Brute vs. Scrapper

The same logic can be attributed to a lot (most?) ATs. Scrappers deal more damage, so they should generate more threat. Come to think of it, Blasters deal more damage, too; clearly their threat generation should be even higher. Defenders/Controllers/Corruptors all have potent buffs/debuffs, it would be prudent to eliminate them first. Etc. The tanking role in MMOs is usually very artificial - it makes no logical sense for the AI to go after the toughest player character.

Imagine that you're the Tanker and you see the Brute taking too much damage and being at risk of dying. With equal builds (ie: no Taunt vs no Taunt, Taunt vs Taunt) a Tanker cannot match the Brutes theat generation. So, their original role - to keep other players safe - becomes impossible. Okay, I conceede that a Tanker with Taunt can out threat a Brute without Taunt (which would likely be the case for a 'dps Brute'), but it takes a considerable amount of time to catch up to their threat lead, which may be too late.

That's only part of it. I'm also looking further ahead. Before GR/IOs/etc, it didn't seem like much of an issue to me. Tankers never had to compete for the same role with them, and buffs/debuffs were less prolific, so it was harder for Brutes to realize their potential. Now, however, it's much easier for Brutes to impede on the Tankers' role. The amount of +def/+res available from IOs, Incarnate abilities (Cardiac Alpha for more +res, Destiny), the increase of team sizes, single target buffs being made AoEs, etc. I can only see this problem getting worse as time goes on, not better. Tankers are already getting super saturated with mitigation, where Brutes can keep growing until the difference becomes a wash. At that point, the only thing Tankers will offer over Brutes is Bruising (which doesn't even stack).

I'm not trying to be dramatic here, that is honestly where I see current trends leading.

If by "SO much stuff", you mean "the entire game", then yes.

I think it's pretty easy to see how it happened. They didn't design a balanced game because they didn't understand what players would do with their system. They didn't expect players to slot multiple SOs of the same type into a single power, let alone stacking buffs/debuffs. The more time went on, the more players got used to how things worked and the more work would be required to rebalance the game. I don't remember if you were around for GDN/ED, but they would be nothing compared to a change to stacking buffs/debuffs.


Also: hindsight is always 20/20.

Erm, if most players would never notice, then it didn't change anything.

Having said that, I think you're wrong. Let me give you a very simple example.

4 lucks (now) = 45% defense
4 lucks (dr) = 30% defense (12.5 + 12.5*0.8 + 12.5*0.4 + 12.5*0.2)

That's a damage intake increase of 4x. I suspect a squishy using inspirations to fight a tough EB would notice that.

Honestly I think a lot of those points should be true.

I think Taunt is too strong in this game to begin with, and that the entire threat system could use an overhaul. I think healing and buffs get away scott free, and that they shouldn't.

There should be a better overall system for AI threat recognition and there should be a better way for Tanks/Brutes to pull threat off of others without what we have now, which basically amounts to auto-win threat. (The Taunt power)

At least the devs are starting to add mechanics that make threat balancing a bit more interesting, whether you like them or not, for example the Sequestration mechanic in BAF.



I disagree that the tanker should always be guaranteed to save anyone and anyone as needed. I disagree that Brutes should be allowed to do that as well.

I think the Brute player in that situation, if they are unable to handle the incoming damage their threat generation brings them, then that's their fault and they should die. They need to learn how to better manage their threat.


That's ok, IMO, see point above.

Sometimes dying can teach a player how to play a bit better.



The problem is that you see it as impeding on the Tanker's role.

It's not solely the Tanker's role. Other ATs share their roles, but I see this sentiment from die hard Tanker players who often feel like their role has been bestowed upon them from the almighty and is theirs alone. (I'm not directing this directly at you, but it is part of the sentiment you're expressing).

iTrials have massive waves of enemies. Having a core of various ATs who can handle this role is good.


I also think that people often mistake the Tanker's specialty as threat generation, the Tanker's specialty is mitigation.





Tankers will still have more HP when comparing equivalent powersets.

Tankers will still have much greater build freedom due to higher base resistance and defense bonuses.

Tankers will still have a vast mitigation advantage throughout the rest of the game.

I also don't think being resistance capped is a given.

