Why not just roll a scrapper or tanker?

[Infinitum]

8 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

A fun side note... found out my shield/em tank, with saturated AAO, has better single target damage than my claws/sr scrapper. Not by much, granted, bout 5 seconds faster than the scrapper's average, bet if I ran more tests they'd even out around 3 minutes on a pylon... but it amused me. A tank... taking down a pylon in the same time as a scrapper. With vastly more mitigation.

 

BALANCE!

Thats not even close to a fair test though.  That scrapper is going to clear a mission way faster because it has vastly superior dmg potential when not up against a ST monster like that.

 

Run a EM Shield scrapper and a SR claws tanker to compare apples to apples.

 

EM is supposed to have better single target damage than claws - especially when its boosted by something like AAO.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Infinitum

[Infinitum]

8 hours ago, Apparition said:

 

Yep.  Tankers were overbuffed and do too much damage now.

No they were not and the test results on the brutal mission simulator demonstrate this - when it takes a tanker twice as long with twice as many hits to take down a boss and a lieutenant as the same designed brute - thats not overbuffed.

 

They got threw a bone that made them more useful - that they needed because they aren't beating out similar brutes in mission clears.

 

Putting different types against each other doesn't prove anything claws sr isn't close to being similar to Shield EM - my EM EA stalker and scrapper comes in pretty close to a minute flat on pylon times - 3 minutes for a similar boosted tanker - is exactly where it should be IMO and not overbuffed.  They are ST set all three and should take out a pylon that fast - I think my fire EM was around 3 min also - not getting close to encroaching on the scrapper or stalker though and thats with 2 dmg boosters to 1 for the scrapper and stalker.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Infinitum

[Galaxy Brain]

7 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

A fun side note... found out my shield/em tank, with saturated AAO, has better single target damage than my claws/sr scrapper. Not by much, granted, bout 5 seconds faster than the scrapper's average, bet if I ran more tests they'd even out around 3 minutes on a pylon... but it amused me. A tank... taking down a pylon in the same time as a scrapper. With vastly more mitigation.

 

BALANCE!

Try it with an em/shield scrapper, fully saturated, as well. Comparing two way different power combos on different ATs, especially with one having a big X factor in AAO seems a little off...

[Bill Z Bubba]

20 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Try it with an em/shield scrapper, fully saturated, as well. Comparing two way different power combos on different ATs, especially with one having a big X factor in AAO seems a little off...

I don't disagree. I don't agree that any tank should ever outdamage any scrapper in any case anywhere or anyhow. Just found it amusing.

 

To put it another way, an Energy tank shouldn't even be able to get a better pylon time than a Spines scrapper since no scrapper can ever reach tank mitigation values.

 

And, yes, I know, powerset balance within an AT was never this game's strong suit either.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

I don't disagree. I don't agree that any tank should ever outdamage any scrapper in any case anywhere or anyhow. Just found it amusing.

 

To put it another way, an Energy tank shouldn't even be able to get a better pylon time than a Spines scrapper since no scrapper can ever reach tank mitigation values.

 

And, yes, I know, powerset balance within an AT was never this game's strong suit either.

Thats not out of the ordinary though - back on live CoH when IOs first came out and really even before then - this was also before the EM nerf my Invul EM tanker was pyloning faster than various scrappers then.

 

EM has always been that way and its not really out of line when the similar Scrapper Stalker or Brute is beating the similar tanker - EM vs EM at a pylon test.  Which they do defeat the tanker from every pylon test I have ran - the stalker being the best.

 

My Kat Nin Scrapper for instance is no pylon warrior but i would stack it against anything in mission content.

 

Some sets aren't suited for pylon or ST that's just the way it is and really doesnt point to a balance issue.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Infinitum

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

To put it another way, an Energy tank shouldn't even be able to get a better pylon time than a Spines scrapper since no scrapper can ever reach tank mitigation values.

Also I have a good many scrappers and stalkers that in most cases can survive well enough where mitigation isnt an issue - they cant do silly tanker tricks but no tanker I have can match their dmg output either.

[Bill Z Bubba]

2 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Also I have a good many scrappers and stalkers that in most cases can survive well enough where mitigation isnt an issue - they cant do silly tanker tricks but no tanker I have can match their dmg output either.

