Tanks vs Brutes
By
Aett_Thorn,
Posted on: 2012-07-30 23:26 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
But the green dogs shedding hair on italian leather sofas have me intrigued. We should be talking about them instead of rehashing a discussion that's been around since i6 with no significant changes.
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.
|
Quote:
Alright then, here's an upcoming change: Do you think the i24 proliferation of Resistance bonuses changes this discussion?
|
Originally Posted by Siolfir
But the green dogs shedding hair on italian leather sofas have me intrigued. We should be talking about them instead of rehashing a discussion that's been around since i6 with no significant changes.
|
Quote:
Not really, because the resistance stacks better onto existing resistance (ie, going from 80->90% is halving the damage taken, so is much more valuable than going from 0-10% and only decimating the incoming damage), so the better resistance numbers on a Tanker will improve even more from a survival standpoint than the lower ones on a Brute. Tankers will still have more hit points even when both get capped, and Tankers will cap earlier and so can look for a wider band of bonuses. Does this sound familiar?|
Originally Posted by Kyria_Shirako
Alright then, here's an upcoming change: Do you think the i24 proliferation of Resistance bonuses changes this discussion?
|
In general, Brutes will still deal more damage and Tankers will still live through more things. If you couldn't get a Brute to some minimum level of survivability that you wanted before, that may change your decision but really it's not like you couldn't build for that already through defense bonuses and getting softcapped. If you wanted to build for defense because you thought you didn't have enough survivability, you could already do that. All the changes do is allow you to try a different path by going after resistance bonuses.
If you felt that Brutes gave you "enough" survivability already then you're less likely to care about the bonuses. I know in my case I plan on seeing where I end up and probably won't redo a build just for capped resistances, although I may try a build or two on new characters with those bonuses in mind. Bio and Willpower look like great sets to work with for that, Bio especially since the penalties for Offensive Adaptation are entirely resistance based.
More green puppies!
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.
|
Quote:
When was the last time that you controlled aggro for your team on a stalker? Scrapper? |
Originally Posted by TheBruteSquad
Why do people making these threads always seem to ignore that in the current game Scrappers and Stalkers are better than both ATs?
Why all the rage over jockeying for last place? |
I built a scrapper for tanking just to see if I could do it, and slotted the taunt aura and confront with taunt. I was able to tank nightstar for keep em seperated, but keeping minion aggro even on scanner missions is a challenge.
Quote:
Not significantly. The tanker gets a bit more of an advantage from it for the reason that Siolfir mentioned. I think it DOES change scrapper vs. brute though since the scrapper's lower cap is going to become more of a detriment.|
Originally Posted by Kyria_Shirako
Alright then, here's an upcoming change: Do you think the i24 proliferation of Resistance bonuses changes this discussion?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr_Kingkillaha
I was able to tank nightstar for keep em seperated, but keeping minion aggro even on scanner missions is a challenge.
|
Quote:
I actually came to this conclusion myself, and it's a situation that exacerbates an extant disparity. There already doesn't seem to be all that much reason to run with heavily resist-based sets (especially Scrapper-taunt-aura less ones like Fire, Dark, Elec) on Scrappers over Brutes unless you just really, really don't like chasing Fury; It seems that in i24 there will be even less reason to do so.
|
Originally Posted by Garent
Not significantly. The tanker gets a bit more of an advantage from it for the reason that Siolfir mentioned. I think it DOES change scrapper vs. brute though since the scrapper's lower cap is going to become more of a detriment.
|
Quote:
There's no need to. That's why my position is that they're obsolete. Safety through superior firepower - a dead spawn needs no tanking. A fire/shield scrapper under build up will eradicate a x8 spawn, save the bosses, in 3 clicks. The team will have those half dead bosses crushed before they can even think of peeling aggro from the scrapper bomb that just went off in the middle of them.|
Originally Posted by Mr_Kingkillaha
When was the last time that you controlled aggro for your team on a stalker? Scrapper?
