Bopper

Yup, the Achilles will have a chance to proc when the pseudopet is summoned, and will have a chance to proc every 10 seconds there after until the Freezing Rain patch goes away.

Procs are AT agnostic, so they would add the same damage to a brute as it would a tank. The benefit could come if Tanks are able to afford slotting more procs into a power than a brute because of build goals. But a Brute can always match that decision, but possibly at a deadlier cost if they don't have their defenses high enough. The real pullaway comes in the form of AoEs hitting more targets and being able to cover more area to hit more targets. Hitting more targets is doing more damage, but unless you're one-shotting enemies with your AoE, you'll likely see Brutes make up ground by killing their fewer targets faster and being able to refill their target cap faster. Overall, the design is to have tanks clear areas faster while brutes kill hard enemies faster. Both can do each other's tasks, just specialize in each differently.

Can't make those claims about edge cases without showing evidence. The arguments other have made are valid. SR on a tank is much better than on a brute. Easier to cap, and the tank's ATO offers up to 20% resistance to all. So that combination is good synergy between the set and the AT for maximizing survivability. Same can be said of Claws. You get a permanent damage boost and Spin on a tanker is fantastic thanks to its maximum target increase and radius increase. Finally, you haven't yet completed your test. You can't make a baseline of results with similar builds, then change one of those builds to optimize damage, show it can beat your old builds in a clear speed test, then make an all-inclusive statement that you have proven your hypothesis. You haven't. Your results are going through peer review right now, and I'm telling you you don't have enough evidence based on your results. You have a data point. A data point that has not been compared to anything that relates. I know this sucks. You're putting in a lot of work. But it takes a lot more work to prove something without a shadow of a doubt. Nobody is saying tanks are not better at surviving that brutes. But your claim is Tanks are outdamaging Brutes, and for that you have to put in the proper work to prove it. Otherwise, we will have to rely on ALL of the data points collected during Tanker changes on Beta that showed on average, Tanks did roughly 90% of Brutes. Good luck on your testing if you want to pursue that proof. But it will take an army to get through enough testing with enough combinations with enough situational scenarios and conditions to get you to an answer that shows that proof. It will not be proven with a single build using incarnates compared with results of different builds of different ATs. Up to this point, all you've shown with your Pylon results and the like-builds that Brutes do more damage than tanks, thus solidifying where they land in the world of balance.

The underlying math also has Brutes with a fury mechanic while tanks get higher survival and base damage numbers. You have to include Fury. You're not going to get rid of Fury.

I dont think Captain Powerhouse is balancing ATs with incarnates in mind. But maybe ... You might get more sway with him if you can show similar performance irregularities without incarnates and using similar builds for the ATs tested. But in the end, it will still only be one data point for one powerset combination. You'll be testing months trying to characterize all powerset combinations, then analyzing that performance to showcase a general trend that Tanks outdamage Brutes. It's a lot of work, but i wish you good luck if you choose to pursue it.

I took a look at the builds and I see what you're seeing. As for errors, I don't have time to look now but maybe I can do so later. One error I know is wrong is the Damage and To-Hit buff from Follow-Up. It should be 30% and 10%, it's doing something like 35.8% and 11.8% (ball-park). I also noticed you have everything set to +5, I had to turn that down to +0. But that honestly does hardly anything as really those +5s only hurt procs more than it helps damage. I also had to turn down the Hybrid. It has only a 50% up time, so setting it to 2 for average performance is more appropriate. Other things I need to look into is the damage for the epics and the damage for the powers themselves. I actually think Tanker epics might be on the low side, but we'll see. All of that checking is gonna take a lot of work, so expect nothing soon as I'm working other projects. But overall, I still think if the numbers are mostly correct, the SR/Claws Tanker is caught up and maybe surpassed the Claws/SR Brute thanks to Follow Up, Hybrid, and Musculature. One other thing I noticed, Mids allowed up to 3 stacks of Follow-Up for Tank but only 2 stacks for Brute. Odd. We'll add it to our list of things to fix in Mids.

Copy, are you making a matching Brute build as well and testing it? I looked at the damage buff from Follow Up, it is wrong in Mids for a Tanker, but I believe you noted that already.

Can you show what it is you're seeing that suggests a Tanker is over-taking the Brute? I would take Mids with a grain of salt, as there are bugs everywhere that require lots of man-hours to correct. Post your builds and I'll take a look at what you're seeing and I'll see if it's correct.

The Fury formula was changed in January. It now factors in the recharge time of the attacks used to calculate how much Fury you get. So that helps even out Fury generation between fast sets and slow sets.

I believe Kismet is a 120s duration bonus, similar to Numina and Miracle. If the power it is slotted in is activated, you will get the buff for the next 2 minutes.

