Since I was the one posting about SL and MG being "break even" attacks for Fury, let me clarify the position some - it was in a thread discussing poor generation on a DM/DA, and mathematically they are break even attacks.
Since Oppressive Gloom and Cloak of Fear reduce the number of incoming attacks, you have to look at the chains in that scenario, and MG -> Sm -> SL -> Sm still will generate Fury (Smite is short enough of an animation it will increase overall each time it cycles). In the same thread, I also recommended leaving OG and CoF off until you have a good Fury level so that the incoming attacks build it up faster.
For the most part I agree that incoming attacks will make up more Fury than your attack chain will, and I've never had trouble with Fury generation while solo, but that's not the situation in every case. Energy Aura on a team with another Brute is another example of a situation where you're going to need to work on building Fury because someone else is going to be pulling all of the aggro off of you.
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 ]
This OP was singletarget only. Quills from spines was added only because it would be hitting that single target in question.
The last few posts gave just some of the reasons why it won't be me doing the aoe comparisons. 
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's also why I tend to ignore Starsman's charts for AoE - he has a "typical number hit" that I don't always agree with since it tends to minimize the effect of AoE area. His criteria for attack chains was "highest DPA that's currently recharged" which is similar enough to mine that I use it for single target, though.
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 ]
So here's the real question:
Is the Brute versus Scrapper damage argument put to rest? Can we all agree that 3% damage difference is low enough to ignore?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think we can ignore it once scrapper health, def/res caps, and aggro mitigation is within 3% of brutes.
I love both of these AT's but it's pretty obvious that one of them has a clear advantage over the other, lol.
Good job on the calculations bill.
[ QUOTE ]
I think we can ignore it once scrapper health, def/res caps, and aggro mitigation is within 3% of brutes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Queue every Blaster vs. Scrapper argument that's ever graced the boards.
Game balance != numerical equality. What you're asking for simply is not needed.
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 ]
So here's the real question:
Is the Brute versus Scrapper damage argument put to rest? Can we all agree that 3% damage difference is low enough to ignore?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think we can ignore it once scrapper health, def/res caps, and aggro mitigation is within 3% of brutes.
I love both of these AT's but it's pretty obvious that one of them has a clear advantage over the other, lol.
Good job on the calculations bill.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks much, man. On the scrapper/brute equality front, I've been convinced by the arguments that state "scrapper up all the time/brutes fluctuate and must force themselves into situations that scrappers don't in order to keep fury high."
To really lay it all out, the more I look into brute vs scrapper comparisons, the more impressed I become with just how close they are.
EDIT: Little side note... ran an ITF with some folks last night on Bill Z. When we got to the final confrontation with Nictus Romulus, someone said, "Hold up til we buff you, Bill." And then they hit me. Painbringer, someone read me a fortune, some other madness lit up on my buff bar.
As pointed out to me later, I should have said, "Hold my beer," but I dove in. It wasn't until Rom was about to fall for the first time that I looked at my combat monitor:
Recovery: Blue
Smashing Resistance: Blue (That's all I monitor. I assume most types were capped.)
Defense: 50+%
Damage Buff: Blue
I can't recall in 5 years of playing that I was ever that cranked up before. Autohit fluffy? Pfft. Barely tickled. Gods below it was glorious.
I should team more often.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So here's the real question:
Is the Brute versus Scrapper damage argument put to rest? Can we all agree that 3% damage difference is low enough to ignore?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think we can ignore it once scrapper health, def/res caps, and aggro mitigation is within 3% of brutes.
I love both of these AT's but it's pretty obvious that one of them has a clear advantage over the other, lol.
Good job on the calculations bill.
[/ QUOTE ]
But ones functionality is at the choosing of the player, for the other to get close they need to put themselves in considerable danger, taking agro for others never pausing for breath. There is why the extra mitigation needs to come in IMO. *edit* my sheild scrapper actually has more mitigation than my sheild brute, defences are the same but my scrapper actually has more HPs, true this is because I went and got the accolades but thats far more enjoyable blue side than it is red where you have to farm tedious things like 10mill damage and 1.2mill debt, not something general play will pull up on defense characters.
