Thinking of re-rolling some of my Brutes to Tanks - Talk me off the ledge

[Camel]

Here’s my two cents. 😎

 

 

[Warboss]

14 hours ago, Without_Pause said:

If you want different, go StJ with a Stalker. It is best there. I have a StJ/ea and totally recommend it.

 

Also, I was poking around for some info, and saw this thread. I was looking for info since I have been debating switching my Staff/dark brute to to tank. One problem is switching is my graphics can be super terrible on certain maps which puts me not in front of teams and being terrible as a tank so I try to avoid doing so, but I'm intrigued by the idea of a larger radius for attacks. 

Can't speak to your graphics issue, but as far as the AoEs go, you'll love it. And just to clarify, the "sanding" effect that Hyper mentions only really applies to bosses and higher. Most of the rest of the mobs disappear after you're first attack (AoE) chain.

[Without_Pause]

5 minutes ago, Warboss said:

Can't speak to your graphics issue, but as far as the AoEs go, you'll love it. And just to clarify, the "sanding" effect that Hyper mentions only really applies to bosses and higher. Most of the rest of the mobs disappear after you're first attack (AoE) chain.

I suck at being on super teams, but I did roll one for Tanker Tuesdays. It is the same time as the Plant super group as well, so plays might be very hit and miss. 

Edited June 3, 2020 by Without_Pause

[Zeraphia]

I'm of the opinion that you really can't argue FOR a Brute in most cases versus a Tanker, the only exception I've really seen so far that kind of goes against that train of thought is something like TW/Fiery Aura Brute, even then, there is a lot of argument defensively to go Tanker there, but there is a lot of argument to go for Brute offensively. 

 

Basically the change has made Tankers just *feel* easier and build *much* easier. Tankers feel much more damaging now than they've ever been and are dramatically more survivable than Brutes really are. Brutes suffer an HP hit, and overall defense base number hits, I would not call them a 90/90, I'd call it more like 75/85, Brutes come to about 75% the overall durability of a Tanker, Tankers do 85% in terms of damage what the Brute will dish out, and in many cases, the Tanker variation will just be flat superior (most Super Strength combinations of Tanker). 

 

It's a harsh reality, but I really struggle to justify even making a Brute for anything besides farming. I'm not saying they're bad at all, I'm saying what does it offer between Tanker versus Scrapper at this point? 

 

Go right ahead! Reroll them! 

[Sgt. Terminus]

3 hours ago, Zeraphia said:

Tankers do 85% in terms of damage what the Brute will dish out, and in many cases, the Tanker variation will just be flat superior (most Super Strength combinations of Tanker). 

 

 

I am trying to understand why Super Strength is better for tankers.  Brutes don't have to take jab, have the same size of AOE for foot stomp (of course not as many targets 10 vs 16) and with double stack rage it is not out of the question for getting close to the Brute cap outside of farming situations.   Maybe there is something obvious I am missing here? Thanks!

[Zeraphia]

1 minute ago, Sgt. Terminus said:

I am trying to understand why Super Strength is better for tankers.  Brutes don't have to take jab, have the same size of AOE for foot stomp (of course not as many targets 10 vs 16) and with double stack rage it is not out of the question for getting close to the Brute cap outside of farming situations.   Maybe there is something obvious I am missing here? Thanks!

Do you mean understand why SS is better for Brutes? Because it isn't honestly, it is just flat out better to roll as Tanker at this point for Claws/SS due to the damage buffs and AoE caps. 100%.

 

 

[Apparition]

3 hours ago, Zeraphia said:

I'm of the opinion that you really can't argue FOR a Brute in most cases versus a Tanker, the only exception I've really seen so far that kind of goes against that train of thought is something like TW/Fiery Aura Brute, even then, there is a lot of argument defensively to go Tanker there, but there is a lot of argument to go for Brute offensively. 

 

Basically the change has made Tankers just *feel* easier and build *much* easier. Tankers feel much more damaging now than they've ever been and are dramatically more survivable than Brutes really are. Brutes suffer an HP hit, and overall defense base number hits, I would not call them a 90/90, I'd call it more like 75/85, Brutes come to about 75% the overall durability of a Tanker, Tankers do 85% in terms of damage what the Brute will dish out, and in many cases, the Tanker variation will just be flat superior (most Super Strength combinations of Tanker). 

