Gavin you do realize this is all up to personal preferences?
Even if brutes are in the end a bit better than the scrappers that dosen't mean scraps have no reason to exist. Going down this road what is the point of having the defender AT in the game if the players say the corrs are better in every way?
Do we actualy have evidence that people are not invited in to team because the are scrappers and not brutes? I don't think the brutes are an auto win aT in the hands of every player more than the scrappers are.
Plus I think you will find that many players don't like to fury mechanic or the overall play style of the brutes, the fact that brutes can bee seen as tanks etc...
If you play form lv 1 to 50 (not just power level), palying a brute and scrapper is totaly different. Ok not tolaly but you know what I mean.
And at the end of the day when you got your 50+1 toon with enchantments worth 10bill or more is it so important that the 50+1 brute/scrapper next to you deals 5% dps?
Quote:
The problem is that however superficially similar stalkers and scrappers appear to be, stalkers are, or at least were originally designed to be melee blasters not stealthed scrappers. To the extent that the devs keep conceding ground on the initial design and balance them by comparing them to scrappers themselves, they increase the redundancy of stalkers altogether. The game doesn't need a scrapper archetypal variant. Archetypal variants are more appropriately addressed in powersets in this game. We don't see three different kinds of blasters with different inherents.
|
Originally Posted by Test_Rat
The above argument hasn't worked very well in the Scrapper/stalker debate.
|
[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.)
Quote:
As I've been reminding people for seven years, if you don't think its a problem to be 5% higher than someone else, you shouldn't mind being reduced to 5% lower than someone else.|
Originally Posted by sati44
If you play form lv 1 to 50 (not just power level), palying a brute and scrapper is totaly different. Ok not tolaly but you know what I mean.
And at the end of the day when you got your 50+1 toon with enchantments worth 10bill or more is it so important that the 50+1 brute/scrapper next to you deals 5% dps? |
If its important enough to argue against, that implies its important enough for someone else to argue for.
[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.)
Just a few thoughts from my end, though I do not have enough understanding of the hard numbers to state either way if any of what I am going to say is correct just ideas that I have been peddling around.
The issue with scrappers and brutes is partially due to perception and partially due to the sheer amount of buffing and or enhancements that can bring brutes to equal to if not at some moment greater then scrapper damage. While I may get hate for this suggestion.
From my understanding and if I am wrong please correct me but this atl east will be close enough to get the point across. What if for brutes it was changed so say that their damage cap was instead of 650% limited to 450%.
Now yes horrifying I know, but the idea then would be to allow for fury to count as a damage enhancer that would allow a brute to go over their damage threshold capping off at 100% fury = 200% damage enhancement. This would allow for "peak" moments of the brute ala comic books to have moments of extremely high damage yet by and large most likely at cap with all bonuses told sit most likely 500-600%
Do I think this idea would work no idea but just saying if indeed two at's are the same in offensive abilities or can peak out at this, and one is lacking comparatively speaking on the defensive side; and both have the same job should some game balance be found.
As for the stalker issue with scrappers though I honestly doubted it "could" be coded like this as I am not sure if it exists within the game.
thought from classic table top gaming and rogues comes to mind, and or skirmishers even. If while within say 10foot radius the stalker attacks someone whom is not targeting them they score a critical.
Now to balance this out perhaps add a degree of threat to it to where the tanker/brute whomever is trying to keep enemies attention on them has to put some work into it balance it out. However this might at least bring a bit more of a rogue-like or even more of the stealthy sneaky feel of the stalker to the plate.
Just random thoughts toss em in the trash and burn them as you like 
I will be running to hide from the flaming garbage tossed my way
Oh and just so others note I am not calling for buffs or nerfs either way just giving thoughts on the matter in hopes of trying to find even ground and possible solutions that we may come across. One thing in running table top games over the years a few larps and other such odd adventures I've found as a golden rule. The game starts to become stall when you start becoming unwilling to look at every possible angle and ask yourself if this needs to be changed.
in the end you may end up losing out on a train of thought that brings up an idea that changes the game in ways you never imagined and well hopefully for the better
For right now I rather not see any buff's nerfs myself until it can be tested out that A: it doesn't bring one type to be worthless or while trying to elevate another type it makes that one too "godlike" as it were
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DJMadman
From my understanding and if I am wrong please correct me but this atl east will be close enough to get the point across. What if for brutes it was changed so say that their damage cap was instead of 650% limited to 450%.
|
No.
