The consequences of crossing over...
By
Adelie,
Posted on: 2009-07-17 16:44 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
I think the only AT that would have serious competition issues would be the defender.
They need to get either stronger buffs that would be stronger than those of the other ATs in a meaningful way, or a dual purpose vigilance that boosts offense if the team's HP is high as well as boosting endurance if the team needs support.
[/ QUOTE ]
They already have stronger buffs than anyone else in the game. Every number counts.
Really, there shouldn't be that many issues with crossing over. I bet they'll even merge the markets (though don't quote me on that one). Both sides of the game use all the same Enhancements, Salvage, costume pieces, and whatever, I really don't see any issues.
[ QUOTE ]
[u]Brutes[u] only become noticeably imbalanced when their caps are actually considered because they're capable of overshadowing or equalling both Scrappers and [u]Brutes[u] in every single way at the same time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uhm...
>.>
<.<
I would HOPE that Brutes = Brutes. Though how Brutes > Brutes or Brutes < Brutes...
My brain just fell out...
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
For everyone who says, "There will be no more of X archetype" there will be enough who say they prefer it.
I hate Corrs. I have one, and I think he's something like level 4. I've tried a lot, and deleted a lot. Hated them all. I love Defenders, though there was once a time I couldn't play them. I play both Tanks and Brutes, for different reasons. I'll still play both after GR.
You may see less of one or another over time, but none of them will be rendered obsolete...except in the minds of people I'd really rather not team with anyway. "Oh, he says he doesn't want my Defender Because he's looking for a Corr? Whew, good thing I found out he's not someone I want to team with...."
Anyway...if, hypothetically, an AT disappeared almost entirely, and no one wanted their playstyle anymore, The Devs *would* step in to make adjustments to them, dontcha think? Better to see how they stack up and make adjustments than to keep people from having choices.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[u]Brutes[u] only become noticeably imbalanced when their caps are actually considered because they're capable of overshadowing or equalling both Scrappers and [u]Brutes[u] in every single way at the same time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uhm...
>.>
<.<
I would HOPE that Brutes = Brutes. Though how Brutes > Brutes or Brutes < Brutes...
My brain just fell out...
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe he's talking about Brutes versus Energy Aura Brutes... 
[ QUOTE ]
I can tell you that my Dark/Rad Defender and Rad/Dark Corruptor play exactly the same.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think the problem with the Defender inherent is something like this:
A: If your team is up to the challenge, you spend very little time doing more than maintenance healing to keep them topped off. Thus your inherent never really grants you any beneficial effect.
B: Threats significant enough to trigger your inherent are ALREADY overrunning your ability to buff/heal your teammates. Better endurance retention does you little good if you're stuffed head-first into a wood-chipper.
Now maybe I'm missing something. And if I am, someone please smack me up side the head and show me the error of my ways.
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
[ QUOTE ]
I think the ability to set 8 man spawns in the new difficulty system will be the saving grace of Tankers. If you can set 8 man spawns, all the sudden Tankers look like a good soloing Archetype. I wouldn't mind seeing Tankers get Defiance 1.0, or perhaps some kind of damage boost based on how many enemies are aggroed on them though. And Brutes shouldn't be nerfed. There's simply no need. The times when they are buffed into overperformance are really pretty rare in game.
The real problem as I see it with GR is redside population. People will largely leave redside not because it is an inferior gaming experience (it's better designed mechanics-wise than blueside as we all know) but because:
-it's more fun for them to be a Hero
-system requirements on blue side are slightly lower (and therefore system performance is somewhat better)
-blueside is where they started. It's their "home".
-more zones (quantity over quality, but that's slowly changing with revamps)
-more TFs.
-better market.
-blue aesthetics preferred over red aesthetics.
Right now it's about 2:1 to 3:1 Hero:Villain. Post GR (a year or so after its launch), you'll probably be looking at 4:1 to 5:1. Or worse.
And PvP is a bit less fun (IMHO) when both sides are bringing exactly the same Archetypes.
[/ QUOTE ]
My opinion is, of course, just my opinion, but I disagree. There are some really great arcs on redside that I wouldn't want to miss out, whether it is learning the true nature of Ghost Widow and Wretch early in my career, or showing the Freaks why their kind could never reform, no matter what bleeding hearts are involved, late in my career.
I play and like blue side; but I LOVE red side.
Old Gray Soldier-Level 50 MA/SR Scrapper-Virtue
Hunter Omega Prime-Level 50 WS
Dead Lord-Level 50 Necro/FF MM-Liberty
Grand Glory-Level 39 Arachnos Bane-Freedom
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the only AT that would have serious competition issues would be the defender.