 

It's a harsh reality, but I really struggle to justify even making a Brute for anything besides farming. I'm not saying they're bad at all, I'm saying what does it offer between Tanker versus Scrapper at this point? 

 

Go right ahead! Reroll them! 

One bonus for Brute is that you aren’t expected to take Taunt, unlike Tankers.  Every single character I make has to have Fly, Hover, Afterburner, Super Speed, and Hasten.  It makes builds extremely tight, and most times there is just no room for Taunt.

[Redlynne]

4 hours ago, Zeraphia said:

it is just flat out better to roll as Tanker at this point for Claws/SS

Which Archetype can be Claws/Super Strength again?

[drbuzzard]

17 hours ago, Sgt. Terminus said:

I am trying to understand why Super Strength is better for tankers.  Brutes don't have to take jab, have the same size of AOE for foot stomp (of course not as many targets 10 vs 16) and with double stack rage it is not out of the question for getting close to the Brute cap outside of farming situations.   Maybe there is something obvious I am missing here? Thanks!

The tanker damage scalar is higher, hence the bonus you get from rage is greater. 

 

Brutes have a damage scalar of 0.75 vs. tankers now having a damage scalar of 0.95. 

 

So if we look at a brute at the fury cap ( which is around 80% in normal situations iirc, but I may be a bit off), that gives +160% damage plus normal slotting (gives close to +100% base damage, again, not quite, but I'm math lazy and like round numbers). 

 

That means a slotted up brute at fury cap does 0.75 *3.6 = 2.6 * base damage of a power. 

 

A tanker, however, with normal slotting (again rounded to +100%) is 0.95 *2 = 1.9 * base damage of a power.

 

We then add rage which boosts the user with 80% damage boost. 

 

Brute goes to 0.75*4.4 = 3.3 * base damage of a power 26% increase

tanker goes to 0.95 *2.8 = 2.66 * base damage of a power 40% increase

 

We double stack rage and:

Brute goes to 0.75*5.2 = 4.94 * base damage of a power 37% increase

tanker goes to 0.95 *3.6 =3.42 * base damage of a power 80% increase

 

So while brutes do remain ahead in damage, the gap gets smaller with rage (and even moreso with double stacked rage) and the benefits are more pronounced on tankers. 

 

In relevance to the OP, I've been build building some brutes of late to contrast to the many tanks I build to try out the big tanker buff. It's quite clear the damage gap is still strongly in favor of the brute, especially how easy it is to hold up fury now. However, if you pick a set which leveraged the AOE changes (war mace is a very strong example), tankers really do a great job of reaping crowds now, and hit notably harder than they did. The durability gap is also quite large. As with all things, there's that opportunity cost on making builds, and as you like durable brutes, you have to make a lot of design choices chasing durability on a brute that come much easier on a tanker. Getting to 90% resistance, or higher defense numbers is simply tougher. The tanker will simply heal more due to greater base and max hit points.  I also make my brutes as tough as I can, and I've been playing the recent ones through DA missions, and the durability gap really shows there since it's generally about as hard as the game gets. The brutes will get beat down if I set to maximum, while my tankers will pretty much stroll on through. If the brute is durable to the particular faction attacks, the advantage in damage is evident how fast I can clear, but if there's a damage hole, the brute will have to be much more cautious or sets things much lower. 

[marcussmythe]

What would be fertile ground for testing, if anyone had the opportunity and energy would be to see what the sets look like as they bleed together with IOs.

 

Assume, lets say, Radiation Armor on both sides - solid resist set, so simple to measure.  Pair it with War Mace, a set with minimal mechanical weirdness.

 

Take the Brute and aim its build towards toughness - chase set bonuses to try to match the toughness of the tank.   On the tank, do the same thing, only in the other direction - use your slotting, etc. to try to duplicate the Brutes offense (likely breaking defensive set bonuses in the name of damage dealing procs)

 

I wonder what they look like where they merge?  What do they look like when they pass each other in each direction?

