GM_GooglyMoogly

Actually, I believe he WAS genericed. Then he asked for a review saying, "I'm the author!" And then provided proof after a skeptical GM essentially responded, "Yeah, right." Of course, that might all be myth . . .

Please discuss the pros and cons (if any) of the suggestion and not the pros and cons (if any) of each other.

I'm watching you. . . . Be nice!

Please be nice to each other. Kingcedd03 has made a suggestion, folks have commented. Anything additional will just result in more personal attacks. Thread locked. Do not start the thread again or post all of those pretty pictures in someone else's thread.

I rushed over to see what was going on . . .

Damage as measured by DPS is irrelevant to balance? Metas are formed not by a crazy guy, but by a crazy team that figures out a way to beat the unbeatable and then everyone copies that until another crazy team finds a way to do it faster or easier. But I'd be interested to hear about what objective standards you mean.

To be clear, I have no more authority than any other player to dictate the direction of the game. The devs will do what they do. And to further clarify, I am not against a buff to brutes in general, depending on what that buff might be. I specifically agree and stated that the Brute ATOs are lacking in comparison with the others. I didn't say that, or anything close to that. I did say that I thought the goal should be to have a small deviation from the best to the worst.

The problem is that there is no objective standard . . . other than DPS. Some players like to eke out every possible drop. I take it that you are one of them. But you have to realize that not everyone plays the way that you do. Nor do they want to. You keep insinuating, or outright stating, that makes them . . . less. This is a game that can be played many ways. Your way is not the only way. And even if your way was the only way there will always be one powerset or one AT at the top of the chart and another at the bottom; Unless we just give everyone the exact same attack stats. And that, to me, would be boring and worse.

I think this may be the one thing that everyone here, or almost everyone, can agree on.

I understand that players have to make build choices. But, as stated by Videra, you also have team buffs, and might use inspirations and other purchasable buffs to get to those caps. I also understand that some of those might not be available at 4* play. But you will have Barrier spam and team buffs. PS - It takes no special knowledge to be a GM. Just a willingness to volunteer and follow rules.

I can understand and appreciate the perspective of super high-end 4* team play. But that is only part of the game. Soloists play. Some people get to level 50 and then shelve it before getting incarnates and accolades and start at another. Some people just want to look cool and create a superhero they thought about as a kid. All are valid ways to play. It seems to me that the devs, live and HC, have tried to reign in the top end and boost the bottom end. And that makes sense to me, even if I, as a player, have complained about some of the nerfs handed down over the years.

Please explain: Where are you getting that from? Why is *come from* between asterisks? And why is solo play a vacuum?

I certainly don't mean to discourage you. You are one of the few players that take the time to do comprehensive tests and shares that knowledge. That's very helpful to me as a player, and I think it's also persuasive to the devs. But your charts will always have one on top and one on the bottom. The hope is that the difference between them is not too great.

I'm sorry, but I think there is a HUGE between 75% resistance and 90% resistance. A brute pummels things, same as all other melee ATs. I understand that you are speaking from your perspective, which I assume is high-end fully built characters. But there are players that don't play that way for whatever reason.

I really don't like to hide posts or stifle debates. But when folks prefer to poke each other instead of discussing the game, I have to. I also don't like closing threads . . . There's definitely a desire among some folks to improve brutes as an AT and others that think everything is fine as is. Those are both opinions and you are free to state them and substantiate them, if you can. But insinuating that people having a different opinion are stupid just won't cut it. "But GooglyMoogly, it's obvious that brutes are bad and saying otherwise makes you wrong." That too, is an opinion. Prove it. Why are brutes worse? "Because they do less damage than stalkers and scrappers" That's also an opinion as it will depend on the powersets, the build and the player. But let's pretend that's a fact. Does the presumed fact automatically make the entire AT bad? Don't other ATs also do less damage than stalkers and scrappers and even brutes? Does that make them bad too? "Well, they also aren't as tanky as tanks." OK, let's accept that as true. But aren't brutes, on average, sturdier than stalkers and scrappers? One thing I will certainly grant is that scrappers and stalkers won the ATO lottery and brutes got one of the least noticeable special ATOs.