Looks like it is coming out pretty even to me. Despite having superior AoE and running Assault Hybrid, the tank still couldn't top the Brute's clear times. So as to your question in the title of the thread, it would appear tanks were not over-buffed. It also would appear that Tanks are more survivable than Brutes and Brutes do more damage than Tanks. As you also pointed out, Brutes have more base HP, while also having higher capped HP and higher resistance caps. So yes, Brutes are more survivable than scrappers. As for determining the "at least" 33% tougher claim, I would like to see your math on that. But it's also worth noting, toughness will depend on build. Also, toughness quantification is somewhat limited by the question "what's tough enough?". Would a Stone Armor brute be much less survivable than a Stone Armor tank? How about Rad Armor? I suppose balanced/hybrid defense sets would favor a tank more (Invulnerability for example), but I've also seen Bio Scrappers that looked unkillable. So who knows what exactly is tough enough? I guess in the end, the question will come down to, do you think you can make a Brute tough enough to handle everything you want to play? If not...maybe you play it safe as a Tank and kill a little bit slower. You'll have fun either way.

I actually thought tanker numbers would be closer, assuming you were using Assault Hybrid. But overall, great results. It mostly shows what we would expect, which is good. Thanks for taking the time to show that, BZB.

That is certainly a great rotation and offers a great balance between effective DPS and resistance debuffs while not requiring too much recharge (+278.79% for 91.48% average resistance debuff) If you don't mind standing closer and using the Annihilation proc in Howl, you could go with: Screech/Shriek/Scream/Howl as a rotation and squeeze out more resistance debuffing on average while requiring even less recharge (+260.75% for ~93.1% resistance debuff on average). Or, you can do a rotation of with multiple Shrieks to give: Screech/Shriek/Scream/Shriek/Howl which needs only +197.09% recharge for ~91.9% resistance debuff on average. At worst, if the procs don't fire, you're looking at 88.15% and 87.6% average debuffs, respectively. So still fairly close while not breaking the bank on recharge. You can also Proc out Howl for some nice extra DPS.

Sorry about the computer. Love the work you're doing. Donated. Good luck

Do be. You can easily copy your characters from Live over to Beta (it takes 2 minutes to process), and you can easily mod things on Beta (any IO you need, any incarnate, whatever).

On Beta it's Arc 23655:

Totally understandable, especially in this climate.

So true. I dont know many Defense powers who's T1 I would skip. But there are few T1 attacks I would use from Melee. Power Picks are seriously a premium resource, so throwing away any is rough.

woah...how did brutes become useless? Sure, their damage cap decreased to 700% but their Fury was improved. If Brutes were strong before, how are they no longer useful? Not sure about that claim. He is putting in the work. But the guidance I'm trying to provide is to help him prove his point. I'd hate for BZB to spend 2 hours doing a test that was flawed. I've been doing testing for 12 years (wow, actually today is my 12 year anniversary on the job, neat), and I have seen many missions waste millions of dollars on bad test practices. This does not have nearly the financial risk (I sure hope!!!), but if the results are going to matter or interest anyone, I would recommend taking some of my advice. BZB has captured my interest to see the comparison in damage. And sure, there are some parameters that are not controlled with even what I proposed, but it's a compromise I'm willing to live with. I will still be taking the results with a grain of salt given we are looking at only one build combination. But all that being said, it's still a good enough test doing it this way as opposed to doing a random mission test that has too many variables to draw any conclusions. If that's the results that were to be produced I'd just leave the thread. It wouldnt be value added, just anecdotal.

copy. If they are all not using Ageless, then I think its fair to go about business as usual. Shouldn't have a drastic impact on the test.

Thanks, when I get on a computer tonight I'll review them.

Actually, while we're at it, you probably shouldn't use destiny powers in your test if you're not using the same ones. One...Incarnates are OP. But Two, if you are giving one character a nice recharge bonus while the other does not (plus the recovery it comes with), that character is getting a significant offensive buff.

Thanks, that would be a good control test for seeing Tanker damage compared to Brute damage in typical mission AoE environments. Save your builds for configuration control and share those as well.

You can assess the ATs how you like. I'm just saying, you will not be able to know if the tanker is killing faster than a brute because it does more damage or if its because the brute had to run away more. Plus, that introduces other variables such as what powersets did you choose, how did you build the characters, etc. Nobody will argue with you if you said Tankers are more survivable than Brutes. The argument you proposed was Tankers are doing too much damage relative to Brutes, yet you're not testing specifically for that claim. If I ran into a mission with a brute and died (or ran away), but i was doing killer damage, what would your test tell me? A brute can't solo as fast as the tank in that content. It tells me nothing about the damage performance. If you truly want to provide evidence of tanks doing too much damage, you have to do a test that isolates the damage. So far, the only controlled test you've done is against a Pylon that showed the Brute doing more damage. You attempted a non controlled test with running missions, however the randomness of the missions added noise in your results. You can remove that noise by simply running the Mission Simulator map multiple times. It doesn't take that long, you build up samples which builds up confidence, and you know the test set-up is consistent. Set it to +1/x8 (or +2), and get atleast 10 samples for each AT. Then we can analyze the performance.

We really aren't trying to test survival. We are isolating variables to focus on your original point, which is "did tanks get overbuffed?". If you are trying to merge both survival and damage in a single test, you won't be able to tell how much of each contributes to your times. I recommend using the Mission Simulator.