Before the rumors start

Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect

You're right. That choice is made for them.

Unless you're trying to say that the larger base values Tankers get have nothing to do with their survivability advantage.

Brutes get the same base values as Scrappers and Stalkers. In the absence of outside help via teammates or Incarnate powers, they are only slightly tougher than Scrappers, due to having higher base HP.

You conveniently ignore the higher base values Tankers have for survivability-related powers every time this discussion comes up.

The devs cannot guarantee that a Brute or a Tanker will always have a teammate handy to buff them. They CAN guarantee that they will spend part of that time alone.

If you really want to compare Tanker and Brute performance, compare a Tanker and a Brute that are totally alone. No outside buffs from teammates, no Incarnate powers. The Tanker will outlive the Brute every single time.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Saying that Tankers need more damage because a Brute can reach the same survivability when buffed by a Thermal Radiation or Sonic Resonance teammate is absurd. What level of survivability can that Brute reach by himself?

I've compared the two side by side using the same sets. With no outside buffs, Tanker resistance is a full 20% higher than Brute resistance in the majority of cases. The only exceptions there are Electric Armor and Fiery Aura, where both ATs can reach 90% to one damage type. An Invulnerability Brute is capable of reaching 90% to S/L damage, but he has to devote the majority of his IO slotting toward that goal, which gimps quite a few other aspects of the build, and locks them into one particular Alpha slot. They can't do it at all until they get Alpha either.

Saying that Brutes give up nothing is a flat out lie. They don't get the base values Tankers get, and that makes them less survivable by default.

Honestly, I would really like to see some datamining that shows exactly how frequently any Brute reaches the survivability potential you keep saying is so unfair. I would be willing to bet it is less than 1% of that character's existence.

I would also like to see datamining that shows how frequently any Tanker is sitting at his damage cap. I would be equally willing to bet that the percentage of time spent is about the same. There is only 1 build I can think of that can do it by himself, and that would be the Shield/SS build you claimed you did it on (I'm not doubting your claim, but I didn't see it with my own eyes, and I don't report hearsay as fact. I believe it is possible though)

I would also be willing to bet the only reason you could reach the recharge necessary to pull that feat off is because a Shield Defense Tanker needs next to no IO help to reach the soft-cap. And you say Brutes give up nothing? Shield and SR Brutes don't get the ability to reach the soft-cap on SOs and power choices alone like Tankers do. My DA/Staff Tanker will hit 90% to 4 different damage types, all by his lonesome. The Staff/DA Brute that can make the same claim will never exist.

Brutes give up more than you're willing to admit.

Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect

Looking at the caps and scalars of all 4 melee ATs, here is what I would do:

1) Increase Scrapper and Stalker resistance cap to 80%. This would put Scrappers at somewhat less than 80% of Tanker survivability.

2) Increase Tanker damage scalar to .9, which would put them at exactly 80% of Scrapper damage, and would have nearly the same net result as Johnny's proposed 545% damage cap. It would also help Tankers who are not sitting at their damage cap consistently. Raising their damage cap to 450% from their current 400% would not be particularly unbalancing.

3)Adjust Brutes accordingly. I would start by reducing their resistance cap to 85%, and their damage cap to 700%.

Given the same attack with a base damage of 100, at those damage caps a Scrapper would deal 562.5 with that attack, a Brute 525, and a Tanker 486 (to a Bruised target). That's a 37.5 point difference between Scrapper and Brute, and a 39 point difference between Brute and Tanker. Stalkers would come in at 500 damage with that attack, but their ability to land a crit when they want to more than evens the score, and actually puts them on top (because a Stalker player will leverage things to deal 1000 damage with that attack)

With the Scrapper and Stalker resistance cap increase to 80%, and the Brute decrease to 85%, it would put their survivability in reverse order, by just about the same margin of difference between them. Stalkers don't really need much, but it wouldn't be fair to increase Scrapper resistance without giving them the same.