 

What is the 'spread' of design space for each in terms of practical value?  I anticipate that we will find the Brute capable of 'just doesnt die' toughness (though at a higher opportunity cost than on a tank - who can probably get to 'just doesnt die' for the vast majority of relevant content without set bonuses, much less IOs) - but the brute will be able to swing further into the damage spectrum.  This suggests  (as we have access to more than one build) that the Brute will cover a larger role spread - built for toughness a brute is more than tough enough, and built for offense, they will have more firepower than the most offensive tank.  OTOH, the Tank MAY end up at higher offense when matching defense, or higher defense when matching offense, as the brute if they are build-merging by chosing different set bonuses.

 

I wish Mids was better at evaluating procs, it would be interesting....

[drbuzzard]

I think the world of IOs allows for a lot more ability to boost defense than offense, so I suspect brutes will come ahead in this to be honest. About the only trick in a tanker's favor is that assault for tankers now gets a decent value (controller level) of 15%, so I take that a lot and it helps with the higher damage scalar now. 

[marcussmythe]

My initial results seem to indicate that if you lean it FAR in the Tanks Favor (Superstrength/Shield sort of setup), and measure damage ONLY during things like buildup cycles, and include things like musculature...

 

The tank does NEARLY as much damage as the Brute, and the brute is about as tough as the tank (not quite - brute still has lower HP, on similar def/res)

 

If you back away from damage buffs, the brute pulls further and further ahead.

 

So, my impression is for general play, the Brute will remain, despite the buff, a superior choice.   The only reason to chose a Tanker over a Brute, mechanically, at endgame, seems to be larger target caps, and better aggro management.  If you find Brute AOE Target Caps and Aggro Management sufficient, there is no reason to play a tanker, mechancially at endgame.

 

Before endgame, or outside of mechanical preferences, the tanks ability to get their survival powers sooner will have value in low level/exemplar play, and some players will always prefer the steadiness of the tanks greater HP pool, and/or the lack of a need to pursue rage.

[Achilles6]

Great conversations so far!

[marcussmythe]

I'm actually finding it somewhat disheartening, once I run the numbers.  Id expected the combination of the tank damage buff, and the ability to pursue offense with procs, to close the gap more than it does.

 

To the OP:  For what its worth, this Tank-Player-Since-Release is doing Mids plans and considering rerolling Tankers as Brutes, even after the buffs.  Make of that what you will.

 

Edit:  On reconsideration, and running the numbers a bit more - I think it may be less grim than it first appears.  At a 'no external/temporary buffs', Brutes look very good, due to their very large internal buff.  At 'maximum external/temporary buffs', IE Dambuff Cap, Brutes also look very good - because of their higher buff cap.

But most game play doesnt exist in those conditions.  Youve probably got SOME reds buffing your damage - and they help the tanker more.  The tanker has a higher mod on Assault, and more build room (at the same survival) to take things like Assault and Adrenal Boost (or w/e).  And the temporary buffs (Gaussians Procced Buildup, or what you will) are going to have a larger impact on the tank - and provide their increased value on demand (such as smashing down a boss), again closing the EFFECTIVE gap.

 

So, for general 'playing the game', solo or in loose teams, the Tank probably closes much of the gap (though probably not all of it), and will have more hit points, given the same defensive powerset - and having more hit points is a powerful form of mitigation, itself.

Edited June 4, 2020 by marcussmythe

[Frostweaver]

19 hours ago, Redlynne said:

Which Archetype can be Claws/Super Strength again?

Ignore the line. Claws on Tankers and SS on Tankers are darned close to brute numbers at 70% fury when you factor in their innate dps bonuses due to follow up and rage, and extra damage bonuses have a much greater effect on tankers than brutes until you actually get close to damage cap, where Tankers cap at around 85% of Brute's cap. Also the Tanker's increased cone and aoe sizes and caps are especially visible in Claws, leading to a higher AOE damage potential despite the lower individual damage. @Zeraphia did not mention it, but this is also true for TW and savage as well, although it is less visible and requires more carefully laid out attack chains.

Everything is easier and offers more build flexibility on a tanker, basically, and claws and SS are outliers that really display this.

But go ahead and poke fun at someone not strictly following unwritten forum traditions. That's always helpful.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Frostweaver

[marcussmythe]

I have to echo Frostweaver RE: Build Flexibility.  If Im trying to get a Brute up to what I consider ‘basic tank performance’ (which for me is gonna be softcap+solid resists, or resist cap plus solid DEF, or... you get the idea) I find my brute build is wearing a striaghtjacket.  Tough+Weave, CJ or Hover, Maneuvers, almost every single time.  Thats three pools, we probably know whats in number 4.