I built a scrapper for tanking just to see if I could do it, and slotted the taunt aura and confront with taunt. I was able to tank nightstar for keep em seperated, but keeping minion aggro even on scanner missions is a challenge. |
AoE party buffing, funnily enough, was a large nail in the coffin. Before many players would just shield the tank, maybe the defender, maybe a blaster if they were still finding a way to die. 7 to 21 clicks every two minutes? A hassle. 3 clicks? You're being negligent to not. Now that the entire team is riding high on the bonuses does it really, truly matter who's got the aggro? From what I've seen in everything from DFB through to trials the answer is 'no'.
Sustained tanking has never been really 'needed' in City - the lack of a needed trinity is one of the biggest draws for the game, in my opinion.
This has never been truer than it is now, especially at the higher levels. Before it was useful to have someone take the alpha. With invention set bonuses and incarnate abilities ANYONE can take said alpha.
Everything has come together over the years to make the least needed job role in city of heroes, tank, even less needed. Everything. From debt reduction to inventions to inspiration drop rates through to aoe buffing to incarnate abilities.
Weight training: Because you'll never hear someone lament "If only I were weaker, I could have saved them."
Quote:
It doesn't change the discussion, but as far as I'm concerned, it further validates my position.|
Originally Posted by Kyria_Shirako
Alright then, here's an upcoming change: Do you think the i24 proliferation of Resistance bonuses changes this discussion?
|
They keep handing out more and more survivability to everyone. This both makes Tankers less relevant for tanking and makes it even more hypocritical to punish them greatly with low damage for having survivability when they hand out survivability to everyone else and don't make them take a sizeable damage hit for it. It also brings Brutes even closer to Tankers in terms of survivability while the damage gap remains the same.
For my Tanker buff arguments I love the change because it's just more fuel to the fire.
For the sake of the game and power creep... well, that's a whole other thing.
.
Quote:
lol, actually that would be interesting to watch.
|
Originally Posted by Siolfir
But the green dogs shedding hair on italian leather sofas have me intrigued.
|
-Female Player-
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mauk2
Evil_Legacy became one of my favorite posters with two words.
"Kick Rocks." I laffed so hard.  Never change, E_L! |
Quote:
The caps are fine...get off of it...nobody runs around hard capped out. That is your own private delusion. A few others share your lunacy...but your argument holds no water.|
Originally Posted by Psiphon
What is this "Groundhog Day", read the previous posts; but a quick summary.
Brute Caps are too wide compared to other AT's and in regard to buffs. Either caps are there to keep ATs within certain parameters or they are not! You include inspirations and buffs or you don't! If you include them then Brutes have an advantage and the caps need to be looked at!! If you don't include them then bring other AT's in line and again look at the caps!! Either way they need to be adjusted!! |
Why should tanks do more damage?
Stop dodging the question.
Quote:
| All AT's have their own mechanics and pros and cons. Melee AT's can be compared directly and in that comparison Brute caps are too wide. |
Quote:
| Due to extra survivability Brutes shouldn't be allowed to hit Scrapper damage anymore than a tank should and if you never hit it then lets reduce it by the equivenant of 5% - Brutes will still be fine. |
Quote:
| Agreed they need to be tougher and for that extra survivability what do they need to give up - reduce their damage potential by the equivelent of 5% seems fair. |
Quote:
| Firstly I play all AT's, currently I'm actively playing one, the rest are mainly Brutes, Corruptors and Doms. |
Quote:
| Secondly I'm not trying to force any pegs anywhere, I'm after parity regarding caps. |
Quote:
| I hadn't intended anymore posts on the subject as I felt the point had been made. Your posts required a reply though. You have got to be one of the rudest and condescending persons on this forum. |
Quote:
| Playing all alts I wanted nothing more than to raise the cap discrepancy as a balance point! |
Quote:
| You are nothing more than a Brute Fanboy trying to maintain the Brute's status as the Premier melee AT - capable of outputting far too much damage for the survivability that it has!! |
Quote:
|
(2) Brutes are slightly less survivable and do far too much damage for this minor d If Brutes a dealing Scrapper level damage then their survivability needs to be reduced accordingly. If Brutes have near Tank level survivability then they shouldn't be appearing just above Tanks in a pylon run. That's called balance!! |
Tanks are not broken, brutes are not broken, find something with proof.
