Did tanks get overbuffed?

[Apparition]

33 minutes ago, Xanatos said:

Yeah I run 3 AFK farmers every day for $$$. Brutes are good in that specific circumstance. They're also great at winning "which AT best rhymes with flute" contests.

 

With that said, I still don't get why anyone would pick, for 99% of the content of this game, a Brute over a Tank or Scrapper. If Brutes had the same taunt scale as tanks, like they did on live, then I'd understand the appeal.

 

Stone Melee on a damaging character and Regen on a survivable character are kinda cool, I guess?

 

Why play a Brute over a Tanker or Scrapper?  Three reasons.

 

1. I like resistance based melee armor sets, (particularly Electric Armor and Radiation Armor).  However, I feel that they're largely wasted on Scrappers due to the smaller resistance cap.  That leaves Tanker or Brute.

 

2. Every character I play must have Fly, Hover, Afterburner, Super Speed, and Hasten.  That leaves builds incredibly tight with little to no wiggle room.  Playing a Brute instead of a Tanker allows me to skip Taunt as it's not largely expected for Brutes to have Taunt, unlike Tankers.

 

3. In relation to two, most melee attack sets have terrible tier one powers, and as I said my builds are incredibly tight.  Playing a Brute allows me to skip the tier one melee attack.  Taunt and the tier one melee attack are two forced power picks that I simply have no room for in the vast majority of my builds.

[Haijinx]

Fly, hover, afterburner AND superspeed?

 

Wow ...

 

[Apparition]

Just now, Haijinx said:

Fly, hover, afterburner AND superspeed?

 

Wow ...

 

 

Yep.  I like Fly and Afterburner (Hover is simply a necessary pick to get Afterburner), because I honestly don't see the point of playing a super-powered character without being able to fly.  Super Speed is necessary in order to keep up on speed runs.

[marcussmythe]

2 hours ago, Haijinx said:

Pfft.

 

"Difficult content"

I here refer to things like TVHW Magesterium, etc.  Which I am given to understand is still actually mildly challenging?

[killigraphy]

Showing us the math is quaint...now the practical application?

 

With the same amount of SO's show me a tank doing more dmg than say a Fire/Rad Brute...till then keep the maths to yourselves.

Edited July 8, 2020 by killigraphy
I don't need one.

[Without_Pause]

5 hours ago, Xanatos said:

Hah! Fair. Think I got carried away at the end, there.

 

I guess I just don't understand why anyone would play a brute when scrappers do more damage, and tanks handle aggro better.

Because brutes can still be made to handle the vast majority of content fine as is and still crank out solid damage. I keep deleting scrappers are they are still squishier compared to brutes and rolling them as a brute or stalker depending on the power sets. Also, brutes handle aggro better than scrappers which means brutes don't have to deal with runners as much.

[Bill Z Bubba]

3 minutes ago, Without_Pause said:

which means brutes don't have to deal with runners as much.

Which explains the sucktacular scrapper times below. Stupid runners.

 

Mission Sim Round 1:
Tank:
1: 422
2: 453
3: 433
4: 423
5: 466
Average: 439

 

Brute:
1: 389
2: 414
3: 406
4: 423
5: 382
Average: 403

 

Scrapper:
1: 396
2: 410
3: 403
4: 405
5: 393
Average: 401

[Myrmidon]

On 7/6/2020 at 2:22 PM, MunkiLord said:

I feel like this could all be solved if everyone just used Scrappers instead.

 

[Myrmidon]

7 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

I'm not on beta. But I guess I can be.

Beta tests could use your insight, Bill. You’ll also have all of the tools readily available for this very thing pretty much all of the time.

[Bill Z Bubba]

3 minutes ago, Myrmidon said:

Beta tests could use your insight, Bill. You’ll also have all of the tools readily available for this very thing pretty much all of the time.

 

That was a tired reply. BZB Scrap is on beta and has been for a while. Haven't copied over the others yet and since I found a mission sim to use I just stayed on Excel.