 

On my tanks, I can probably drop at least one of the above, and have more power choices to boot.  This opens up a fourth pool for fun and flavor, or for things like Adrenal Boost for more damage and recharge, or the Presence Pool to play CC games with Dark Armor, or...  Also gives me more space to play with epic pools, more slots free for rounding out things, a bit more flexibility in incarnates, yadda. 
 

YMMV, of course.

[Frostweaver]

3 minutes ago, marcussmythe said:

 Thats three pools, we probably know whats in number 4.

Healing? Experimentation? after all, every tanker should pretend to be a support toon...

hehe. Seriously, though, I tend to try to avoid hasten if it's at all possible... especially after the SS rage change which makes doublestacking more painful in comparison, but that's much harder on brutes who focus on a few, rapid aoe attacks because an aoe attack chain is so much more effective for brutes at holding aggro and keeping mobs close than 'wasting' a slot on taunt in their already-tight build.

Whacking something in the face with a stone hammer on a tanker, though, taunts the other stuff around it and keep them in the radius of my aoe's much more effectively. Which means the bosses die at around the same speed as the luts and minions... So I may not kill all the minions and luts as quickly, but the end result is close to the same thing as I fill my attack chain with ST attacks for each of the bosses that the brute would keep using aoe's on after everything else is dead. End result-fairly similar clear speeds. As a tanker I don't NEED those secondary attackers dead right away (and with /shield I'd rather they survive to the end of the fight anyway) because I easily capped my resists and defense against them and have healing, regen, and attack speed/damage debuffs to spare.

 

End result? I really like stacking weaken and melt armor? I have room to try that and I suddenly have sentinel-level -resists. Aid self helps my dull pain in keeping my HP topped off? No problems. heck, I even tried out unrelenting instead of hibernate on an ice tanker the other day, and it worked out much, much better than I had hoped... 4 slotting glimpse of the abyss gave me some very nice bonuses, as an ice tanker I don't really need a full taunt and so provoke was perfect to catch strays and slot mocking beratement, and unrelenting was a surprisingly effective 'oh crap, cascade' without losing aggro... and a brute would never have the freedom to try that.

[oldskool]

25 minutes ago, Frostweaver said:

I tend to try to avoid hasten if it's at all possible

You are a pillar of mental fortitude then. 

[Frostweaver]

17 minutes ago, oldskool said:

You are a pillar of mental fortitude then. 

Not really, I am just sorta lazy.

Keeping track of buttons you have to push when they expire sorta sucks. so if I am using a set that having something 'perma-able', like +hp, mez protections, or something else that greatly enhances your survivability, I'd rather use my auto on that than hasten.

Also, some melee sets, especially for tankers, don't profit much from hasten... the difference between a 4 second recharge and a 4.5 second recharge is pretty negligible. I'd rather slot for global recharge, and the only builds that I feel truly profit from hasten are the ones that have very good long-recharge abilities that cannot be made perma or faster any other way. I usually will put hasten in blast sets to push their nuke frequency (except dp/water/archery) or in like... electric melee when I have both lightning rod and spring attack that, with hasten, can be useful multiple times in a fight.

also, some single-target sets are very very useful as proc monsters when your primary doesn't need any help and your attacks profit more from global recharge to enable better proc firing.

But yeah, in the end it's mostly about where I can be laziest and still be a killing/damage soaking machine.

Some sets, where hasten is an 'option' rather than perma, I will go ahead and slot it in while leaving the actual necessity on auto... Like ice armor, I LOVE the massive HP buff from hoarfrost and I am used to slotting in other emergency heals... but I might throw in hasten so I can occasionally remember to click it to bring up energy absorption or hibernate or secondary/pool abilities faster... but I am not going to DIE if they are not up at maximum speed.

[Hyperstrike]

On 6/4/2020 at 3:22 PM, Frostweaver said:

Not really, I am just sorta lazy.

Keeping track of buttons you have to push when they expire sorta sucks. so if I am using a set that having something 'perma-able', like +hp, mez protections, or something else that greatly enhances your survivability, I'd rather use my auto on that than hasten.

