Why not just roll a scrapper or tanker?

[UltraAlt]

On 1/18/2021 at 1:24 PM, tan702 said:

So, please sell me on why I would want to pick a brute. Is it just the set between a tanker and scrapper?

So yeah, in some ways the brute is the set between a tanker and a scrapper.

Being one of the Villain archetypes, the DEVs apparently wanted to add archetypes that were different, but would require less balance testing. It appears making hybrid classes made this easier.

 

Here is why to pick a brute. You like the mechanic "fury". You are basically an adrenaline-junky and want to fight non-stop.

The "fury" mechanic makes it more Incredible Hulk-like than a tank as it becomes more powerful as you fight and has that "fury" crash when there is nothing else to fight/be angry about.

 

So a brute would work best on a team with a teammate(s) that can:

1) make sure you have endurance to keep fighting.

2) keep you healed

 

I can say as a defender, it feels much better to follow a tank than a brute, because :

1) You have to heal a brute more often

2) Brutes don't hold agro like a tank does

3) Brutes "seem to" care less about the rest of the team than a tank does (and I have run into plenty of tanks that don't care about teams, so there is that)

 

In 3, I am specifically talking about a brute expecting what the helps a brute out of a teammate(s) without making sure that the teammate(s) supplying those things are protected.

 

This part is more about playing a brute versus why you might want to make one.

Since brutes really require support for full performance and protecting teammate(s) that supply that support ::

1) don't run through mobs to another mob

2) get a taunt power and use it whenever it is recharged

3) try to stay between the mob and your support teammate(s)

4) don't target through other teammates as other teammates need to target you :

-a) to directly heal you

-b) to attack your target so that they - hopefully - don't get agro

-c) to assist you in taking down the most dangerous targets as quickly as possible

5) watch your support teammate(s) health bar(s):

-a) Teammate(s) are supporting you - want them to watch your health and end bars? pay attention to theirs so that you know they can.

-b) attack those that are attacking supporting teammate(s). They are easy to find because they are usually in the backfield (if you are following 3, you probably already near whoever is attacking teammates in the backfield)

c) Don't run away from supporting teammate(s) just because your fury will crash 

 

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

So a thought.  What if they increased Brute mitigation numbers slightly?

 

Instead of Brute/Scrapper/Stalker 75%

Sent 70%

 

Make Brute 80-5%  ish. Whatever makes sense.   

 

This would run them another step towards Tankers. 

 

23 minutes ago, Apparition said:

Uhhh... Brutes are already 90%, just like Tankers.

Brutes have tanker *caps.* Caps that aren't generally achieved while solo. Sure, that granite brute over there can hit 'em and fury negates the -damage from the set, so there's a case where it makes sense to ignore the extra HP the tank gets and just go brute. I suspect Invulnerable brutes can self-cap S/L damres, too.

But for the majority of the time from 1 to 50, the brute has nothing above scrapper level mitigation except more HP.

 

Back when the tank changes were in beta, I did ask for brutes' *base* mitigation values to be bumped to halfway between tank and scrapper values. It made sense. As damage output goes down, mitigation should go up. Now? Nah, I'm sick of the power creep. At this point, I just want to see the tank AoE buffs reverted. They were ridiculously unwarranted and unnecessary.

[Shred Monkey]

I think Stalkers, Scrappers, Brutes level up much easier then Tanks and Blasters.  But once you hit the endgame, Tanks can boost their damage and Blasters can boost their survivability to the point that in-between ATs are left being "best" at nothing.

 

[Haijinx]

1 hour ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

Back when the tank changes were in beta, I did ask for brutes' *base* mitigation values to be bumped to halfway between tank and scrapper values. It made sense. As damage output goes down, mitigation should go up. Now? Nah, I'm sick of the power creep. At this point, I just want to see the tank AoE buffs reverted. They were ridiculously unwarranted and unnecessary.

 

Well .. its more along the lines of, I doubt they will be reverting the tanker Buff  

 

But the Power Creep is horrible yes, especially since all the Power Creep ONLY favors the players. 

 

Give the Baddies some Power Creep, an actual arms race, and we might have something.   With stronger enemies there is more room for all the ATs

 

With pathetic ones, we simply have too many Melee ATs 

Edited February 2, 2021 by Haijinx

[Bill Z Bubba]

6 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Give the Baddies some Power Creep, an actual arms race, and we might have something.

