Why not just roll a scrapper or tanker?

[Gobbledigook]

From my experience of my Rad/SS Tanker Vs my SS/Rad Brute is.....

 

The Brute has higher damage AoE but hits less targets than the Tanker making them very close in trash clearing. But the Brute is much better at killing harder targets like AVs with superior single target damage.

 

The Tanker is tougher but the Brute is more than tough enough for most content. My Brute actually has better resists than my Tanker due to using Rune of protection and Meltdown and rotating them, which my Tanker doesn't need to do really. The health is lower though on the Brute.

 

Basically the Brute is better single target but not as tough, but tough enough. A Brute just needs to adapt the build a little and very near Tanker toughness can be achieved. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Gobbledegook

[Bill Z Bubba]

Some numbers.

[Galaxy Brain]

1 hour ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Some numbers.

as mentioned in that thread, that was a comparison of EM/Shield between the two. The Brute did clear faster but not ~equal~ to the gap between that and the supposed mitigation the tank had.

 

A different pri/sec combo could yield different results though.

[Haijinx]

On 2/3/2021 at 3:52 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

as mentioned in that thread, that was a comparison of EM/Shield between the two. The Brute did clear faster but not ~equal~ to the gap between that and the supposed mitigation the tank had.

 

A different pri/sec combo could yield different results though.

any combo with a big +DMG will favor the tank likely since Brutes for some reason do not get higher +DMG numbers for various power, even though their BASE damage is lower. 

 

Except in cases where you are actually nearing the Dmg Cap since Brutes have more cap than anyone. 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Haijinx

[Bill Z Bubba]

On 2/3/2021 at 2:52 PM, Galaxy Brain said:

as mentioned in that thread, that was a comparison of EM/Shield between the two. The Brute did clear faster but not ~equal~ to the gap between that and the supposed mitigation the tank had.

 

A different pri/sec combo could yield different results though.

I suspect that as a set's AoE capabilities go up, tanks will surpass brutes. With the EM/Shield, there was only whirling hands and the long recharge shield charge. This would explain why my claws/sr test had the tank win, as there my aoe chain is followup, focus, spin, shockwave, repeat.

[Galaxy Brain]

Just now, Bill Z Bubba said:

I suspect that as a set's AoE capabilities go up, tanks will surpass brutes. With the EM/Shield, there was only whirling hands and the long recharge shield charge. This would explain why my claws/sr test had the tank win, as there my aoe chain is followup, focus, spin, shockwave, repeat.

Another thing that is quirky is that sets with consistent +Damage favor tanks. Follow Up, Power Siphon, Rage, Against All Odds, etc, have a higher base value for Tankers and allow them to do consistently good damage while a Brute has a bit of fluctuation with Fury + lower damage mods on those powers.

[Haijinx]

14 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Another thing that is quirky is that sets with consistent +Damage favor tanks. Follow Up, Power Siphon, Rage, Against All Odds, etc, have a higher base value for Tankers and allow them to do consistently good damage while a Brute has a bit of fluctuation with Fury + lower damage mods on those powers.

Its like they compensate for Fury over and over again

 

But a set like say Titan Weapons with its already reduced buildup damage?  How does that fare?

[macskull]

29 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Its like they compensate for Fury over and over again

 

But a set like say Titan Weapons with its already reduced buildup damage?  How does that fare?

It'd still end up favoring the Tanker because of their higher base damage modifiers. Any damage buffs are going to favor the Tanker until reaching that breakpoint where the Brute's higher damage cap allows them to pull ahead.

[Galaxy Brain]

Maybe we can come up with a few powerset combos that are more neutral for each that would give a more accurate representation? 

 

Katana/Willpower

 

Spines/Fire (lets actually see which is better)

 

Street Justice/Rad

 

Titan Weapons/Ice

 

Stone/Elec

 

These should be a healthy mix I think

[Haijinx]

8 minutes ago, macskull said:

It'd still end up favoring the Tanker because of their higher base damage modifiers. Any damage buffs are going to favor the Tanker until reaching that breakpoint where the Brute's higher damage cap allows them to pull ahead.

