[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're invariably ignoring other facets of both AT's.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just like those ignoring brute damage output variability pointing to the necessity of higher hitpoints.
It's fascinating to me that the arguments for and against some unfair brute advantage are being shown to have the same kind of overall fairness in their logical holes that I see present between the two ATs.
[/ QUOTE ]
At what fury% do brutes do inferior damage to scrappers to justify the survivability advantage, and how often is the average brute playing at that fury%? And even when they are there, I guess when they are resting or the player is afk, they still maintain advantages in survivability and aggro controls. Then add to that, the fact that brutes have the ability to do better damage, have better survivability and possess better aggro control abilities.
What variable am I missing? What 'facet' of the at's am I missing? Yes, in some circumstances (perhaps when the brute is in a coma or mapserving), the scrapper will outdamage a brute commensurate with the inherent survivability advantage brutes have over scrappers, but in those instances, you have parity, because one at is the superior damage dealer, while the other is better at surviving damage damage and controlling aggro. The disparity comes into play when the brute can surpass the scrapper at all of the above, while the scrapper cannot do the same.
And as I've said several times, I don't think the disparity is huge or game breaking, but it's clearly there. Unless someone can point out this 'facet' I'm missing. Do scrappers have a nicer scent or something?
[/ QUOTE ]
That can be answered with math:
Scrap AT mod: 62.562
Brute AT mod: 41.708
cremate: 1.64ds
Scrap Cremate: 102.602
Brute Cremate: 68.401
% buff needed for brute to equal scrap: 50% = 25% fury
When we add 95% enhancements:
Scrap Cremate: 200 .074
Brute Cremate: 133.381
But fury only affects base damage: Brute needs 48.751% fury to catch up.
And so on and so forth.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats IF they even slot with that method. Playing a brute myself I only slot 1-2 Damage and rely more on End Redux and Recharge to keep my Fury Built. Its an Alternate playstyle that I find fun, but in this discussion considering base performance, it does make a difference.
Because damage is NOT the only thing that matters. The ability to sustain the damage and continue with that damage for prolonged periods of time also affects it. If a brute can deal more damage but takes doubly as long to move through a mission because sustaining that damage puts them in danger much more often then is it really that much of a sticking point?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, was I not suppose to bring valid arguments to the table?
Whoops, my bad, didn't wanna make you just sound like a whiner...
[/ QUOTE ]
No, please DO bring valid arguments to the table, lol. Or go with the name calling, whatever works for you little fella!
[/ QUOTE ]
Awe, how cute, you used "little fella" in an attempt to belittle me in your game of Forum PvP. Yay! Gold star, you're so advanced in teh word peeveepees! 
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll point out that when you start the name-calling, you might just be giving up the right to climb on a high horse for being called a name. And if your response to that was going to be that you didn't call him a name, that's kind of like getting off on a technicality doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime.
I'm not even reading the argument. Just skimming. Don't know which side who is taking. Don't care.
"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
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm for boosting Scrapper damage by 15%.
Forget about survivability.(You can solo an AV what more do you need)
[/ QUOTE ]I'm just going to leave this sentence here for a bit where you can read it.
[/ QUOTE ]
LOL! 
Again, I have no dog in this hunt, but that's classic. Thank you, Talen. *bow*
"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
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So why would a team pick a scrapper over a brute all things being equal?
[/ QUOTE ]
Why would you ever pick a 2nd brute over anything?
[/ QUOTE ]
You get a 2nd brute because you will eventually get a kill all mish. And when the path forks into 3 more paths, brute 1 goes left, brute 2 goes right and the rest of the group goes forward and they all finish about the same time.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i've found it reasonably simple to maintain approx 50-90% fury even in the most laid back teams, although at times it's also like being a large dog on a strong leash dragging along the rest of the team with or without their consent.
[/ QUOTE ]
This. The whole 'you gotta work for fury' argument doesn't seem to fly, at least for me. I never 'try' for fury, I just hit my attacks and the enemies attack me and it seems to happen automatically. And the same thing happens when I play a scrapper - I hit my attacks and get attacked, but with lower survivability and no fury bonus. And like you say, on even slow moving teams, my fury is routinely at 30-40% minimum.