The cut of your jib is approved. Bring in @Lineato do an 801 overhaul of all enemy groups. The pitchforks and torches will no doubt follow but I'd love it.

[Apparition]

1 hour ago, Shred Monkey said:

I think Stalkers, Scrappers, Brutes level up much easier then Tanks and Blasters.  But once you hit the endgame, Tanks can boost their damage and Blasters can boost their survivability to the point that in-between ATs are left being "best" at nothing.

 

Don’t forget Defenders, who now outclass Corruptors at endgame.

 

Coincidentally, Defenders, Blasters, and Tankers were all originally blue side ATs.  Things that make you go, “Hmm.”

Edited February 2, 2021 by Apparition

[Shred Monkey]

1 minute ago, Apparition said:

Don’t forget Defenders

Defenders are important!  Because, if it wasn't for defenders, we wouldn't need the other defenders.

 

[Bill Z Bubba]

4 minutes ago, Apparition said:

Coincidentally, Defenders, Blasters, and Defenders were all originally blue side ATs.  Things that make you go, “Hmm.”

Bettin you meant Tanks, Blasters and Defenders.... why, it's almost like someone feels that everyone should go back to holy trinity gameplay and damn anyone that disagrees... hmmmmmmm.

[Linea]

6 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

... Bring in @Lineato do an 801 overhaul of all enemy groups....

I would /love/ to see "Incarnate Radio Contact(s)" (maybe in Khallisti Wharf) utilizing 801 design groups and giving incarnate rewards.   .... I've considered doing 801 versions of all the end-game enemy groups in AE... but the limit of 3 AE arcs per account makes it a no-go.   There's also the non-trivial time it takes per enemy group as well.

[Myrmidon]

Why roll a Scrapper?

 

 

To have one for your full level 50 AT set.

[Myrmidon]

8 hours ago, UltraAlt said:

The "fury" mechanic makes it more Incredible Hulk-like than a tank as it becomes more powerful as you fight and has that "fury" crash when there is nothing else to fight/be angry about.

So, we rework Rage in Super Strength and just tell the Rage junkies to roll a Brute instead.

 

Ultra, you’re a genius!

[Snarky]

21 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

Brutes have tanker *caps.* Caps that aren't generally achieved while solo. Sure, that granite brute over there can hit 'em and fury negates the -damage from the set, so there's a case where it makes sense to ignore the extra HP the tank gets and just go brute. I suspect Invulnerable brutes can self-cap S/L damres, too.

But for the majority of the time from 1 to 50, the brute has nothing above scrapper level mitigation except more HP.

 

Back when the tank changes were in beta, I did ask for brutes' *base* mitigation values to be bumped to halfway between tank and scrapper values. It made sense. As damage output goes down, mitigation should go up. Now? Nah, I'm sick of the power creep. At this point, I just want to see the tank AoE buffs reverted. They were ridiculously unwarranted and unnecessary.

An Invulnerability Brute using SOs is insanely Tanky.  One properly i/o'd is (in my opinion) Tankier than most Tanks.  

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 hour ago, Snarky said:

An Invulnerability Brute using SOs is insanely Tanky.  One properly i/o'd is (in my opinion) Tankier than most Tanks.  

But an inv brute on SOs isn't nearly as tanky as an inv tank on SOs. And a properly IOed tank will have to use less slots/bonuses to achieve the same def/dr stats as the fully IOed brute while having more HP and able to convert the excess into damage output.

 

Example: For testing purposes, I created an em/shield brute that has the exact same build as my shield/em tank here on live. (Swapping AT IOs, of course.) Sure, damage is nice, but the tank can handle max diff and buffed Cimerorans while the brute folded in the first large room at standard max diff because it's not even softcapped to melee. The changes necessary to get that brute to at least the softcap is going to mean less damres to go with its lower HP and no clue what kind of damage hit it will take.

 

Here's the really sad part... initial testing between the two on beta with Galaxy Brain's Office Mission Sim is showing nearly identical clear-all times at max diff. Which, I guess, is better than when I did this test with my claws/sr scrapper-brute-tank and the tank did better than the brute.

[Bill Z Bubba]

But here's the question that's gonna really bug me: Which is the more valid test? Using identical builds between ATs, or leveraging what one can per AT per build? For the claws/sr test, I intentionally lowered the tank's mitigation down to the brute's lvl which freed up room for other things as mentioned above.

