[ QUOTE ]
SCRAPPER AND BRUTE DAMAGE OUTPUT IS EQUITABLE. IT IS EQUAL IN THE LONG RUN. IT HAS PARITY.
[/ QUOTE ]
And that's where the parity ends in comparing the two ats, because brutes have better survivability and team aggro controls.
Brutes don't HAVE to run their fury up. They CAN if they CHOOSE to in order to equal or surpass scrapper lvl damage. If they don't try at all, then often they are on par overall with scrappers because their higher survivability is balanced by their weaker damage.
And the aggro power of a brute is a strength, teams love it because it helps protect the rest of the team and the brute loves it because it builds their fury. Granted, they are not as sturdy as tanks, but they can serve as a better tank than an equivalent scrapper can, if they CHOOSE to do so.
So again, the problem with the balance between these at's that at worst the brute is on par with scrappers but has all kinds of ways to surpass the scrapper, at everything. That's imbalance. That's disparity.
Your suggestion to make res/def caps equal between the two would solve a big part of the problem, but you'd still have the health disparity and additional aggro control. If overall, dmg dealing is on par between the two at's, why do brutes still enjoy a clear superiority in health, def/res caps and team benefits?
I like your equal def/res caps idea, and I totally agree that we don't need to add damage to scrappers, but some kind of team benefit power/bonus for scrappers would be ideal, imo.
[ QUOTE ]
So again, the problem with the balance between these at's that at worst the brute is on par with scrappers but has all kinds of ways to surpass the scrapper, at everything. That's imbalance. That's disparity.
Your suggestion to make res/def caps equal between the two would solve a big part of the problem, but you'd still have the health disparity and additional aggro control. If overall, dmg dealing is on par between the two at's, why do brutes still enjoy a clear superiority in health, def/res caps and team benefits?
[/ QUOTE ]
He told you
[ 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.
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 ]
"All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time"- Chesty Puller US Marine Corps
[ QUOTE ]
Scrappers would be happier with that extra 5% possible dam-res and take their place as melee specialists with caps above the squishies.
[/ QUOTE ]
I really don't think raising the Scrapper res cap is necessary. Scrappers still have loads more hp than squishies, not to mention other perks (status protection) and avenues of keeping themselves alive (heals, def).
Suppose you're on a team with two Sonics (res cap to everyone so long as they're in one of the big bubbles). Scrappers would have:
DA - status toggles, def, dark regen, specials (+perception, stealth, end drain res), psi res
Fire - healing flames, specials (res to slows)
Invuln - def, DP, specials (res to slows/end drain/defense)
Regen - regen, recon, DP, MoG (def)
Shield - hp, dmg debuff, def, specials (+perception, def resistance)
SR - def, specials (+perception, def resistance)
WP - hp, regen, def, specials (res to regen/def, +perception), psi res
The sets with res on them also tend to hit the cap easier. (Sorry, I don't see enough Sonics / Therms to buy the fact people hit the res caps frequently anyways. :P)
[ QUOTE ]
Most brutes wouldn't notice the difference in survivability.
[/ QUOTE ]
Some sets will weather that better than others no doubt, but I know Electric would be boned. (Loss of energy superiority and admittance of double damage while in Power Surge.)
Other effected sets would be Invuln (Unstoppable), Fire (fire res), and Stone (Granite + Stone Skin + Tough).
That said, I don't think Brutes should have the 90% cap, but I also don't think that it's as simple as just dropping the cap to 80% and calling it a day.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So again, the problem with the balance between these at's that at worst the brute is on par with scrappers but has all kinds of ways to surpass the scrapper, at everything. That's imbalance. That's disparity.
Your suggestion to make res/def caps equal between the two would solve a big part of the problem, but you'd still have the health disparity and additional aggro control. If overall, dmg dealing is on par between the two at's, why do brutes still enjoy a clear superiority in health, def/res caps and team benefits?
[/ QUOTE ]
He told you
[ 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.
