
The band of "normal" performance you reference is also only used because it's impossible to get an adequate quantitative comparison for functions that have no direct relation. How much value does a mag 3 hold have compared to a 1.5 scalar attack? What's the relation? It's impossible to do this accurately so a qualitative value is assigned for these comparisons. However, when comparing 2 ATs that have an easy and direct association between their powers and functions, you can and should compare them directly along the numerical values of their performance. There's no need to compare damage to hold for contribution because the only forms of contribution each is balanced around as an AT are personal mitigation and damage. That's why the numbers are brought up and why something needs to be done to address the imbalance.
[ QUOTE ]
Remember, it's not as if we don't already have some role overlap in heroside ATs already - see earlier references to the Defender/Controller comparisons and other ongoing threads on Tanker/Scrapper comparisons.
[/ QUOTE ]
I do realize that there is also role blurring and has always been, and I've addressed the history and even the issues concerning this. Scrappers and Blasters have always had an interesting history because, when they're on a team, they're both doing the same thing but with different methods. Tankers and Scrappers less so because, on a team, they do completely different things. The only times I've seen Tanker/Scrapper comparisons is for solo performance comparisons wherein the Tanker wants to do more damage.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which is all [censored] stupid.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which really doesn't cast you as objective in this.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really have to be, and I don't think that I've ever said I was. I've always thought that Brutes were too powerful. The entire issue is that the numbers, which are completely objective, agree with me. I don't have to be objective whenever the numbers agree with me. In fact, that would be deleterious to my position because then people like yourself would continually ignore the numbers.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Brutes are too strong as they are now.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would argue that the same can be said for Scrappers. Do you really want them to go fiddling with an AT that's more "broken" and hope they'll turn a blind eye elsewhere?
[/ QUOTE ]
How are you defining broken? Capable of soloing an AV or a pylon? Able to complete the RWZ challenge? I've seen every AT do every single one of those things. I'm absolutely certain that if they did this analysis they would bring Brutes down if they were actually concerned with numerical balance. I don't have a single worry that Castle would castrate Scrappers somehow like you suggest because I've yet to see any non-anecdotal evidence of Scrappers outperforming any other AT in that AT's designated role.
Interestingly enough, I've been presenting non-anecdotal evidence of Brutes outperforming other ATs within their designated role for a while. GoRo is simply a reason more important for the balance to finally happen than simply "balance for balance's sake".
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we've opened up the "AT power disparity can o' worms" and Castle is unwilling to put forth the effort to address it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're conveniently ignoring that "AT power disparity" has existed among heroes for a long time, and it doesn't seem to have done anything unfortunate to the game or the ATs involved. You just seem particularly agitated that it's now going to exist for an AT that either didn't face it before, or was the commonly-accepted winner in a lot of previous comparisons.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd honestly like you to find a significant AT power disparity blue-side that I haven't address somewhere. The only one that really exists now is the Defender:Controller disparity because Controllers get substantially better damage (.65 scalar v. 1.0-1.1 real scalar) while only having a slightly worse buff capability (.75 scalar v. 1.0 scalar, though there are a number of affects that aren't affected by it). The Tanker:Scrapper and Blaster:Scrapper disparities can be argued, but they don't have much base any more because each AT brings something unique to a team that no other can (Tankers get mad mitigation and absolutely unequaled aggro, Blasters get better AoE, Scrappers beat down bosses).
right now any speculation or suggestions of buffs/nerfs to scrappers or brutes due to goro are silly.
1) what if it's just another co-op zone?
2) what if it IS an actual change of alignment, but requires an EPIC mission arc to be completed first - on a full 8 man team - and switching back has like a six month cooldown?
3) what if brutes who switch post 40 lose access to gloom, or what if brutes who switch pre 40 cant even do the patron arcs AND cant get access to hero ancilliary powers?
there is too much we just dont know yet. reference the first post in this thread when more details about the expansion are actually announced. until then nobody has any real idea how it's going to work.
hell if the expansion is nothing more complicated than letting people access all parts of the game at will - i'm more fearful of what impact masterminds would have on the game. they already are THE tankmages of this game. what other at can shut down an av's regen, debuff their resistances and defense, keep the av in place, make it stand there and puke endlessly while having tanker levels of resistance to dmg, high resistances to the most common CC AND put out insane amounts of aoe or single target dmg?
it will become city of masterminds long before it becomes city of brutes. serously. outside of some very specific farming scenarios, none of my io'd out brutes can touch my io'd out /traps mms.
In fact, we don't compare the same thing so my arguments can't be used in your demonstration.
You are, since the begining, comparing 2 AT with some linear easy to use number.
You are doing X dps and he is doing Y dps.
This is only true if you are fighting for hours the same target, and that this target don't die.
But this is isn't representative of a team rolling in a mission. With travel, break, and so on that will always favor and increase the overall effectiveness of a power like build-up.
And this always defavor (it is english ?) a mechanism like furry.
The best thing you could do to proove that the brute will do more dmg than the scrapper, is by running some mission, with a brute and a scrapper, and put a dmg logger.
After a lot of try you will be able to begin to compare this 2 toon, on the dmg dealing side.
On a side note, i don't play brute.
And for my english he is bad, but it's life.
[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to see your data on how large that band of players is.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am not attempting to assert any particular size to the band. I do know a couple of things through observation:
~ That band is vocal on the forums.
~ That band buys and sells a lot of IOs.
Those things alone means that the band is visible to the average player, and probably contributes to a large degree to "common knowledge" about what ATs and sets are "good" and those views do trickle down to a larger band of players.