[Bopper]

25 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Which explains the sucktacular scrapper times below. Stupid runners.

 

Mission Sim Round 1:
Tank:
1: 422
2: 453
3: 433
4: 423
5: 466
Average: 439

 

Brute:
1: 389
2: 414
3: 406
4: 423
5: 382
Average: 403

 

Scrapper:
1: 396
2: 410
3: 403
4: 405
5: 393
Average: 401

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.

[Bill Z Bubba]

8 minutes ago, Bopper said:

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.

Round 2 numbers are faring a bit better for the tank. Average was 423. About to do the brute run. Don't think I was leveraging aggro as well on the tank's 1st run. And yes, hybrid assault core is in use for all of these. No insps, judgement or lore.

[Myrmidon]

6 hours ago, Xanatos said:

With that said, I still don't get why anyone would pick, for 99% of the content of this game, a Brute over a Tank or Scrapper. If Brutes had the same taunt scale as tanks, like they did on live, then I'd understand the appeal.

 

Stone Melee on a damaging character and Regen on a survivable character are kinda cool, I guess?

The Captain hasn’t give us Energy Aura on Tankers yet.

[Crater Kate]

An Energy Aura Tanker is like, all I want in this world.

 

You can even nerf Regen if that's what it takes! Buff Titan Weapons! Nerf Mind Control! On Controllers! Whatever it takes! Give me pretty tanker!

Edited July 8, 2020 by Crater Kate

[Sir Myshkin]

Rubs eyes of red and itch after skimming 20 pages of content. Okay Bill. I was being lazy about digging it out, but I feel like I don't really have a choice and I had to sift through a lot of stuff to find the relevant posts.

 

• What I called my "Reverse Flash" Tanker vs. Brute Test.
• Pylon Submission where I included the consolidated time windows.
• Some other relevant stuff mixed into the Tanker Proc Monster thread. (this one's really a self-hunt, didn't really link out specific portions)

Extracted from the Pylon Thread:

Quote

Super Strength/Bio Armor/Soul

T4 Musculature, Degenerative, Ageless, Hybrid Assault Cores

Built as a Proc Monster

 

Did a bunch of timed runs, listed a lot of that data in the Beta threads on the Tank tests. Best time for Brute w/ Hybrid on: 1:55 (461)

 

Hybrid on Range: 1:55-2:10 461/422 (442) [2:05|435:448]

Hybrid off Range: 2:20-2:35 401/375 (388)

415 [448] Average

 

For those that might be curious, with the Beta Improvements to Tankers, for the same exact build reversed to a Tank:

Hybrid on Range: 2:09-2:15 425/411 (418)

Hybrid off Range: 2:24-2:45 394/360 (377)

398 Average

 

Build is Double Stack Rage, Haymaker > Gloom > KO-B > Haymaker > Gloom > Punch

 

I added into the quoted section some bold and italicized stuff. I want to comment on one of those data points, specifically the Brute "low" Hybrid: On time of 2:10. Data is Data, and all points were tracked, but that was not the "consistent" window, but an outlier time I dipped into, the verified times were closer together and the Brute's window was more 1:55-2:05, just as the Tanker has some up-tick (procs, variance in a miss, number of things) in the "Hybrid: Off" window that I left.

 

Given that, if I leave the data points as entered, I have 96% Comparative Tanker to Brute in Single Target Damage (incidentally with SS, since Foot Stomp subs in fairly well and is the only AoE anyway, this is pretty flat for the set in either direction). However, if I account for the one-off variance of 2:10 in my window, my comparative is 89% Tanker to Brute.

 

I want to touch one something here that was noted in the Beta Testing from September to January for these changes: In this particular test I am creating abnormal extremes in +Damage and Proc usage, but the Brute comparative still has additional ceiling! So even if I did take the "96%" as my total data point value here, it is not indicative of the actual variance still achievable between a Brute and a Tanker because the Brute's damage cap is notably higher (yes there is modifier variance, but the differential should still account for a 10%+ positive for the Brute if both ATs are truly capped).

