[ QUOTE ]
having 4 'regulars' greatly decreases the odds of you picking up even just one of these unfortunately-normal retarded builds.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your right but again you never said it had to be a all PuG.
I will also say this again one retarded build doesn't matter as long as YOU know how to play the game!
[ QUOTE ]
as for nihil..i have no use for you. you didnt specify how your group was made up or what tactics you used so i made a fair assumption based on how the lrsf is usually done in a PuG. if you didnt do the normal PuG tactic you should have stated it. you should consider yourself lucky the lrsf have been nerfed as many times as it has in the last year and a half, newbie.
[/ QUOTE ]
And it looks like Nihilii was right again.
[ QUOTE ]
... Did you already forgot how the last time you made random wrong assumptions about me ended ? I'll give you a hint, it was on the tanker forum. I'll give you another hint, it's not me who ended up looking silly.
So : "Splitting the spawn ?" What for ?
[/ 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
Post deleted by Moderator 08
[ QUOTE ]
there is parity.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, there is not. In the 'non-stop playstyle' brutes are superior at everything, in the 'slow playstyle' brutes are inferior damage dealers while being better in survivability and aggro management. That is clearly not parity, but I can see why logic fails you when you reply to someone telling you to find better players and you say 'not really' then go on to explain the problems you face are due to pickup players that don't build their toons 'properly', lol.
[ QUOTE ]
the dmg advantage brutes gets requires you to PLAY NON STOP. if they dont, the advantage is gone. just having to mess around in a multi-layered cave map or those arachnos base maps with the huge room with multple levels means fury generation is annoying and usually at 30% or lower whiley ou try to find the last handful of guys so you can finish the damned thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, brutes are not 'required' to do anything. The can choose to play the 'non-stop' style, in which case they do everything better than scrappers, or they can choose to play slower, in which case they are equal to scrappers overall because they do less damage in exchange for better survivability and aggro management.
[ QUOTE ]
the extra hp? big deal. apparantly the hp disparity is such a huge issue that it kept powerforge from soloing lord recluse as a +2 av....oh wait!
[/ QUOTE ]
If it's 'not a big deal', then lets just give them to scrappers and call it a day.
[ QUOTE ]
extra hp? are you expected to tank? brutes are (especially since competent masterminds are a rare breed and their threat is unreliable unless they are the even rarer tankermind builds with provoke). if the designers dont EXPECT you to tank, you wont have that extra layer of survivability.
[/ QUOTE ]
The designers specifically have stated they didn't want any of the cov at's to be 'expected' to perform 'specific' roles as you claim. Going further, I believe they stated that the MM is the at they envisioned being the aggro sponge more so than the brute.
And the idea that if an AT is 'expected' to fill a role, they get a certain power or benefit for 'free' and it shouldn't be looked at when judging balance between at's is absurd. Tanks are clearly expected to absorb aggro blue side, but they clearly paid for that increased survivability with less damage compared to a scrapper.
[ QUOTE ]
really, if you think brutes are so much better then go play one. the only thing that keeps me red side is i prefer the zone layouts over those blue side. far easier to get where you wanna go - and much faster. but all my scrappers play just fine. i've got a 50 dm/regen that plays and solo's and teams just fine. no io's. just so's. she's got 55 free tailor sessions i should probably use at some point.
[/ QUOTE ]
I do play brutes, and telling me to go play them to round off your argument is like putting a cherry atop your broken logic cake. Oh, are you the telepath who claimed he 'knew' i didn't play brutes or if I did it was a lowbie, lol?
if the devs didnt intend brutes to tank, why do they have:
tanker taunt (but with only single target -range)
taunt auras - including a taunt aura in SR
[ QUOTE ]
if the devs didnt intend brutes to tank, why do they have:
tanker taunt (but with only single target -range)
taunt auras - including a taunt aura in SR
[/ QUOTE ]
The point was to make at's that could fill multiple roles and be less static than blue side.
The brute was 'intended' to be the melee damage dealer/aggro manager, basically something between a tank and a scrapper. And they came very close to nailing it, but in the end we have an at that overall does similar damage to a scrapper with better survivability and aggro control, so they missed the parity mark. The brute is in between a scrapper and a tank in terms of survivability (and some would argue that they're too close to tanks in terms of aggro control - but thats for the tanker/brute forums), but standing right next to scrappers in terms of damage dealing overall. That's not parity.