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 ]
[/ QUOTE ]
And that explanation is broken logically, imo. Aggro management is a bonus, not a negative, or nobody would be playing tanks, and tanks would be doing scrapper level damage, because all that extra survivability would be written off because they 'need it' to survive all the aggro. But in reality, being able to survive and control aggro is a BENEFIT. As such, tanks get the much better taunt and survivability advantage over scrappers in exchange for much weaker damage output. Brutes get a better (not as much better as tanks) taunt and survivability advantage over scrappers, but as bill has admitted, the same damage output overall as scrappers do. That's uneven. If it were balanced properly, they would have a similar dmg disadvantage to scrappers as tanks do, not as great a disadvantage obviously, because they don't have as great an advantage in survivability as a tank does over a scrapper.
Taunt is only beneficial for teammates. It is detrimental to the taunter due to the increased incoming damage. You obviously understand this. You also admit tanks get higher mitigation because of it.
This and the mechanics of fury generation are why brutes should have higher mitigation (hello extra hit points) REGARDLESS of the parity in damage output.
Tanks get lousy damage output because they get gauntlet, they get taunt, but much more importantly, they get higher base mitigation values, higher base HP and higher caps. I repeat, again, tanks do NOT have damage parity so they must get something ELSE for their higher risk. They do. They get higher base mitigation values, higher base HP and a much higher mitigation cap.
Brutes DO have damage parity but STILL experience higher risk in order to attain that damage parity. So they, too, must have something over scrappers. They get higher hit points.
It should have stopped there. Allowing brutes to have tanker caps was a mistake that should have never occurred.
Remove the disparity in mitigation caps and scrappers and brutes will have FULL parity.
Sarrate,
If the invulnerable scrapper can handle life with unstoppable capped at 75% why can't an invulnerable brute?
Would raising scrapper cap to 80% be necessary? Absolutely not. We live with it now. By meeting the brutes at 80% I was only attempting to separate the melee from the squishy further and lessen the blow to brutes.
But if lowering brutes to 75% is what must occur, fine. However, I still think that's crap. I do not believe that scrappers and brutes should have the same cap as squishies.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
If the invulnerable scrapper can handle life with unstoppable capped at 75% why can't an invulnerable brute?
[/ QUOTE ]
Correction : the invulnerable scrapper* handles life without Unstoppable, because with a 75% res cap Unstoppable doesn't bring enough mitigation to be worth it for the crash it gets.
* and by "the invulnerable scrapper" I mean "me". 
Well... yea. I wasn't planning to take it on my claws/invul either.
But would you take it if the cap was 80%? I still wouldn't.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
My big point of contention is that the 2 ATs aren't equal when many people are saying they are. Personally, I think it means that there needs to be a change in base numbers to account for the increased base survivability of Brutes, but, as long as there is some change to generate better parity, I really don't care. To determine if Scrappers need to be brought up, Brutes need to be brought down, or any combination of the two, I'd have to say that it would require an examination of all of the other ATs out there. If Brutes are already more powerful than average, powering up Scrappers wouldn't really solve the problem (unless the devs plan on bringing everyone up to a similar level). The opposite also applies for Brutes if they're overpowered.
As to Billz's comment of...
[ QUOTE ]
Taunt is only beneficial for teammates. It is detrimental to the taunter due to the increased incoming damage. You obviously understand this. You also admit tanks get higher mitigation because of it.
This and the mechanics of fury generation are why brutes should have higher mitigation (hello extra hit points) REGARDLESS of the parity in damage output.
Tanks get lousy damage output because they get gauntlet, they get taunt, but much more importantly, they get higher base mitigation values, higher base HP and higher caps. I repeat, again, tanks do NOT have damage parity so they must get something ELSE for their higher risk. They do. They get higher base mitigation values, higher base HP and a much higher mitigation cap.
[/ QUOTE ]
Team contribution is a valid point of balance for all ATs. Any amount in which you are capable of force multiplying your allies is factored in to balance. Taunt is a force multiplier for defense. It's focusing as many attacks as possible to the, ostensibly, most survivable party member.