No no no.
As someone who suffered through the (horrible, hamfisted, idiotic) nerfs of the early game, I will never seriously call for nerfs to anybody.
So: LEAVE BRUTES ALONE.
The issue is that the principal melee toons are overlapping waaay too much. This is easy to correct, remove the overlap.
So, Brutes get no further changes.
Tanks get their resist caps raised to 95 percent. Yeah, tanks are TOUGH. With buffs, ridiculously so. This clearly and hugely makes tanks the toughness kings, unlike that meager ten percent bump to their hitpoints which was the Dev's first attempt to address the whole "broots are too damn much, thanks again jack!" situation.
Scrappers get their damage caps raised 100 percent. In a team, with buffs, nobody will ever again doubt that scrappers do MOAR DAMAGE.
Stalkers get their AT scalar raised to 1.2(HOLY MOSES) AND get their damage cap raised by 100 percent. Ok, you want melee blasters? NOW they are melee blasters. AS THEY SHOULD BE. If stalkers have to dance around and wear pretty pink tutu's to max their damage, it should damn well be WORTH IT.
In other words, the melee performance envelope is dominated by brutes right now. Rather than folding and mutilating brutes, expand the envelope.
At the same time, I would completely support raising Blaster damage caps by 100 percent too. If we're expanding, we should expand, dammit.
However, all of these debates are small-time compared to the effects of unlimited stacking of buffs and debuffs. Until the Dev's grow a pair and address that, this is all just minor scale whining.
All melee is minor scale compared to buffers. Sorry folks.
Quote:
When actual blasters have numbers higher than that, maybe. So long as the melee blasters have near-scrapper survivability their modifier numbers can't be higher than the other kind of blasters with no defense and no mez protection.
|
Originally Posted by mauk2
Stalkers get their AT scalar raised to 1.2(HOLY MOSES) AND get their damage cap raised by 100 percent. Ok, you want melee blasters? NOW they are melee blasters. AS THEY SHOULD BE. If stalkers have to dance around and wear pretty pink tutu's to max their damage, it should damn well be WORTH IT.
|
[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.)
Well I do remember ED and the earlier debuffs and the well issues back then..
The real question is this can we raise the glass ceiling of damage to those extens to make this possible while still keeping the game enjoyable. Trust me I have no issues with just buffing the classes that need the buffing hence the idea of the stalker buff.
My concern with that approach of simply raising the bar every time we find an issue is when will that bar hit the ceiling and what do we do then.
Heck to play the devil's advocate of sorts this game's already proven very easily that any archtype played competently and with a decent slotting of enchancments and slots can be more then average.
So perhaps really the question is this and it's one of game theory ironically then it is more of strict game mechanics. What are the defined roles of each arch type. To be honest the game's evolved quite a bit over the years as it's been made and played. Both via the devs and their changes in game growth and development and in how players themselves have changed this by how they play the characters..
Least we forget the starting of "offenders" before corruptors and how that came to birth, something done by the players and still to be honest of of my guilty pleasures for playing
The real issue right now is simple red and blue are mixing sides which in a way is amazing I mean really is amazing if you take a pure character development who gives a dang about exactly how much dps I have over this guy point of view. You can truly flush out a super hero/villain character and have them develop through play and enjoy it.
Now the problem is also the benefit, ain't that always the way it is
I think it's been discussed almost to the horse beating the dead horse up a hill point; yet when coh and cov were made they were made from completely different points of view with game theory.
One was almost a set piece akin to a classic mmo fantasy/table top style we're talking old DND first edition here. Where each type had a defined role and they were the kings of that role and by and large did well it in and it was a happy nitch
With COV as thoughts and theories evolve so do games, and it brought forth a hybrid class system more akin to well for a table top gamer gurps/mutants &masterminds feel to where one class wasn't necessary locked into one role per say. Both sides were happy both sides rarely played with each other baring the few co op missions that did exist.
Then with going rogue this changed. we have two game systems that are well now playing together on the same content on the same teams that have ben made with different points of view.
