I find it bizarre how much threads like these focus on the AT caps. Brutes, at their caps for resists/hp/damage, have toughness similar to tanks and hit harder. That's hard to argue against. But it's also largely academic, because the vast majority of time is spent well below those caps, where a tank has more health, defense, and resistance. This doesn't even invalidate the main point - that Brutes do more damage and give up too little toughness - but the problem isn't the caps, it's that brute survivability is already enough for pretty much anything, so tanker toughness isn't a meaningful advantage.
At the risk of throwing a wrench in those 30% calculations up above, how much should it matter that Bruising helps the whole team?
Quote:
Bruising is a sticky wicket. It's not exactly like straight 20% damage.|
Originally Posted by Hopeling
At the risk of throwing a wrench in those 30% calculations up above, how much should it matter that Bruising helps the whole team?
|
First, Bruising doesn't improve AoE damage, only ST.
Second, you have to modify your attack chain to utilize your Tier 1 attack in order for Bruising to take effect. That actually has the effect of lowering your ST damage output compared to if Tankers just had a 20% increase in damage and didn't have to lead with their T1 and use it every 10 seconds. There's still a net gain from what they were before Bruising, but it's not a full 20% improvement to ST damage.
But then, the flip side to both of those is how Bruising effects the team, increasing everyone's damage on a target 20%.
It also means your Tanker's Lore/Patron pets do more damage and you get a greater gain from Interface bonus damage.
Two major disadvantages Bruising has compared to being a straight 20% damage improvement, and two major advantages it has over it.
So, in my mind, it's a wash. How much does it matter? About 20%.
Which, in addition to the 10% better Max HP, is where 30% comes from.
.
Hmmm.
Man, the idea of raising tanker damage caps is taaaasty.
But.... Ehn, I dunno.
Johnny is right, tanks hit the cap way too easy in buff-intensive situations, but I think I'd advocate for something different.
I've been agitating for tanker resist caps getting raised to 93 or even 95 percent for a while now. Amplify our strengths, eh? 
That being said, I think all of the melee archetypes need to be rebalanced (gently) against each other, and also against the performance spectrum as a whole. Expand the performance envelope so each melee type has a uniqueness to it, something that no other meleer can achieve.
I am very pleased to see stalkers getting addressed, they have been desperately weak for AGES now. Yay devs!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SchroedingerCat
Why would you expect anyone to listen to what you have to say after you say something like this?
I stopped reading there. Doubt it's my loss. Maybe if you want to chime in on what has so far been a mature, logical debate with a well-reasoned counterpoint, you should do so without stooping to sounding like a crybaby first? |
Maybe you're right.
On the other hand, he never addresses that.
He didn't address it the other times I've brought it up, and I have brought it up. Others have brought it up, and he doesn't address it then either.
Even though those points are being specifically addressed at his argument.
He can't address it because it shows that Tankers really do have more going for them then he would like to admit, and that Brutes are not close to them in mitigation.
Just tired of the same poster posting the same thing repeatedly (everywhere, in other sub-forums, even on topics that have nothing to do with Tankers in the first place) while specifically ignoring other very important points, and they are being ignored and glossed over on purpose.
I'm not sure how you are supposed to have a reasoned debate with a person like that.
If he ever once acknowledged any of those things as important to this discussion, I would really be amazed.
He can't really, because his entire argument relies on people believing:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
at the caps, the only real difference between a Tanker and a Brute is 10% max HP.
|
This statement is the one he makes repeatedly, it relies on a fictional scenario where everyone is always playing "at the caps".
It then ignores all of the other times you are playing not at the caps and also ignores that there are other secondaries for Brutes except for the 3 that can actually hit the HP cap.
His scenario ignores what is the likely scenario for the vast majority of this game, my opinion is that he ignores it on purpose.
Quote:
See, I actually read that and see your point. It does color the argument significantly. Thanks for bringing it to our attention and re-explaining it!
|
Originally Posted by Deus_Otiosus
Maybe you're right.
On the other hand, he never addresses that. He didn't address it the other times I've brought it up, and I have brought it up. Others have brought it up, and he doesn't address it then either. Even though those points are being specifically addressed at his argument. He can't address it because it shows that Tankers really do have more going for them then he would like to admit, and that Brutes are not close to them in mitigation. Just tired of the same poster posting the same thing repeatedly (everywhere, in other sub-forums, even on topics that have nothing to do with Tankers in the first place) while specifically ignoring other very important points, and they are being ignored and glossed over on purpose. I'm not sure how you are supposed to have a reasoned debate with a person like that. If he ever once acknowledged any of those things as important to this discussion, I would really be amazed. He can't really, because his entire argument relies on people believing: This statement is the one he makes repeatedly, it relies on a fictional scenario where everyone is always playing "at the caps". It then ignores all of the other times you are playing not at the caps and also ignores that there are other secondaries for Brutes except for the 3 that can actually hit the HP cap. His scenario ignores what is the likely scenario for the vast majority of this game, my opinion is that he ignores it on purpose. |
SchroedingerCat
Tanks get more benefit from musculature than Brutes.
Tanks get the same benefit from Reactive Interface that Brutes get.
This is clearly unfair because Brutes are a damage archetype and Tanks aren't. Nerf Tanks.
thanks!
Quote:
I mentioned this, sans nerfage, in post 18. Tankers make out like BANDITS with incarnate powers.
|
Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
Tanks get more benefit from musculature than Brutes.
Tanks get the same benefit from Reactive Interface that Brutes get. This is clearly unfair because Brutes are a damage archetype and Tanks aren't. Nerf Tanks. thanks! |
Weight training: Because you'll never hear someone lament "If only I were weaker, I could have saved them."
Johnny_Butane is entitled to an opinion and I don't think these forums would be as good without them. People may not share eachothers truths, so be it.
He will honor his words; he will definitely carry out his actions. What he promises he will fulfill. He does not care about his bodily self, putting his life and death aside to come forward for another's troubled besiegement. He does not boast about his ability, or shamelessly extol his own virtues. - Sima Qian.