The problem here Billz is that you've got the cause and effect wrong. You don't get higher mitigation because you've got a native taunt. You get a native taunt because you've got high mitigation and can stand the extra damage you'll have incoming. Brutes also get the side benefit of improving their damage thanks to Fury from being attacked, which means that they get even more than tanks do.
A Brute with Scrapper level hp and caps would still be just as survivable as a normal Scrapper. They're going to be facing the same encounters and the same amount of damage is going to be coming at them. The only "increase in risk" is the additional level of risk accepted by the Brute by going in to a fight unprepared because they don't want to lose Fury. That's not a designed risk. That's a player generated risk. Player generated risks aren't part of balance considerations.
"They're going to be facing the same encounters and the same amount of damage is going to be coming at them."
This appears to be assuming soloing, where it might be true.
In a team enviroment of virtually any composition the aggro generated by taunting and maintaining fury substantially increases the incoming damage to the brute.
Put another way, your average team when faced with a TF/SF will generally prefer a tank over a brute. Why? Because with very few exceptions every brute they see try to absorb the alpha for an entire team face plants shortly thereafter. In these cases a brute could easily go north of 80-90% fury but it does him no good without external buffs to keep him on his feet. A scrapper on the same team knows better than to take the alpha and does not need it for his inherent so he gets lesser HP and resists to begin with.
Taking It On the Chin I-16 Tanker Guide
Repeat Offenders
[ QUOTE ]
Team contribution is a valid point of balance for all ATs. Any amount in which you are capable of force multiplying your allies is factored in to balance. Taunt is a force multiplier for defense. It's focusing as many attacks as possible to the, ostensibly, most survivable party member.
The problem here Billz is that you've got the cause and effect wrong. You don't get higher mitigation because you've got a native taunt. You get a native taunt because you've got high mitigation and can stand the extra damage you'll have incoming. Brutes also get the side benefit of improving their damage thanks to Fury from being attacked, which means that they get even more than tanks do.
A Brute with Scrapper level hp and caps would still be just as survivable as a normal Scrapper. They're going to be facing the same encounters and the same amount of damage is going to be coming at them. The only "increase in risk" is the additional level of risk accepted by the Brute by going in to a fight unprepared because they don't want to lose Fury. That's not a designed risk. That's a player generated risk. Player generated risks aren't part of balance considerations.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your opinions on the chicken and the egg scenario make absolutely no sense.
Tanks have a role. To fill that role they are given specific tools and are balanced accordingly. They are given aggro management and the mitigation to survive it. If I remember my CoH history, tank taunt used to be single target and they didn't have gauntlet, correct? But at that time, they were unkillable as well.
The devs decided that this lacked balance all over the place. So they decreased the mitigation side and increased the ability to control aggro.
Now tanks can fill their role but still be taken down IF the incoming damage surpasses their extreme mitigation.
Still with me? More aggro management means more mitigation.
Scrappers are the flip side to the tank. They don't have gauntlet. Their only taunt is single target. They have very low aggro management. If we left them at that, no one would ever play a scrapper. So what do they have to balance the AT? High damage.
Then we have the brute. It starts out doing less damage than the tank, with less aggro management than the tank and the same mitigation as the scrapper. As with the scrapper, if we left it like this, no one would play it. So it, too, has the ability to do more damage, but unlike the scrapper, it must WORK FOR IT.
You refuse to accept that this WORK should be accounted for when considering the balance of the AT. Just as you continue to refuse to accept that higher order aggro management necessitates higher mitigation.
I do not understand why you continue to refuse the validity of these points.
I don't have the cause and effect of anything wrong. You are incapable of understanding archetype balance.
A brute is ONLY as capable of handling the same conflicts as a scrapper if he PLAYS like a scrapper and gives up the fury that he needs to equal scrapper damage output.
Continue to ignore that fact all you like, but you'll still be wrong.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
But would you take it if the cap was 80%? I still wouldn't.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would... if the cap was 85%. 
