Why not just roll a scrapper or tanker?

[Infinitum]

29 minutes ago, parabola said:

Which was my point in the first place - comparing mirrored builds is pointless, they should each be built to their individual strengths and weaknesses.

I agree with that 100% and that's actually how I ran my tests.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Infinitum

[Bill Z Bubba]

20 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

I agree with that 100% and that's actually how I ran my tests.

That would explain the much larger disparity in your times.

[Infinitum]

7 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

That would explain the much larger disparity in your times.

By making the brute more survivable at the expense of damage?

 

If anything that proves my point.

[Bill Z Bubba]

16 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

By making the brute more survivable at the expense of damage?

 

If anything that proves my point.

I misread. It seemed you were saying just the opposite. By "building to individual strengths" one would think you ramped up damage on the brute and survivability on the tank.

[Bill Z Bubba]

To be honest, most of the posts I'm seeing in this thread point to the tank's extra mitigation as superfluous across the board and even the damage buff they received was meaningless, since brutes can survive anything and still dish out more damage. I mean hell, I do have to self-gimp with enemies buffed and player debuffed and no insps to make the ITF challenging at this point, so there must be something to it.

 

It's almost like the tank buffs really were unnecessary and unwarranted and brutes should have been nerfed into the dirt.

[Infinitum]

8 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

To be honest, most of the posts I'm seeing in this thread point to the tank's extra mitigation as superfluous across the board and even the damage buff they received was meaningless, since brutes can survive anything and still dish out more damage. I mean hell, I do have to self-gimp with enemies buffed and player debuffed and no insps to make the ITF challenging at this point, so there must be something to it.

 

It's almost like the tank buffs really were unnecessary and unwarranted and brutes should have been nerfed into the dirt.

Well I dont think so with this line of thinking either.... 

 

Plus the ITF isn't exactly the toughest content anyway so if you base your fun on this particular content being difficult maybe you should try pandoras box or the shard task forces at max level.

 

The vengeance alone pushes my tankers into melee core sometimes.

[arcane]

I don’t understand why people think balance is defined by having exactly X additional damage per X loss in mitigation. This is a baseless assumption that is the crux of Bill’s entire crusade. The world does not operate on purely linear mathematical systems and I would like to see where the devs stated city of heroes would work solely based on linear equations.

[Bill Z Bubba]

3 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

try pandoras box

Ok.

 

3 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

or the shard task forces

The worst, least fun TFs in the game just due to mind-numbing monotony? No thanks.

 

2 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

I don’t understand why people think balance is defined by having exactly X additional damage per X loss in mitigation. This is a baseless assumption that is the crux of Bill’s entire crusade. The world does not operate on purely linear mathematical systems and I would like to see where the devs stated city of heroes would work solely based on linear equations.

This is why AT modifiers don't exist. Oh wait, yes they do.

 

[arcane]

7 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Ok.

 

The worst, least fun TFs in the game just due to mind-numbing monotony? No thanks.

 

This is why AT modifiers don't exist. Oh wait, yes they do.

 

AT modifiers are not proof that the devs intended all balancing tradeoffs to be perfectly linear. Please address the actual argument.

[Infinitum]

8 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

The worst, least fun TFs in the game just due to mind-numbing monotony? No thanks.

Only the DR Q is horribly long - TF like the Sarah Moore I think are fun and engaging with really tough enemies.

 

You are right to a point though the shard could use a touch up and edge put to it.

[nihilii]

2 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

I don’t understand why people think balance is defined by having exactly X additional damage per X loss in mitigation. This is a baseless assumption that is the crux of Bill’s entire crusade. The world does not operate on purely linear mathematical systems and I would like to see where the devs stated city of heroes would work solely based on linear equations.

There is irony in that argument to me, because I think most of us who are on the "Tankers were overbuffed" side argue this first and foremost based on a practical experience, namely that Tankers are basically indestructible and pay a very small damage tax for that.