JupiterMoon said :
[ QUOTE ]
ever had half your team one-shot by positron? yes you have - dont lie.
[/ QUOTE ]
Seeing as Positron's strongest AoE that's not a DoT or a one time nuke hits for about 800-900 damage as a level 53 AV against level 50 characters while EF is up, seeing as even squishies have over 1000 hit points and should be out of range of the AoE anyway... Nope, I haven't.
The two experimented folks on the team told us the usual order is Numina, then Psyche, then Positron, and not Positron right after Numina. One of them is my friend, I'll believe him over your crazy rants, especially as our run was successful and your own runs are, by your own affirmations, exercises in frustration.
Wiping to split AVs is also something I've never seen or ever heard of from anyone else on the numerous discussions about the RSF.
Yes, this is offtopic. That's the problem when you make insane claims that doesn't reflect the game experience of others - people will call you on it.
Name calling won't get you any point either, it'll just make me take the bait and ask this hypothetical question : if a retarded newbie is successful at his first RSF fun on a PuG without cheap tricks or minmaxed teams, what does that make a veteran who still has trouble with this RSF after years of playing ?
Forgot to mention - you're also on my ignore list now. I'm afraid I might start losing brain cells if I keep reading your posts. 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if the devs didnt intend brutes to tank, why do they have:
tanker taunt (but with only single target -range)
taunt auras - including a taunt aura in SR
[/ QUOTE ]
The point was to make at's that could fill multiple roles and be less static than blue side.
The brute was 'intended' to be the melee damage dealer/aggro manager, basically something between a tank and a scrapper. And they came very close to nailing it, but in the end we have an at that overall does similar damage to a scrapper with better survivability and aggro control, so they missed the parity mark. The brute is in between a scrapper and a tank in terms of survivability (and some would argue that they're too close to tanks in terms of aggro control - but thats for the tanker/brute forums), but standing right next to scrappers in terms of damage dealing overall. That's not parity.
[/ QUOTE ]
the real problem is you are blowing a non-existent problem completely out of proportion.
what was the difference stated several pages back? 12%?
is 12% worth the whining? i dont think so.
the ONLY Legitimate complaint i can see thrown at brutes is them having burn AND an aoe immob. an ss/fire is an issue 1 burn tanker with taunt for all intents and purposes.
if you give scrappers anymore survivability than they already have, there will be absolutely no reason to even roll a tanker.
[ 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.
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 ]
FALSE. Brutes 'must' play 'non-stop'? No, brutes CAN play non-stop, build high fury, and out-damage scrappers AND out survive them AND out aggro manage them, which means they can outclass scrappers in everything. OR they CAN take their time, at which point they do less damage than scrappers, but still retain advantages in survivability and aggro management.
So in those two play-styles, the brute is better at everything in one, while trading dmg for survivability in the other. And as has been mentioned by other posters, the playstyle where brutes are universally superior is a playstyle shared by both at's and the majority of those who play them. If you still consider that parity, then I guess we'll just have to respectfully disagree.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's not exactly a fair evaluation. First of all, this presumes that the "benefits" being counted are always benefits, and they aren't always. For example, Brutes don't actually have "aggro manangement" they have aggro drawing ability. That's not always welcome to all players: in fact a big problem with low level tankers for many less-experienced players is Gauntlet-cide.
Second of all, this is a weirdly character-centric perspective when talking about playstyle. When a player plays with a particular playstyle, its not always a "choice" in the sense being discussed here. Its often just their playstyle, period. Its a false option to suggest that players that play Brutes always have the "option" to speed up and generate more damage, because that option may simply not exist for the player even if it exists for the character (Brute).
Mechanically speaking, the Brute is trading higher offense for lower survivability when going faster, on the presumption that going faster induces more incoming damage. Some players compensate through altered tactics and build strategies, but others can't or don't. For some players, the hurdle required to overcome to make this change is trivial, but for others its not. The archetype isn't balanced for expert players, but the playerbase as a whole where that trade is significant.
Reminder: the majority of this game's playerbase gains significant debt. They were not able to solo blasters or keep them consistently alive in teams prior to I11 (and who knows what the situation is now). They still use SOs. They can't always find the trainers.
The performance tradeoffs are designed for the average player. For players like us that are extremely build and playstyle-capable, the game doesn't (and couldn't really) offer "even" trades. Instead, it just tries to fence us in so we don't go too crazy off the map. If you think Brutes are better than Scrappers in virtually all cases for expert players, that's probably not seen as an especially important problem to resolve.