Quote:
|
This has no relevence as other AT's aren't comparable due to different mechanics to acheive goals. All melee AT's have defence and attack primaries and secondaries and as such can be compared and balanced. Brutes are currently out of whack with the other AT's in regards to caps and these need to be adjusted for reason of balance. |
Your perception is skewed.
Currently Playing:
Rage King - SS/Regen Brute (50+3)
Soulfire Darkness - Dark/Fire Tank (50+2)
Deaths Final Embrace - Kat/Dark Brute (50+3)
ULTIMATE REGEN GUIDE I22
Quote:
Everyone's perception is skewed by their experiences. So is yours. Don't kid yourself into believing it's not.
|
Originally Posted by planet_J
Your perception is skewed.
|
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PapaSlade
Rangle's right....this is fun.
|
Quote:
Actually Confront should become a new power, make it still retain the taunt effect but when its cast on a target the Scrapper has a 3% higher critical chance against that target.
|
Originally Posted by TheBruteSquad
Why do people making these threads always seem to ignore that in the current game Scrappers and Stalkers are better than both ATs?
Why all the rage over jockeying for last place? If you're measuring damage output vs survival capacity, the scrapper and stalker forums are filled with DPS that will make your head spin with enough survival packed into most of these super DPS builds to weather not just a pylon but often solo at x8 or crush crates in Lambda. If you can solo x8 you can tank for x8. Both tanks and brutes are obsolete. Brute less so, sure, because it's a newer AT - all the newer ATs are better designed than their pre-I6 companions. But still obsolete. Change Confront to Taunt (nobody takes it anyways unless they want to tank) and let this end. Scrapper caps are more than sufficient to tank for a team since any situation where a brute is buffed past scrappers 75% by outside sources* means the team is buffed to near unkillable levels anyways. * Fire damage, energy damage, smash lethal damage can be exceeded interally, of course, in three armor sets. It only matters on farm maps. In general play I've never really noticed a difference when battling with my /elec brute vs my /elec scrapper, even against Mu. I know the difference is there, but with the speed said Mu die to either I've never seen it be a factor. |
Quote:
AOE nuke handed out: Check|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
It doesn't change the discussion, but as far as I'm concerned, it further validates my position.
They keep handing out more and more survivability to everyone. This both makes Tankers less relevant for tanking and makes it even more hypocritical to punish them greatly with low damage for having survivability when they hand out survivability to everyone else and don't make them take a sizeable damage hit for it. It also brings Brutes even closer to Tankers in terms of survivability while the damage gap remains the same. For my Tanker buff arguments I love the change because it's just more fuel to the fire. For the sake of the game and power creep... well, that's a whole other thing. . |
Procs on all attacks handed out: Check
Three powers that add to survivability (Hybrid, Barrier, Rebirth): Check
Double Hit for those at damage cap: Check
Lore Pets for extra damage: Check
Alpha for extra damage: Check
Looks to me like there has been more damage handed out in the Incarnate side of things. Not everyone takes barrier, I've been on 16 man teams where no one had it.
Quote:
I never said it wasn't...but I know your average brute running around...even leveraging the ATO proc in normal play is not going to peg fury...I can barely do it farming, and I can't sustain 100% fury...it's only for bursts of perfect situations of incoming and outgoing damage. 90% fury vs 100% fury is a 20% decrease in damage...take 20% damage away from a brute, and there is now a gap between brutes and scrappers...|
Originally Posted by Rangle M. Down
Everyone's perception is skewed by their experiences. So is yours. Don't kid yourself into believing it's not.
|
Add in the higher crit% ATO for scrappers and the gap gets wide...and the new ATO2 will only make it wider.