And the 'at times it feels like I'm dragging the team along' idea is true on scrappers as well, but with a brutes it's a hell of a lot easier with better survivability.
[ QUOTE ]
as a scrapper i have different priorities than as a brute/tank. i'm not likely to be the alpha soaker or the agro holder except accidentally or incidentally depending on the circumstances.
/2inf
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course as a scrapper you have different priorities, because at 70-75% fury (which you yourself say is easy to maintain even on a slow team), the brute does everything better than your scrapper - it does more damage, withstands more damage and handles aggro better. So why would a team pick a scrapper over a brute all things being equal? What is a scrapper providing for a team that a brute cannot do as well or better?
[/ QUOTE ]
yes yes once you have the fury built it stays.
or does it?
if you are a build that has endless endurance and health - damned straight. this is why for the majority of your gaming, /wp brutes are insane.
but i think people are forgetting brutes dont get conserve power. MOST brute builds can starve for end until they are io'd out. therefore any time spent waiting for that end bar to tick is fury lost. and it's a LOT of fury.
and lets not even get started on cave missions.
no - there is variability there. before 40 and before you have yoru defense and offense sorted out AND have yoru recovery/regen sorted out the variability is pretty huge.
only people who havent actually played a brute other than /wp or dm say otherwise.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even at low fury, when the scrapper is out-damaging the brute, the brute retains better survivability and aggro control abilities, so it evens out. But when brutes get to high fury, they do EVERYTHING better than a scrapper. When does a scrapper do everything better than a brute? That's the disparity.
At low fury brutes and scrappers are on par, with scrappers being the better damage dealers and brutes being the better damage absorbers, but at high fury it's out of whack, because the brute does everything better.
[/ QUOTE ]
see, this is how i can tell you dont actually have a brute. or if you do, it's like level 5
scrappers arent expected to take the alpha. brutes are.
scrappers arent expected to wade into groups of defense and resist debuffing mobs (please go fight 4-5 longbow nullifiers and spec-ops. oooo! no regen, and 0 resistance ftw!)...brutes are.
scrappers arent expected to tank the freedom phalanx 4 at a time. brutes are.
you can have brute hp when brutes get parry and divine avalanche.
you want to talk survivability? a level 8 bs or katana/shield is soft capped to melee and lethal dmg without anything enhanced in any form. get off it.
scrappers solo av's just fine. if they want, scrappers can solo spawns of tough mobs just fine. you can have brute hp when brutes get the same values as scrappers on soul drain and against all odds.
[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, I have 2 level 50 brutes, a SS/Inv on champion and a EM/Elec on Infiniti. So at least you've been consistently wrong in your assumptions and analysis, lol.
Secondly, from your post, you actually support my assertion that brutes have advantages over scrappers, by stating that they are expected to do more than a scrapper because they CAN DO MORE THAN A SCRAPPER. Because they have better survivability and can attain better damage dealing ability. They can do everything a scrapper can do and MORE - and that is not just at the high end, thats from lvls 1-50 on a comparative build.
Go for the hat trick of wrong and guess my eye color now.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're invariably ignoring other facets of both AT's.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just like those ignoring brute damage output variability pointing to the necessity of higher hitpoints.
It's fascinating to me that the arguments for and against some unfair brute advantage are being shown to have the same kind of overall fairness in their logical holes that I see present between the two ATs.
[/ QUOTE ]
At what fury% do brutes do inferior damage to scrappers to justify the survivability advantage, and how often is the average brute playing at that fury%? And even when they are there, I guess when they are resting or the player is afk, they still maintain advantages in survivability and aggro controls. Then add to that, the fact that brutes have the ability to do better damage, have better survivability and possess better aggro control abilities.