The only real permanent or at least close to one I can think of is, looking at all the sets now as one big happy family of a game and asking A: what role do they play in the game or at least what "broad" role do they cover since even within an AT some power sets may learn more toward damage/ debuffing / control /survival .
However perhaps a broad role for each archetype should be found and then find a way so that each type fits that role without completely eclipsing any others. Impossible maybe however only real way to find a good concrete fix is to start from the core and build up the at's so that they are built from the same line of thought instead of two different lines of reasoning.
and I shouldn't have had that third extra large dunkin donuts today
oh and edited for horrible spelling the first time and breaking it up a bit more...
Quote:
"Roles" tends to imply playstyle, and I don't think the game should in a literal sense dictate playstyle. I prefer to think of the archetypes as having strengths and weaknesses: like any tool what you do with it is a combination of what the tool's strengths and weaknesses are, and what your strengths and weaknesses are. Roles are things players fill, not characters, and whether they are any good at that role depends on their skill and the tools they chose to try to fill that role. You can make questionable choices in tools, but the tools themselves don't have explicit roles stamped on them.
|
Originally Posted by DJMadman
So perhaps really the question is this and it's one of game theory ironically then it is more of strict game mechanics. What are the defined roles of each arch type. To be honest the game's evolved quite a bit over the years as it's been made and played. Both via the devs and their changes in game growth and development and in how players themselves have changed this by how they play the characters..
|
[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.)
Quote:
And I don't expect it to work any better here. But as I read the posts that does seem to be the logic under the argument.|
Originally Posted by Test_Rat
The above argument hasn't worked very well in the Scrapper/stalker debate.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sati44
Gavin you do realize this is all up to personal preferences?
Even if brutes are in the end a bit better than the scrappers that dosen't mean scraps have no reason to exist. Going down this road what is the point of having the defender AT in the game if the players say the corrs are better in every way? |
Quote:
|
Do we actualy have evidence that people are not invited in to team because the are scrappers and not brutes? I don't think the brutes are an auto win aT in the hands of every player more than the scrappers are. Plus I think you will find that many players don't like to fury mechanic or the overall play style of the brutes, the fact that brutes can bee seen as tanks etc... |
Quote:
| And at the end of the day when you got your 50+1 toon with enchantments worth 10bill or more is it so important that the 50+1 brute/scrapper next to you deals 5% dps? |
"Hmm, I guess I'm not as omniscient as I thought" -Gavin Runeblade.
I can be found, outside of paragon city here.
Thank you everyone at Paragon and on Virtue. When the lights go out in November, you'll find me on Razor Bunny.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
"Roles" tends to imply playstyle, and I don't think the game should in a literal sense dictate playstyle. I prefer to think of the archetypes as having strengths and weaknesses: like any tool what you do with it is a combination of what the tool's strengths and weaknesses are, and what your strengths and weaknesses are. Roles are things players fill, not characters, and whether they are any good at that role depends on their skill and the tools they chose to try to fill that role. You can make questionable choices in tools, but the tools themselves don't have explicit roles stamped on them.
|
Good point and I do suppose when I was saying broad roles that was more or less the angle I was going for though my word choice was well lacking. The real question then is perhaps making sure one at's strength and weaknesses give it well the character it needs to not be outclassed then by a similar at that shares strengths and or weaknesses.
Suppose that's the million dollar question then how to do it without well over buffing past the content of the game, and or diminishing an AT to the point where it loses what made it what it was. Suppose that is the age old question with game balance. When one sees threads like this and it's the same in all games a player whom has that "edge" as it were for the rest of this post lets assume that A: brutes have better defenses by and large then scrappers and B: at end game when both at's are brought to their peak performance brutes can be equal to or out damage scrappers.
If these two things then are assumed true and fact the real problem is how do we find game balance within the strengths and weakness's of each AT:
A: will raising Stalker's damage, scrappers damage and tankers defense as sugguested thus place brute's in the center and neither "peak " at either end of the defense offense spectrum? Just a glance by and large it would do this.
1a: However if in doing this does the problem then become one of end game balance, and will the abilities of these newly boosted AT"s preform higher then expected and higher then the content was designed for? This one is not so clear and to be honest may not matter
1b: This point is perhaps the hardest one to over come. If we look at end game content and if we look at the AT's where the stand now. Will raising the other AT's actually impact the game enough to matter? Given how well the characters as they are now run through the I-trials as a general rule of thumb.