 

Or am I going about it all wrong and I should be testing at +0/x1 with nothing but SOs?

Edited February 3, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[Erratic1]

31 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

But here's the question that's gonna really bug me: Which is the more valid test? Using identical builds between ATs, or leveraging what one can per AT per build? For the claws/sr test, I intentionally lowered the tank's mitigation down to the brute's lvl which freed up room for other things as mentioned above.

 

Given damage does not occur once you're dead nor are people going to do suboptimal things when building a character, I would assume validity would require (a) satisfying survival criteria first and (b) then maximizing damage. If that requires different builds between the ATs for the same powersets then that is what is valid.

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 minute ago, Erratic1 said:

Given damage does not occur once you're dead nor are people going to do suboptimal things when building a character, I would assume validity would require (a) satisfying survival criteria first and (b) then maximizing damage. If that requires different builds between the ATs for the same powersets then that is what is valid.

I, of course, agree but was told by quite of few fellow beta testers that not only was my test invalid because the builds were NOT identical but that it was also invalid because I was using an "outlier-edge-case" like claws.

[Erratic1]

6 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

I, of course, agree but was told by quite of few fellow beta testers that not only was my test invalid because the builds were NOT identical but that it was also invalid because I was using an "outlier-edge-case" like claws.

My twofold response would have been:

• Asking, "You expect Brutes to build to not survive just so they can have more damage?"
• If you don't like Claws then give me another offensive set to work with, but do NOT dare dream that you then get to complain about it as it will have been your choice.

[Apparition]

Staff would be the best attack set to test with, IMO.  No +dmg anywhere, and it would make good use of the increased AoE on Tankers.

[Bill Z Bubba]

8 minutes ago, Apparition said:

Staff would be the best attack set to test with, IMO.  No +dmg anywhere, and it would make good use of the increased AoE on Tankers.

Form of the body is a damage buff. Why wouldn't you use it, or buildup, or followup or rage when testing a set?

[Sovera]

The thing is... no one played a Tanker other than for funsies or theme, or because they played one in another game and are a fresh arrival.

 

Tankers were dead. Low damage, bad endurance costs, why would anyone play one when a Brute (or a Scrapper) could do the tanking of a TF, survive, AND do better damage?

 

Now there is choice. And if some like Bill or myself will be very min maxed oriented and see all the advantages of a Tanker no one is going to be gimped if they pick a Brute because they like Fury or the theme of getting stronger the longer they fight, and Scrappers and Brutes will still tank 90% of the end game with the team backing them up or something as measly as eating 50 inf inspirations.

 

Even if Brutes were completely dead and useless... so what? Tankers were dead for years and the game played on just fine. It would simply be the Brute's turn to take a break and sip their pina colada as the Tanker's moved in.

 

I mean, yeah, if we choose the right sets, then min max with three quarters of billion build, then juggle the proc mechanics, then a Tanker can catch up with the rest of the damage dealers. But on the other hand if the other damage dealers also pick the right sets, and sink three quarters of a billion in a build, then juggle procs, then they blow a Tanker out of the water.

 

Edit: Just the fact I bring my uber mind maxed Tanker characters out and the average joe goes 'omfg, I didn't know Tankers did that much damage' shows that the regular Tanker damage out there in the wilds is not the god like creature parading in the top 1% builds posted on forums.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Sovera

[Linea]

I've done a lot of mirror builds ...

That are not perfect exact mirrors.  In most cases I create a dozen or more builds to compare and contrast and pick what I feel is best for each.  Each has it's strengths and weaknesses. Every set combo is different, so for your particular exact build this may or may not apply.  

 

The Brute can be built as either (roughly equal damage to the scrapper) or (roughly equal durability to the tank) at level 50 ... or anywhere in-between the two goals of damage and/or durabilty.  That flexibility is an incredible asset.

• The Brute starts with lets call it average damage, and average mitigation, and can go either way, striving for a scrapper's damage or a tank's durability.
• The Scrapper starts with damage, and in general strives for more damage, and with rare exception will not be able to match the brutes durability.

• The Brute starts with lets call it average damage, and average mitigation, and can go either way, striving for a scrapper's damage or a tank's durability.
• The Tank starts with durability and then spends it's entire life trying to strive toward the brutes damage potential.  The tank could also go the other direction and strive for more durability, but in general that direction is over-armor (as opposed to over-kill).

