Bill Z Bubba

Because deep down, I think most issues can be resolved through disembowelments and beheadings while dodging incoming attacks. Plus, what's not to love about a cigar chompin prince of Hell magic-ing up a mortal body cuz he got tired of the bureaucracy of the Pit?

I've had far fewer bad pugs than good. Granted, that last bad one made me go play another game for a few days.

Point is, even in the 2nd mish with the tunnels, there's *always* a spot at the roof you can hover-blast from with impunity. Honestly, AVs running away are the absolute worst part of soloing the ITF for me on any character that can't lock 'em down. Granted, I have yet to make the attempt with anything except my armored characters.

That ain't no lie.

There isn't a problem to you because you don't give a damn about actual numerical balance in a game based on math.

Changed two words in your quote. You think blasters and sents are currently balanced?

You could but I've not seen that in gameplay. It's only one combo but my claws/sr brute is immortal in a standard max diff aggro cap's worth of Cimerorans while my scrapper most certainly is not. Which is why I'm currently PLing an em/sd brute and scrapper to go with my sd/em tank. One more data point.

Yet you call that situation balanced. I've defined far too close specifically by soloing content with my tank that my brutes fail and by showing actual times, both single target and clear all, the difference between damage output. If tanks are pushing 90% brute capability across the board, then brutes should be pushing 90% mitigation across the board. That would be an equitable situation. Anything short of that is crap.

1) I've given options. 2) What happens in farms is as meaningless to me as the folks pulling huge reds from email and saying we should balance around that. 3) I have no disagreement with T9s getting looked at. I haven't taken elude since IOs were introduced to the game.

You're correct that it throws teaming out the window. As it should for any proper test. Teaming introduces more variables than what folks like us can deal with. I don't give a shit that brutes outdamage tanks. They should and I'm glad that I was able to test that, see it, and admit I was wrong when I was wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that tanks are far too close to brute damage in comparison to their heightened mitigation, a fact that you continually hand-wave away as meaningless.

Irrelevant. I've never stated brutes don't have a role. No AT has a useful role in my mind. We can complete every task in this game with the absence of any AT. Roles mean nothing to me. That's a dodge and not the topic here.

Not at all. If you use a wide enough brush you can easily state that all the ATs are perfectly balanced because they can all solo at +0/x1 with no bosses or AVs without issue. It's still completely false numerically. Specifically because of the numbers backing the entire combat system.

Fair doesn't play into it. I don't care what's fair. I care about what's correct. Thank you for admitting that the difference between mitigation values and damage output are numerical nonsense.

These two statements are mutually exclusive. Either I'm numerically correct and the two archetypes are not balanced or I'm wrong and they are. What people "feel" means precisely nothing.

You are wrong. If the simulation does not provide a meaningful test, it's not valid. If there's no risk of defeat, there's no meaningful test. It's nothing but a test of damage output and pylons and clear alls of anything else can provide that.

That the extra mitigation provided to tanks is much higher than the extra damage provided to brutes. Same thing I said in the OP. You know, the thing folks either say isn't true without backing it up with useful and factual data or simply state that it's meaningless. If it isn't true across the board, prove it. If it's actually meaningless, then let's nerf tank mitigation to be equitable to the brute's higher damage output. Edit: OR put tank's damage back to where it should be. It ain't rocket surgery.

It's not taken as one and I love that guy. What I can do means nothing to me or anyone else. What I do in relation to providing factual data, otoh, means a lot to me. That's why I've never had a problem admitting when I'm wrong. Too bad the whole of humanity doesn't feel the same way.

Fair. But again, if your easier ways of judging survivability never put your brute at risk, then you're not testing in a way that's worthwhile.

And people wonder why I say AT balance is a joke and becoming more so with every change.

I don't know what polk high is but thanks for being somewhat honest.

They nerfed crits for EM on scrappers and stalkers so why not?

What's your brute's time for a Werner rules ITF?

Roger that. Should you give the sound silencing a try, I think you'll find it helps. If you've already tried it to no avail, understood.

Yea, we are. The problem only exists for those that actually give a damn about archetype balance and we're obviously in the minority. So, whatever.

But if the brute never died, then the tank's extra mitigation was never coming into play and thus isn't a valid test, is it?