Currently Playing:
Rage King - SS/Regen Brute (50+3)
Soulfire Darkness - Dark/Fire Tank (50+2)
Deaths Final Embrace - Kat/Dark Brute (50+3)
ULTIMATE REGEN GUIDE I22
Quote:
A 20% decrease in damage buff, anyway. Probably less than a 5% decrease in actual damage. Overly simplistically, figure you have 100% enhancement + 200% from Fury = 400% damage. Drop to 90% Fury and you're at 380% damage. Plus procs, plus Build Up, plus whatever.|
Originally Posted by planet_J
90% fury vs 100% fury is a 20% decrease in damage...take 20% damage away from a brute, and there is now a gap between brutes and scrappers...
|
I'm not disagreeing with the point you're making, though, just being pedantic. The argument works the other way too, after all. If someone is claiming that now with the ATO proc Brutes can sustain 100% fury, well, even if they can, and not to trivialize a really nice buff, but it's not such a huge increase in damage as it might at first appear.
I could be wrong, as I haven't calculated it out in detail, but I expect to lose damage in my switch to a Brute on my Katana/Dark. I expect to get it back in practice in most situations due to having more enemies on me and doing less chasing, but that's to me not really what we normally mean when we say doing more damage.
"That's because Werner can't do maths." - BunnyAnomaly
"Four hours in, and I was no longer making mistakes, no longer detoggling. I was a machine." - Werner
Videos of Other Stupid Scrapper Tricks
Quote:
Are you suggesting that brute damage is equivalent to scrapper damage at 100% fury? If so, that's not the case.
|
Originally Posted by planet_J
90% fury vs 100% fury is a 20% decrease in damage...take 20% damage away from a brute, and there is now a gap between brutes and scrappers...
|
Quote:
Based on your inability to understand what's actually being discussed, I see no point in answering this post beyond these few lines.|
Originally Posted by planet_J
The caps are fine...get off of it...nobody runs around hard capped out. That is your own private delusion. A few others share your lunacy...but your argument holds no water.
Why should tanks do more damage? Stop dodging the question. Brutes have the smallest base damage modifier, they HAVE to have larger ranges because you're modifying a much smaller number. With a Warshade being able to cap all resists at 85% and not being designed specifically to manage aggro? No thanks, 90% is fine...Brutes can't hit scrapper damage realistically...you CAN'T get full fury sustained...so how can you really ever cap damage?? Why should brutes do less damage? They don't hit scrapper numbers because of the nature of fury...it's like a carrot out in front of you that will never be eaten. Damage caps are there to allow outside buffs to get you closer to scrapper damage...but you won't get there without full fury. Then you should know first hand that a well built dom or scrappers or stalkers ROUTINELY do more damage? Should we nerf them? Parity for who? No AT is broken as they sit...you have failed to produce any proof otherwise and that burden lies squarely on your shoulders...not mine. Also, the devs have said that brutes are off the table, and will no be adjusted even if they look at tanks...so stop trying to find a solution that is not acceptable. Not normally, I am extremely helpful, but I am so tired of people asking for a nerf to brutes based on strawman arguments that my patience has long ago worn thin. It is balanced...so why on earth does it need adjusting? If 2nd/3rd place is premier, then you are spot on...but I refuse to allow them to fall to last. They don't deal scrapper level damage, except in a vacuum with full fury and that doesn't happen in reality. Tanks are not broken, brutes are not broken, find something with proof. Brutes are out of whack according to who? All but about 5 or 6 people on the forums either don't care, or think they're fine...so who has the burden proof? You...have you provided anything to prove they are out of whack? No. So because 5 or 6 people out of 5-6K think something is off that makes it true?? We are likely 2% of all players on the game too... Your perception is skewed. |
All you do is repeat the same questions and answers over and over, irrespective of what the subject or proposal is.
It's not possible to have an intelligent discussion with you, anymore than it is with a parrot that has moderate mimicking skills!
L50s: Tanks: Cryofission - Ice/EM - Dr Celsius - Fire/Ice - Saint George - SD/SS | Controllers: Psichosis - Ill/Kin - Major Chaos - Ill/Stm | Scrappers - Neutron Crusader - DM/SR
Currently Levelling: Angelic Blade - BS/WP Scrapper | Seeds of Destruction - Plant/Kin Controller
As a minor aside... I logged onto beta with the live build on my EM/Elec Brute and had +21% S/L resistance, +18% F/C resistance, and +9% E/N resistance in set bonuses while mostly building for recharge with some procs thrown in once the attack chain was saturated.
