*Deep Breath* I'm going to suggest a Brute change now...

[macskull]

On 12/18/2019 at 5:41 PM, Tyrannosaur said:

Regeneration was purposely broken. It is the only power nerfed without mercy for 7 straight issues. The final nail was removing the healing power and turning it into a click times power. Regens had no real resistance. Any burst damage could kill one in a shot, but they were envied and it seemed players demanded a sacrifice (especially Blasters) after PVP was introduced (nevermind an ice blaster or a radiation blaster could kill them even when Hamis were 50%). What regeneration has become is a power that must be micro managed. You spend more time worried about powers running out than not and need to really think and calculate before attacking. I had two 50 regens in the old game on liberty, I even "tanked" the hami. After the final nerf I put them "away" and went on to make 48 more 50s before the game ended - none power leveled, all had the accolades. Yeah, let's not get into God like Controllers then either or how they cut the damage power on Defenders to force them into team buff toons. Please fix Regen.

Fast forward to now, and you can solo tank Hamidon on a Regen Brute without outside buffs. (Also, lol at blaming PvP for the Regen nerfs.)

Edited December 20, 2019 by macskull

[DrRocket]

16 hours ago, quixoteprog said:

While I could be wrong I don't think this will be a major hit for fire farmers. (Or any other kind, S/L or Rad I think?) It may even be a zero sum change since their survival is a combination of resistance and defense.

 

And as someone who does it I don't think the game should be balanced around it AT ALL. I get a certain entertainment out of doing it as a sort of exercise in optimization, otherwise I would not do it even though it is "profitable".

 

And while I would not consider it an exploit by any means, it is taking advantage of a sort of loophole in the game "rules" and so, when weighed against the balance of the rest of the game content, I do not think it should be counted for purposes of game balance.

You make a good point, but similar situations do arise during TFs where as of lately I see many Brutes undertaking the traditional role of the Tank, which as an ancilliary player in such groups, I feel they do resonably good enough, but they are not tanker class good. In a TF the number of mobs they have to hold aggroe can be fantastic, and the rate of punishment they endure is quite comparable to farmer class of punishment suffering, perhaps worse because there is a greater range of sources of damage. In my experience for a brute to achieve across the spectrum of damage resistance for sources is actually very difficult for a Brute to achieve (not sure it is even possible); at the end the Brutes choose about half of them to be really resistant to and then go survive, reducing the resistance cap on brutes would be simply said, cruel.

 

With regards to increasing them to Tank level hit points, would break the archtype description that places them somewhere between tanks and scrappers. Remember that compromise is what justifies the brute's damage output.

 

I  give you this, interesting tweak, but not sure if it would be a good one overall, would support some beta testing of it though.

[quixoteprog]

16 minutes ago, DrRocket said:

You make a good point, but similar situations do arise during TFs where as of lately I see many Brutes undertaking the traditional role of the Tank,

That is fine. If you seek to balance the game around TFs or other official/regular game content I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if TFs have any larger a number of mobs or more difficult content, other than the AV fights, than architect or radio mission set at +4/x8; but even if they did it is regular game content. Considering them and the role of brute ATs in them is fine.

 

My only point is that if you start balancing the game around concerns for an exploitative activity like farming you risk toppling it over. Farming is about optimizing your build for max output. What you want as a farmer is to make the game as easy as possible, You want to optimize your output with minimal effort. That can be a game in and of itself. And one I enjoy. But if you asked me what changes I wanted from the perspective of a farmer it would be for the mobs to have less health and provide more influence and XP when defeated. Because farming is about optimization.

 

I will say again, it is an activity that I participate in and actually enjoy doing, but it is taking advantage of missions designed an optimized to make the game's version of money at an accelerated rate. While the regular game content should be designed primarily to challenge and entertain. Balancing the game around content is an attempt to make it as close to equally challenging and entertaining for everyone as possible. That should be the goal of any change.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by quixoteprog

[siolfir]

5 hours ago, DrRocket said:

In my experience for a brute to achieve across the spectrum of damage resistance for sources is actually very difficult for a Brute to achieve (not sure it is even possible);

Across the entire spectrum, no - at least not outside of tier 9s. But Electric Armor can cap S/L/E/F/C all the time with decent numbers for negative and Psi while still getting some defense tacked on. A friend built one. My Electric Armor Brute went for a more modest 83-85% S/L/F/C with a scaling resistance proc and higher defenses.

 

[QuiJon]

On 12/19/2019 at 9:14 AM, DrRocket said:

Interesting proposal, but not sure it is a good idea, and this is why

 

Say you do increase HP, so things gets better, but reducing the damage resistance cap may not seem much of an issue when you are engaging one or two.... but sadly there is a but!

 

When you take the good ole brute farming, they are taking on about a over a dozen mobs, and they are getting hit, and with reduced damage resistance, the modest increase in hp will not last long under those conditions. As a result, in my opinion, the Brute would be less survivable because the hit point lass per round is greater than the gain in regeneration and possibly in that very same round the loss of hit points could be greater than the increase of hitpoints..

And it isn't just farming, any typical ITF or Lady Grey TF would see the same issues. The gain in Regen at upper levels is not going to compensate for the increase in damage taken by having lower resistances. If tankers have an issue buff tankers, that I have no problem with, but brutes seem to operate just fine and the only people proposing changes IMO are those looking to make tankers run supreme.

 

The OP wants to deny it but yes there are 2 tanking classes in this game. Because this game was originally 2 different games. And these ATs filled roles within those two different games. And if you need evidence of that then start a new character and select "tanker" and you get 4 choices actually, Tanker, Wareshade, Peacebringer, and BRUTE. 

 

Though it is true that they tried to shake the general game dynamics up when COV was released, there is no doubt that the role of Meatshield was still intended to be filled by the Brute AT. 

 

I have said it before and I will say it again, if this is such an issue that there are two AT and we need to find a difference for  them then fine, make them all equal, give tankers the same damage potential as brutes and brutes equal defenses to tankers completely. Let the only difference be in our heads as to what AT we choose and the primary and secondary roles. If I choose a brute it is because I want my damage upper powers sooner, If I choose a tanker it is because I want my defenses sooner by level tiers. And then be done with it. No AT is supreme they are both equal and move on.