Other Points

• I generally do not recommend resist armors on 75% resist cap ATs
• I generally only recommend the tank if you want maximum taunt or maximum durability above all else, both of these ARE valid desires and roles.  Otherwise brute is "durable enough" and you usually have more damage that makes life more enjoyable solo.
• I really appreciate a good tank on a team.  Professional tanks on a tank frame really are worth their weight in gold plated latinum.  But most players will probably enjoy playing the brute more.
• As a reinforcing note:   I really can see and feel the difference it makes to teams on the rare occasion when I do pull out the full tank frame.  But I almost always prefer to play the tank-built brute instead (if not the scrapper).  The tank has a constant barrage of AoEs and taunts and can juggle an entire room's worth of aggro.  The brute can manage about half that.  The scrapper is lucky to hold half of half or less, but with most teams that's "just enough".  Overall, I probably play the brute the most, as it's the most comfortable combination of taunt, durability, and damage ... even if the tank is a bit more durable with better taunt and the scrapper is a bit more damage.

 

Here are my favorites (stalker, scrapper, brute, tank):

StJ Ena WaterSpout Stalker - Alpha T3 - [i25].mxd

Kat Bio Scrapper - Alpha 3 ITF - [i25].mxd

Kat ENA - Mu 1i - [i25].mxd

Rad Kat Tank - Radicat II - Mu 3f - [i25].mxd

SD RadM Tank - Alpha 5b - [i25].mxd

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Linea

[Bill Z Bubba]

33 minutes ago, Sovera said:

The thing is... no one played a Tanker other than for funsies or theme, or because they played one in another game and are a fresh arrival.

 

Tankers were dead. Low damage, bad endurance costs, why would anyone play one when a Brute (or a Scrapper) could do the tanking of a TF, survive, AND do better damage?

 

Now there is choice. And if some like Bill or myself will be very min maxed oriented and see all the advantages of a Tanker no one is going to be gimped if they pick a Brute because they like Fury or the theme of getting stronger the longer they fight, and Scrappers and Brutes will still tank 90% of the end game with the team backing them up or something as measly as eating 50 inf inspirations.

 

Even if Brutes were completely dead and useless... so what? Tankers were dead for years and the game played on just fine. It would simply be the Brute's turn to take a break and sip their pina colada as the Tanker's moved in.

 

I mean, yeah, if we choose the right sets, then min max with three quarters of billion build, then juggle the proc mechanics, then a Tanker can catch up with the rest of the damage dealers. But on the other hand if the other damage dealers also pick the right sets, and sink three quarters of a billion in a build, then juggle procs, then they blow a Tanker out of the water.

 

Edit: Just the fact I bring my uber mind maxed Tanker characters out and the average joe goes 'omfg, I didn't know Tankers did that much damage' shows that the regular Tanker damage out there in the wilds is not the god like creature parading in the top 1% builds posted on forums.

I'm surprised by this whole post. If tanks were dead, why were there so many of them around compared to so many other ATs when they did the big data dump here on HC?

 

It's not a "right set" issue. It's a "yes, it matters if an AT is made superfluous" issue. At least it matters to me. I'll have some numbers soon from the shield/em vs em/shield test.

 

I'm sure there's some combo out there, maybe stone/staff, where the brute might win on mission clearing, but I'd put good money on that it's going to be within the same margin as the difference between the shield/em test and the claws/sr test.

 

But I absolutely refuse to test with SOs. I don't have a SO on a single level 50 in my stable. Every last one of them is full of set IOs or basics where that would apply. And since I won't even play the game with SOs past lvl 32, maybe I could be talked into a nothing but basic IOs run for some combo.

 

It's been mentioned before and it would be nice to find out... what percentage of level 50 characters have SOs slotted? Any SOs at all. I think we need this info.

 

[roleki]

1 minute ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

It's been mentioned before and it would be nice to find out... what percentage of level 50 characters have SOs slotted? Any SOs at all. I think we need this info.

Yes, name names, so we can get them the help they need!

[Linea]

Quote

It's been mentioned before and it would be nice to find out... what percentage of level 50 characters have SOs slotted? Any SOs at all. I think we need this info.

I'm pretty sure you would be terrified by the answer to that question.  ... the forum self-selects to a higher than average strata.

[Bill Z Bubba]

10 minutes ago, Linea said:

I'm pretty sure you would be terrified by the answer to that question.  ... the forum self-selects to a higher than average strata.

We've all said this for a long time. I no longer accept it without evidence.