[ QUOTE ]
Sarrate,
If the invulnerable scrapper can handle life with unstoppable capped at 75% why can't an invulnerable brute?
Would raising scrapper cap to 80% be necessary? Absolutely not. We live with it now. By meeting the brutes at 80% I was only attempting to separate the melee from the squishy further and lessen the blow to brutes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't really thing that dropping them all the way to 75% would be the right approach since there are some sets that seem to be designed with capping a res type in mind (ex: Electric, although it could be tweaked separately - which is why I said just dropping the cap and calling it a day wouldn't be wise). I just don't think Scrappers are hurting from the 75% cap. (I'll touch on this later.)
At any rate, I think the "one cap fits all" is too restrictive; I wish there were two different res caps - one you could sit at permanently (X), and the other you could only situationally boost yourself up to (Y).
Examples:
X - Things like IOs, pool powers, reliable effects (toggles, outside buffs, etc) would cap here.
Y - Situational buffs like inspirations / t9s would allow you up to this value.
This way, you could set Brutes to say 80% permanent cap (X) and 90% temp cap (Y). This would allow Brutes to still be buffed to be quite sturdy, but they could temporarily push past it if the need arose. A Scrapper might be 75% / 80-85%. I'd say a Tanker would be 90% / 90%.
(It'd be neat if it were possible to split res buffs between the two. For example, say the devs wanted Unstoppable to cap a Scrapper at 80%, they'd change it from +52.5% res to +47.5% res and +5% 'above the cap res.' Along as similar vein, they could change it from +10% res to +7.5% res and +2.5% 'above the cap res' to make it take several oranges to cap.)
This is a very rough idea - I originally came up with it for defense, so I haven't worked out any kinks / oddities for res. I also fully admit it's likely impossible / would give Castle a gigantic migraine. :P
[ QUOTE ]
But if lowering brutes to 75% is what must occur, fine. However, I still think that's crap. I do not believe that scrappers and brutes should have the same cap as squishies.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even at the same cap, meleers will be significantly more survivable than squishies. They have more tools to stay alive, more hp, status protection, etc. Further, most Scrappers (aside from SR / Regen) have decent resists to stack with, so it's easier for them to hit the res cap than it is on squishies.
Besides, if you think sharing the 75% res cap is bad, you must hate Force Fielders soft capping the entire team, right? Nerf that def soft cap! 
(I kid, I kid..)
I'm not sure we'll ever see eye to eye on this, though. If that's the case, let's agree to disagree. 
(Obvious joke, but I must point it out because you know how text based communication goes...)
[edit: Btw, I'm not overly concerned about Brute balance. They can hit those caps, but it's not something I'd expect to happen on a regular basis (outside the mentioned sets). I don't really play Brutes much, so I can't say how often they're buffed to it... but I'd wager it's the exception rather than the rule. Brutes may be theoretically better, but I still can't stand them.]
Billz, you're conclusions are so blatantly wrong and lopsided that I'm not even going to both explaining it to you. Please, have fun not playing any more. It will be nice not to have to deal with all of your juxtaposed and misapplied conclusions.
[ QUOTE ]
If the invulnerable scrapper can handle life with unstoppable capped at 75% why can't an invulnerable brute?
[/ QUOTE ]
because in the only situation where this actually matters - teaming - you still have access to tanks.
villains do not.
it takes a LOT of work to cap out any brute to 90%. in fact outside of a granite brute or invuln brute i dont think any of them can actually reach 90% smash/lethal resists even with tough without sonic or thermal buffs. and in that case you're teaming, so blueside wins as you can just grab a tank and go. that's two secondaries out of how many?
brutes can no more reach the soft cap on the defense sets with any less effort than a scrapper - with the same soft caps. and as of right now there is a heavier emphasis on not being hit at all rather than being able to soak the dmg. and again when a villain group needs a tank, they have to look to a scrapper type as they have no tanker option. it's less about brute vs scrapper parity than it is about villain vs. hero viability in a game that for nearly two years was designing hard content to require a tanker.
