Bill Z Bubba

Which all get completely washed out when you're considering every possible combo amongst the three ATs and going for the average performance amongst them.

Thanks for proving you don't understand simple math.

A perfect post for your side of the argument. Thank you.

But thank you so much for the completely unfounded opinion of my motivations for this conversation. I don't want brutes on top. I don't want scrappers on top. I don't want tanks on top. I want them to all have 100% identical xp/hr from 1 to 50. So, g-bye. Thanks for your useless input.

As usual, we end up with the normal crowd ignoring factual data, claiming it irrelevant, because it doesn't suit their biased falsehood-based horseshit. Trapdoor don't matter cuz certain powersets are winning! Claws don't matter cuz XYZ! Ain't no different than modern day politics trying to explain reality to folks that think a sky fairy cares who you fuck.

As stated earlier, I have. They were discounted since I only used claws and SR.

My biases aren't keeping an overpowered AT overpowered. They're geared toward making all the ATs competitive with each other.

Great. Then tanks should be returned to how they were when they deserved no such buffs as they received.

I live under that same rule when testing. Perhaps we're wrong to do so. Perhaps we're not. This is what I want tested more.

Sure I could, if I wanted something completely useless to the team that provides nothing of worth to the team and didn't want any aggro control at all. I'm not interesting in your gut. I like facts. Yup, even my corruptors can take down a pylon without fear of the incoming damage. Irrelevant. Pylon damage test are 100% only useful for determining ST damage output. I get it. Your bias is strong.

Now compound that "useless" extra damage by 1000 missions as you level from 1 to 50 and pushing the diff up earlier so that each spawn DOES have enough enemies for it to matter.

This is a completely false statement when the tank can push diff higher and gain more XP/hr while leveling from 1 to 50. Irrelevant. Still true on a team of corruptors where I'd rather have a brute than a tank. And irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And have more damage while outpacing their brute and scrapper counterparts on leveling from 1 to 50 because they can push the diff higher and get better XP/hr-min-whatever.

I'm not denying that scrappers and brutes can outdamage tanks. What I have issue with is the complete dismissal that tanks surviving when scrappers and brutes can't is something that is meaningless. As you have done repeatedly with statements like this:

And in the places where no one is capable of dying, tanks get the win because they can slot for more damage where scraps/brutes have to slot for survivability.

Against what? And is against what relevant? Against max diff carnies? Council? Incarnate IDF? Show your clear all times against all of them. With or without incarnate powers in play. Does that matter? Yes, a brute is superior to a tanker in anything that the brute can survive against. Same is true for scrapper superiority. And tanks are superior everywhere else.

No, you haven't. Check HP levels.

Impossible solo. It doesn't happen. Give me your absolute best brute build and a tank using the same slotting has superior mitigation. Brutes can ONLY achieve NEAR-tank mitigation on teams. Otherwise, they're scrappers with higher base HP.

This was only true on teams. Brutes can NOT build to to tank level survivability. What about soloing? How much time was lost when waiting for invites or teams to form for the teamers? How much xp/time was lost?

Ok, so do faceplants matter? When the brute at lvl 30 on SOs fails to complete a mission at +4/x8 where the tank succeeds, and the time to complete goes to the tank, does it matter?

Which is?

Been asking for that data dump for a while now. Find it very interesting that it hasn't been forthcoming.

Tankers are much more played and enjoyed because they've become the OP melee AT that so many that don't give a shit about balance hoped for. It's just a shame that so many care more about being OPAF than they do AT balance.

LOL. Ok, that was a pretty good analogy.

Course not. You are in the camp that enjoys the benefits. Why would you want to spend effort showing those benefits are ill-gotten and wrong?

No thanks. I don't accept bad decisions. Doesn't mean I have a snowball's chance in hell of fixing them, but it doesn't mean I should just lay back and enjoy the offense. I'd rather bring the problem to light in the hopes of change.