In other, completely unrelated news, Bio Armor and its Offensive adaptation (which carries -7.5% resistance to all) just got a lot more interesting to me. 
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.
|
Quote:
Interesting, I'm very tempted to make another SR toon, probably an ElM/SR Stalker.
|
Originally Posted by Siolfir
As a minor aside... I logged onto beta with the live build on my EM/Elec Brute and had +21% S/L resistance, +18% F/C resistance, and +9% E/N resistance in set bonuses while mostly building for recharge with some procs thrown in once the attack chain was saturated.
In other, completely unrelated news, Bio Armor and its Offensive adaptation (which carries -7.5% resistance to all) just got a lot more interesting to me. |
L50s: Tanks: Cryofission - Ice/EM - Dr Celsius - Fire/Ice - Saint George - SD/SS | Controllers: Psichosis - Ill/Kin - Major Chaos - Ill/Stm | Scrappers - Neutron Crusader - DM/SR
Currently Levelling: Angelic Blade - BS/WP Scrapper | Seeds of Destruction - Plant/Kin Controller
I've posted this before but I'll post it again - there's nothing wrong with tankers.
The reason we keep seeing threads like this is because what a tanker is meant to do, survive and absorb aggro, is not as popular as dealing damage and killing enemies. The reason tankers are fine is that they are in fact the best at what they do. They have a clear advantage in both survival and aggro management over scrappers, brutes and stalkers, and the advantage exists from level 1 to level 50 plus 3.
The some people who claim tankers are broken show that their argument is broken when they continually ask for more damage, when it is clear that is not what the AT is designed to do. If these people really just wanted to do more damage, why not just roll a brute, stalker or scrapper? Because their goal is transparent - they want to do more damage without giving up their superior survivability and aggro management.
Now for those tanker enthusiasts who argue for improvements in surivivability and/or aggro management, their arguments are at least reasonable, even if I'm not sure any improvements in those areas are needed. One thing I might like to see done would be to remove aggro caps on tankers to really give them a massive advantage in what the at is supposed to be all about.
And finally, for the nerfers on a crusade to cripple brutes, they are in a virtual deadlock with scrappers in terms of overall ability, which is why you see a pretty even amount of said at's running around the city. Depending on powerset and/or powerset combo, one might have an edge over the other, but overall, I find them to be equally appealing, and I'm a melee enthusiast thats been playing for over six years straight. And with the recent improvements to stalkers, I've added that at to the mix of classes I enjoy the most. The fact these ats are getting lots of play and love from players, especially experienced ones, and more importantly, lots of debate over which is better in any given situation or power combo, should suggest that they are not broken - and if it aint broke, don't fix it.
So if tanks are fine imo, why don't I like playing them as much as the three at's I just mentioned? Because I prefer offense over defense, and I prefer killing enemies as quickly as possible over aggro management and survival. If you feel the same way, I suggest rolling at's that are designed to do that best.
That doesn't mean I haven't played tanks, and while playing them I did enjoy the role they fill, just not as much as playing more offensive characters. The same goes for corruptors and defenders, which are very powerful at's (I'd argue that buffs and debuffs are by FAR the most powerful abilities in this game - a group of buff/debuff ats tear through content in ways melee groups flat out can't...). While those at's are unquestionably powerful (I can do things on my corruptors, like solo gms, that I simply cannot do on any of my melee characters), I simply prefer the melee playstyle over the ranged/buff-debuff style.
Does that mean corruptors and defenders are inferior to my brutes, stalkers and scrappers? Of course not (and quite the opposite, if you ask me from a purely performance angle), it's simply a matter of differing playstyles and differing tastes in playstyles, nothing more. The same goes for tanks - they simply fill a role that is less popular than the roles filled by other ats. Yet despite this fact, and the fact so many claim the at is underpowered, I never see a lack of tanks running around, and there always seems to be a comparative amount of them in any league or team I join.
All of this seems to indicate that threads like this are nothing more than attempts by tank enthusiasts to get buffs for their at or nerfs for 'competing' ats, facts, common sense and empirical observation be damned.
