Did tanks get overbuffed?

[Bill Z Bubba]

In a recent thread I'm attempting to avoid hijacking:
@Captain Powerhouse said: Brutes are not meant to be 90% of tanks, they are meant to cap at 90% of tanks, with the help of external buffs (or inspiration spam.)

Me: Does this mean that tanks weren't supposed to be buffed to 90% brute damage?

@drbuzzard said: Not sure where you get the idea that tanks are at 90% of brute damage.

 

Back in the rikti pylon thread:
@Bopper said: I don't understand. The design with the buffs were to have Tanks be 90% of Brutes damage and Brutes be 90% of Tanks survivability.

So I got it from Bopper who seems quite knowledgeable but may have been paraphrasing.

 

But, the whole thing has led to some confusion in my mind regarding the tank buff and how it seems to have greatly and negatively affected their performance in relation to brutes, with the brutes getting the short end of the stick.

 

The testing: SR/Claws Tank and Claws/SR Brute. There are currently some minor discrepancies between the builds leading to the tank having +8% damage while idle where the brute has +11% damage while idle.

Both use attack chain: Followup, Focus, Slash, repeat. Hybrid Assault Core was used on both, clicked after timer starts and again when up again. Hasten is on auto and Practiced Brawler is clicked after hasten fires off.

Tank Followup: Full set of Superior Might of the Tanker
Brute Followup: Full set up Superior Brute's Fury
Tank and Brute Focus: 5 Apocalypse (missing damage enh) and Glad Jav Chance for Toxic
Tank and Brute Slash: 5 Hecatomb (missing damage enh) and Achilles' Chance for DR debuff

BZB Tank 1: 342 secs
BZB Tank 2: 359 secs
BZB Tank 3: 392 secs
Average time: 364 secs or DPS of 233

BZB Brute 1: 252 secs
BZB Brute 2: 262 secs
BZB Brute 3: 286 secs
Average time: 267 secs or DPS of 271 DPS

233 is 86% of 271
Does anyone want to try to tell me that brutes are on average running around with 86% of the mitigation that tanks have? Cuz I ain't seeing it.
Something seems amiss here.

 

Please share your thoughts.

[drbuzzard]

We're getting into where procs distort the hell out of AT balance, so you're introduced a separate can of worms into your comparison. If procs are large chunk of your damage, then they disfavor the brute since their inherent will not affect them. Personally I think damage procs need a severe nerf beatdown, even if that's an unpopular view.

 

As I said in the other thread, brutes have plenty of mitigation. Only on the hardest possible content do you really noticed the difference between a decked out tank and a decked out brute. A bit of support on the brute, and you are fine. Do I have a numerical case to be made? No. I merely have experience across a bunch of different tanks and brutes. About the only place I ever note a brute being a bit too soft is when I do +4x8 incarnate stuff in DA. Everywhere else I rarely notice the green bar move much at all.

 

[Apparition]

Yep, damage procs are the problem, not so much Tankers.

[Sovera]

Go away, Bill!

[Bill Z Bubba]

I can retest. Yall want me to get rid of the Chance for +toxic? Easy to do because I keep the AT IO +selfbuff procs (+regen/end for the brute and +absorb for the tank) in my trays and have unslotters on hand. But... math being math, I fully suspect that the ratios will remain the same.

[Bopper]

I was paraphrasing. My memory of things said last year (last week...last second) is never good enough to offer up something verbatim.

 

In a literal sense, I think looking at caps you get AT Damage Modifier x AT Damage Cap to get the following:

 

Brute:   0.75 x 7.00 = 5.25

Tanker:  0.95 x 5.00 = 4.75  ( 90.5% of Brute )

 

For survival, they have same hard-cap resistance, same softcap defense, same regeneration cap, which leaves the difference in the HP caps.

 

Tanker: 3534

Brute: 3212.7 (90.9% of Tanker)

 

You can argue Proc Damage closes the gap, but that is only because Procs are AT-agnostic. They help everyone the same, and in doing so, percentage analysis will close all gaps. That's simply math. If you looked at X/Y and made a ratio analysis, then looked at (X+A)/(Y+A), the ratio will trend closer to 1.0 (closes the gap).