Voila. Everyone but Brutes win, and Brutes just don't get to be overpowered compared to their melee brethren anymore. I would call that balancing rather than nerfing. It would put Brutes exactly between Scrappers and Tankers, where they are allegedly supposed to be anyway.

Originally Posted by planet_J

No, actually, I like my FA brute being able to shunt all but 10% damage from fire...Elec Armor would be even more gimped as Energy damage is extremely common these days.

Originally Posted by planet_J

No, actually, I like my FA brute being able to shunt all but 10% damage from fire...Elec Armor would be even more gimped as Energy damage is extremely common these days.

Originally Posted by Psiphon

And then after delving more deeply into it Claws later revised his thoughts to this.

Planet_J I'm still after an answer from you as to why you feel that a Brute should have the same damage caps as a Scrapper and the same resistance caps as a Tanker.

The balance between damage and survivability potential (caps) is like a slider of X length. If you slide it one way you gain resistance/health if you slide it the other you gain damage.

A Scrapper is balanced in that it does alot of damage but to gain that it gives up health and resistance.
A Tank has alot of resistance and health potential (cap) gives up alot of damage for that.

A Brute has the same resistance potential (cap) as the Tank and the same damage potential (cap) as the Scrapper. From the perspective of potential all it gives up to the Tank is the a small amount of health while gaining alot more damage.

All I'm talking about here are the caps not base values of each, that is a seperate issue.

Currently Brutes are broken because in regards to their caps they are too high either side - basically the slider they use is much wider than other AT's using the same mechanics.

They need the caps for both resistance and damage brought in line with other AT's.

Claws proposal is spot on!!

Originally Posted by planet_J

I am not happy with EATs being on same footing...given their ability to cap resistances like a tank...

Originally Posted by Rylas

If the claim that Tankers' and Brutes' max potentials are balanced with each other is true, times for completion should be very, very close.

Originally Posted by Jack_NoMind

Nobody's making that claim as far as I can tell. They're making the claim that people don't run around at max potential -- especially Brutes, who can't ordinarily be capped even Fulcrum Shift. In fact, the claim is largely the opposite -- that Brutes have a higher maximum potential precisely because they have such low base ratios.

Originally Posted by planet_J

Seriously...if you want to do more damage...then simply play a damage AT not a melee aggro control AT!

Originally Posted by Rylas

I'm telling you one Kin can put a Brute at the cap. It may take more then one appliance of FS, but on SOs, a Kin can keep them there. Now, I'll admit, it's been some time since I've done that, but this took place when the Brute cap was higher.

Brutes' low ratios are offset by Fury. And in non-extreme situations that's all equal and good. But what's being brought up as a point of contention is situations where lots of buffing is going on, like in iTrials. People want to see that more normalized, and I don't think they're out of order in requesting that. It deserves fair listening to, and while I don't really care if Tanks get a buff or not, I think we should be considering all fair requests.

Originally Posted by planet_J

Not since ED I team with an elec/kin corruptor in my SG regularly...no damage cap for me..and I double stack rage.

Originally Posted by planet_J

Based on the conversation I just had brutes/scrappers/stalkers are WAI...tanks are as well and if anything is done to tanks it will be an adjustment to tanks. Modifying another melee AT is off the table for the foreseeable future...

(Paraphrasing)

Originally Posted by Rangle M. Down

I like that: "Based on the conversation I just had.." It leaves things so open ended as to whom you were having that "Conversation" with. Lol.

Conversation with your wife?
With your Mother?
With your neighbor Bob?
With yourself in a Mirror?



You could have at least mentioned that it was with one of the Devs, should that have been the case.

Originally Posted by Nihilii

Hear, hear.

If it wasn't for defense being such a predominant form of mitigation while also being functionally the same on every AT, I'm not sure I would ever play a brute over a tanker nowadays.

While the base damage difference is only 6%, being base it also affects damage buffs; and Bruising might be ST, but I find it to be almost equivalent to a straight 20% damage increase, simply because in a typical encounter (that is, for me personally), what is left alive after the dust settles down is the one or two bosses per group, not minions or lieutenants - at which point, more ST damage is exactly what the doctor ordered.