Also brutes attaining and retaining fury isnt easy on a full team with more than one melee character, on a mixed team its even worse with inconsiderate tanks "tanking" and blasters killing your fuel. Brutes are optimal if all the team forms up behind them and follows a set pattern but thats pretty boring for all concerned IMO.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This OP was singletarget only. Quills from spines was added only because it would be hitting that single target in question.
The last few posts gave just some of the reasons why it won't be me doing the aoe comparisons.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's also why I tend to ignore Starsman's charts for AoE - he has a "typical number hit" that I don't always agree with since it tends to minimize the effect of AoE area. His criteria for attack chains was "highest DPA that's currently recharged" which is similar enough to mine that I use it for single target, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
In theory I can just adjust one number in my chart (foe spacing) to give the results you want.
In practice I would be forced to do a full new set of charts (copies really but extra maintenance.) Sometime next month I may have something in place you would actually like, at least if that is your main issue with the current charts. I will be giving the viewer much more control over the parameters (like the spacing between foes and exact global recharge values)
Would be done much faster if i stopped playing my dominators so much... they are SO much fun with capped smash/lethal defense... they are like playing a true tanktroler!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So here's the real question:
Is the Brute versus Scrapper damage argument put to rest? Can we all agree that 3% damage difference is low enough to ignore?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think we can ignore it once scrapper health, def/res caps, and aggro mitigation is within 3% of brutes.
I love both of these AT's but it's pretty obvious that one of them has a clear advantage over the other, lol.
Good job on the calculations bill.
[/ QUOTE ]
But ones functionality is at the choosing of the player, for the other to get close they need to put themselves in considerable danger, taking agro for others never pausing for breath. There is why the extra mitigation needs to come in IMO. *edit* my sheild scrapper actually has more mitigation than my sheild brute, defences are the same but my scrapper actually has more HPs, true this is because I went and got the accolades but thats far more enjoyable blue side than it is red where you have to farm tedious things like 10mill damage and 1.2mill debt, not something general play will pull up on defense characters.
Also brutes attaining and retaining fury isnt easy on a full team with more than one melee character, on a mixed team its even worse with inconsiderate tanks "tanking" and blasters killing your fuel. Brutes are optimal if all the team forms up behind them and follows a set pattern but thats pretty boring for all concerned IMO.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let me state again, I don't think the disparity is huge, but there is a disparity. All things being equal, brutes will ALWAYS have more health and dmg mitigation than a similar scrapper, and will SOMETIMES have better damage dealing abilities as well. In some situations, its true that a brute will do less damage than a scrapper, but in those situations, the lack of dmg dealing is offset by the increased health, as it should be. When the brute is dealing more damage than the equivalent scrapper, and has more health, where is the parity? In what situation does an equivalent scrapper have more damage dealing ability AND better survivability? NONE. That is the disparity. We can argue how much of a disparity that is, but to claim there is no disparity is simply nonsense.
In regards to your argument that the brute has to work to do more damage than the scrapper, in some cases yes, but shouldn't that be the case, lol? Can the scrapper do the extra work to have more dmg mitigation than an equivalent brute? Nope. There is the disparity. Worst case situation the brute does a bit less dmg but has better survivability, best case, the brute has better dmg and better survivability, again that is disparity. And in regards to fury, even at a slow pace, the brute will have some fury, and in a long drawn out fight, like what you'd have in comparing long term dmg which is what these threads are about, your fury should be at 90% or more for most of the fight, and you are facing no more danger than the scrapper is.
And again, I love both of these ats and I don't think either of them should be nerfed, it would be completely ridiculous to do so when you see what the other at's are doing. But to claim the two at's are on par simply doesn't mesh with logic. And like I already said, I don't think it's a huge disparity, the two at's are pretty even, and have slightly different playstyles. As I've said in past posts, I'd simply suggest a slight buff to scrappers in regards to team play, where brutes are more valuable imo as they have clearly better aggro management abilities paired with better survivability, and the ability to do similar if not better damage than scrappers.