The reason why I ask this is important to this end. The problem people see be it perceived or actual to a degree is that brutes will take slots on teams more so then scrappers and tankers. The reasoning behind this is they have defenses as good as tanks at peak performance and their damage can at least match if not exceed scrappers.
So we raise the other AT's but the problem still remains. Brutes as it stands now can handle the content without much of an issue and can tank and attack very well and thus while not preforming "as" well as now the newly boosted scrapper and tank as suggested above by Mauk. They will be able to do the job of a tanker and a scraper for the trials with relative ease while only taking up one of the slots.
I think that is the real crux of the argument and it's greatest problem. It is not that boosting the other AT's wouldn't be nice but would it really accomplish the goal?
Quote:
The problem here is two-fold. First, the vast majority of players just aren't as picky as is sometimes portrayed on the forums. Its just not common to see people getting kicked from teams or selectively ignored just because of their archetype, except under very unusual circumstances. Second, players are fickle, and balancing archetypes based on what players today think is good or bad implies that players' judgment doesn't change substantially over time. It does.|
Originally Posted by DJMadman
The reason why I ask this is important to this end. The problem people see be it perceived or actual to a degree is that brutes will take slots on teams more so then scrappers and tankers. The reasoning behind this is they have defenses as good as tanks at peak performance and their damage can at least match if not exceed scrappers.
|
So this is not a good foundation upon which to build an argument in general. It tends to be too transitory and too easy to counter-argue.
[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.)
Quote:
Here is looking to the port of Ninjitsu to scrappers and brutes, and the end of the stalker issue then.
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The problem is that however superficially similar stalkers and scrappers appear to be, stalkers are, or at least were originally designed to be melee blasters not stealthed scrappers. To the extent that the devs keep conceding ground on the initial design and balance them by comparing them to scrappers themselves, they increase the redundancy of stalkers altogether. The game doesn't need a scrapper archetypal variant. Archetypal variants are more appropriately addressed in powersets in this game. We don't see three different kinds of blasters with different inherents.
|
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!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The problem here is two-fold. First, the vast majority of players just aren't as picky as is sometimes portrayed on the forums. Its just not common to see people getting kicked from teams or selectively ignored just because of their archetype, except under very unusual circumstances. Second, players are fickle, and balancing archetypes based on what players today think is good or bad implies that players' judgment doesn't change substantially over time. It does.
So this is not a good foundation upon which to build an argument in general. It tends to be too transitory and too easy to counter-argue. |
Lies, dammed lies and statistics it is then!
In games I don't think I myself have ever run into that problem of being kicked for being the wrong "at" either, rare if it happens but yes. I agree to the point of basing any argument or situation strictly on what one feels is right at the time or perceives is never really good for over all game balance. The reason I myself tossed my cents in was because of the notion that one AT can do the job of two others and is this a game balancing issue that is so egregious that it needs to be addressed.
I agree with the point that this is really only something talked about in small groups in game amongst those that seriously crunch numbers and or forum goers by and large, and usually those are part and parcel members of the same group. To be honest 99% of the time it will not effect how people play the game baring those that want to tweak out that last percent point to be top dog as it were.
However my concern is just strictly from a numerical stand point and a stand point of looking at at's be it broad roles or strengths and weaknesses as you may have it, and asking does this make sense from a purely game mechanical stand point for this to exist, is to this to be kept as intended, and if not what are the options to resolve it.
Lets assume at least brutes when they were on red side were intended to be as built and at peak great tankers and great melee damage. now that they can go blue side is this still intended and if so how is it balanced around blue side tankers and scrappers. Again I agree 99% of the game will it really effect it no, but is it an inconstancy that can grow in time maybe.. I'm not sure
Way I view it is rather have a way to try and find a way to offer a suggestion or perhaps somehow offer a valid one that is reasonably discussed, then not take part in the conversation hope that if / when it is corrected it is done so without butchering any archetypes, and then if it is be the sort of person that would complain they came late to the party and didn't like the food served when they had chances all along to provide input.
Though that is an issue isn't it finding a solution not colored by a perspective. Hey whoever said I was completely practical
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DJMadman
A: will raising Stalker's damage, scrappers damage and tankers defense as sugguested thus place brute's in the center and neither "peak " at either end of the defense offense spectrum? Just a glance by and large it would do this. |
Indeed, it would.