What variable am I missing? What 'facet' of the at's am I missing? Yes, in some circumstances (perhaps when the brute is in a coma or mapserving), the scrapper will outdamage a brute commensurate with the inherent survivability advantage brutes have over scrappers, but in those instances, you have parity, because one at is the superior damage dealer, while the other is better at surviving damage damage and controlling aggro. The disparity comes into play when the brute can surpass the scrapper at all of the above, while the scrapper cannot do the same.
And as I've said several times, I don't think the disparity is huge or game breaking, but it's clearly there. Unless someone can point out this 'facet' I'm missing. Do scrappers have a nicer scent or something?
[/ QUOTE ]
That can be answered with math:
Scrap AT mod: 62.562
Brute AT mod: 41.708
cremate: 1.64ds
Scrap Cremate: 102.602
Brute Cremate: 68.401
% buff needed for brute to equal scrap: 50% = 25% fury
When we add 95% enhancements:
Scrap Cremate: 200 .074
Brute Cremate: 133.381
But fury only affects base damage: Brute needs 48.751% fury to catch up.
And so on and so forth.
[/ QUOTE ]
So by your math, a brute needs 48% fury to do the same damage as a scrapper? Attaining/maintaining 48% fury is not a herculean task, so it seems relatively easy for a brute to do equal damage to a scrapper while having clearly superior survivability. Anything over that, and the brute does more damage and has better survivability. And on teams, the brute brings the advantage of aggro management.
When you have two very similar at's, and it's relatively easy for one at to do everything better than the other at, that's an imbalance imo. And I've said this about fifty times, but I'll say it again - I don't think it's a massive game-breaking imbalance, but it is an imbalance none the less.
And you continue to consider there to be an imbalance while ignoring everything that's been shown to be in place that gives the situation balance.
You state that brutes get better aggro management. True. This means they end up having more incoming damage than scrappers. More incoming damage means a need for more mitigation. Balance.
It takes X time to reach the fury value needed to match scrapper damage output. As more buffs are added to the scrapper, the amount of fury needed rises higher, thus increasing the time it takes the brute to catch up. Balance.
The only imbalance that exists is the one you are perceiving, and your perceptions are clouded due to ignoring pertinent data.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
And you continue to consider there to be an imbalance while ignoring everything that's been shown to be in place that gives the situation balance.
You state that brutes get better aggro management. True. This means they end up having more incoming damage than scrappers. More incoming damage means a need for more mitigation. Balance.
It takes X time to reach the fury value needed to match scrapper damage output. As more buffs are added to the scrapper, the amount of fury needed rises higher, thus increasing the time it takes the brute to catch up. Balance.
The only imbalance that exists is the one you are perceiving, and your perceptions are clouded due to ignoring pertinent data.
[/ QUOTE ]
tl;dr Version for you:
lrn2read and lrn2math
[ QUOTE ]
You state that brutes get better aggro management. True. This means they end up having more incoming damage than scrappers. More incoming damage means a need for more mitigation. Balance.
[/ QUOTE ]
This statement is only vaguely true. Better aggro management = more utility and more incoming damage; more incoming damage = more survivability; more utility = less damage.
This is the exact mentality that Tankers operate of that Brutes get to ignore. Aggro management is not something an AT gets that ignores balance considerations (or shouldn't, at least). That's something that is consistently ignored. Aggro management is a benefit, not a cost.
[ QUOTE ]
It takes X time to reach the fury value needed to match scrapper damage output. As more buffs are added to the scrapper, the amount of fury needed rises higher, thus increasing the time it takes the brute to catch up. Balance.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is when determining how specifically variable Fury is whenever effort is made to maintain it. Fury should be treated like Containment. It requires a certain degree of maintenance and provides significant rewards to those that perform that maintenance. With Controllers, it's pretty easy to figure out Containment contribution (AoE Immob is easily perma, therefore 95% of the attacks after the first should benefit from Containment). With Brutes, it's harder because Fury is significantly more variable thanks in part to having a 101 pt scale rather than a binary scale which is exacerbated by bringing in player skill.