 

Things that cause variance experience are regulated in Fury, if you loose or otherwise can't maintain a sufficient level, re-entry into additional spawns will have impact. A Tanker is walking at its "full" potential comparatively, and thus a "YMMV" tag becomes inserted in there. The other variance comes in Aggro/Gauntlet effects on expanding "weaker" reaching AoE/Cones, there are small cases where certain powers will be more beneficial on a Tanker from a "total outreach" perspective, but the damage performance should still side with a Brute.

 

46 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Mission Sim Round 1:

Tank: Average: 439

Brute: Average: 403

Incidentally: 91.7%, and "Best Time" comparative is 90.5%

 

Right on the Money, as it were.

[Myrmidon]

8 minutes ago, Crater Kate said:

An Energy Aura Tanker is like, all I want in this world.

 

You can even nerf Regen if that's what it takes! Buff Titan Weapons! Nerf Mind Control! On Controllers! Whatever it takes! Give me pretty tanker!

When I formally requested it in a previous thread, The Captain said that the set needs some reworking for Tankers so that the Defensive values don’t go off the charts.  I’m sure it will be along in due time once the development wheel rolls around towards the Defensive sets (along with an Endurance Reduction for Dark Armor if we’re lucky).

[Bill Z Bubba]

41 minutes ago, Sir Myshkin said:

Incidentally: 91.7%, and "Best Time" comparative is 90.5%

 

Right on the Money, as it were.

Nice info there, SM. Thanks.

 

Here's round 2:

Tank:
1: 424
2: 409
3: 415
4: 430
5: 438
Average: 423

 

Brute:
1: 393
2: 372
3: 426
4: 395
5: 396
Average: 396

 

93.6 that time

 

Put the two runs together and we get the brute completing the task in 92.7% of the time it takes the tank.

 

Yet, brutes have scrapper base mitigation values (75% that of a tank) but with 12% more base HP than scrappers.

They have tank mitigation caps but tanks have 25% more base HP.

 

Doesn't seem like the tank's comin out pretty far on top to anyone else in this deal? Do 10% less damage but be 33% (at least) tougher?

 

Huh.

[Bopper]

2 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Yet, brutes have scrapper base mitigation values (75% that of a tank) but with 12% more base HP than scrappers.

They have tank mitigation caps but tanks have 25% more base HP.

 

Doesn't seem like the tank's comin out pretty far on top to anyone else in this deal? Do 10% less damage but be 33% (at least) tougher?

 

Huh.

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.

[Sir Myshkin]

1 hour ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Doesn't seem like the tank's comin out pretty far on top to anyone else in this deal? Do 10% less damage but be 33% (at least) tougher?

No?

 

There may be 36 pages of it, but the Beta Tanker Update thread from Fall 2019 has the entirety of the discussion of those changes and it's really the best (only) place I could point you for further guidance on the decisions that were made.

 

[Bill Z Bubba]

4 hours ago, Bopper said:

Brutes are more survivable than scrappers. As for determining the "at least" 33% tougher claim, I would like to see your math on that.

Base value for tank focused fighting: 18.5

Base value for brute/scrapper focused fighting: 13.88

Difference = 4.62 = 33.3% increase to the tank value over the brute/scrapper value

 

Plus 25% more health which automatically equates to more regen as well.

 

While the mitigation caps can be reached in some areas for brutes, fire damres for Fiery Armor, SL damres for Invul, and the HP cap might be hit for some with an HP buff, this is hardly common.

My SR brute never sees the HP cap and sits at just over the normal positional softcap while the SR tank sits at the incarnate softcap all the time.

The higher caps are nice but not in use nearly enough to be a factor in normal gameplay.

 

4 hours ago, Bopper said:

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 think I'd have more fun playing my brutes if I wasn't constantly aware that they're seriously getting the short end of the stick on this power balance.

 

4 hours ago, Sir Myshkin said:

There may be 36 pages of it, but the Beta Tanker Update thread from Fall 2019 has the entirety of the discussion of those changes and it's really the best (only) place I could point you for further guidance on the decisions that were made.