Yes.  This is actually where I am going with it.  Since as a set TW only adds 62.5% damage when hitting the buildup power, then the Breakeven point is correspondingly lower.  

 

Also since buildup type powers have the longest downtimes this should also lean Brute.  Any persistent Damage Bonus is going to lean Tanker. 

 

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 hour ago, Galaxy Brain said:

These should be a healthy mix I think

But what test that we can all agree upon? SOs? Basic IOs? Fully IOed but no incarnates?

 

Edit: And of course by "we all" I mean those of us capable of having our opinions changed when presented with factual data.

Edited February 8, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[Galaxy Brain]

Just now, Bill Z Bubba said:

But what test that we can all agree upon? SOs? Basic IOs? Fully IOed but no incarnates?

I'd say shoot for like a "decent" IO build without incarnates. So, include all the staples:

The suite of globals we all go for (Numina, Miracle, Perf, LotG's, Gladiator Armor, etc) 

Procs and -Res where applicable

Set bonuses to give some boosts

 

But, no Purples/Winters 

 

I am on the fence with ATO's as they do rather different things for both AT's and TBH I think the Tank ones (at least the procs) are just flat out better than the Brute ones so it seems kind of biased there?

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 minute ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I'd say shoot for like a "decent" IO build without incarnates.

That's kind of why I'm leaning toward basic IO builds. We all have different build philosophies. If I gear builds specifically for the test at hand, lower survivability for the tank while cranking proc damage as an example, I think the results will be skewed, especially if using the identical build for the brute. Built like that, the brute may not even survive the test.

 

If we go with basic IOs, it will drastically reduce the disparities that we can tweak into the builds.

[Galaxy Brain]

Just now, Bill Z Bubba said:

That's kind of why I'm leaning toward basic IO builds. We all have different build philosophies. If I gear builds specifically for the test at hand, lower survivability for the tank while cranking proc damage as an example, I think the results will be skewed, especially if using the identical build for the brute. Built like that, the brute may not even survive the test.

 

If we go with basic IOs, it will drastically reduce the disparities that we can tweak into the builds.

Pretty much! I would avoid "building for the test" as much as possible and just shooting for a "run of the mill, makes my character better" build.

[Hjarki]

2 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

I suspect that as a set's AoE capabilities go up, tanks will surpass brutes. With the EM/Shield, there was only whirling hands and the long recharge shield charge. This would explain why my claws/sr test had the tank win, as there my aoe chain is followup, focus, spin, shockwave, repeat.

In a theoretical sense, a Brute can't realistically compete against a Tanker based purely on a 10-target vs. 16-target AE. Brutes at the damage cap only do about 10% more damage than Tankers at the damage cap, but 16 targets is 60% more damage than 10 targets.

 

In practice, it's hard to meaningfully reach the target cap. Even in an AE farm, you're going to spend large amounts of time fighting spawns smaller than that. In actual content, you'll face a lot of enemy groups that include ranged enemies that refuse to close with your Tanker/Brute - at best a few extra yards of radius may snag you an extra target or two. Not nearly enough to compensate for the higher baseline +damage from Fury in a situation where neither a Tanker nor a Brute is likely to be anywhere near the damage cap.

 

Where the Tanker changes really pay off is with cones. Spines' Ripper on a Brute is a 2-3 target attack. It's nice enough and probably worth taking. On Tanker, you're probably hitting 6 - 8 targets due to increased arc/radius/target cap.

 

On the other hand, there's a lot of AE that isn't impacted by the Tanker changes - most notably all those taunt auras. Your Spires/Fire Brute may have a crappy Ripper, but their Quills and Fiery Aura are hitting the same number of targets as the Tanker.

 

One particular use case for Brutes where they're clearly superior is afk farming. If you just want to stick your character in a fire farm while you go do laundry and check back from time to time, Brute is definitely the way to go.