They need to get either stronger buffs that would be stronger than those of the other ATs in a meaningful way, or a dual purpose vigilance that boosts offense if the team's HP is high as well as boosting endurance if the team needs support.
[/ QUOTE ]
They already have stronger buffs than anyone else in the game. Every number counts.
Really, there shouldn't be that many issues with crossing over. I bet they'll even merge the markets (though don't quote me on that one). Both sides of the game use all the same Enhancements, Salvage, costume pieces, and whatever, I really don't see any issues.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is that the defender support numbers aren't balanced with their base damage like controller/corruptor are.
going from Corr -> Defender causes you to lose about a 30% damage advantage for a 20% support advantage. Despite what you might think, the higher +Dmg/-Res on some of the support powers don't come close to balance the 10% lost damage.
Keep in mind damage is naturally a form of damage mitigation as well since you're reducing the combat time with higher damage. Because of this support/damage imbalance, corruptors actually come out ahead as better overall support in actual play.
Either a 10% base damage increase for defenders needs to occur or the inherent needs to be revamped to either significantly differ the AT's playstyle or to compensate the number disparity.
The only AT I see in danger of extinction from Going Rogue is the defender. They are already an endangered species. They became so when Controllers got containment and started outdamaging them. Defenders already do little better than controllers in buffing/debuffing and healing and already have lower or close to equal damage as controllers.
Corrupters will now come into Paragon and finish the job on defenders that Controlelrs started. Defenders will become something people play as a challenge or joke. Maybe 1 or 2 will be created per month ;p
For me personally, going back to my defenders having played corruptors for a long time I barely noticed any increase in buff/debuff strength, but I did notice the severe damage drop.
Support Guides for all Corruptor secondaries and Fortunatas
The Melee Teaming Guide for Melee Mans
The Melee Teaming Guide for Melee Mans
There is no two ATs as directly comparable as Defender and Corrupter and that is why I think Defenders is the AT for the Devs to be concerned with for Going Rogue. Every other AT aside from these two is unique in some way or another. Even relatively gimped ATs like Stalkers do have a unique roles and playstyle (stalkers are great in PvP and solo in missions).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[u]Brutes[u] only become noticeably imbalanced when their caps are actually considered because they're capable of overshadowing or equalling both Scrappers and [u]Tankers[u] in every single way at the same time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uhm...
>.>
<.<
I would HOPE that Brutes = Brutes. Though how Brutes > Brutes or Brutes < Brutes...
My brain just fell out...
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe he's talking about Brutes versus Energy Aura Brutes...
[/ QUOTE ]
Quiet both of you. Editting the original post now.
I'm not a number cruncher, but I have a question on the Tank/Brute debate you guys have going here.
Wouldn't it be better to give the Tanker a version of fury that upped their damage resistance not damage dealing capabilities? Yeah, I know tankers are super hard to kill as is, but that is their job, they TAKE hits, a lot of hits, and in the process of this they get to hit back.
A Brutes job is to GIVE hits, a lot of hits, and in the process of this they get hit back. As such, the more swinging going on around a brute, the harder they hit as that is their job. Melee damage monkey, that because of the needs Red side, needs to be able to take a licking. But ultimately, a brute survives a fight by killing everything around it.
I'm a big fan of not nerfing one to restore balance, but bringing everything to parity. If say Brutes are out performing Scrappers and Tanks. Scrappers and tanks should get a bit of an increase while Brutes get a bit of a decrease. Yes this is a nerf, but a smaller one while also raising the under-performers.
I also though, don't see why a Tanker should be dealing more damage because there are more people on him hitting him. I understand fury was originally supposed to be a Tank thing, but I also agree with the thematic reasons they never gave it to tankers.
However, upping a tankers damage resist or whatever could keep the survivability edge for them beyond a brute being at 44.2% fury or whatever it is.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a number cruncher, but I have a question on the Tank/Brute debate you guys have going here.
Wouldn't it be better to give the Tanker a version of fury that upped their damage resistance not damage dealing capabilities? Yeah, I know tankers are super hard to kill as is, but that is their job, they TAKE hits, a lot of hits, and in the process of this they get to hit back.
A Brutes job is to GIVE hits, a lot of hits, and in the process of this they get hit back. As such, the more swinging going on around a brute, the harder they hit as that is their job. Melee damage monkey, that because of the needs Red side, needs to be able to take a licking. But ultimately, a brute survives a fight by killing everything around it.
I'm a big fan of not nerfing one to restore balance, but bringing everything to parity. If say Brutes are out performing Scrappers and Tanks. Scrappers and tanks should get a bit of an increase while Brutes get a bit of a decrease. Yes this is a nerf, but a smaller one while also raising the under-performers.