now...because the overwhelming MAJORITY of players in this game solo or farm ae missions now the real bottom line here is that it doesnt matter at all. because as far back as theconfessor soloing av's in issue 1 showed, scrappers are one of the best soloing at's in this game.
there is no disparity because the at's were designed with entirely different roles. brutes ARE the tanks red side. masterminds are messy and unreliable tanks and with all the current crop of mm-tards thinking that the massive amounts of knockback in storm are the bee's knee's for pve (which is entirely counter productive to properly playing a mastermind) you are lucky if you can find a single mastermind that can play worth a damned. so..brutes are the red side tanks. stalkers are the scrappers. worry about stalker vs. scrapper.
and quite frankly if brutes are dropped to 75%, then the LRSF will never be done except by the one percenters
[ QUOTE ]
Billz, you're conclusions are so blatantly wrong and lopsided that I'm not even going to both explaining it to you. Please, have fun not playing any more. It will be nice not to have to deal with all of your juxtaposed and misapplied conclusions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for giving up. You were really beginning to embarrass yourself.
Be well, people of CoH.
Reading this last post has me thinking of the roles of the different ATs of this discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
Scrappers are the flip side to the tank. They don't have gauntlet. Their only taunt is single target. They have very low aggro management. If we left them at that, no one would ever play a scrapper. So what do they have to balance the AT? High damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
This perspective seems to be a bit skewed. This statement here seems to imply that scrapper's damage is a result to balance the AT, rather than to define its role. The way that I see it is that the scrapper's damage is what defines the AT and its role. When you want damage, a scrapper or a blaster is the way to go for hero side.
Once the role of the scrapper is defined, then other details are added in to balance it out with the ATs. Of course, it's not always ideal this way.
I can understand what both sides are saying in this discussion, but there seems to be a loss of perspective here that is skewing perspectives on both sides.
[ QUOTE ]
A brute is ONLY as capable of handling the same conflicts as a scrapper if he PLAYS like a scrapper and gives up the fury that he needs to equal scrapper damage output.
[/ QUOTE ]
This got me thinking. If a brute is not playing like a scrapper, then how else can it play like? I'm sure it can also function as a tank since I've seen it before. Also, I'm unclear of what it means by "capable of handling the same conflicts." Does this mean able to survive said conflicts, or resolving said conflict in a certain amount of time?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
no he didnt. because of one underlying fact:
scrappers arent expected to tank the LRSF. the brute build that 90% of the time does has a big -dmg component to it.
if all anyone cares about in this thread is performance vs. a group of 16 custom lt's designed for farming then yes - heroes have a cause to complain. heroes simply dont run these farm missions at the same clip as a ss/fire brute, fire/psi dom or just villains in general.
but if we are talking about the real content - the strike forces and what not - apparantly scrappers can solo lord recluse and still have access to tankers. villains must rely heavily on generally only ONE build of brute to handle the tough strike forces, and that brute build has a dmg and recharge debuff on it - and is also awfully rare to find anymore.
[ QUOTE ]
This got me thinking. If a brute is not playing like a scrapper, then how else can it play like? I'm sure it can also function as a tank since I've seen it before. Also, I'm unclear of what it means by "capable of handling the same conflicts." Does this mean able to survive said conflicts, or resolving said conflict in a certain amount of time?
[/ QUOTE ]
It goes back to a point made earlier. In order for brutes to maintain their damage output parity with scrappers, they must play like brutes. Meaning running from spawn to spawn resting as little as possible in order to maintain fury.
Scrappers can go about missions far more leisurely since their damage output is constant.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
This got me thinking. If a brute is not playing like a scrapper, then how else can it play like? I'm sure it can also function as a tank since I've seen it before. Also, I'm unclear of what it means by "capable of handling the same conflicts." Does this mean able to survive said conflicts, or resolving said conflict in a certain amount of time?
[/ QUOTE ]
I read that as surviving said conflict.