Quote:
| 1a: However if in doing this does the problem then become one of end game balance, and will the abilities of these newly boosted AT"s preform higher then expected and higher then the content was designed for? This one is not so clear and to be honest may not matter |
It's City of Debuff, folks, We're all just living by their whim.
I welcome our Controller Overlords!
Quote:
| 1b: This point is perhaps the hardest one to over come. If we look at end game content and if we look at the AT's where the stand now. Will raising the other AT's actually impact the game enough to matter? Given how well the characters as they are now run through the I-trials as a general rule of thumb. |
However, it is simply good design to ENSURE that every edge-defining AT is 'the best' at SOMETHING. Blasters are The Best at ranged damage. Stalkers are The Best at melee damage. Tankers are The Best at taking damage. Controllers are The Best at debuffing.
Etc, etc. Hybrids are then, by clear definition, Not Best but Good, but at Two Things.
For this discussion, Stalkers are best at melee damage, Brutes are third best but Good. Tankers are best at Taking Damage, Brutes are second best but Good. It is now nice and clear, and people can make rational decisions.
Quote:
| So we raise the other AT's but the problem still remains. Brutes as it stands now can handle the content without much of an issue and can tank and attack very well and thus while not preforming "as" well as now the newly boosted scrapper and tank as suggested above by Mauk. They will be able to do the job of a tanker and a scraper for the trials with relative ease while only taking up one of the slots. |
This is the huge issue that everybody runs from like their butts are on fire. As long as three colds and five of ANYTHING ELSE can lol-win vs anything, the game is gonna be trivial for everybody who figures out the Big Secret.
Apply ED to buffs. Voila, fixed.
Quote:
I. Will. End. You.|
Originally Posted by mauk2
Apply ED to buffs. Voila, fixed.
|
More spoken and rational version: Diminishing Returns (ED on buffs) exists within the game, it's called PvP.
When PvP 2.0 hit the game, there was a substantial (read many PvP'ers, myself included) outcrying of rage and rage-quits. The remaining die-hards went and tweaked within the limitations given and got as close as possible to previous performance/maximum performance. However, as a result, instead of PvP 2.0 making it EASIER to start PvPing, it made it more complex, since not only did power effect change completely from what you were used to in PvE, but the convential support you were able to give yourself and teammates was scaled down, or worse, made completely irrelevant.
As a result, PvP 2.0 (competitive) is even more Cookie-cutter than PvP 1.0 was, and it's even more of a Byzantine nightmare to figure out what does what.
DR was a bad idea for PvP 2.0 (not the only one though), and it's a worse one for PvE.
I am the 99%. Occupy the World.
Minister of Infinity's Secret Police, Official Mooch of dUmb and League, Official Purveyor of Free Straws, the Most Interesting Man in the World.
http://www.change.org/petitions/ncso...city-of-heroes
A few thoughts at no one in particular:
*) Another area Brutes trump Scrappers is threat generation. They trump Tankers, too, for that matter, much to my frustration.
*) For Stalkers, I keep toying with the idea of designing them more around their controlled crits than a raw damage boost. For example, crits out of "Pure Hide" deal 3x damage, "Placate Hide" crits deal 2.5x damage, AoEs always crit, and Assassin's Strike instantly recharges Placate.
The Pure Hide crits are rare (openers only) and would help in environments where setting up AS may not be practical. Placate Hide crits are to emphasize Stalkers' controlled damage (and make up for the time spent animating Placate). The AoE buff is there because the lack of AoE is (imo) a serious design flaw. (Yes, I understand sets like EM are still hosed.) The Assassin's Strike -> Placate recharge is to reward Stalkers who do use AS.
These ideas are interesting to me on a conceptual level, but I fully admit they could break solo play for Stalkers. I'm thinking more of the average player leveling up, mind you. They could do evil things like AoE -> placate -> AS -> attack.
*) Stacking buffs/debuffs is a double edged sword. On one hand, it causes buffer overrun teams to spank normal content like nobody's business. It also makes it extremely difficult (impossible?) to balance content that is meant to be challenging (Incarnate Trials). On the other, it allows people to compensate for builds that aren't deemed "optimal." Besides, it's been a corner stone to the game since release. Changing that now would be similar to Star Wars Galaxy's "New Game Experience."