I also though, don't see why a Tanker should be dealing more damage because there are more people on him hitting him. I understand fury was originally supposed to be a Tank thing, but I also agree with the thematic reasons they never gave it to tankers.
However, upping a tankers damage resist or whatever could keep the survivability edge for them beyond a brute being at 44.2% fury or whatever it is.
[/ QUOTE ]
The better solution in my eyes would be to simply reduce the Brute +dam cap. So many people that defend Brute balance as it stands are fond of bringing up the fact that it's not all that common to reach it, so it wouldn't noticeably affect them but it would still bring their peak performance to a more equivalent level. The other option (and the one I prefer since I compare them to Scrappers more than Tankers) would be to reduce their damage scalar a tiny bit (to .70 at 50 which is a 10% reduction). This would address the equivalence to Scrapper damage assuming easy Fury capabilities while accounting for the innate survivability advantage (8% simply from higher hit points) just from having more hit points (and a greater hit point cap that can't be reached while solo so +hp buffs are always useful).
Scrappers: 1.125 * 1.1 * 5 = 6.1875
Brute: .75 * 8.5 = 6.375
Brute (750% damage cap): .75 * 7.5 = 5.625
Brute (.675 scalar): .675 *8.5 = 5.95
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a number cruncher, but I have a question on the Tank/Brute debate you guys have going here.
Wouldn't it be better to give the Tanker a version of fury that upped their damage resistance not damage dealing capabilities? Yeah, I know tankers are super hard to kill as is, but that is their job, they TAKE hits, a lot of hits, and in the process of this they get to hit back.
A Brutes job is to GIVE hits, a lot of hits, and in the process of this they get hit back. As such, the more swinging going on around a brute, the harder they hit as that is their job. Melee damage monkey, that because of the needs Red side, needs to be able to take a licking. But ultimately, a brute survives a fight by killing everything around it.
I'm a big fan of not nerfing one to restore balance, but bringing everything to parity. If say Brutes are out performing Scrappers and Tanks. Scrappers and tanks should get a bit of an increase while Brutes get a bit of a decrease. Yes this is a nerf, but a smaller one while also raising the under-performers.
I also though, don't see why a Tanker should be dealing more damage because there are more people on him hitting him. I understand fury was originally supposed to be a Tank thing, but I also agree with the thematic reasons they never gave it to tankers.
However, upping a tankers damage resist or whatever could keep the survivability edge for them beyond a brute being at 44.2% fury or whatever it is.
[/ QUOTE ]
The better solution in my eyes would be to simply reduce the Brute +dam cap. So many people that defend Brute balance as it stands are fond of bringing up the fact that it's not all that common to reach it, so it wouldn't noticeably affect them but it would still bring their peak performance to a more equivalent level. The other option (and the one I prefer since I compare them to Scrappers more than Tankers) would be to reduce their damage scalar a tiny bit (to .70 at 50 which is a 10% reduction). This would address the equivalence to Scrapper damage assuming easy Fury capabilities while accounting for the innate survivability advantage (8% simply from higher hit points) just from having more hit points (and a greater hit point cap that can't be reached while solo so +hp buffs are always useful).
Scrappers: 1.125 * 1.1 * 5 = 6.1875
Brute: .75 * 8.5 = 6.375
Brute (750% damage cap): .75 * 7.5 = 5.625
Brute (.675 scalar): .675 *8.5 = 5.95
[/ QUOTE ]
The brute damage cap is so high because they didn't want fury hampering the point of enhancements and outside damage buffs. In CoV beta, it was widely considered bad to even slot damage into a brute power when the cap was 500% and 300% was taken up by fury and enhancements. 850% might be too high but going any lower than 700% is just a bad idea.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a number cruncher, but I have a question on the Tank/Brute debate you guys have going here.
Wouldn't it be better to give the Tanker a version of fury that upped their damage resistance not damage dealing capabilities? Yeah, I know tankers are super hard to kill as is, but that is their job, they TAKE hits, a lot of hits, and in the process of this they get to hit back.
A Brutes job is to GIVE hits, a lot of hits, and in the process of this they get hit back. As such, the more swinging going on around a brute, the harder they hit as that is their job. Melee damage monkey, that because of the needs Red side, needs to be able to take a licking. But ultimately, a brute survives a fight by killing everything around it.
I'm a big fan of not nerfing one to restore balance, but bringing everything to parity. If say Brutes are out performing Scrappers and Tanks. Scrappers and tanks should get a bit of an increase while Brutes get a bit of a decrease. Yes this is a nerf, but a smaller one while also raising the under-performers.
I also though, don't see why a Tanker should be dealing more damage because there are more people on him hitting him. I understand fury was originally supposed to be a Tank thing, but I also agree with the thematic reasons they never gave it to tankers.