I.E., if you're stopping to use Aid Self/Rest, if you kite while your defense is debuffed, if you wait for a specific power (BU, a tier9...) to engage a tough group, your damage stays the same on a scrapper, but you lose Fury on a brute.
[ QUOTE ]
Reading this last post has me thinking of the roles of the different ATs of this discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
Scrappers are the flip side to the tank. They don't have gauntlet. Their only taunt is single target. They have very low aggro management. If we left them at that, no one would ever play a scrapper. So what do they have to balance the AT? High damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
This perspective seems to be a bit skewed. This statement here seems to imply that scrapper's damage is a result to balance the AT, rather than to define its role. The way that I see it is that the scrapper's damage is what defines the AT and its role. When you want damage, a scrapper or a blaster is the way to go for hero side.
Once the role of the scrapper is defined, then other details are added in to balance it out with the ATs. Of course, it's not always ideal this way.
I can understand what both sides are saying in this discussion, but there seems to be a loss of perspective here that is skewing perspectives on both sides.
[ QUOTE ]
A brute is ONLY as capable of handling the same conflicts as a scrapper if he PLAYS like a scrapper and gives up the fury that he needs to equal scrapper damage output.
[/ QUOTE ]
This got me thinking. If a brute is not playing like a scrapper, then how else can it play like? I'm sure it can also function as a tank since I've seen it before. Also, I'm unclear of what it means by "capable of handling the same conflicts." Does this mean able to survive said conflicts, or resolving said conflict in a certain amount of time?
[/ QUOTE ]
brutes must play non stop. there is no waiting for people to res. no waiting for people to catch up. no waiting for fulcrum to recharge. no waiting for a fresh sb/fort/forge. no waiting.
not all brute secondaries can even play like that. MOST have serious end issues especially playing in a team like this. multiple brutes in a team means one has fury, the rest do not.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
the problem yo have here umbral is you are using a teamed and buffed brute vs. a teamed and buffed scrapper
the teamed and buffed scrapper is most likely teamed with a tank. the survivability question is moot.
especially when you consider what fortitude does with it's +15% defense to all - which villains dont even have access to.
[ QUOTE ]
brutes must play non stop. there is no waiting for people to res. no waiting for people to catch up. no waiting for fulcrum to recharge. no waiting for a fresh sb/fort/forge. no waiting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey this sounds familiar.....WAIT A MINUTE that's how I play my SCRAPPERS...all of them.
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!!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
brutes must play non stop. there is no waiting for people to res. no waiting for people to catch up. no waiting for fulcrum to recharge. no waiting for a fresh sb/fort/forge. no waiting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey this sounds familiar.....WAIT A MINUTE that's how I play my SCRAPPERS...all of them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Me, too. But we don't have to. As a scrapper I can get up from my desk and go have a smoke. When I come back, my damage will be the same on my next attack as it was when I got up.
That won't be the case with the brute.
How many times have we heard someone state that they just don't like brutes because of the playstyle that the fury mechanic mandates? We've heard it from folks that have posted in this thread.
It takes more work to be a brute and dish out scrapper damage. This is a fact. I enjoy the extra work. My enjoyment of the work is irrelevant when concluding that there must be some other benefit for the brute because he must work harder.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
brutes must play non stop. there is no waiting for people to res. no waiting for people to catch up. no waiting for fulcrum to recharge. no waiting for a fresh sb/fort/forge. no waiting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey this sounds familiar.....WAIT A MINUTE that's how I play my SCRAPPERS...all of them.
[/ QUOTE ]
yes i'm sure most scrappers play like this. especially those who have endless endurance.
however you can also not play like that and not lose ANY dmg performance.
ever played a stone melee brute or tanker? or a ss brute/tanker when both rage and hasten drop? i use more blues than anything else even on a stone melee/willpower brute with a 4.20 eps recovery rate and all attacks slotted 60% less end.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I disagree completely. Much of my understanding about scrappers, other ATs, and general balance comes from reading or participating in these types of debates. I find them insightful and informative.