"The Game is not Balanced around IO's"..... should it be?

[Infinitum]

43 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Shield/EM tank vs EM/Shield Brute

5 runs each. Average clear all time for tank 502 seconds. Average clear all time for brute 462 seconds.

So the brute is what? A whopping 8% faster?

 

While the tank has:

21% more HP

24% more melee defense

26% more range and aoe defense

20% more SL DR

14% more FC DR

16% more EN DR

But hey... the brute gets an extra .5% base damage thanks to the AT IO difference. Edit: Oh yea... and a bunch less DDR when both doublestack AD.

 

21% more mitigation vs 8% higher kill speed for this particular combo. And this is parity? Balance? Ok with the rest of yall? Cuz I think it's crap.

 

That sounds equitable to me - what exactly do you want it to do?

 

You can get those numbers for the brute higher also btw.

 

Also look at your HP what percentage higher is the tanker?  I forget the calculation - brainfart

Edited February 3, 2021 by Infinitum

[Erratic1]

5 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

That sounds equitable to me - what exactly do you want it to do?

Supperior aggro management, superior survivability (more hp and higher defense/resistance) and 92.5% of the damage output of a Brute sounds equitable?

 

What is your gain for making a Brute exactly?

 

Quote

You can get those numbers for the brute higher also btw.

 

But can you do so without hurting damage? Because if you end up with Tanker equivalent survivability and less damage on top of having a harder time maintaining aggro then you made a serious mistake in playing the Brute.

[Infinitum]

5 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

Supperior aggro management, superior survivability (more hp and higher defense/resistance) and 92.5% of the damage output of a Brute sounds equitable?

 

What is your gain for making a Brute exactly?

 

 

But can you do so without hurting damage? Because if you end up with Tanker equivalent survivability and less damage on top of having a harder time maintaining aggro then you made a serious mistake in playing the Brute.

Run the brute on pylon and AV times then. The tanker isn't going to win that even sacrificing dmg by the brute to get greater survivability.

 

You are pitting the brute against where the tanker is strong - flip the tables and run tanker brute for raw ST damage.

 

Also no Brute I have has any trouble maintaining agro.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Infinitum

[Infinitum]

I saw the formula somewhere where tanker brute design was balanced around HP and dmg does anyone remember that quote from the tanker update?

[Erratic1]

1 minute ago, Infinitum said:

Run the brute on pylon and AV times then. The tanker isn't going to win that even sacrificing dmg by the brute to get greater survivability.

 

You are pitting the brute against where the tanker is strong - flip the tables and rum tanker brute for raw ST damage.

The game is not fighting pylons, at least not for most people. Shouldn't the consideration be performance in the realm where most people play?

[Infinitum]

8 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

The game is not fighting pylons, at least not for most people. Shouldn't the consideration be performance in the realm where most people play?

No but it represents ST hard targets which is in the game.

 

The game also isn't map clearing punching bags.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Infinitum

[Erratic1]

7 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

No but it represemts ST hard targets which is in the game.

 

The game also isn't map clearing punching bags.

Certainly. And before I would advocate any sort of change I would want a careful examination of Bubba's setup, examples from other powerset combos, and careful analysis of why the results are whatever they turn out to be. My pushback was with the notion that, "Supperior aggro management, superior survivability (more hp and higher defense/resistance) and 92.5% of the damage output of a Brute" is equitable.

 

 

[Bill Z Bubba]

15 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Run the brute on pylon and AV times then. The tanker isn't going to win that even sacrificing dmg by the brute to get greater survivability.

 

You are pitting the brute against where the tanker is strong - flip the tables and run tanker brute for raw ST damage.

 

Also no Brute I have has any trouble maintaining agro.

There's a few more Minions and LTs in missions than AVs and Pylons.
But sure. I already know that my claws tank is 30 seconds behind my claws brute. A whole whopping 30 seconds while still have 20something % more mitigation. (Which is probably not an accurate number since we all know that mitigation truth comes from damage taken.)

[Infinitum]

1 minute ago, Erratic1 said:

Certainly. And before I would advocate any sort of change I would want a careful examination of Bubba's setup, examples from other powerset combos, and careful analysis of why the results are whatever they turn out to be. My pushback was with the notion that, "Supperior aggro management, superior survivability (more hp and higher defense/resistance) and 92.5% of the damage output of a Brute" is equitable.