To lower the recharge and make the same calculations for basic IO builds was a good idea. Even if from a certain perspective it's quite unrealistic too. (I would have preferred a standard 120% recharge cap : ppl using hasten and/or slotting a few Crushing Impact in their attacks usually get there).
On the other hand I dont agree on the argument : "dont count Gloom in, it's a patron attack".
Well all brutes have access to this power, especially now they can respec out of their Patron pool. Those interested in dealing good ST dps get this one for sure. Scrappers dont have anything close to that.
Nope I'm not asking for a 3rd spreadsheet 
The first one was more interesting for me anyway (probably because I play IOed out toons).
The disparity comes from assuming a brute can constantly manage and uphold 90% fury at all times. If that were the case, then yes, absolutely, brutes and scrappers would need some readjusting in comparison to one another. If Billz is legitimately constantly at that high a fury rate, however, it tells me two things:
1. It's no surprise he's unimpressed with fire armour's mitigation
2. He's a very, very skilled player, who is very, very good at managing resources
To actually get that level of performance would mandate a great deal of skill. I don't see a problem with letting very skilled players squeeze a skill-based mechanic for a lot of effect. I also don't think that it's a reasonable projection, but if Billz is confident he can do it, I'm not about to call him a liar over it.
I believe he's comparing at 75%, but I don't remember for sure, and I'm too lazy to reread.
"That's because Werner can't do maths." - BunnyAnomaly
"Four hours in, and I was no longer making mistakes, no longer detoggling. I was a machine." - Werner
Videos of Other Stupid Scrapper Tricks
90% was the other run with maxed IO build values. This run was at 75% fury and basic IOs.
And staying capped on fury is not generally workable until your build has enough endurance to handle it or you continue to pop blues to keep yourself moving.
However, I do build all my melee characters, scrappers and brutes, for non-stop carnage. Downtime kills my enjoyment completely.
Be well, people of CoH.
Not sure if it's been mentioned before regarding EM, but the damage listed for ET in the ingame numbers ALSO includes the damage done to self, that's why the DPA looks alot higher than it should be
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure if it's been mentioned before regarding EM, but the damage listed for ET in the ingame numbers ALSO includes the damage done to self, that's why the DPA looks alot higher than it should be
[/ QUOTE ]
I used city of data's numbers for all of my calculations.
Be well, people of CoH.
In light of all this, Billz, are you planning on reconsidering [ QUOTE ]
Energy Melee's mitigation and aoe potential are too low.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In light of all this, Billz, are you planning on reconsidering [ QUOTE ]
Energy Melee's mitigation and aoe potential are too low.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know. Its aoe potential still blows. Maybe if whirling hands did knockdown it would even things up a bit on the mitigation front. Some of the other sets showing high numbers in this comparison also deal out rather hellacious aoe damage.
I'd probably relent enough to state that EM is fine for soloing, but every time I've fired off EM/TF and sat watching the animation while someone else runs up and kills my target before the animation finishes, I snap a little more.
But we could probably write that off as "EM's flavor."
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In light of all this, Billz, are you planning on reconsidering [ QUOTE ]
Energy Melee's mitigation and aoe potential are too low.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know. Its aoe potential still blows. Maybe if whirling hands did knockdown it would even things up a bit on the mitigation front. Some of the other sets showing high numbers in this comparison also deal out rather hellacious aoe damage.
I'd probably relent enough to state that EM is fine for soloing, but every time I've fired off EM/TF and sat watching the animation while someone else runs up and kills my target before the animation finishes, I snap a little more.
But we could probably write that off as "EM's flavor."
[/ QUOTE ]
LOL, yea.
I'd still rather have ET on like a 25 second refresh timer but with a slightly "shorter" animation time, like maybe a 2 second animation time versus its current 2.67 second time and still be able to keep it's current damage.. 
