Bossk_Hogg

We are talking about playing a game where our characters routinely beat up male and female enemies. If the threaten emote, which I'm not even really sure how you would notice in routine play, is how low the bar is, then I don't know what to say.

Just because you continue to shout out logical fallacies doesn't make them so. Seriously, by your logic they never should have added POC pets because someone could be racist with them. Do you have a counter argument? Or is it just "no new tools until the world is perfect and everywhere is a safe space"?

Pearl clutching fear mongering that someone would do something to offend you. You apparently don't want the potential for anything bad to happen to a female avatar in your presence. We can both play that game if you want.

What if Brute Rage/Build Ups provided a set amount of fury, or raised your fury to a certain level if it was under it? Like Rage would set fury to 80%, or give 5% fury if you were over 80%? Right now they give no fury upon activation. That would help the power provide more benefit to brutes (as it should, being a primary power) given their lower initial damage, help brutes build up fury right out of the gate in a mission, and help on teams with multiple tank types as the brute isnt getting the brunt of the aggro.

It's not the cottage rule...

Then we better get rid of all models but white dudes. Because someone, somewhere is going to do something inappropriate with them. Or we can trust what has historically been a very good community, to the point where COH had sponsored LGBTQ events on live, to stamp out bad actors. That someone may be triggered by someone using a threaten emote on a female pc/npc/minion isnt a good reason to ban emotes or female characters. Or have their body issues come up with the idealized body types we're forced to play. Like I said, I can respect people's life experiences, and still think it is a poor reason to ban basic creative tools from the community.

Well then use DO's. An invuln brute has to make up 6% defense and 8% various resistances to catch up to the tank. Easily doable with some set bonuses. Think the tank can catch up to the brute in damage with the same? Or even come close?

I'm truly sorry you suck at building your brute then. Do you want some build advice?

How would tankers dealing more damage, but still less than brutes, hurt brutes again if neither are needed? Because I assume an across the board defense reduction of 50% for all AT's and IO bonuses is off the table.

You should also test the same character as a brute. It's easy to think something is overpowered when you've been punching things with pillow fists for years. Its why I chuckle when FF users get worried that adding absorb or something would make the set "too OP".

Their extra defenses don't matter. It's not like there's content a tank can handle that a brute cannot. So spare me the tears for how brutes have to scrimp and save just to tank a spawn. A couple set bonuses close the protection gap. Can the same be said for the damage gap? Clearly not. Brutes deal way more damage. Tankers have no meaningful survivability advantage. Both are nigh immortal blobs, just one deals double the damage of the other. But hey, if you want to drop the brute cap to 75% I'm down.

No, I'm asking for more risk, more rewards. More bosses, EB's and AV's. The purple patch was poorly designed in that it disproportionately punishes debuff sets more than buff sets. Debuffs are resisted, and buffs are not. When rad infections 40% to-hit debuff provides less benefit than a 4% defense buff from maneuvers, there's a problem. In order to alllow debuff sets to contribute to harder content, it needs to be rolled back some.

This. On a team, the increased target cap mostly matters for aggro purposes. Everyone is lobbing tons of AE's anyways does it really matter if the tank hit 6 more minions that are instantly vaporized regardless? Hell, incarnate stuff is so boring because its just an endless chain of judgments and nukes. I'd even be OK if tanks didn't as much of a scaler increase on AE's (like .88 AE, .95 single target). I'm just excited about being better able to aggro a spread out group and not be constantly sucking wind.

Tankers have a pretty small durability advantage. Brutes will have a small damage advantage. How much difference do you honestly expect from AT's that share the exact same powers? Defenders and Corrupters are essentially within 5% of each other as well. The time to differentiate brutes and tanks has basically passed. Scrappers and tankers were already too close when brutes came out. They could have made them unique in which armors they could take, with brutes getting more offensive options like fire, and tankers getting stone/invuln, but powerset proliferation and Going Rogue killed basically any chance of keeping them really different in a big way. We simply have too many "tough guys who hit stuff" AT's to really give them niche protection without bolting something onto the AT that it never had before. I don't think many people rolled tankers because they wanted to debuff/heal. That isnt to say that they CAN'T, but that shoudlnt be their selling point over brutes.