[ QUOTE ]
The only imbalance that exists is the one you are perceiving, and your perceptions are clouded due to ignoring pertinent data.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the problem is that those of us trying to see if there is a discrepancy are constantly at odds with those that believe there isn't. The primary problem is that, in order to actually get some decent baseline of AT performance, it's necessary to eliminate player performance, which is compounded by every Brute player in existence having a different opinion on what peak Fury is, minimum Fury is, and Fury variability is.
The best numerical comparisons for this purpose are the ones that operate exclusively off of a functional scalar level, allowing us to ignore powersets because, as we've seen from Billz's comparisons, they're all roughly equal. That's not the hard part.
The hard part is removing any variability in Fury contribution. In order to eliminate Fury variability, it would also be necessary to actually have the community as a whole decide on an acceptable average Fury contribution number when dealing damage. This has yet to happen because, as far as I've seen, no matter the situation, Brute players have consistently said that any calculation we make is weighing Fury to high. Average Fury contribution ignores Fury during downtime because neither the Scrapper nor the Brute would be dealing damage. All downtime serves to do is create a lower starting point for Fury contribution whenever the fight begins.
At 90%, it's too high because the only times you'll be doing that are on long fights in which the period that you'll be below 90% are less than 5% of the actually length of time for the entire fight and those fights are outliers. At 75%, that's too much Fury because, even though during a fight it's going to get significantly higher, it drops down in the run to the next group. 50% is probably just right for some people, but, seriously, anyone who is only managing to maintain 50% Fury on average is an incompetent.
The biggest problem I'm still having in this discussion is that Brute players are unwilling to actually have their Fury contributions quantified. It's always too high, even when those of us who don't play Brutes often can maintain higher numbers than we're crediting with sub-optimal builds.
The fact that Brutes and Scrappers are even having this discussion when Brutes would be better compared to Tankers for all intents and purposes tells me that something is disturbingly wrong. Brutes have more in common with Tankers than they've ever had with Scrappers from a design standpoint. Higher survivability, the same survivability caps, superior native and inherent aggro control, and the same power sets, for the devs' sake. The only thing that Brutes and Scrappers share is a common mindset among the players of running from one group to the next with abandon.
I haven't read the whole thread and I haven't really played a Brute past low levels so forgive me if my question has been answered or seems over simplistic. From what I've garnered here, some in the scrapper community are upset that Brutes have the potential to become better than scrappers in every way, damage, survivability, and aggro management. The justification that I see being put forth is that Brutes are meant to tank and thus require the better survivability, aggro management, and potential to do higher DPS. Now I understand and can agree with the need for the survivability and aggro management as the Brute is red sides tank. I guess I 'm failing to see the justification for the potential to do higher DPS? Isn't the Brute supposed to fall somewhere between a tanker and a scrapper? I can see it being justifiable to reach scrapper DP with max fury but if a pure DPS class can be surpassed by a hybrid relatively easily from what I understand, I guess I don't see the justification for that.
Umbral,
YOU just flatly ignored that brutes have the EXACT same base mitigation values and preceded that by accepting that my analysis based on 75% fury showed equitable damage output.
Do I agree with you that the general populace can't decide on what value of fury should be used? Sure. But I don't really care what number is decided upon. The end outcome from two different takes on the analysis didn't show a huge disparity in either case.
Where are you getting that better aggro management, in the form of taunt, will EVER lead to better utility and less damage for the taunter? That makes absolutely zero sense to me. Taunting ONLY means more damage for the taunter. What it means for teammates is irrelevant to the comparison of brutes and scrappers.
As for having many of the same sets? Also irrelevant. Especially as more and more are being proliferated. Which fiery melee is more like brute fiery melee? Scrapper or tank? Scrapper, of course. Both have cremate and lack combustion.
Where are tanks sitting on damage output when compared to brutes and scrappers? WAAAAY back in the back while brutes and scrappers share near equivalence.
So what's REALLY the big green elephant in the room? Only the fact that brutes get tank mitigation caps. A fact that I've noted repeatedly that I disagree with. Just as much as I disagree that scrappers should have the same mitigation caps as squishies.