Incidentally, on the subject of Fury generation. My own personal experience from both conventional play and explicit testing is that in teams in high density single-level maps, its possible to generate and then consistently maintain high Fury, although I doubt the average player can do it consistently. Solo, especially in indoor multi-level maps, its essentially impossible except in bursts. The spawn density is simply too low while solo (on any difficulty level) for most maps to provide enough "fury-fuel" to do that, and any map with doors, elevators, and hallways is likely to provide too much travel distance to maintain high levels of fury spawn to spawn. The playstyle also requires significant attention paid to endurance efficiency in terms of both build and combat activity. Given that toggle-management is a curse word in this game in many circles, I doubt if a lot of players besides the very performance-minded would go through the trouble.
(The irony and the catch is that Fury is a form of ram-jet: high fury = higher endurance efficiency = higher activity rate = high fury. Fury does not have a linear learning curve: if you can't manage it well, you likely can't manage it at all.)
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
arcanaville you are exactly right.
[ QUOTE ]
The two experimented folks on the team told us the usual order is Numina, then Psyche, then Positron, and not Positron right after Numina. One of them is my friend, I'll believe him over your crazy rants, especially as our run was successful and your own runs are, by your own affirmations, exercises in frustration.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your friend's experience meshes well with my own on experienced teams from several global channels I frequent, with whom I usually attend various TFs/SFs.
[ QUOTE ]
Wiping to split AVs is also something I've never seen or ever heard of from anyone else on the numerous discussions about the RSF.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't say one way or other what other people do, but it's nothing I've ever seen personally as no one I run RSFs with bothers to split the heroes at all ... unless it's a MoRSF run, in which case wiping wouldn't work out so well. (I have that badge, btw.) It sounds like discussions I vaguely recall of very early tactics, back when the TF was first introduced.
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
Nihillii, are you a newbie? I certainly never got that impression. You know what you're talking about too much for me to think that.
I started playing a few weeks before i13.
Looks like you're a quick study, then. 
"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 ]
if you give scrappers anymore survivability than they already have, there will be absolutely no reason to even roll a tanker.
[/ QUOTE ]None you care about. On the other hand, there's this 'gauntlet' thing.
Yeah, this thread is old, but I didn't get a chance to post until now, and I feel like tossing in my two cents.
*clink, clink*
It seems to me that the problem here is in how people are looking at it. One side is adamant that with their play style, Brutes are more survivable and deal more damage than Scrappers, barring bizarre builds that render the Brute nigh-unplayable. On the OTHER hand, a Brute who plays more slowly, perhaps roleplays more, spends more time Resting - this Brute will deal less damage than the Scrapper, but still be more survivable.
The problem is, there is nothing the Scrapper can really do to make himself more survivable than the Brute. At best, he deals more damage, and takes more. At worst, he lags behind (however slightly) in both. I just can't see how this can be considered parity. Could someone explain that to me?
I did have a thought, though. Perhaps if the devs revamped Fury, this issue could be resolved. They did it for Defiance, so it's not unprecedented, and this wouldn't even be as big a change. Just make Fury easier to gain and maintain, while providing less of a bonus so the peak performance is lower than a Scrapper. Now, granted, this would require a lot of number crunching and other stuff I can't even begin to understand, so I doubt it'd ever happen, but would this potentially resolve the argument?
*Expecting to be told precisely where I can shove my ideas...*
Along similar line of "solving" this issue, it's probably been covered but how was the Scrappers chance to Crit taken into account? As it's higher for Bosses than it is for minions.
So, on that note isn't the easy fix to just make it slightly higher still?
In light of "Going Rogue" it makes a certain sense to let Brutes keep their all-round damage and extra survivability, while helping scrapper specialise a little more, with a slightly bigger edge for Boss killing.
Just my Two inf,
(And then maybe a Difficulty level 6 so that it REALLY pays off, but thats more wishful thinking)
[ QUOTE ]
Along similar line of "solving" this issue, it's probably been covered but how was the Scrappers chance to Crit taken into account? As it's higher for Bosses than it is for minions.
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe that Billz calculated crit chances as an additional quantity of damage per power, using an a slightly upwardly skewed average when multiple crit rates are given for the power (5% and 10% crit rate averaged to 8%).
[ QUOTE ]
So, on that note isn't the easy fix to just make it slightly higher still?