 

The Pylon tests and controlled missions and whatnot come afterwards, as a test to see whether that initial perspective is grounded. Numbers are pointed out not because they're the start of the argument - but because they're necessary. Bringing up something being too strong will always trigger visceral reactions from people who don't want their beloved toons to be touched (understandably so).

 

Caring about balance is a "damned if you, damned if you don't" thing. Point out you see something off, you get told it's just you. Try to test it in some controlled way to prove or disprove your observations, and if it turns out the tests seem to prove your observations, people will figure out reasons to dismiss the testing as invalid.

It took months if not years of numbercrunching for people to finally accept TW was overpowered in its previous incarnation. Even though the overpoweredness was plainly visible to anyone who logged ingame and made an earnest effort to abuse the set, no number crunching required.

 

Nobody has been foolhardy enough to suggest there is an exact ratio of damage:mitigation that must be respected. Figuring out such an equation would be a monumental task to start with.

 

At the end of the day I think many (?) recognize the damage:mitigation ratio favors Tankers over Brutes, the main point of contention being whether that extra survivability translates to something meaningful in practice.

[Galaxy Brain]

1 hour ago, Erratic1 said:

For general testing that does not sound unreasonable. Still, when facing Carnies, or Malta, or various other enemies, while they most assuredly have their smashing/lethal dealers, those are not the portion of the faction anyone ever complains. Wiping the spawn of Strongmen can be accomplished quickly but then there are all those women fading in and out dealing painful damage in abundance.

 

And certainly one can avoid various factions but in practice...well, maybe I am weird here, but the only faction I avoid are Hyrda--and that comes down primarily to not a lot in the game dragging you to them.

So, there is nuance here:

 

 

This is the damage-type spread for Council and Carnies with regard to proportional damage in your average 8-man spawn. Proportional in this case being the number of attacks, as well as the damage the attacks do per enemy/rank/etc. S/L are lumped together as they always are for all armors across the board. What's surprising is that proportionally, they're about equal in SL. Negative attacks are usually more defended against that Psy tho, so it often ends up with Carnies inflicting more from that... though overall its not that much of their output.

 

The phasing bit is annoying as hell tho and is a bad mechanic since it just makes you wait randomly.

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Galaxy Brain

[arcane]

2 minutes ago, nihilii said:

Nobody has been foolhardy enough to suggest there is an exact ratio of damage:mitigation that must be respected. Figuring out such an equation would be a monumental task to start with.

I think Bill has implicitly suggested exactly that considering the perceived imbalance between brute’s extra damage and tanker’s extra mitigation is something he’s been ranting about forever now.

[Galaxy Brain]

I think its normal to think linearly about that. I mean it makes sense, Brutes do more damage so they should be less tough, vice versa for Tanks. The issue is there is so, so much variety where you gotta think about a Earth/Stone Brute with tons of mitigation vs a Fire/Fire tank with lots of offense.... kind of gets real muddy real fast there.

 

I think these two AT's tho end up basically similar enough to where it is just a playstyle preference IMO. Do you want to be a wrecking ball with more damage potential? Brute. Do you wanna be a steamroller that hits everyone in the room? Tank. With the current meta overall, they're probably neck and neck enough to just be whatever you feel between the two outside specific power combos on each side.

[Infinitum]

2 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I think its normal to think linearly about that. I mean it makes sense, Brutes do more damage so they should be less tough, vice versa for Tanks. The issue is there is so, so much variety where you gotta think about a Earth/Stone Brute with tons of mitigation vs a Fire/Fire tank with lots of offense.... kind of gets real muddy real fast there.

 

I think these two AT's tho end up basically similar enough to where it is just a playstyle preference IMO. Do you want to be a wrecking ball with more damage potential? Brute. Do you wanna be a steamroller that hits everyone in the room? Tank. With the current meta overall, they're probably neck and neck enough to just be whatever you feel between the two outside specific power combos on each side.

Yeah both can be made to survive any content in the game effortlessly.

 

It's really how you want to play that defines them.

 

Hell for that matter that's pretty much this game in a nutshell.