 

 

My point is this pitted the brute against the tankers strength and still won - that seems equitable to me on face value.

 

But You are right we would need to examine builds and other aspects etc.

[Bill Z Bubba]

3 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

My point is this pitted the brute against the tankers strength and still won - that seems equitable to me on face value.

 

But You are right we would need to examine builds and other aspects etc.

 

You do get that the brute BARELY won doing something that is the most common behavior in the entirety of CoH, right? Defeating spawns in missions.

To go further, this same brute walked into an ITF and faceplanted because its mitigation simply can NOT handle the incoming damage in there, regardless of its damage output. Could this be corrected? Sure. At the cost of other aspects of the build.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[Erratic1]

1 minute ago, Infinitum said:

My point is this pitted the brute against the tankers strength and still won - that seems equitable to me on face value.

 

But You are right we would need to examine builds and other aspects etc.

I think you have this reversed. It pitted the Tanker against the supposed Brute strength of greater damage and the Brute barely coming out ahead is one of those things that in college football happens from time to time where the favored team does win but does so by so close a margin that their standing drops in the polls the following week.

 

8% is so close as to be meaningless.

[Bill Z Bubba]

But since folks have asked.

Missing is Office Mission Simulator by Galaxy Brain on Beta.

Ran at +4/x8, clearing everything.

Here's the tank build. Only difference for the brute is using brute AT IOs instead of tank AT IOs.

 

| Copy & Paste this data into Mids Reborn : Hero Designer to view the build |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|MxDz;1510;687;1374;HEX;|
|78DA6594596B13511886CF341363B6365DD3DA355D93493B4DD41B3704ED629740A|
|1EA8520616CC73418D292B4602F05D75B05FD055E78E3CF71BDF017747145C13A7E|
|99F7350E642079CEBCE7DB734E72776722AFE7EF5D545AE472C9AA56F357ADF21DB|
|BE2CF5985E29A922770C3AA14ED921590753F36F333F66DBB5CB5CDD50DD959FFF7|
|DAC3DD9C5DB26D73B66C570ABB7851E195CDCD9239572A1636B643EE7A75CBB6D72|
|3EE72D9B6B68AE54214363513798BCF6E15D7CC4B959D6D3BBFBAB953CAE7ACEAB6|
|5DD9ED96320CF9CC44E54BAB15E8F8D59C4FA96C50352D908BA0BE54A3AEF46FE0B|
|1EFE0F190E2E3285554AE362BF134C6D3F6697F40FB43F23318FA427E25259E0FF1|
|FCBEF126578B24C914D86C9069309617F3095DCD495E3FF3FA1734578B2D826DD73|
|4D7B6ED3AD8619026382FBE01F611482BB7E7B008416AC15ED4372C5A1839B430ED|
|BAC8058911E55EF4A8F61BEBAAAB13F123D2570B62E92D679A5CFBEEB3E439F0C47|
|9F202FABA22F15ADD413AAA35811C3189D3CEF9B4DFD75DBBE907E443F211987D4C|
|3E0117255E27EAF375C650575F1BD90E66596F97F419672FF19AADF432C0BD2589D|
|3C35E7A7EA3D68123F20F38E4900A736B96BA7BE1A3F5725E43AF60A349AE7ECEB9|
|9F676859720C521BDC438C35C1307B1F9E84EFB8494E931970224B4EC2B745F28FF|
|16C8CBD8136F1164CBD23DF83C607F223E893FA92F44DF2FCA778FE8D9FE0E42FF2|
|2419C7CC74F14D73E669CE7C8AB39EEA2039D7A0D89AECD9A4F629A254865A86672|
|0A5D7EFABD3A77BEE9F238F5AF62AF458D1E9209AE65AED85EA77546953B0DAF76A|
|496807FF355DEB436F89017064901C024713E061C873FF9FE277483C239F83232FC|
|0D1439CCDD11FE04BA35EBD6334F4966950B20DCAA906E57483128CD5FF659C15A9|
|36CB69DEF2AC2DCFFAA667FD17A304E15E|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|

[Infinitum]

1 minute ago, Erratic1 said:

I think you have this reversed. It pitted the Tanker against the supposed Brute strength of greater damage and the Brute barely coming out ahead is one of those things that in college football happens from time to time where the favored team does win but does so by so close a margin that their standing drops in the polls the following week.