It should be noted that Energy Melees low endurance costs are paid in blood.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure if it's been mentioned before regarding EM, but the damage listed for ET in the ingame numbers ALSO includes the damage done to self, that's why the DPA looks alot higher than it should be
[/ QUOTE ]
I used city of data's numbers for all of my calculations.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you used the number in the front power summary (where the detailed effect list is not listed) then you counted the self damage as part of it done as CoD does that too.
ET does 4.56 ds, the front page lists 8.31ds.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure if it's been mentioned before regarding EM, but the damage listed for ET in the ingame numbers ALSO includes the damage done to self, that's why the DPA looks alot higher than it should be
[/ QUOTE ]
I used city of data's numbers for all of my calculations.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you used the number in the front power summary (where the cast time is listed) then you counted the self damage as part of it done as CoD does that too.
ET does 4.56 ds, the front page lists 8.31ds.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I have a brain. 4.56 is the number in the spreadsheet for ET.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In light of all this, Billz, are you planning on reconsidering [ QUOTE ]
Energy Melee's mitigation and aoe potential are too low.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know. Its aoe potential still blows. Maybe if whirling hands did knockdown it would even things up a bit on the mitigation front. Some of the other sets showing high numbers in this comparison also deal out rather hellacious aoe damage.
I'd probably relent enough to state that EM is fine for soloing, but every time I've fired off EM/TF and sat watching the animation while someone else runs up and kills my target before the animation finishes, I snap a little more.
But we could probably write that off as "EM's flavor."
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, turd-flavor, lol.
And nobody has argued that em is not at the top in single target damage still, even after the crippling nerfs, the problem is that it's at the top with several other sets in terms of single target damage, while it sits alone in the basement in regards to aoe ability and damage mitigation, not to mention the single target goodness is crapped upon with the problem you mentioned, the set moves with the speed of a mentally handicapped tree sloth.
[ QUOTE ]
The disparity comes from assuming a brute can constantly manage and uphold 90% fury at all times. If that were the case, then yes, absolutely, brutes and scrappers would need some readjusting in comparison to one another. If Billz is legitimately constantly at that high a fury rate, however, it tells me two things:
1. It's no surprise he's unimpressed with fire armour's mitigation
2. He's a very, very skilled player, who is very, very good at managing resources
To actually get that level of performance would mandate a great deal of skill. I don't see a problem with letting very skilled players squeeze a skill-based mechanic for a lot of effect. I also don't think that it's a reasonable projection, but if Billz is confident he can do it, I'm not about to call him a liar over it.
[/ QUOTE ]
First of all the comparison was set for 75%. And the comparison is for damage over time, and in a long drawn out battle, if your fury isn't at or over 75%, then you're doing something very, very wrong. It doesn't take any skill at all, just click on your attacks and get attacked by the bad guys, no need for any advanced degrees, lol.
Again, I don't see how anyone can claim there isn't a disparity here - (when both ats are using similar sets and on avg) a brute has the ability to deal more damage and take more damage than a scrapper in the best of conditions, while sometimes doing less damage but still being able to survive more damage in the worst case situations. That's flat out uneven and in the brutes favor, we can argue the degree, but there is definitely a disparity.
And the culprit for this disparity is fury, which is a stronger mechanic than scrappers critical strikes. Granted some players don't like the mechanic, but when used (even by accident), it gives brutes an edge over scrappers because it allows them in some situations to both outdamage and outsurvive the scrapper. Even in the hands of a novice, fury will boost a brutes dmg into the scrapper neighborhood, while brutes still have the survivability edge, which means brutes have the advantage in that type of situation as well. If brutes always have a survivability edge, then why should they not always have the damage dealing inferiority? And on teams, a brutes aggro managing ability gives them an additional edge over scrappers. That's disparity in the brutes favor, it's not game-breaking, but it's there.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So here's the real question:
Is the Brute versus Scrapper damage argument put to rest? Can we all agree that 3% damage difference is low enough to ignore?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think we can ignore it once scrapper health, def/res caps, and aggro mitigation is within 3% of brutes.
I love both of these AT's but it's pretty obvious that one of them has a clear advantage over the other, lol.