 

But folks are misinterpretting that, as Procs are not the problem. Again, they help everyone the same. Your gap in DPS superiority has not changed. You will still do the same amount of DPS greater than a Tank. Also, some may argue that Procs benefit Brutes more than Tanks because of their lower AT modifier. When doing cost-benefit analysis, the difference between slotting a damage enhancement as opposed to a proc has the advantage going to tanks for the damage and to brutes for the proc.

 

The real difference may come down to the inherents. Tanks can hit more enemies more easily with some of their powers. Brutes (as far as I know) get the full benefit of their Fury mechanic while exemplared. So each has their different advantages for different aspects of the game.

 

[Bill Z Bubba]

Look... I'm not actually trying to get rid of the recent tank buffs. I just think if they're gonna be in play, thus drastically reducing the damage output difference between the two ATs, then perhaps the base mitigation values for brutes shouldn't be at scrapper levels and should instead be somewhere between scrappers and tanks.

[Coyote]

11 minutes ago, Sovera said:

Go away, Bill!

 

Is that like a Reverse Taunt effect?

 

[Bill Z Bubba]

But @Bopper that's at the caps. We don't live at the caps. Even on my brute farmer, combining insps to reds and eating them CONSTANTLY, I've seen the damage cap a handful of times.

The same is easily said for teaming. I'm not running around at the mitigation caps all the time. And DEFINITELY not while solo.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Bill Z Bubba

[Bopper]

1 minute ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

But @Bopper that's at the caps. We don't live at the caps. Even on my brute farmer, combining insps to reds and eating them CONSTANTLY, I've seen the damage cap a handful of times.

The same is easily said for teaming. I'm not running around at the mitigation caps all the time.

Ahhhh....you got sucked into my bait 🙂 Welcome to my fly trap.

 

Now let's look at damage buffed only by enhancements (+100% for simple math). But let's give Brutes...what, 90% of their Fury...so 180% damage?

 

Brute: 0.75 x 3.80 = 2.85

Tanker: 0.95 x 2.00 = 1.90 (66.67% of Brute)

 

[marcussmythe]

Given that they have the same Resist Cap as Tankers, it seems at least theoretically possible that the Brute could match the tanks survival, very nearly - and icarnates, IOs, etc are WAY better at buffing defense than offense.  And certainly, nothing in the game is so difficult that the difference between tanks and brutes is decisive for survival.

 

Nothing will let a tank match the maximum damage output of the Brute.  Higher DamBuff caps ensure this.

 

Further - you managed to get your Tank to within 86% of your Brute's damage, while solo.  In a team environment, the presence of buffs will cause the Brute's damage to start to pull away from the tanks (High Buff Cap) and those same buffs will likely remove any disadvantage the Brute might have in survival.

 

Finally - Offense is worth more than defense.  The more offense you have, the less defense you need.  The reverse is not the case - and added survival has exactly ZERO value once you reach 'Cannot Kill Me'.  Given that scrappers can solo TinPex, and that (I believe) an Empathy Defender has soloed 4/8 ITF, I would argue that the marginal value of increased survivability in the game, as it currently exists, is quite low.

 

Conclusion:  Tanks were not 'Overbuffed', save inasmuch as they were buffed to the point where the choice between Brute and Tank is now open to question, rather than being a given in favor of the Brute.  The brute will still survive anything the tank will survive, assuming an investment in survival - but no investment in offense will cause the tanks damage to match the brutes.

 

Postscript:  Bopper raises a good point, but I understand BZB's concern about %s from survival sets.  BZB - would you be okay with Brutes getting 100% of tank values (Resist, defense, etc), but with their HP base and cap set to 2/3's of a tanks - thus they have balanced offense and defense in the self-only situation.

 

🙂

Edited July 6, 2020 by marcussmythe

[Bopper]

If we want to factor in Scrappers as well, we can. But the truth is obvious, you'll see the ranking of Damage potential to show:

Scrapper > Brute > Tanker 

5.625 (not including crits) > 5.25 (not completely factoring in Fury) > 4.75 (not factoring in AoE)

 

And the ranking of Survival potential will show:

Tanker > Brute > Scrapper

3534 HP > 3212.7 HP > 2409.5 HP (with 75% capped resists, but higher Regen limits if that means anything).

 

 

[marcussmythe]

Id argue that, at least for resist sets, the scrapper plummets compared to the other two.  My tanks and brutes think Smashing/Lethal Damage is something that happens to other people,and go get a sandwich.  My Scrapper goes 'why god why' when Bobcat opens up on her.