 

8% is so close as to be meaningless.

No the tanker update allows it to hit more with a larger aoe radius - thats its strength if a minion has 100 Hp and the tanker hits for 110 and the brute 130 the minion still dies but the tanker takes out more faster with aoe - hard targets bosses avs and ebs showcase the brutes dmg difference better.

[Bill Z Bubba]

But yea, sure, I'll go get some pylon times with this combo. Shouldn't take more than an hour or so.

Since I don't feel like working today anyway. 🙂

[Infinitum]

5 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

You do get that the brute BARELY won doing something that is the most common behavior in the entirety of CoH, right? Defeating spawns in missions.

To go further, this same brute walked into an ITF and faceplanted because its mitigation simply can NOT handle the incoming damage in there, regardless of its damage output. Could this be corrected? Sure. At the cost of other aspects of the build.

Build the brute with better defenses then.

[Infinitum]

1 minute ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

But yea, sure, I'll go get some pylon times with this combo. Shouldn't take more than an hour or so.

Since I don't feel like working today anyway. 🙂

Don't act like you dont want to.  lol

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 minute ago, Infinitum said:

Build the brute with better defenses then.

And his damage output will suffer for it, dropping him below the tank.

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 minute ago, Infinitum said:

Don't act like you dont want to.  lol

I do love me some pylon killing.

[Infinitum]

Just now, Bill Z Bubba said:

And his damage output will suffer for it, dropping him below the tank.

I dont think it would not if you leverage AAO and fury optimally.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Infinitum

[Luminara]

34 minutes ago, Coyote said:

I want damage procs "nerfed" by changing their PPM by +1, and lowering their per-activation damage so that the expected DPS over a minute is the same as it currently is. This wouldn't impact those ATs who use them in regular attacks because their baseline damage is low

 

Nerfing proc damage means increasing the number of attacks the low damage archetypes are forced to use.  And as low damage archetypes, they're already forced to spend more time attacking than higher damage archetypes, plus they have to spend time buffing/debuffing/controlling just to stay alive, since they can't one-shot anything, or ignore status effects, or even shrug off incoming damage.  The whole point of using damage procs on low damage archetypes is to shorten the time spent defeating each spawn.  Compensating by increasing the trigger rate is like offering alcohol wipes after stabbing them in the genitalia.

 

Bad nerf.

[Erratic1]

8 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

No the tanker update allows it to hit more with a larger aoe radius - thats its strength if a minion has 100 Hp and the tanker hits for 110 and the brute 130 the minion still dies but the tanker takes out more faster with aoe - hard targets bosses avs and ebs showcase the brutes dmg difference better.

I am pretty sure the below shows Brutes doing more damage than Tankers and not just barely. Curiously, if you compare 10 to 8 its a 20% greater value--in line with Bubba's post. But if you compare 9 to 7...well, 8% ain't anywhere near 28%.

 

[Bill Z Bubba]

6 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

I dont think it would not if you leverage AAO and fury optimally.

I'm not a fan of cheating. I don't leverage AAO with monkeys while I fight pylons. But I absolutely did attempt to remain at the aggro cap when possible during the test runs for both the brute and the tank. And I did have sprint on for both and I did fight the same way with the same tactics throughout.

[Glacier Peak]

3 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

Nerfing proc damage means increasing the number of attacks the low damage archetypes are forced to use.  And as low damage archetypes, they're already forced to spend more time attacking than higher damage archetypes, plus they have to spend time buffing/debuffing/controlling just to stay alive, since they can't one-shot anything, or ignore status effects, or even shrug off incoming damage.  The whole point of using damage procs on low damage archetypes is to shorten the time spent defeating each spawn.  Compensating by increasing the trigger rate is like offering alcohol wipes after stabbing them in the genitalia.

 

Bad nerf.

Low damage archetypes aren't supposed to be high damage archtypes. They have their own roles to fulfill. 

 

Damage procs need nerfed or even removed from the game entirely. 

[Infinitum]

2 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

I'm not a fan of cheating. I don't leverage AAO with monkeys while I fight pylons. But I absolutely did attempt to remain at the aggro cap when possible during the test runs for both the brute and the tank. And I did have sprint on for both and I did fight the same way with the same tactics throughout.

Wasnt talking about pylon there.

[Galaxy Brain]

The Brute vs Tank talk I think could be separated into it's own thread.