Having this in mind I got a question to you guys - how could (hypothetically) nerfing or buffing a class help solve this situation? Not every player start out as a 50+1 super god of war and destruction with only the best IO sets. There is still a big part of the game to be played pre 50lv. Especially now as coh is f2p and free players have acces only to SO.
IMO there is a big difference between scrappers, brutes and tankers using only SO or basic IO and I know some people use them. I'm using basic SO on my ss/elec brute right now as he is 45lv. I got only 3bill ATM to start buying the expensive IO set for his final build end game build.

I can hit hard and I can take a good beating before I go down but the tanks I team with are better at tanking and staying alive (well most of them) and the scrappers usually do more dmg than I do.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

While i can see the buffs making a difference, the thing is, there are caps in place for a reason. yes, 4+ FF/cold shields will softcap just about any AT, but there is still a 5% (or higher) chance of getting hit, for full damage, and neither FF or cold have any form of healing to negate that incoming damage.

Empathy has +regen, +recovery, +defence, +tohit, and +damage in addition to pretty nice healing, but they aren't very offensive.

The game is based around buffs/debuffs, its just not in a way that kicks in right away. Case in point, Resistance caps. No matter how many +resistance buffs you have on a defender/blaster/scrapper/stalker/corruptor/controller you will never have higher then 75% resistance.

Damage caps do the same thing, no matter how much +damage you have, a tanker will never do more then 400% damage, a scrapper will never do more then 500% damage, etc. This counts the 'damage' you slot from enhancements, so hitting your damage cap is pretty easy, but once you do, you can't do anymore damage.
There is a system already in place that affects debuffs and dimishes thier returns. Its all the purple patch. Higher level mobs are affected less by debuffs, and higher ranking mobs are also affected less by debuffs.

Try to debuff a purple boss (+4 level) and see how effective your debuffs are. Your controls don't last as long, your debuffs aren't as valuable, and you need to rely on your buffs to stay up. Once you do buff yourself, you can still fall, but its much less likely.

AVs and some EBs have the purple triangles, which make them practically immune to controls (unless you stack 4 or more controllers, but then your losing out on some of the damage from a scrapper or blaster) and they have inherent 85% resistance to nearly all debuffs values.

The system your preaching for is already in place. Especially when you consider the game is still balanced around SOs, not high end IOs.

People keep saying this, and I think it's simply untrue.

Not being balanced solely for IOs is one thing, but if you think there are no considerations at all being given to IOs - I think you are wrong.


If you have a quote from a dev from within the past two years, I'd love to see it.

While i don't have an exact quote from a dev saying 'SOs are the benchmark.' They have said that IOs are being taken into consideration with the new incarnate trials. Basically, you can do them on SOs, but they are aware that IOs will make them easier, and thus added mechanics and such to counter balance what IOs can give you.

BUT that is only for 50+ content. Anytime the dev's have talked about lower level content, they haven't mentioned IOs, and talked only about SOs..

Granted, to play my own devils advocate here, maybe the reason they created a 'Post your builds here' forum section is so that they can begin to push IOs even more, and get away from the SOs is the balance..

This sort of thing sort of exists as the purple patch Arbegla's talking about (though all that does is make you less effective in general, it doesn't scale with amount). What you're describing is a system of diminishing returns, and if you want to know how that would go over with the playerbase, just hop over to the PvP forums and ask the people there what they think of that.

@macskull, @Not Mac | XBL: macskull | Steam: macskull | Skype: macskull
"One day we all may see each other elsewhere. In Tyria, in Azeroth. We may pass each other and never know it. And that's sad. But if nothing else, we'll still have Rhode Island."

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The largest global difficulty change made to the game in the last four years went totally unnoticed. What people perceive and not perceive is something very difficult to predict. They claim to notice things that didn't happen, and would have been too small to notice if they did happen, then fail to notice things apparently so obvious if you said people wouldn't notice you'd get laughed at.

That's not specifically a comment on the diminishing suggestion itself, just a comment on what the playerbase actually notices and doesn't notice.

Which change was that?

@macskull, @Not Mac | XBL: macskull | Steam: macskull | Skype: macskull
"One day we all may see each other elsewhere. In Tyria, in Azeroth. We may pass each other and never know it. And that's sad. But if nothing else, we'll still have Rhode Island."

Intriguing... What did we miss?

At a guess, the lowbie Accuracy increase that fades as you level. Or was it a To-hit bonus? Either way, hit more till you're level 20. Makes the lower levels much easier, yet you almost never hear about it.