[arcane]

I only started jumping in these threads periodically because a handful of posters continue to post either (1) “there is no reason to make a brute” or (2) “brutes are useless”. As soon as people stop posting this preposterous hyperbole that their own data contradicts, the sooner we can all move on.

[Erratic1]

11 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

So, there is nuance here:

 

 

This is the damage-type spread for Council and Carnies with regard to proportional damage in your average 8-man spawn. Proportional in this case being the number of attacks, as well as the damage the attacks do per enemy/rank/etc. S/L are lumped together as they always are for all armors across the board. What's surprising is that proportionally, they're about equal in SL. Negative attacks are usually more defended against that Psy tho, so it often ends up with Carnies inflicting more from that... though overall its not that much of their output.

 

The phasing bit is annoying as hell tho and is a bad mechanic since it just makes you wait randomly.

 

I would never have imagined the Council dealt so much in Negative. I am not so surprised on the S/L  for the Carnies between Strongmen, the various jugglers, knife throwers, fencers, etc.

 

Phasing is annoying with the added downside that while it  pays to wait for phase in something else that phase may be shooting at you. They are however mostly an annoyance faction. Hatred is reserved for others.

[Bill Z Bubba]

14 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

AT modifiers are not proof that the devs intended all balancing tradeoffs to be perfectly linear. Please address the actual argument.

I did. AT modifiers are actually proof that the devs initially felt that intra-AT balance, numerically, was very important. And then chaos occurred.

 

10 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

I think Bill has implicitly suggested exactly that considering the perceived imbalance between brute’s extra damage and tanker’s extra mitigation is something he’s been ranting about forever now.

You're not wrong. If we compare like to like, the tank's extra mitigation is vastly higher than the brute's extra damage output. Of course as so many have pointed out, "who should care, right? All that extra mitigation is wasted in 99% of the game? It doesn't matter!"

It doesn't matter because of the colossal power creep this game has endured and adding to it is beyond insane.

 

9 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I mean it makes sense, Brutes do more damage so they should be less tough, vice versa for Tanks.

Apparently it doesn't make sense for far too many.

 

 

[Bill Z Bubba]

3 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

I only started jumping in these threads periodically because a handful of posters continue to post either (1) “there is no reason to make a brute” or (2) “brutes are useless”. As soon as people stop posting this preposterous hyperbole that their own data contradicts, the sooner we can all move on.

Ok. Neither are useless (or both are useless since we all can run all corruptor or all scrapper teams and slaughter everything) and there's just as much reason to build a brute as there is a tank. See? That's easy.

 

And it has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion about balance.

[Erratic1]

I am not sure how this came back around to Tank damage/survivability versus Brute damage/ survivability. 

 

The question is what unique role does the Brute serve on a team that is not eclipsed by other ATs.

[Galaxy Brain]

1 minute ago, Erratic1 said:

The question is what unique role does the Brute serve on a team that is not eclipsed by other ATs.

They don't serve a unique role.

 

But, they provide a 2 for one special of something that CAN tank and CAN deal great damage.

[Apparition]

1 minute ago, Galaxy Brain said:

They don't serve a unique role.

 

But, they provide a 2 for one special of something that CAN tank and CAN deal great damage.

Then they have no role as most teams have a Tanker and Scrappers do more damage.

[Erratic1]

4 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

They don't serve a unique role.

 

But, they provide a 2 for one special of something that CAN tank and CAN deal great damage.

Which mostly works for me. Just it seems that other ATs got role protection. Of course that might come down to defining the Brute role as, "2nd Best at Both"

[Galaxy Brain]

Just now, Apparition said:

Then they have no role as most teams have a Tanker and Scrappers do more damage.

Or they could have 2 brutes... or just F it and have controllers and blasters that cover both safety and damage

[Bill Z Bubba]

Just now, Galaxy Brain said:

Or they could have 2 brutes... or just F it and have controllers and blasters that cover both safety and damage

This. Wanna know where being melee is most useful? When soloing. Teams don't need any melee AT.