 

7 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

But what test that we can all agree upon? SOs? Basic IOs? Fully IOed but no incarnates?

Almost any such restrictions tend to yield 'artificial' results that can still be useful but aren't very good at fine distinctions because it omits the details of how a build reaches all of its various breakpoints. There is some not-easily-quantified benefit to superior Tanker defenses - the less effort you have to spend boosting your defenses, the more effort you can put into your offense. A 'pylon test' methodology where different players compete with specific builds is probably the best route. However, you would need a large number of players to get a good data set and most of the top end of that data set would involve 'teaching to the test' where players are optimizing for the specific scenario without concern for how well that scenario reflects the larger game.

 

For example, we do have somewhat decent data on the best fire farm builds (albeit primarily confined to Brutes). But no one would suggest the top fire farm builds are decent general purpose characters. You're not going to go tank an Incarnate trial with your speed clear fire farm build.

 

Indeed, I'd argue that a test platform of the sort you're talking about is worse than simply modeling the dps characteristics of the base sets. With modeling, you have explicit constraints you're optimizing against, so running a test bed is really only useful as a way of validating the model.

 

I know that improved arc/radius/target cap is better. I know the limits of how much better it can be. But if I want to assign some value to 'better' that matches gameplay, I really need to take a character and run a lot of tests to see how close to the +60%/+100% targets I can realistically get.

[Erratic1]

12 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I am on the fence with ATO's as they do rather different things for both AT's and TBH I think the Tank ones (at least the procs) are just flat out better than the Brute ones so it seems kind of biased there?

If you don't include Brute's Fury naysayers will say you undercut the Brute's damage. So Brute's Fury should be on the table. Exclude Tanker ATOs short of needing them for set bonuses.

[Erratic1]

1 minute ago, Hjarki said:

In practice, it's hard to meaningfully reach the target cap. Even in an AE farm, you're going to spend large amounts of time fighting spawns smaller than that. In actual content, you'll face a lot of enemy groups that include ranged enemies that refuse to close with your Tanker/Brute - at best a few extra yards of radius may snag you an extra target or two. Not nearly enough to compensate for the higher baseline +damage from Fury in a situation where neither a Tanker nor a Brute is likely to be anywhere near the damage cap.

Pull and go around a corner. Ranged enemies will come to around the corner, right to where you are waiting, to establish line of sight. All the melees of course will gather to you too.

[Hjarki]

2 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

Pull and go around a corner. Ranged enemies will come to around the corner, right to where you are waiting, to establish line of sight. All the melees of course will gather to you too.

This requires that you have a corner.

 

It also assumes a playstyle that doesn't match how the game is generally played. Unless you're talking low levels teams with only at-level players, the standard method is to simply charge in rather than waste time 'pulling'. 

[Bill Z Bubba]

6 minutes ago, Hjarki said:

It also assumes a playstyle that doesn't match how the game is generally played. Unless you're talking low levels teams with only at-level players, the standard method is to simply charge in rather than waste time 'pulling'. 

Which is why I was using Galaxy Brain's Office Mission Simulator on the beta server. Then I just went spawn to spawn as we do normally. Only grabbing a second group's aggro if they were close enough. Granted, his critters don't dish out a normal amount of damage, another reason I was thinking basic IOs, but we could just as easily choose some standard enemy group and perhaps should. This way, a chosen difficulty might have relevance rather than both the brute and the tank being immortal.

[Hjarki]

1 minute ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Which is why I was using Galaxy Brain's Office Mission Simulator on the beta server. Then I just went spawn to spawn as we do normally. Only grabbing a second group's aggro if they were close enough. Granted, his critters don't dish out a normal amount of damage, another reason I was thinking basic IOs, but we could just as easily choose some standard enemy group and perhaps should. This way, a chosen difficulty might have relevance rather than both the brute and the tank being immortal.

While I appreciate the effort he's gone to, it's important to remember that observation is the first step in the scientific method, not the last. As such, I don't know that his results are particularly useful. They mostly just confirm what is already known about the various sets when outfitted with SOs. Moreover, the methdology precludes isolating the various features of the game in a way that could be used to extrapolate the different elements of performance.