My time/fire defender survives well enough and dishes out enough damage to clear the map.

[Infinitum]

4 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

My time/fire defender survives well enough and dishes out enough damage to clear the map.

Yeah my BR Time Corruptor did too

 

In fact I've kinda adopted that simulator as a training aid.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Infinitum

[Bill Z Bubba]

2 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Yeah my BR Time Corruptor did too

 

In fact I've kinda adopted that simulator as a training aid.

Point was, stating something has "enough" mitigation for whatever we decide is "normal" gameplay has nothing to do with powerset or archetype balance. Balance should come from math, not feeling.

[Erratic1]

8 hours ago, twozerofoxtrot said:

Legitimate? Objective? 

Pick for your team?

 

Can we go back to how we actually play this game? When was the last time anyone seriously cherry-picked ATs for a team (that um, wasn't a debuffer for Reichsman)?

If cherry picking for a team was not a problem, then why did Tankers need anything?

 

It seem incredibly self-contradictory to say, "Tankers had no role and so SOMETHING NEEDED TO BE DONE!!!" but when the claim is advanced that Brutes now have no role in which they shine, being inferior tanks and inferior melee damage dealers, to say, "What does it matter...nobody is looking at that."

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 minute ago, Erratic1 said:

It seem incredibly self-contradictory to say, "Tankers had no role and so SOMETHING NEEDED TO BE DONE!!!" but when the claim is advanced that Brutes now have no role in which they shine, being inferior tanks and inferior melee damage dealers, to say, "What does it matter...nobody is looking at that."

I would change that to say, "being inferior tanks with barely superior damage output." I just soloed an MA/Elec Brute to 33/34 then PLed her to 50. Now I'm staring at an empty Mids build and wondering why I'm bothering.

 

I think I'm entering the phase where, thanks to all the ridiculous powercreep both before and after the snap, that I'm reminded of Syndrome... when everyone's super, no one is. All that extra damage that a stalker or scrapper can dish out doesn't mean much when they can't sit in the middle of Rom and his fluffies without faceplanting and tank damage is so close to brute damage while having greater build allowance thanks to higher base values, it's just gotten to the point where I wonder why I bother with anything but this ridiculous shield/em tank other than, "well, that other set looks cooler."

[Infinitum]

8 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

If cherry picking for a team was not a problem, then why did Tankers need anything?

 

It seem incredibly self-contradictory to say, "Tankers had no role and so SOMETHING NEEDED TO BE DONE!!!" but when the claim is advanced that Brutes now have no role in which they shine, being inferior tanks and inferior melee damage dealers, to say, "What does it matter...nobody is looking at that."

Because they legitimately had issues with dmg output.  Now they don't, they are more in line by any valid test you can through at them compared to where they were but they still aren't outpacing the other three by any valid test either.

[Erratic1]

6 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

I would change that to say, "being inferior tanks with barely superior damage output."

My comment on inferior damage was related to Scrappers, not Tankers. Apparition's argument was that  Brutes serve no purpose--if you want tanking, make a Tanker, if you want damage make a Tanker, and in no case is a Brute the superior choice for a team to take because you will get more damage with the Scrapper and more survivability with the Tanker.

 

I made no comment on Brute vs Tanker damage.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Erratic1

[Bill Z Bubba]

3 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Because they legitimately had issues with dmg output.

No they didn't. They did enough damage to get through a mission, just like a defender. They could solo normal content without issue. Their damage output was fine in comparison to their mitigation. The buff was unnecessary and unwarranted.

[Apparition]

13 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

If cherry picking for a team was not a problem, then why did Tankers need anything?

 

It seem incredibly self-contradictory to say, "Tankers had no role and so SOMETHING NEEDED TO BE DONE!!!" but when the claim is advanced that Brutes now have no role in which they shine, being inferior tanks and inferior melee damage dealers, to say, "What does it matter...nobody is looking at that."

And the thing is, people are looking at that.  An optimized power gaming endgame team has room for at most two melee characters.  A tank and one melee damage dealer.   Brutes are now outclassed in both, so it makes more sense to bring a Tanker and a Scrapper or Stalker.