Set them both to 80% and call it a day. Then tanks can stop griping because they'll have the highest caps in the game and higher base mitigation values to offset their sucktacular damage output while brutes and scrappers will be completely interchangeable without stepping on tank toes.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the whole thread and I haven't really played a Brute past low levels so forgive me if my question has been answered or seems over simplistic. From what I've garnered here, some in the scrapper community are upset that Brutes have the potential to become better than scrappers in every way, damage, survivability, and aggro management. The justification that I see being put forth is that Brutes are meant to tank and thus require the better survivability, aggro management, and potential to do higher DPS. Now I understand and can agree with the need for the survivability and aggro management as the Brute is red sides tank. I guess I 'm failing to see the justification for the potential to do higher DPS? Isn't the Brute supposed to fall somewhere between a tanker and a scrapper? I can see it being justifiable to reach scrapper DP with max fury but if a pure DPS class can be surpassed by a hybrid relatively easily from what I understand, I guess I don't see the justification for that.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the crux of the argument, yes. However, from what I see scrapper and brute damage is in the long run equal. Brutes, due to the fury mechanism, must place themselves into a position of more risk to maintain that level of damage. Scrappers can relax as they see fit and never waver on their damage output.
For me, brutes having higher base hit points is the only concession needed. The higher mitigation caps have never made sense to me. At the same time, I see no reason for scrappers to be capped at the same level of defenders and controllers.
Thus my call for both scrappers and brutes to be set at 80%.
Be well, people of CoH.
"Relatively easily" is the problem here. Some players claim it is, and that might be true for them, but it's definitely not true for everyone. Numerous other players, including myself, have reported they have trouble keeping Fury above 70%, in which case scrappers are better.
Potentially, Brutes might have 5-10% higher damage than scrappers.
The problem being you have to be at full (90) Fury and to keep it at all times.
Potentially, a DM scrapper might also have 50% higher ST damage than any other scrapper primaries.
The problem being you have to keep 10 targets in Soul Drain at all times.
Potentially, a DB scrapper would do better AoE damage than a Spines scrapper.
The problem being you have to be able to hit the maximum number of targets in your cones everytime, without wasting time positioning yourself.
Numbers might not be exact, that's not the point.
Being able to potentially do something is good, so is being able to do something all the time. Having options is great.
In a way, this reminds me of the "is invul overpowered?" argument after the multiple AVs stuff.
It's really the same situation - we had one powerset with the ability to have higher peak performance if they pick their fight, but lower performance overall, compared to another powerset with the exact same performance in all situations, with a lower peak performance. Here, there's arguing about an AT that, with a specific playstyle, has higher performance, but at the cost of lower performance if you play a different way, compared to an AT with the exact same performance regardless of your playstyle but a lower peak performance.
I see
[ QUOTE ]
...
Being able to potentially do something is good, so is being able to do something all the time. Having options is great.
...
Here, there's arguing about an AT that, with a specific playstyle, has higher performance, but at the cost of lower performance if you play a different way, compared to an AT with the exact same performance regardless of your playstyle but a lower peak performance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Very well said.
[ QUOTE ]
YOU just flatly ignored that brutes have the EXACT same base mitigation values and preceded that by accepting that my analysis based on 75% fury showed equitable damage output.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, you're ignoring the fact that Brutes have 12.5% more hit points at base, which means that they're going to be more survivable in all equivalent situations. That is my primary point of contention. Brute damage scales with situational danger: more attacks coming in, more damage going out. That doesn't necessitate greater survivability. All it necessitates is for Brutes to have a greater need to be in higher risk situations in order to achieve peak damage. That's just like Blasters with old defiance. A need to be in a more dangerous situation does not equate to a need to be more survivable.
You're also ignoring that you've only generated a single set of data points for Brutes. You're ignoring the numerous other data points that have been posited as needed, including various buff states and other points that need to be shown (we got a little in to this in the DM/SD Brute v. Scrapper debate a couple weeks ago). Those showed that the Brute and Scrapper combinations in question were approximately equal. The Scrapper had advantage in the middling regions whereas the Brute had a distinct advantage in the top end and bottom end regions. And that was based exclusively off of damage.