Good job on the calculations bill.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's actually only a 0.94% damage difference...
[ QUOTE ]
Brutes now do .94% more damage than scrappers on average.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you wanna argue that "somehow" that is too much, then I truely have to just "LOL@U" because wow. And honestly, you really have not brought anything to the table to convince me (or anyone else) that Brute damage/survivability is SO >>>> than Scrapper damage/survivability in general play. So until you can bring some convincing arguments to the table, I'm just not buying it.
I think Scrappers and Brutes are both balanced perfectly together. Brutes get a mere 12% survivability increase in order to survive a tad longer to "generate" their Fury in a battle (Scrappers start at full) and are tasked/burdened with "maintaining" that high Fury generation the "entire" mission in order to achieve a whopping 0.94% net damage over Scrappers. Basically, they will be forced to [u]work their rears off[u] to "keep" that entire 0.94% damage edge over Scrappers throughout the mission, and let's face it...not only is this normally not easy to do with your average pickup team (most love to take breaks between spawns, absorbe alphas for you with controls, etc)...but we're also talking about a LESS than 1% damage difference...0.94%. I mean...it wouldn't even show up in damage figures. Less than 1% difference, for a "huge" amount of work in order to reach that "whopping" potential. Whearas a Scrapper can get it at the start of a fight all the way to the end and doesn't have to keep moving or work for it as hard. So yea...I think a little 12% increase in Brute survivability is a perfectly balanced trade-off.
0.94% man. 0.94%.
If that is really troubling you, then you have some serious envy problems that maybe you should speak to a councelor about...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So here's the real question:
Is the Brute versus Scrapper damage argument put to rest? Can we all agree that 3% damage difference is low enough to ignore?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think we can ignore it once scrapper health, def/res caps, and aggro mitigation is within 3% of brutes.
I love both of these AT's but it's pretty obvious that one of them has a clear advantage over the other, lol.
Good job on the calculations bill.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's actually only a 0.94% damage difference...
[ QUOTE ]
Brutes now do .94% more damage than scrappers on average.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you wanna argue that "somehow" that is too much, then I truely have to just "LOL@U" because wow. And honestly, you really have not brought anything to the table to convince me (or anyone else) that Brute damage/survivability is SO >>>> than Scrapper damage/survivability in general play. So until you can bring some convincing arguments to the table, I'm just not buying it.
I think Scrappers and Brutes are both balanced perfectly together. Brutes get a mere 12% survivability increase in order to survive a tad longer to "generate" their Fury in a battle (Scrappers start at full) and are tasked/burdened with "maintaining" that high Fury generation the "entire" mission in order to achieve a whopping 0.94% net damage over Scrappers. Basically, they will be forced to [u]work their rears off[u] to "keep" that entire 0.94% damage edge over Scrappers throughout the mission, and let's face it...not only is this normally not easy to do with your average pickup team (most love to take breaks between spawns, absorbe alphas for you with controls, etc)...but we're also talking about a LESS than 1% damage difference...0.94%. I mean...it wouldn't even show up in damage figures. Less than 1% difference, for a "huge" amount of work in order to reach that "whopping" potential. Whearas a Scrapper can get it at the start of a fight all the way to the end and doesn't have to keep moving or work for it as hard. So yea...I think a little 12% increase in Brute survivability is a perfectly balanced trade-off.
0.94% man. 0.94%.
If that is really troubling you, then you have some serious envy problems that maybe you should speak to a councelor about...
[/ QUOTE ]
LOL, envy problems? This isn't about 'my at is better than your at', well, at least for me. I have several lvl 50 brutes and am currently leveling one. I enjoy both at's equally. I'm just making an honest observation in terms of comparative performance.
You seem to think that a 12% survivability edge for brutes (your number) AND a damage advantage (regardless of how small), again for brutes, is parity. I'd suggest you look up parity in the dictionary.
This OP was singletarget only. Quills from spines was added only because it would be hitting that single target in question.
The last few posts gave just some of the reasons why it won't be me doing the aoe comparisons.
Be well, people of CoH.