I'll go hunt it down. Find it a bit odd that in 36 pages some consensus was formed that this disparity in performance was considered just fine by the testers.

[nihilii]

Lurking that thread at the time, I thought the unspoken consensus was... we know this will make Tankers a little bit broken, but the Brute > Tanker perception is so widespread, nothing short of buffing Tankers beyond Brutes will help. Plus, it won't be that much of a disparity. Plus, we really want those new toys to play with. 12-15 feet radius AoEs, yumm.

Well at least it was a consensus in my own head.

[Coyote]

15 hours ago, modest said:

Obviously, the only sane and reasonable solution to this very real and extremely serious problem would be for the Homecoming developers to immediately delete the Brute archetype.

 

But that's not going far enough. I posit that all players who previously had a Brute character over the level of 40 should be required to level a new Defender character up to 50. Only then will balance be brought to the game and this genuine injustice be resolved.

 

Go all the way.

Make them level a tri-form Warshade.

[Coyote]

7 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Doesn't seem like the tank's comin out pretty far on top to anyone else in this deal? Do 10% less damage but be 33% (at least) tougher?

 

Huh.

 

No, not to me.

You are deliberately constraining the discussion to situations where toughness matters. However, damage always matters. So, in a situation where one AT's advantage is irrelevant some portion of the time, then it makes sense for that advantage to be greater when it matters to make up for the fact that it's not relevant some portion of the time.

The portion of the time that a Tanker's higher toughness is irrelevant... is unknown. It depends on the difficulty level, it depends on the level. It depends on teaming vs solo, and on team composition. But a Brute's lower damage advantage is always relevant, thus it shouldn't be as high.

 

I'm not sure how it's possible to come up with a balance ratio between Damage Advantage vs Toughness Advantage given that we don't know at what percentage of the time the TA will be irrelevant (other than Trick Arrows always being irrelevant 😛 ). But I think it should be intuitively obvious that there SHOULD be a higher TA than DA because of this "occasionally irrelevant TA" situation.

 

So, in short... I am completey okay with having AT balance predicated on the idea that damage is just more relevant than anything else in the game, and an AT that gains 10% damage should give up MORE than 10% effectiveness in other aspects of the game.

[drbuzzard]

I may have to finally get around to building a super reflexes brute to see how much trouble it would be to incarnate softcap it. Tanks are trivially easy to softcap, and even incarnate softcap (iirc you can normal softcap easily with just SOs and weave). Since that is so easy, I can't imagine it will be impossible to do it on a brute, it just might have some annoying tradeoffs. Just need to pick a primary, and I'm running out of ones which interest me. Honesty the thing about the tanker changes which I have liked the most has been the expanded AOEs, and when I switch back to brute versions without them they feel so small (but fierce because of the higher damage).

[Bill Z Bubba]

5 minutes ago, drbuzzard said:

I may have to finally get around to building a super reflexes brute to see how much trouble it would be to incarnate softcap it. Tanks are trivially easy to softcap, and even incarnate softcap (iirc you can normal softcap easily with just SOs and weave). Since that is so easy, I can't imagine it will be impossible to do it on a brute, it just might have some annoying tradeoffs. Just need to pick a primary, and I'm running out of ones which interest me. Honesty the thing about the tanker changes which I have liked the most has been the expanded AOEs, and when I switch back to brute versions without them they feel so small (but fierce because of the higher damage).

That's my problem, Doc... there's zero reason to roll up an SR brute. None. Zip. Nada. The mitigation values are so much ridiculously higher on the tank that losing a piddly 10% damage output doesn't come close to balancing the equation. Oh, unless you cherry pick the right team to get you to the caps, of course. Doesn't mean squat if you solo or don't have those kind of buffs.

 

I did find and read a lot of that beta thread. Seems then as now, the majority response to the issue was a resounding "so what?"

I did see one quote that filled me with dread concerning how claws and spines have always been broken in regards to aoe and that they'll "get looked at."