[ QUOTE ]
Where are you getting that better aggro management, in the form of taunt, will EVER lead to better utility and less damage for the taunter? That makes absolutely zero sense to me. Taunting ONLY means more damage for the taunter. What it means for teammates is irrelevant to the comparison of brutes and scrappers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, taunting provides a great deal of in-team utility. That's the entire point of it. It's pulling damage away from squishier members of the team to oneself, who is hopefully more disposed towards damage mitigation and recovery. That's why Tankers have it as their inherent. That's why Willpower is designed specifically around having a weaker taunt effect. Aggro control is a benefit. It isn't a static, ignorable quantity that exists outside of balance considerations.
As to how it relates to Brutes and Scrappers, think on this: a Scrapper cannot serve for functional exchange for a Tanker. Scrappers cannot get nor can they maintain the same levels of aggro control that a Tanker can (which is, of course, ignoring the significant survivability disparity otherwise). A Brute, on the other hand, because all but 1 secondary has a taunt aura equivalent with the Tanker version for magnitude and duration as well as the increased aggro gaining capabilities derived from their punchvoking, is capable of attaining and maintaining near similar amounts of aggro. A generic Scrapper cannot replace a generic Tanker. A generic Brute can replace a generic Tanker. This means that Brutes have more team utility than Scrappers do thanks to their ability to more easily attain and maintain aggro on targets.
How well an AT handles aggro (if given aggro capabilities natively) is a factored value when balancing. Brutes have team utility (aggro control), similar damage in most situations (Fury makes up for low base scalar), greater top end damage (crazy high damage cap), greater baseline survivability (higher base hp), and greater top end survivability (higher caps). The only things Scrappers get are less variability in damage. That's not parity.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, you're ignoring the fact that Brutes have 12.5% more hit points at base, which means that they're going to be more survivable in all equivalent situations. That is my primary point of contention. Brute damage scales with situational danger: more attacks coming in, more damage going out. That doesn't necessitate greater survivability. All it necessitates is for Brutes to have a greater need to be in higher risk situations in order to achieve peak damage. That's just like Blasters with old defiance. A need to be in a more dangerous situation does not equate to a need to be more survivable.
[/ QUOTE ]
Old blaster defiance doesn't exist. They saw how stupid it was. Therefore, brutes get more hitpoints due to higher risk necessary for damage output parity.
It's also impossible for me to ignore higher brute base hitpoints when I've specifically mentioned it several times in this thread alone that it should be there as a concession to brutes having to take on higher risk to maintain scrapper level damage output.
[ QUOTE ]
You're also ignoring that you've only generated a single set of data points for Brutes. You're ignoring the numerous other data points that have been posited as needed, including various buff states and other points that need to be shown (we got a little in to this in the DM/SD Brute v. Scrapper debate a couple weeks ago). Those showed that the Brute and Scrapper combinations in question were approximately equal. The Scrapper had advantage in the middling regions whereas the Brute had a distinct advantage in the top end and bottom end regions. And that was based exclusively off of damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've given two distinct data sets, 3 if you count that I changed scrapper critical percentages. And now you mention more showing brutes and scrappers damage output being equal. Yes, we've agreed on this all along, there's no point in bringing it up anymore.
I'll put it in bold so that we can move past it:
SCRAPPER AND BRUTE DAMAGE OUTPUT IS EQUITABLE. IT IS EQUAL IN THE LONG RUN. IT HAS PARITY.
Why you think I'm arguing against that fact after putting forth my own comparisons showing it to be true really has me wondering what you're going on about.
On the rest of your post, a generic brute can NOT replace a generic tanker UNLESS that brute has teammates buffing it.
Thanks for agreeing with me that taunt increases the amount of damage a taunter will receive. Since brutes are given an aoe taunt rather than a single target taunt, those brutes that waste the power pick on it and use it will need the extra hitpoints given to the AT, won't they?
And we agree that brute mitigation caps are too high when considering their damage output.