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 minute ago, Bopper said:

Ahhhh....you got sucked into my bait 🙂 Welcome to my fly trap.

 

Now let's look at damage buffed only by enhancements (+100% for simple math). But let's give Brutes...what, 90% of their Fury...so 180% damage?

 

Brute: 0.75 x 3.80 = 2.85

Tanker: 0.95 x 2.00 = 1.90 (66.67% of Brute)

 

So back to "the game is balanced around SOs?"

 

Ok, fine. Does a SOed brute have 66.67% the mitigation of a tank?

 

Focused Fighting:

Tank: 18.5% base + 60% (ignoring ED) = 29.6

Brute: 13.88 base + 60% (ignoring ED) = 22.208

Brute has 75% tank mitigation values.

With health base at brute having 80% the HP of the tank.

 

But the tank in actual gameplay is up to 86% the damage of the brute.

 

So what are we actually going for here? Balanced around SOs or balanced around the actual game as played?

 

Should the brute be sitting at the same base SO enhanced mitigation values as the scrapper when the brute is only pushing out 75% of the same damage?

[Bopper]

3 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

So back to "the game is balanced around SOs?"

 

Ok, fine. Does a SOed brute have 66.67% the mitigation of a tank?

 

Focused Fighting:

Tank: 18.5% base + 60% (ignoring ED) = 29.6

Brute: 13.88 base + 60% (ignoring ED) = 22.208

Brute has 75% tank mitigation values.

With health base at brute having 80% the HP of the tank.

 

But the tank in actual gameplay is up to 86% the damage of the brute.

 

So what are we actually going for here? Balanced around SOs or balanced around the actual game as played?

 

Should the brute be sitting at the same base SO enhanced mitigation values as the scrapper when the brute is only pushing out 75% of the same damage?

I was simply showing that it requires hitting the cap for a Tanker without procs to hit 90% damage potential of a Brute. Less than caps, the disparity increases. Much like how a Brute has to reach the HP cap (and all other caps) to reach 90% survival potential of a Tank. Less than caps, the disparity increases.

 

As for the comment on Brute sitting at same SO mitigation values as a scrapper, you're forgetting the higher base HP, the higher cap HP and higher cap Resistance. Can't only look at Defense when making a statement on survivability.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Bopper

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 minute ago, Bopper said:

I was simply showing that it requires hitting the cap for a Tanker without procs to hit 90% damage potential of a Brute. Less than caps, the disparity increases. Much like how a Brute has to reach the HP cap (and all other caps) to reach 90% survival potential of a Tank. Less than caps, the disparity increases.

Doesn't that imply that if I'm nowhere near the caps, being solo and not using insps, that an 86% damage ratio seems a bit out of whack?

[Apparition]

26 minutes ago, Bopper said:

You can argue Proc Damage closes the gap, but that is only because Procs are AT-agnostic. They help everyone the same, and in doing so, percentage analysis will close all gaps. That's simply math. If you looked at X/Y and made a ratio analysis, then looked at (X+A)/(Y+A), the ratio will trend closer to 1.0 (closes the gap).

 

But folks are misinterpretting that, as Procs are not the problem. Again, they help everyone the same. Your gap in DPS superiority has not changed. You will still do the same amount of DPS greater than a Tank. Also, some may argue that Procs benefit Brutes more than Tanks because of their lower AT modifier. When doing cost-benefit analysis, the difference between slotting a damage enhancement as opposed to a proc has the advantage going to tanks for the damage and to brutes for the proc.

 

In theory, proc damage is AT agnostic.  In practice, not so much.  Tankers and Defenders are easier to build for survival in comparison to Brutes and Corruptors, giving them more room to slot damage procs in comparison.

[drbuzzard]

20 minutes ago, Bopper said:

But folks are misinterpretting that, as Procs are not the problem. Again, they help everyone the same. Your gap in DPS superiority has not changed. You will still do the same amount of DPS greater than a Tank. Also, some may argue that Procs benefit Brutes more than Tanks because of their lower AT modifier. When doing cost-benefit analysis, the difference between slotting a damage enhancement as opposed to a proc has the advantage going to tanks for the damage and to brutes for the proc.