Quote:
I think whatever the original concept and design intent was, Stalkers effectively ended up as a Scrapper variant through (IMO) a poor execution of whatever the original goal was.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The problem is that however superficially similar stalkers and scrappers appear to be, stalkers are, or at least were originally designed to be melee blasters not stealthed scrappers. To the extent that the devs keep conceding ground on the initial design and balance them by comparing them to scrappers themselves, they increase the redundancy of stalkers altogether. The game doesn't need a scrapper archetypal variant.
|
Stalkers seem less like a Melee Blaster and more of an AT that was designed around a single, very limited and not very useful trick - a melee range snipe.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
When actual blasters have numbers higher than that, maybe. So long as the melee blasters have near-scrapper survivability their modifier numbers can't be higher than the other kind of blasters with no defense and no mez protection.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
A few thoughts at no one in particular:
*) Another area Brutes trump Scrappers is threat generation. They trump Tankers, too, for that matter, much to my frustration. |
Dealing more damage then a Tanker, they actually are a greater threat to mobs.
Another reason would be that this presents issues for Brutes who are not built to survive that aggro - I know here on the forums everyone is IOd to the nines and is buffed so hard they shine from space, but this is not the case all of the time in game. So this threat generation presents a threat to the Brute themself, this is good. The Tanker equivalent will almost always handle that incoming damage better.
I also disagree with the sentiment that Brutes trump Scrappers in a lot of areas.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
*) For Stalkers, I keep toying with the idea of designing them more around their controlled crits than a raw damage boost. For example, crits out of "Pure Hide" deal 3x damage, "Placate Hide" crits deal 2.5x damage, AoEs always crit, and Assassin's Strike instantly recharges Placate.
The Pure Hide crits are rare (openers only) and would help in environments where setting up AS may not be practical. Placate Hide crits are to emphasize Stalkers' controlled damage (and make up for the time spent animating Placate). The AoE buff is there because the lack of AoE is (imo) a serious design flaw. (Yes, I understand sets like EM are still hosed.) The Assassin's Strike -> Placate recharge is to reward Stalkers who do use AS. These ideas are interesting to me on a conceptual level, but I fully admit they could break solo play for Stalkers. I'm thinking more of the average player leveling up, mind you. They could do evil things like AoE -> placate -> AS -> attack. |
Front-loading the crit chance bonus from allies to give a larger up front bonus from the first ally and a smaller bonus for additional allies (similar to Invincibility, AAO, etc) is one idea, as would be increasing the radius that grants that bonus from allies.
I also think improvements could be made to AS itself, if AS is going to be one of the important play aspects of Stalkers it needs to function less like a melee snipe with extremely long cast and interrupt times into something that actually meshes well with the fluid and fast nature of this game's combat.
Quote:
That's what I've read and that's what I thought -- but I keep seeing people insist or imply that it's more than that, that Brutes are Just Better All Around™.|
Originally Posted by Deus_Otiosus
Except they aren't.
I don't have time at the moment to give you all of the reasons why. In general, Scrappers do more damage, and Brutes are slightly more resilient. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sati44
You wrong. What he's saying is that some % of player says that the brutes are better and some say they are just equal to scraps.
|
Thanks go out to LadySunflash, GavinRuneblade and Arcanaville for trying to clarify for me.
I may be more sensitive on this issue than otherwise because I have a long-established Claws/Willpower Scrapper I'm heavily invested in. I'm aware Willpower is dramatically better on a Brute and I hear that Claws is somewhat better on a Brute, leaving me clinging to the idea that the faster recharge times of Scrapper Claws still count for something (at least I can do Spin every 4 seconds or so). Whenever the topic comes around to how much better Claws/Willpower would be on a Brute, it feels like some respondents go on about the other offensive powersets being better as well. So that's why this has been a bit of a sore point as well.
If we are to die, let us die like men. -- Patrick Cleburne
----------------------------------------------------------
The rule is that they must be loved. --Jayne Fynes-Clinton, Death of an Abandoned Dog
Out of 100% of the brute players population just what % claims brutes are better? Can you give us some numbers? Just saying you seen lot of them is a poor argument.