I don't think the argument that some kids will draw boobs should be a basis for not giving kids crayons or making new crayon colors. If something is a problem, you deal with it. But it could open the door to a lot of fun and interesting concepts. We have POC henchman, but I don't think the opportunity to create a racially insensitive character should have prevented their inclusion. I can respect your opinion Steampunkette, I just can't agree. It doesnt really seem like it matters, as it's a ton of effort to change the way the system works. Just a shame.

If anything, we have too many "dudes who are tough and deal melee damage", but this is a new playstyle.

It seems pretty awesome to me, and offers a new playstyle not like anything we really have currently. It sounds much more flexible than the EATs and VEATs, which are way too locked into their respective game lore to satisfy me. From what I gather, there was some bad blood between the creator and the HC team, so hopefully that wont impact us getting access to the AT after it becomes open source.

I'll second this. Particularly for cones, I'd rather consistently hit more enemies for less damage than futz around trying to position. I'm trying to keep an eye out for anything gunning for the squishies, and it can be a PITA to maneuver while you're in the middle of it.

@Captain Powerhouse What are the odds some of the dominator assault changes roll out for tankers (and brutes/scrappers)? Namely the animations being sped up and the energy assault changes going to energy melee?

Taunting is binary. Either the group is taunted, or it isnt. There's really no more room for tank taunting to go up in a way that matters compared to brutes. Unfortunately your idea is like focusing on improving sleep duration as a niche.

Worse ST, better AE. You could have already twinked out your tank to 50 in the amount of time you spent wringing your hands over the loss of uberest farming status.

Yep! That is clearly what I said. Particularly when I said it should be adjusted so tankers do a bit less damage on average. Maybe slow down and read. For the record, farm clears are meaningless and shouldnt be taken into account for balance. If you're so terrorized by a fire tank suddenly earning a bit more influence on trivial content than your AE farmer, spend an hour or so and PL yourself up one and call it a day. But tankers have basically been invalidated since IO's. There's a survivability ceiling, and both brutes and tanks are WELL over it, basically being immortal. Squabbling that one unkillable blob only took 10 damage vs. the other's 12 (OMG! 20% MOAR damage!) is pointless when neither was in danger. Brutes do so much more damage than tankers now it's a joke. Tanks damage can go up significantly with no impact to brutes.

Brutes don't get nerfed. That's what they get. The AT was a bad design call from day one. There was already too much overlap between tankers and scrappers and there isn't enough niche for this many tough melee damage dealers to occupy. You cant lower brutes defenses otherwise brutes or scrappers will have the same identity crisis. There isn't any more aggro control that is needed. They aren't changing the aggro cap. and a brute can already lock down a spawn with ease, so aggro control isn't a selling point. They aren't giving tanks a buff/debuff/heal support role, as that wasn't what the AT was ever about. They don't need more survivability, as a brute can survive in any content, and moreover SHOULD be able to, being a tanking AT. The only other valuable thing in the game is damage. And the testing should be adjusted to where they do a small amount less damage than brutes, just as brutes have a negligible durability reduction. Save the team buff tanking character for a new AT.

No. Oh no, your first single target attack might have slightly different numbers attached to it if you choose to respec! They even said they'd add non-sword options if that is the bee in your bonnet. This isnt even remotely cottage rule territory, which is invoked WAY too much by people with zero understanding of what it means. That was my point, not whether the change was good or bad.

I think the solution is to make the rest of super Strengths attacks not hot garbage so you aren't better off with pool attacks. Too much of its power was concentrated in footstomp. on the bright side, Hurl's damage should have just went up thanks to the ranged damage modifier change.