That's the thing with Tanks though.

Most of them are so damn tough that things like self-heals become "Oh Shit" buttons.

Granted, on clicky-mez, you're still 115,000% right (plus or minus a percent or three).

But on something like a well-built Inv/SS, you do NOT need to have Dull Pain up 24/7.
So you can move over to something like Hasten.

[Warboss]

On 6/3/2020 at 8:04 AM, Without_Pause said:

I suck at being on super teams, but I did roll one for Tanker Tuesdays. It is the same time as the Plant super group as well, so plays might be very hit and miss. 

No worries, join us when you can. The fun will still be there 😉

[Heraclea]

For me, it's simple. 

 

If I'm choosing these powers to learn what a defense set can do, I make a Tanker.  If I'm more interested in exploring the attack set, that will be a Brute or Scrapper.  One way or another you get to the parts you wanted to try out sooner.   

[Frostweaver]

12 hours ago, Hyperstrike said:

That's the thing with Tanks though.

Most of them are so damn tough that things like self-heals become "Oh Shit" buttons.

Granted, on clicky-mez, you're still 115,000% right (plus or minus a percent or three).

But on something like a well-built Inv/SS, you do NOT need to have Dull Pain up 24/7.
So you can move over to something like Hasten.

Yeah, but on something like Ice, Hoarfrost is a lot more important to your defensive structure... It's sort of the price you pay in survivability for having the best team protection and aggro control of any tanker. The same is true of a lot of the 'click to not get screwed' powers in defense sets.

Yeah, my icer can do as much damage and be just as unkillable as any other tanker in the game, but I have to make a few build changes and optimizations OTHER tankers don't have to think about.
Resist tankers are quite well-documented and the best tricks are well-known (except dark) to build... Us defense-heavy tankers need an entirely different set of building skills and habits that are less used and far less well-known... most of us have had to figure 90% of this stuff out the hard way.

Of course, the fact that we have NO problems finding slots for LOTG procs makes hasten a LOT less of a neccessity... and MOST tanker primary sets have no problems finding a few slots for force feedback recharges also... slot even one of those in a commonly-used aoe and hasten is pretty much a useless expense.

Man, now I am really wishing Tankers got /ea

[Hyperstrike]

4 hours ago, Frostweaver said:

Of course, the fact that we have NO problems finding slots for LOTG procs makes hasten a LOT less of a neccessity...

Honestly? The fact that we CAN find slots for LOTGs that easily argues for Hasten being MORE of a necessity.
ESPECIALLY if there's some way to achieve Perma or near-perma due to the massive increase in damage output it represents.

Ye olde toughness-vs-kill-speed balancing act.

[Frostweaver]

4 hours ago, Hyperstrike said:

Honestly? The fact that we CAN find slots for LOTGs that easily argues for Hasten being MORE of a necessity.
ESPECIALLY if there's some way to achieve Perma or near-perma due to the massive increase in damage output it represents.

Ye olde toughness-vs-kill-speed balancing act.

Except it doesn't improve your kill speed very much at all. Damage Procs on 16 cap aoe's are crap, regardless of their recharge. The only place where they really work out well is in auras, of which Ice has 2... and the auras gain no benefit from recharge reduction.
Most tanker sets have 3 aoe's, and can possibly benefit from a fourth one. auras add potentially 1-3 damage procs each, ST attacks benefit the same but you have to leave a few open for 6 slotting sets. In the end, if you are capping your def/res, adding a couple of damage procs, you will definitely wind up with a complete ST chain and PROBABLY wind up with a nearly complete aoe chain...often with auras.

Without Hasten. It doesn't speed up your kill speed at all, takes up a power and an extra slot, and costs you a big end burp every 2 minutes.

Hasten is absolutely wonderful on sets with a nuke or with a LONG recharge important ability... I wouldn't even think of skipping it on most controllers, defenders, or even about half of the blasters, but on melees it is almost never necessary, or even particularly desirable. Ice Armor is definitely one of those sets. (ice melee, on the other hand, profits from hasten because of how many of it's attacks are not really attacks).

It's a balancing act. Much more so than the fighting pool, which is profitable on almost every toon. And the people who state confidently that 'it's the most important power in the game' are utter fools.