[Infinitum]

Just now, Apparition said:

And the thing is, people are looking at that.  An optimized power gaming endgame team has room for at most two melee characters.  A tank and one melee damage dealer.   Brutes are now outclassed in both, so it makes more sense to bring a Tanker and a Scrapper or Stalker.

No they aren't, are you overlooking the testing being ran?  

[Infinitum]

1 minute ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

No they didn't. They did enough damage to get through a mission, just like a defender. They could solo normal content without issue. Their damage output was fine in comparison to their mitigation. The buff was unnecessary and unwarranted.

Yes they did, tankers were slow - too slow.  Anyone with sense enough to compare will admit that.

 

Now they STILL aren't as fast as the other three but have both better dmg capability and an aoe niche that still won't compete with boss takedowns.

[Erratic1]

Just now, Bill Z Bubba said:

No they didn't. They did enough damage to get through a mission, just like a defender. They could solo normal content without issue. Their damage output was fine in comparison to their mitigation. The buff was unnecessary and unwarranted.

 

Defenders had to be adjusted to do more damage while solo, reverting to original Defender levels of damage when on a team. Tanker soloing was (Fire Armor aside) a pretty miserable thing. However the buffs to Tankers definitely went beyond soloing.

 

But I am more than content to leave the Brute/Tanker damage issue aside. My (re)entry to the thread is strictly focused on the notion that Tankers role woes needed to be addressed but Brute woes are not worthy of addressing.

[Infinitum]

1 minute ago, Erratic1 said:

 

Defenders had to be adjusted to do more damage while solo, reverting to original Defender levels of damage when on a team. Tanker soloing was (Fire Armor aside) a pretty miserable thing. However the buffs to Tankers definitely went beyond soloing.

 

But I am more than content to leave the Brute/Tanker damage issue aside. My (re)entry to the thread is strictly focused on the notion that Tankers role woes needed to be addressed but Brute woes are not worthy of addressing.

Because they don't have any woes and testing confirms this.

[Bill Z Bubba]

3 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Yes they did, tankers were slow - too slow.  Anyone with sense enough to compare will admit that.

 

Now they STILL aren't as fast as the other three but have both better dmg capability and an aoe niche that still won't compete with boss takedowns.

They were only too slow for all those people that demanded that tankers be the Superman of CoH. There's weren't too slow for anyone with enough sense to grasp that their heightened mitigation should mean their damage should suck. They are a damage secondary class after all. Just like defenders.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[Infinitum]

4 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

They were only too slow for all those people that demanded that tankers be the Superman of CoH. There's weren't too slow for anyone with enough sense to grasp that their heightened mitigation should mean their damage should suck. They are a damage secondary class after all. Just like defenders.

It has absolutely nothing to do with that, and you are both cherry picking and exaggerating today by a country mile.

 

Your test is like hooking a trailer to a Lamborghini and wondering why the F150 without a trailor beat it.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Infinitum

[Bill Z Bubba]

7 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

Defenders had to be adjusted to do more damage while solo, reverting to original Defender levels of damage when on a team.

Perhaps that would have been a better solution for tanks, too.

[Infinitum]

Just now, Bill Z Bubba said:

Perhaps that would have been a better solution for tanks, too.

Only issue is that they are fine now.

 

Remember the office testing?

 

Or is that not valid now?

[Infinitum]

3 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Perhaps that would have been a better solution for tanks, too.

Heck if you want I'll roll EM Shield scrapper stalker and brute tonight and demonstrate the flaw in your claim.

 

I'll also roll the equivalent claw sr on the other three and demonstrate that.

 

You pick the test I'll run it for you.

 

The tanker won't win any of them.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Infinitum

[Erratic1]

1 minute ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Perhaps that would have been a better solution for tanks, too.

"Tanker are fine people" like to claim that Tanker survivability is overkill and that Brutes (and other ATs) survive just fine solo. I'm inclined to cynically suggest then that since Tanker survivability is overkill then they don't need it. And if their damage has to be such that they are barely behind Brutes, then why bother having the Tanker AT at all? There is no need for the Tanker AT since clearly Brutes survive enough and if their claim is Brutes have superior damage, then what purpose do Tankers serve?

 

I am sure they will all get behind the notion of doing away with the Tanker AT. 

 

 

😈