 

Consider the question I posed earlier about the effectiveness of Tanker arc/radius/target cap changes. Subjectively, I know that Ripper is mediocre on a Brute but amazing on a Tanker. But I don't have a decent consensus number for how much better it really is. That's the sort of question these kind of tests should be answering - not simply replicating rankings you could more easily and quickly discover by plugging the numbers into a spreadsheet.

[Erratic1]

21 minutes ago, Hjarki said:

This requires that you have a corner.

 

It also assumes a playstyle that doesn't match how the game is generally played. Unless you're talking low levels teams with only at-level players, the standard method is to simply charge in rather than waste time 'pulling'. 

 

There are considerably more situations in the game with corners than without them. 

 

As for how the game is generally played, repeatedly on the team I was on yesterday the Tanker said, stay here, I'm pulling them to this spot. He was corner pulling just as I described. 

 

Edit: I will grant the above varies. A later team I was on with a different character featured 2 Brutes (one of them mine) and a Tanker. That team was much more run forward and pound things down.

Edited February 8, 2021 by Erratic1

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 minute ago, Erratic1 said:

As for how the game is generally played, repeatedly on the team I was on yesterday the Tanker said, stay here, I'm pulling them to this spot. He was corner pulling just as I described.

Wow. I would have quit that team after the first pull.

[Erratic1]

7 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Wow. I would have quit that team after the first pull.

It worked for us, primarily because he was the only alpha taker in the group, he was well built and able to quickly herd things up, and with things all bunched together we ranged attackers could blow them up quickly with AoEs.

 

Mind you, we were running on /8, so there were plenty of opponents to be brought together and it was good having the ranged gathered up as I described as opposed to feeling free to hammer on us squishies. It was a mid-30s team, so survivability of non-melees was not exactly something in place via copious IOs.

 

Edit: In fact, as I recall it was him, a Fire/Kinetic Corruptor, my Water/Kinetics Corruptor, a blaster (whose build escapes me) and at one point a brute did join us but the routine remained the same (and when the brute got ballsy  the brute's health suffered for it).

Edited February 8, 2021 by Erratic1

[Bill Z Bubba]

7 minutes ago, Hjarki said:

They mostly just confirm what is already known about the various sets when outfitted with SOs.

"What is already known" is the problem we're facing. I already know that tanks were overbuffed. The problem is all those demanding proof (as they should) of my claims. Using a static, repeatable mission, coupled with a difficulty that can lead to failure, properly timed and averaged out amongst various combinations, will provide us with a decent chunk of information, one way or the other.

[Galaxy Brain]

31 minutes ago, Hjarki said:

They mostly just confirm what is already known about the various sets when outfitted with SOs. Moreover, the methdology precludes isolating the various features of the game in a way that could be used to extrapolate the different elements of performance.

Yes and no. What spreadsheets do not show is the X factors like Knockdown, slows, -ToHit, -Def, etc, over time and how they really contribute to a set's performance both in Offense and Defense. 

 

Yes, if I made builds with X% recharge and Y% defense you would likely see different results to the point of being able to just spreadsheet but then that also eliminates all the other X factors from the sets in question. That leads to the "No" in that adding in more powers or bonuses ends up taking away from a lot of the sets despite adding "raw power".

 

Building to the test likewise cuts a lot out as you mentioned with a fire farmer not being good in normal gameplay. There are a few questions that can be answered by that testing, but likewise is the point of the thread overall "Why make a brute in general?" or "Should I make a Brute for this very specific task?". If the latter, then it gets even more specific to the point of just asking what the best X is, why make a Brute, Tanker, or Scrapper if a Fire/Kin controller does the task the best anyways? (Just random example there). If the former for just "in general, does X or Y live up to their tradeoffs?" then these kind of tests have more merit since we also kind of know that IO's/Incarnates homogenize things a bit anyways.

Edited February 8, 2021 by Galaxy Brain