Quote:
It's not possible to have a discussion with me?|
Originally Posted by Psiphon
Based on your inability to understand what's actually being discussed, I see no point in answering this post beyond these few lines.
All you do is repeat the same questions and answers over and over, irrespective of what the subject or proposal is. It's not possible to have an intelligent discussion with you, anymore than it is with a parrot that has moderate mimicking skills! |
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
WHY SHOULD TANKS DO MORE DAMAGE?
you still refuse to answer it, and resort to calling me unreasonable because no one who tries to make an argument for it can provide an answer...?
Tanks are not broken.
Currently Playing:
Rage King - SS/Regen Brute (50+3)
Soulfire Darkness - Dark/Fire Tank (50+2)
Deaths Final Embrace - Kat/Dark Brute (50+3)
ULTIMATE REGEN GUIDE I22
Quote:
Starting with I7, the devs have added far more offense to the game than defense. If tanker survivability is being made redundant, damage dealer offense is being made more redundant.|
Originally Posted by Ultimus
AOE nuke handed out: Check
Procs on all attacks handed out: Check Three powers that add to survivability (Hybrid, Barrier, Rebirth): Check Double Hit for those at damage cap: Check Lore Pets for extra damage: Check Alpha for extra damage: Check Looks to me like there has been more damage handed out in the Incarnate side of things. Not everyone takes barrier, I've been on 16 man teams where no one had it. |
(I say starting with I7 because that's the most fair starting point: if I started from any point prior to I7 it would be even worse for survivability: on average melee archetypes were even stronger prior to I5 and the net increase in survivability over time from pre-I5 is lower, prior to I4 its even lower than that).
[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:
Tanks should do more damage because their primary role can be handled by other ATs.|
Originally Posted by planet_J
It's not possible to have a discussion with me?
ANSWER THE QUESTION! WHY SHOULD TANKS DO MORE DAMAGE? you still refuse to answer it, and resort to calling me unreasonable because no one who tries to make an argument for it can provide an answer...? Tanks are not broken. |
Increasing Tanker damage output to narrow the gap between them and the other melee ATs - of which we currently have two too many - is less invasive than lowering the damage of three other ATs. Or even one.
Tankers are not broken. They're superfluous. That's almost worse.
Weight training: Because you'll never hear someone lament "If only I were weaker, I could have saved them."
Quote:
You are correct - I don't have to tell you that's been one of the biggest detriments to the Blaster AT's existence: If everyone does near blaster damage and brings more to the table than that, what's the advantage of being a blaster?|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Starting with I7, the devs have added far more offense to the game than defense. If tanker survivability is being made redundant, damage dealer offense is being made more redundant.
(I say starting with I7 because that's the most fair starting point: if I started from any point prior to I7 it would be even worse for survivability: on average melee archetypes were even stronger prior to I5 and the net increase in survivability over time from pre-I5 is lower, prior to I4 its even lower than that). |
In some ways Tankers and Blasters suffer from the same base problem - specialization in a game that rewards generalism.
Weight training: Because you'll never hear someone lament "If only I were weaker, I could have saved them."
Why all the rage over jockeying for last place?
If you're measuring damage output vs survival capacity, the scrapper and stalker forums are filled with DPS that will make your head spin with enough survival packed into most of these super DPS builds to weather not just a pylon but often solo at x8 or crush crates in Lambda. If you can solo x8 you can tank for x8.
Both tanks and brutes are obsolete. Brute less so, sure, because it's a newer AT - all the newer ATs are better designed than their pre-I6 companions. But still obsolete.
Change Confront to Taunt (nobody takes it anyways unless they want to tank) and let this end. Scrapper caps are more than sufficient to tank for a team since any situation where a brute is buffed past scrappers 75% by outside sources* means the team is buffed to near unkillable levels anyways.
* Fire damage, energy damage, smash lethal damage can be exceeded interally, of course, in three armor sets. It only matters on farm maps. In general play I've never really noticed a difference when battling with my /elec brute vs my /elec scrapper, even against Mu. I know the difference is there, but with the speed said Mu die to either I've never seen it be a factor.
-Female Player-
"Kick Rocks."
I laffed so hard.