Jump to content

Captain Powerhouse

Developer
  • Content Count

    247
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Captain Powerhouse last won the day on October 5

Captain Powerhouse had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

536 Excellent

About Captain Powerhouse

  • Birthday 01/01/1004

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hmm these powers should be tagged as not dropping if mezzed, all player toggles that only affect self are supposed to. Ill look into this (it i don’t forget among all the other things I got going on right now.)
  2. Some Melee Powersets will be looked at later after this is out of the way. The rage crash avoidance will actually be rolled back on next patch, the set will be looked at in more detail later, but not until another project is done: go through every single entity in the game and re-balance enemy damage resistances.
  3. Short answer: the set wont be ported as is. It's defenses are too high, Energy Drain's +Def is too much, so that power likely has to be replaced with something else for the tanker version, at minimum. A little? Energy Drain should had never been changed from a heal to +defense.
  4. OK I hope this calms down the last few days of discussions: brutes wont be nerfed any further. In fact, the next patch has a buff to brute fury generation on teams. And just tongue in cheek: the only way brute resist cap would go down to 85% is if tanker resist cap also goes down to 85%. But there is no plan to do that at this time (or ever, ever ever.)
  5. Clarification here: all ranged attacks on melee sets are considered melee for their modifiers, just like all melee PBAoE in Blast sets use ranger modifiers. So hurl did benefit from the melee mod damage increase. As for a list of powers that are affected or not, the list is not finalized and rather not put a list up that might change. The target caps are listed in game, easy to find. I likely will add a tool tip note to powers that ignore the effect by the end, if I don’t just lower the area of those powers like I did with foot stomp.
  6. PvP damage should not have changed, there are different modifier tables at play in PvP and those were not changed. There might be some issues here and there with epic pools that should had been addressed in the last patch.
  7. Weaken Resolve was hit by the same bug as Melt Armor, it's -res was also too high and is now lower. Note the bug affected both brutes and tankers. On top of that, given all the things Weaken Resolve does, it was also considered a bit too strong in the -res department and is getting lowered in a future patch (for everyone.)
  8. Was this before or after Tanker -Res was reduced in Weaken REsolve and MeltArmor?
  9. But now you are talking about very specific situations, and then, not specific enough. I have mentioned this a few times, but how does that all interact with using Epic pool AoEs? You cant make any decent AoE spam with Foot Stomp alone, even at extremely high recharge you need at least one more power, and that is almost certainly going to be an Epic pool attack that is scale damage 0.8 for Tankers and 0.75 scale damage for Brutes. As for attack chain, I don't personally do this (due to theme) but most SS builds i see tend to incorporate Gloom for optimal DPS. That Gloom will continue to be using a 0.8 modifier for tankers. It will continue to bring better DPS than Haymaker, but the impact on relative tanker/brute balance wont be as simple as looking at a single number. The 90% cap goal is just for the caps. It's a limit, how far can extreme buffs take the AT. It's not meant to keep both ATs at a permanent 90%/100% relationship. That is practically impossible with the way Brutes work mechanically. The only "constant" relationship being attempted is single target Tanker/Scrapper where the Tanker should be doing around 75% the damage of an equivalent scrapper, and that also gets murky because their Epics are different, and scrapper +Dmg is also significantly higher.
  10. "Near" I really mean around 95 (highest I ever see) in a farm. When 50% is part of the conversation, I consider that "near" (although Auroxis himself claimed being able to saturate fury in farms also.) If I am playing missions, I do stay around 80%-89%. With enough enemies i hit 80% without attacking. With 7 critters I'm likely to hit 60% before within a handful attacks. So, I'm not sure what scenario I would ever consider 50% fury to be a realistic representation of brute gameplay.
  11. And how realistic is that? Because in my experience, if brutes have multiple foes on them, they are at near 100% fury. And fury has bonus +fury built in when you fight EBs.AVs and the like that makes sure you always stay above 70% so long you continue attacking.
  12. If I didn't care what anyone thinks, It's very likely none of the iteration we seen so far would had happened.
  13. Yes, it is a nerf. Yes I did say i was not planning to nerf brutes (not sure if i ever said any definitive "wont", i try to avoid speaking in certain terms like that but I know sometimes I fail.) Anyways, no one should try to cover the sky with one hand, this is a nerf. It is indeed a minor nerf that should only play a role in team and raid situations. @kenlon got it right earlier, my mind was changed after a lot of talk pointed the dynamic between brutes and blasters/scrappers. It's an AT that can tank, manage aggro, and deal lots of damage, and then it can also be buffed to deal higher damage scale than a Blaster. I wasn't planning to do it, I was focusing on the melee at balance, but I stated that "if tanker damage is too high at 5.5, then so is brute damage with a 7.75 cap". Once blasters entered the conversation, I really felt that indeed, if there was a time to do this, it was now. The result after this should be a more balanced field among tanking ATs (Kheldians will be touched at some point, sorry, those require a lot more work than can be done within the scope of this wave) and also a better position for raw DPS ATs that bring little to the team more than, well, raw dps. Anyways, I own it. It's a nerf, not out of a whim, but it's a nerf and I did say it was not in the table. I apologize, but still feel this needs to happen. I'll do my best to avoid such absolute statements in the future.
  14. Don't think it is problematic, also the main reason to lower the -radius was toned down mostly because +100% of making taunt auras and other cc abilities way too good.
×
×
  • Create New...