And you wan't them to come to this thread and give you proof for this claim that will force a nefr so you can fell good about your claw/wp scrapper?
I'v seen scrappers saying brutes are **** and that scrap are far superior to brutes in every way. Should I go and demand a nerf becous some guys claim scraps beta brutes on every field?
Ok let's say 100 players will come and give some good and reasonable arguments. You will say that now we have proof and brutes need to be nerfed. But at the same time 100 scraps players will come and give some good and reasonable arguments that scrappers are in fact better. What then? Would you still call for a nerf just to be sure no brute player can even think that brutes are better? And what if it turns out both AT are euqal?
Man so what if some people say stuff? If this is a sore point for you I don't want to know how you react in real life if somebody says something you don't like.
Don't get me wrong I don't care if the devs will nerf the brutes or not. Nerfs are part of the mmo biznes. I just think your motives are purely personal and have nothing to do with balancing the game or making it better for everyone.
ps. I don't mean to offend you I just find this conversation interesting so Im sticking to it
Sati, you are stuck on the idea of nerfs. He does not, in fact, actually want to nerf brutes. This is what I tried to clarify for you earlier:
A) If brutes aren't overpowered versions of scrappers and tankers, people need to be honest about this fact
2) If brutes are overpowered versions of scrappers and tankers, that creates a situation which is extremely poor game design.
III) He does not, in fact, think that brutes are better than scrappers and tankers in every way. He wants to encourage people to think before they speak.
Quote:
Call me a pessimist but after 2 yeras of WOW I thinki this is impossible to achive and not only in mmo's. We are doomed as a species| He wants to encourage people to think before they speak. |
And I'm not saying I'm better.
Way I see it, no personal reason for me to want nerfs either way or buffs either way to brutes scrappers or any I care more just for the general priinciple of game mechanics. I love my brutes as much as I love my defenders and scrappers to be honest. I tend to play brutes more just because fury is well addicting
The best way for this perhaps t be proven one way or another is simple. take the one of the "under preforming " primary set brutes/scrappers share and then set up the best chain for each with the best slotting/ assume best recharge + capped damage and don't add anything that would boost a toon over the damage cap ala FA (that perhaps is then it's own problem if it's proving to be the culprit ) See then on average if scrappers at this point would out damage brutes or will brutes at least have equal damage if not greater. Then one of the top end sets both share and do the same thing. This at least should give a "general" look at it while not specific enough for a be all answer it will at least give us numbers to toss around. Unfortunately I am not in a location now to be able to do the math for this. Hoping perhaps someone may already have
Reason I say go with an under performer and one of the top notch sets is it will then give us a decent idea of comparison. Do I think it will end the debate maybe not but at least we'll have some more data.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Errant
I. Will. End. You.
|
LOL, see? Butt's afire as soon as the green elephant in the room is even mentioned.
Quote:
| More spoken and rational version: Diminishing Returns (ED on buffs) exists within the game, it's called PvP. |
Try not to muddy the already murky waters too far.
Although you might wanna put out yer flaming backside in that water, bro.
No, what I'm saying is that the ability to stack four+ sets of Ice buffs, combined with four+ sets of benumb, (and all the -resist any buff/debuffer can muster) utterly trivializes just about anything.
I cannot for the life of me understand WHY the Dev's have saddled themselves with this issue. It has got to make designing top-end challenges annoying as all get-out.
It's simple: Make it such that the first -resist/-def/-recharge/-etc effect applied to a target is 100 percent. The second is 80, the third is 40, the fourth and all others 5 percent. Apply the same scaling on +buffs, from ALL sources.
Two buff/debuffs, I doubt you'd see a difference. Three, is still well worth having. The inf farm teams, with 8 controllers botted up? Suddenly not workin' so well.
Most human players would never even notice.
The downside to this is, the Dev's would then have to go back and re-tune SO much stuff, to pull out the ridiculous defenses they've had to install to combat their own self-inflicted wound.
Ehn. It's City of Debuff, we might as well shrug our shoulders and move on.
The bigger point is, yes, brutes are too potent for good game balance, but so what? Scrappers have more STYLE, there's WAY bigger issues than lol-melee, and the game is still freakin' fun to play.
(Logs on, plays.)
[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.)