Good. Glad to see we're on the same page.
So, what exactly are you arguing with me on again?
Brutes live with more risk than scrappers due to taunt and the mechanics of fury.
Brutes get higher base hit points because of this.
Scrapper/brute damage output is generally equal.
Brute mitigation caps should be the same as scrappers.
Lots of agreement there.
So do you agree that scrappers, and thus brutes, should have higher mitigation caps than squishies? If you do, then there's absolutely nothing left for us to argue about is there?
Be well, people of CoH.
The only problem I see with Brutes are that they are on the other side...
But that's gonna change soon I think... 
[ QUOTE ]
So what's REALLY the big green elephant in the room? Only the fact that brutes get tank mitigation caps. A fact that I've noted repeatedly that I disagree with. Just as much as I disagree that scrappers should have the same mitigation caps as squishies.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Set them both to 80% and call it a day. Then tanks can stop griping because they'll have the highest caps in the game and higher base mitigation values to offset their sucktacular damage output while brutes and scrappers will be completely interchangeable without stepping on tank toes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I am reading this wrong, but aren't you pretty much agreeing with Umbral and Cybernaut? To leave both ATs mitgation the same and boost scrapper damage, vs deceasing Brute mitigation while boosting Scrapper mitgation are opposing approaches to addressing the exact same issue.
The debate seems to be arguing to agree with it's self.
SI Radio has many DJs and listeners whom hold City of Heroes close to their hearts. We will be supporting many efforts to keep CoH ALIVE!!
Different goals. I think giving scrappers more damage is a ridiculous idea.
The tank contingent that's pushing for more damage would be even MORE up in arms than they already are.
My solution would quiet the most people, I believe.
Tanks get to be top dogs with mitigation caps.
Scrappers would be happier with that extra 5% possible dam-res and take their place as melee specialists with caps above the squishies.
Most brutes wouldn't notice the difference in survivability.
While I agree with throwing more damage at dominators across the board and yanking it from domination, I don't feel that throwing more damage at melee ATs is a solution that should be entertained.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
Different goals. I think giving scrappers more damage is a ridiculous idea.
The tank contingent that's pushing for more damage would be even MORE up in arms than they already are.
My solution would quiet the most people, I believe.
Tanks get to be top dogs with mitigation caps.
Scrappers would be happier with that extra 5% possible dam-res and take their place as melee specialists with caps above the squishies.
Most brutes wouldn't notice the difference in survivability.
While I agree with throwing more damage at dominators across the board and yanking it from domination, I don't feel that throwing more damage at melee ATs is a solution that should be entertained.
[/ QUOTE ]
No argument. I wasn't suggesting scrapper needed more damage. Simply pointing out you seem to agree there is a balance concern regarding the damage to damage mitgation of scrappers vs brutes. I am extremely hesistant to suggest anything to address those concerns.
SI Radio has many DJs and listeners whom hold City of Heroes close to their hearts. We will be supporting many efforts to keep CoH ALIVE!!
I still think this whole thing is ridiculous and are only noticed by forum harpies like we all are.
What a waste of time, because I am quite certain nothing will come of all this maths you guys have been bandying about.
When something good happens to me, I can never enjoy it....
I am always too busy looking for the inevitable punchline...
BEHOLD THE POWER OF CHEESE!
You could be right. But if we've learned anything around here when it comes to powerset/archetype balance, if you don't back your concepts with math and logic, you really won't get anywhere.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
How well an AT handles aggro (if given aggro capabilities natively) is a factored value when balancing. Brutes have team utility (aggro control), similar damage in most situations (Fury makes up for low base scalar), greater top end damage (crazy high damage cap), greater baseline survivability (higher base hp), and greater top end survivability (higher caps). The only things Scrappers get are less variability in damage. That's not parity.
[/ QUOTE ]
NAILED IT.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm for boosting Scrapper damage by 15%.
Forget about survivability.(You can solo an AV what more do you need)
[/ QUOTE ]I'm just going to leave this sentence here for a bit where you can read it.