Tanks vs Brutes

You heard it here first, kids:

City of Warriors and Rogues! If you're not a meatshield or invisible backstabber, get thee to a nunnery!

>.>

I keed, I keed. I do think Tankers need...something. I, personally, have no desire to play one other than "get all hero ATs to 50" and it's the last one I need.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarthWyrm But I do understand that there is an internet rule that any bad idea must be presented by someone at least twice a year to remind everyone who hasn't already read every previous thread on the topic precisely why the idea is bad.

In my experiences, the difference between Tankers and Brutes is that Tankers have the ability to command the aggro more easily. Yes, Brutes can taunt and manage aggro. But, from my observations, they have to put more effort into it.

However, the greatest difference to me is explained like this...

If you want to play a melee AT that can tank, play a Brute. Those who play them can easily get away with being poor at tanking by using the excuse of "I'm not really a tank."

If you want to play a character through which you can force your opponent to move and act according to your whim and herd them like cattle, then a Tanker is what you want. Yes, others can step into the role of "tank" when coming up against certain situations. But, they can never really replace your ability to step up and make the mobs completely ignore your team with Taunt -- a power that is as effective as any other power and requires no additional slots to be useful (though the Taunt IO sets do offer some good bonuses).

And, it also relies heavily on how well the person behind the Tank/Brute plays. Anyone can jump behind a Tanker and do OK. But, there is a level of "skill" that only shows with experience.

So...what you're saying is Tankers are Tankers because of Taunt the Power?

...

No...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarthWyrm But I do understand that there is an internet rule that any bad idea must be presented by someone at least twice a year to remind everyone who hasn't already read every previous thread on the topic precisely why the idea is bad.

Here is my personal favorite Tanker vs. Brute comparrison :

Fire/SS/Pyre tank - 90% S/L Res 65 - 79% Energy/Neg (depending on Tanker ATO Proc) 90% Fire / 56-70% cold res. Toxic 75%+ depending on how much I want/need to stack healing flames.

50% Heal every 12.5 seconds 35% S/L/Melee defense, 2450 HP.

Double rage + Firey embrace KoB - 947 damage. With brusing 1136 damage.

Footstomp (Same effects) - 343

SS/Fire/Soul brute

69% S/L Res 46.5% Energy/Neg 90% Fire 44% Cold 57 ish% Toxic.

50% heal every 12.0 Seconds. 40% S/L 30% Melee defense. 2050 HP.

Double rage + 70 Fury + Fiery embrace KoB 1185 damage.

Footstomp (Same effects) - 440



Personally, while more damage is all well and good, I'll take the god like survivability along with respectable damage.

How do you figure that's "god-like" survivability?

Again, I make the point: It doesn't matter how survivable you are if the things attacking you *aren't* attacking you. It's the same argument I make for Controllers not necessarily "needing" to softcap anything. If they're mezzed (or in the Brute's case, defeated), they aren't attacking and your resistance/defense/regen/healing doesn't matter.

The faster and more efficiently you defeat your enemies, the less survivability you need.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarthWyrm But I do understand that there is an internet rule that any bad idea must be presented by someone at least twice a year to remind everyone who hasn't already read every previous thread on the topic precisely why the idea is bad.

I think the point was that after giving the Tanker the 20% bonus for Bruising (which uses animation time) the numbers on damage were fairly close on KOB with 78% of the damage on Footstomp in the best possible situation for the Tanker, while the resistance numbers are greatly skewed in the Tanker's favor. Of course the numbers provided are solo and without outside buffs - throw in a single Fulcrum Shift and watch the damage difference stretch out to a vast chasm when the Tanker is capped at +400% (around +45% of the FS assuming ~95% damage slotting) and the Brute has room for +135% more buffing.

When you're on a large enough team, Bruising is going to give the edge on the target(s) that it's affecting because the rest of the team's damage can overcome the difference - they get a 20% bonus as well, and if that total surpasses the difference in personal damage you're better off with the Tanker. Well, as long as you're not trying to stack it with other Tankers, because it won't stack. But you also have to account for the lower damage on things that Bruising isn't on, which is why it's not a hard-and-fast "Brutes are always better" or "Tankers are always better".

I prefer Brutes personally. That is my opinion. That does not mean it's factually correct to say that "Tankers will always work better for holding aggro" or "Brutes will always be more useful". As a general case, Brutes will usually do more damage and have enough survivability to perform the tasks you would want either AT to perform.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle it has gone from unconscionable to downright appalling that we have no way of measuring our characters' wetness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brillig It's hard to beat the entertainment value of Whackjob Wednesdays.

if you are going for performance, than only fire/rad and fire/kin controllers matter

I find it very funny that people spend so much time agonizing over minor performance differences between two marginal AT's in teams at incarnate levels with purples.

as noted already - any non-buffing or debuffing AT in a team is simply filler for the buffers and debuffers to work with.

a brute makes a better pet for a controller than a tanker at incarnate levels
a tanker makes a better teammate than a brute for a controller at low levels