Ignoring that entire subsection of the game, particularly when it drives a lot of the talk on your forums, is a bad plan. I have seen how "common knowledge" can drive a game towards undesirable results even when it is wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
Appropriately refusing to balance the average performance of the ATs around what is possible at the high end is not "simply ignoring" that subset of the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wait, I never advocated *not* balancing around the average performance. That is very important. You assume there is a either/or but that's not the case. It is possible to balance the game around poor performance players, average performance players, and still pay attention to what balance problems present themselves at the high end.
What I am saying is waving off *any* of those performance points will be bad for the game. And I am not advocating that all those bands in any way need "equal" dev attention. Just that high end play does need *some* dev attention.
And I believe it gets dev attention. Otherwise perma-doms wouldn't be such a hot topic with the upcoming dom changes.
[ QUOTE ]
And again, I want to point out, that every character I know of who operates at their high end, nearly irrespective of AT or powerset, operates radically beyond what is needed to play this game.
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't "needed to play" subjective?
[ QUOTE ]
I want to ask - what is the value to the devs in strong focus on relative performance at those levels of performance?
[/ QUOTE ]
Strong focus is your term, not mine. It would be just as detrimental for the devs to devote too much attention to those bands as it would for them to ignore it.
[ QUOTE ]
More importantly, what is it that makes you think that's how they'd focus their attention on changes in those operating ranges?
If the devs intend to address how things compare at those levels of performance, I think there's going to be far, far more involved than worrying about how Brutes and Scrappers compare.
[/ QUOTE ]
My argument is, specifically, that waving off high performance balance in general is bad for the game. Perhaps Brute versus Scrapper balance is low on some priority list, perhaps not. Regardless, some dev attention should be paid to all the play styles the game has to offer.
Although I would like to point out that with GoRo coming up any dev who doesn't think that blue versus red balance won't suddenly become a hot topic is perhaps short sighted.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think waving off high end balance will be destructive to the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you offered no justification for that assertion.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am sorry I have disappointed you.
Moonlighter
50s include MA/SD, MA/SR, DP/Elec, Claw/Inv, Kat/Dark, Kat/Fire, Spine/Regen, Dark/SD
First Arc: Tequila Sunrise, #168563
<QR>
To all those complaining about the Scrapper vs Brute, which one's better, etc...
I tend to use 70% as an average Fury for a mission - I started monitoring damage bonus on my Brutes and it's usually around 160-165% at the end of a spawn, but appears higher because the Fury bar looks higher than it actually is (several times I thought I was at "max Fury" because it wouldn't go any higher unless I was fighting an AV only to check and realize that I was only at around 170-175% +dam). I won't disagree with a 75% average (I used to use 80% before they put real-time +dam monitoring in and I saw that I wasn't maintaining that) but 90% is excessive for anything but an AV fight, and that's because the attacks are coded for a set +Fury value against AVs.
As for who needs what in comparison to which AT, I think that Brute players should hope that they don't get looked at as an AT anytime soon and that Scrappers should feel the same way - every argument that can be made for why Scrappers "need a buff" compared to Brutes can be made about Scrappers when compared to Stalkers.
Personally, I like playing Brutes more than Scrappers, but that's more due to powerset availability and the occasional need to just mindlessly rush between spawns smashing things working rather well with the Fury mechanic. Stalkers and Scrappers both have the advantage that they aren't dependant on such a mechanic to perform well, and while both have survivability disadvantages they are both more than capable of surviving nearly any "typical" situation in the game (I don't count multiple AVs aggroing you at once as "typical", and honestly many Brutes have trouble with that).
I'd say leave well enough alone at this point because once you start pointing out "such-and-such needs a nerf because they're better than me" you may find that everything ends up nerfed because the devs decide that you're both outperforming expectations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
it has gone from unconscionable to downright appalling that we have no way of measuring our characters' wetness.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brillig
It's hard to beat the entertainment value of Whackjob Wednesdays.
|
[ QUOTE ]
Tankers are still capable of better unbuffed mitigation and aggro control than any other AT in the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
Note: Two things about this statement. First, the only edge Tankers have over Brutes in regards to aggro management is AoE Gauntlet (which I personally think is overrated). Everything else (st-Gauntlet, auras, Taunt, durations, etc) are identical. At the same time, Taunt is just a threat multiplier - since Brutes do far more damage than a Tanker, they'll generate far more threat.
What I'm trying to say is, if a Tanker and Brute play identically, the Brute will generate more threat.
Most Brutes (if the board is any indication) don't play this way and are quick to pass up on some of their aggro tools (Taunt) for more damage. That doesn't mean they aren't capable of it.
fault has a pretty hefty taunt to it for something that does no dmg
[ QUOTE ]
fault has a pretty hefty taunt to it for something that does no dmg
[/ QUOTE ]
It has the same taunt value that all Brute / Tanker attacks have - 13.5 seconds at lvl50.
I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the comment..?
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
and firey embrace
IMO brutes should do more damage, they need to work to keep on the boil, scrappers dont, isnt that along the lines of "risk V reward"?
I dont see scrappers getting a off the bat damage buff, would be nice if scrappers had a domination like inherant clicky that would double the rate of criticals for a time.
They are two different ATs with different playstyles which both lay out the smackdown with equal vigour and it seems people are crying because a spreadsheet shows one MAY outperform the other. Neither of them underperform, both are fun, both can solo AVs, given what happened to PvP I would advise to be careful what you wish for because if you interest Castle enough to take a look you may not like what you get.