[/ QUOTE ]
The only difficulty is in increasing the crit rate for each power entry individually (as I believe the devs have to do) and determining how to resolve the differences with the powers with higher crit rates (re: would they need to be increased to be larger by percentage or simply by the static crit rate increase).
[ QUOTE ]
(And then maybe a Difficulty level 6 so that it REALLY pays off, but thats more wishful thinking)
[/ QUOTE ]
I think they should give us another five difficulty levels with super tacked on the front. I want to be SUPER INVINCIBLE. 
Yeah, probably not going to happen. 
"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 ]
(And then maybe a Difficulty level 6 so that it REALLY pays off, but thats more wishful thinking)
[/ QUOTE ]
I think they should give us another five difficulty levels with super tacked on the front. I want to be SUPER INVINCIBLE. Yeah, probably not going to happen.
[/ QUOTE ]
Difficulty 6 should be called "Unstoppable." What? They already have Unyielding and Invincible, might as well top it off with Invuln's t9. :P
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(And then maybe a Difficulty level 6 so that it REALLY pays off, but thats more wishful thinking)
[/ QUOTE ]
I think they should give us another five difficulty levels with “super” tacked on the front. I want to be SUPER INVINCIBLE. Yeah, probably not going to happen.
[/ QUOTE ]
Difficulty 6 should be called "Unstoppable." What? They already have Unyielding and Invincible, might as well top it off with Invuln's t9. :P
[/ QUOTE ]
So villain side would be called murderous?
"All problems can be solved by throwing enough scrappers at it."
@Riez on Virtue, Protector, Champion, and Exalted server.
As long as they name the last one "Plaid" I'll be happy.
Not the first to say this. If there were a difficulty 6 it would be called Dev Nerf Datamining.
[ QUOTE ]
Not the first to say this. If there were a difficulty 6 it would be called Dev Nerf Datamining.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because the devs don't already know that scrappers can completely destroy invincible and have been doing so for five years now. I really don't think the devs are as ignorant of what's going on as you seem to think.
"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
my stone melee brute can solo relentless with break free's and no click/toggles from secondary or power pools(heck depending on enemy group break free's aren't even necessary). In all honesty though brutes and scrappers are two excellent AT's, although in my experience keeping 50%+ fury on a brute is TRIVAL and getting 75%-90% even on teams is reasonable. I also have a tremendous amount of experience with brutes so I've had a lot of practice(my sig was made when there WAS no level 50, I've been capped for a long long time).
Also LRSF the order doesn't even really matter beyond numina->psyche->everyone else->states. I guess i'm a stone armor brute so my view is a little skewed, but basically once those two are down nothing except unfortunate timing with a bunch of attacks and dimension arrow hitting me nothing else is really threatening.
[ 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.
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 ]
FALSE. Brutes 'must' play 'non-stop'? No, brutes CAN play non-stop, build high fury, and out-damage scrappers AND out survive them AND out aggro manage them, which means they can outclass scrappers in everything. OR they CAN take their time, at which point they do less damage than scrappers, but still retain advantages in survivability and aggro management.
So in those two play-styles, the brute is better at everything in one, while trading dmg for survivability in the other. And as has been mentioned by other posters, the playstyle where brutes are universally superior is a playstyle shared by both at's and the majority of those who play them. If you still consider that parity, then I guess we'll just have to respectfully disagree.
[/ QUOTE ]
there is parity.
the dmg advantage brutes gets requires you to PLAY NON STOP. if they dont, the advantage is gone. just having to mess around in a multi-layered cave map or those arachnos base maps with the huge room with multple levels means fury generation is annoying and usually at 30% or lower whiley ou try to find the last handful of guys so you can finish the damned thing.
the extra hp? big deal. apparantly the hp disparity is such a huge issue that it kept powerforge from soloing lord recluse as a +2 av....oh wait!
extra hp? are you expected to tank? brutes are (especially since competent masterminds are a rare breed and their threat is unreliable unless they are the even rarer tankermind builds with provoke). if the designers dont EXPECT you to tank, you wont have that extra layer of survivability.
really, if you think brutes are so much better then go play one. the only thing that keeps me red side is i prefer the zone layouts over those blue side. far easier to get where you wanna go - and much faster. but all my scrappers play just fine. i've got a 50 dm/regen that plays and solo's and teams just fine. no io's. just so's. she's got 55 free tailor sessions i should probably use at some point.