However, upping a tankers damage resist or whatever could keep the survivability edge for them beyond a brute being at 44.2% fury or whatever it is.
[/ QUOTE ]
The better solution in my eyes would be to simply reduce the Brute +dam cap. So many people that defend Brute balance as it stands are fond of bringing up the fact that it's not all that common to reach it, so it wouldn't noticeably affect them but it would still bring their peak performance to a more equivalent level. The other option (and the one I prefer since I compare them to Scrappers more than Tankers) would be to reduce their damage scalar a tiny bit (to .70 at 50 which is a 10% reduction). This would address the equivalence to Scrapper damage assuming easy Fury capabilities while accounting for the innate survivability advantage (8% simply from higher hit points) just from having more hit points (and a greater hit point cap that can't be reached while solo so +hp buffs are always useful).
Scrappers: 1.125 * 1.1 * 5 = 6.1875
Brute: .75 * 8.5 = 6.375
Brute (750% damage cap): .75 * 7.5 = 5.625
Brute (.675 scalar): .675 *8.5 = 5.95
[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure Brutes, Scrappers or Tankers need any kind of fix. They do not play the same so odds are there will always be players willing to play either of them. I doubt that most players are selecting a powerset to play based upon its max performance. The fun factor is certainly a big selling point and i doubt any of these three ATs will be in danger of extinction when Going Rogue will go live.
The numbers are there anyway, Tankers on paper are toughest most of the time, Scrappers have highest burst damage most of the time when starting a fight and Brutes kick [censored] over time but can't count on the luck factor that are Crits.
Oh and i enjoy playing all of these 3 ATs. To me they are all perfect just as they are.
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a number cruncher, but I have a question on the Tank/Brute debate you guys have going here.
Wouldn't it be better to give the Tanker a version of fury that upped their damage resistance not damage dealing capabilities? Yeah, I know tankers are super hard to kill as is, but that is their job, they TAKE hits, a lot of hits, and in the process of this they get to hit back.
A Brutes job is to GIVE hits, a lot of hits, and in the process of this they get hit back. As such, the more swinging going on around a brute, the harder they hit as that is their job. Melee damage monkey, that because of the needs Red side, needs to be able to take a licking. But ultimately, a brute survives a fight by killing everything around it.
I'm a big fan of not nerfing one to restore balance, but bringing everything to parity. If say Brutes are out performing Scrappers and Tanks. Scrappers and tanks should get a bit of an increase while Brutes get a bit of a decrease. Yes this is a nerf, but a smaller one while also raising the under-performers.
I also though, don't see why a Tanker should be dealing more damage because there are more people on him hitting him. I understand fury was originally supposed to be a Tank thing, but I also agree with the thematic reasons they never gave it to tankers.
However, upping a tankers damage resist or whatever could keep the survivability edge for them beyond a brute being at 44.2% fury or whatever it is.
[/ QUOTE ]
The better solution in my eyes would be to simply reduce the Brute +dam cap. So many people that defend Brute balance as it stands are fond of bringing up the fact that it's not all that common to reach it, so it wouldn't noticeably affect them but it would still bring their peak performance to a more equivalent level. The other option (and the one I prefer since I compare them to Scrappers more than Tankers) would be to reduce their damage scalar a tiny bit (to .70 at 50 which is a 10% reduction). This would address the equivalence to Scrapper damage assuming easy Fury capabilities while accounting for the innate survivability advantage (8% simply from higher hit points) just from having more hit points (and a greater hit point cap that can't be reached while solo so +hp buffs are always useful).
Scrappers: 1.125 * 1.1 * 5 = 6.1875
Brute: .75 * 8.5 = 6.375
Brute (750% damage cap): .75 * 7.5 = 5.625
Brute (.675 scalar): .675 *8.5 = 5.95
[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure Brutes, Scrappers or Tankers need any kind of fix. They do not play the same so odds are there will always be players willing to play either of them. I doubt that most players are selecting a powerset to play based upon its max performance. The fun factor is certainly a big selling point and i doubt any of these three ATs will be in danger of extinction when Going Rogue will go live.
The numbers are there anyway, Tankers on paper are toughest most of the time, Scrappers have highest burst damage most of the time when starting a fight and Brutes kick [censored] over time but can't count on the luck factor that are Crits.
Oh and i enjoy playing all of these 3 ATs. To me they are all perfect just as they are.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. Brutes, tanks and scrappers don't' need any adjustments.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
I think the only AT that would have serious competition issues would be the defender.
They need to get either stronger buffs that would be stronger than those of the other ATs in a meaningful way, or a dual purpose vigilance that boosts offense if the team's HP is high as well as boosting endurance if the team needs support.
A game is not supposed to be some kind of... place where people enjoy themselves!