Then there's that fantastic survivability allowing for much smaller focus on building for that or active mitigation, translating to even more damage.

Originally Posted by Rylas

ED took place before CoV launched, so if I a Kin was able to get me to the cap, then it was possible after ED. Now, Kin buffs on Corrs we're tweaked down, so I'm sure that's greatly changed since then. As it stands, a Corr can get you to 400% percent for 15 seconds every 30 secs. So, half the time. You mentioned double-stacked rage, so that's another 160%. If you have Fury at 80%, which isn't hard to do, then that's another 160%. Bringing the total to 720%.

So yes, your brute you just mentioned can be kept at the damage cap half the time by a Kin Corr.

Originally Posted by Aura_Familia

Why are we assuming a Kin Corr will just happen to be there most of the time for either a tank or a brute?

What about the times when they are solo?

Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn

As has been said multiple times in this thread alone: solo, there isn't THAT much of a disparity between the two ATs. However, in a high-buff scenario, Brutes are a clear outlier in performance, meaning that they have more than enough survivability, and very good offensive potential as well. Basically, they have almost-Tanker survivability and more-than-Scrapper levels of offense. That is one of the problems. This is why when people talk about bringing Brutes back into balance, they talk about reducing caps that they would almost never hit solo. This wouldn't impact most solo Brutes (except those that famr specific enemies, but again, the Devs probably don't care that much about performance in those specific circumstances), but would have an impact where the problem exists.


Do Tankers have a survivability edge over Brutes at the caps? Yes. But it's not that big. Do Brutes have an offensive edge over Tankers at the caps? Yes, which they should. But the difference on Offense is much higher than the lower survivability gap is. Basically, the question becomes what percentage of survivability are Tankers over Brutes base and at the caps? What is the percentage difference of offensive potential between the ATs at base and caps?

Brutes are around 75% as survivable as Tankers at base, and if HP is the only difference at the caps, then maybe about 90% there. Offensively, we have to assume a reasonable level of Fury, because there's just too wide a difference there. But I'd say that a Brute doing 125% Tanker damage is lowballing Brutes, but we can use that. But at the caps, Brutes are doing WELL more than that when compared to Tankers.

So, the problem becomes that in high-buff scenarios, Brutes close the survivability gap on Tankers, and GAIN on offense. This is where people see the problem. Compare other ATs to the Tanker, and the relative values stay about the same, maybe a few percentage points here or there. But Brutes are a clear outlier at the caps.


And this isn't even taking into consideration the effect that offense has on your survivability. If you can take out enemies faster, they will do less damage to you.


The discussion is taking into account both potential scenarios: the solo character, and the character in the high-buff scenario. Solo, the two ATs are about right, thought Tankers may need a slight buff there as well, I'm still not entirely sold, but it's possible. But at the caps, Brutes are better than pretty much every other melee AT.

Originally Posted by Aura_Familia

I would say then that work should also be done on improving tanks.

A decrease of brutes alone wouldn't really solve the issues that some see with Tanks.

Originally Posted by Aura_Familia

I would say then that work should also be done on improving tanks.

A decrease of brutes alone wouldn't really solve the issues that some see with Tanks.

My issue is that there is a whole game before we get to heavy group content. Leveling tanks are still an issue for many. We shouldn't forget about that.

Originally Posted by Jabbrwock

Who would it hurt to allow Tankers to deal the same damage as Brutes under the same circumstances that allow Brutes to survive the same damage as Tankers?

Originally Posted by planet_J

Based on the conversation I just had brutes/scrappers/stalkers are WAI...tanks are as well and if anything is done to tanks it will be an adjustment to tanks. Modifying another melee AT is off the table for the foreseeable future...

(Paraphrasing)

Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn

Because of how the Threat formula works out, Tankers having lower damage, but similar TauntDurationRemaining is why Tankers can't always hold aggro versus these ATs, and why those ATs can hold aggro well enough that you don't need a Tanker (and no, I'm not advocating that any team should NEED any single AT, but it can be a valid concern at points).