Sorry, but this is dead wrong because considering the damage scalar without considering fury is utterly farcical.

 

For the same of simple numbers we will look at a tank with +100% damage enhancement (slotting and some bonus, though mostly because I choose to be lazy and use round numbers).

 

Then we will set the brute at +100& from enhancement, and then another +150% from fury (which is actually low, but I'm being nice and like round numbers).

 

We pick a power which does 100 (lazy me).

 

Tank will do 190 damage. (2x.95)

 

Brute will do 262.5 (.75*3.5)

 

As we can see, natively the tank is nowhere close to doing 90% (or even 86% of brute damage).  (number here is 72%)

 

Then we add in procs. They generate a constant number for damage. We'll call it 50 for a proc.

 

So a tanker has a proc go off and his damage is 240. The brute's goes off and damage is 302.5.

 

Tanker has gained a 26% damage boost from the proc.

 

Brute has gained a 15% damage boost. As you add in more procs you will close the damage gap between the ATs.

 

Here the damage gap goes from 28% to 21% (tank does 79.3% after proc). You add more procs, you get a smaller gap. Also the greater the damage value of the proc compared to the power damage will also close the gap further.

 

So as I said before, procs distort the hell out of AT comparison.

 

 

 

 

[Bopper]

1 minute ago, Apparition said:

In theory, proc damage is AT agnostic.  In practice, not so much.  Tankers and Defenders are easier to build for survival in comparison to Brutes and Corruptors, giving them more room to slot damage procs in comparison.

Fair point. So in some ways it might be a wash in this instance. The % Damage increase for slotting a proc on a brute over an enhancement is superior but you are left with the lost slotting of survival.

[Heraclea]

Brutes got buffed by the same series of patches, especially in team play. 

[Bill Z Bubba]

2 minutes ago, Heraclea said:

Brutes got buffed by the same series of patches, especially in team play. 

Ummm, no. Not when I'm sitting between 95 and 100% fury while solo.

[marcussmythe]

OTOH, slotting for procs means you are NOT slotting for set bonuses, including regen, res, de.  And procs are nice.  Set bonuses are game-changing.

 

And if I may reiterate - survival has a practical cap on its value (set at 'it cant kill me before I kill it') - and this level is really quite low, as there is little content that challenges the player by simply hitting very, very hard.  (They did start adding debuff content that challenges, to a degree - but the nature of that challenge is slanted AGAINST survival sets, and in favor of 'CC it or blow it up before it can turn you off').  

Damage always has additional value.  

[drbuzzard]

4 minutes ago, Apparition said:

In theory, proc damage is AT agnostic.  In practice, not so much.  Tankers and Defenders are easier to build for survival in comparison to Brutes and Corruptors, giving them more room to slot damage procs in comparison.

It's more than that. When you push in damage which will not be helped by the inherent, you basically discount the inherent. Brutes and corrupters have damage boosting inherents (defenders do too, but it's not to the same degree) which don't help procs.

[Bopper]

1 minute ago, drbuzzard said:

Sorry, but this is dead wrong because considering the damage scalar without considering fury is utterly farcical.

Scroll up, you'll see I made the same point about factoring in Fury. And i stand by my statement that all procs add the same value to all ATs. It is agnostic. The delta in DPS does not change, other than if you can slot more procs because of AT opportunity (at the same time, you can slot more mitigation procs for added survival, but I don't see anyone clamoring for that).

 

Fact is, you can't balance around Procs. There is no way to assume how someone will slot for them. They are simply an added bonus that is treated the same for all ATs. Because of the ratio analysis (that everyone is hard up on) those procs will level off the ratios, but again does not change the delta.

 

DPS is a two way street. If you only have enough DPS to match the enemy's regeneration, your enemy will never die. You add a smidgen more of DPS and now you have a net benefit that will cause the enemy to die. So we may have added only 1% of Damage in that scenario, but the time to kill decreased infinitely. So only looking at DPS in terms of ratios is not helpful. It does not directly translate to a ratio in kill speeds. Keep all this in mind.

[Bill Z Bubba]

Again, I can easily replace the chance for +toxic with a standard lvl 50 recred IO which will in turn reduce the number of times the proc from the purple set goes off. Would yall like to see this data? If not, I'd rather not spend another hour killin pylons....