Tanks versus Brutes.

[Erratic1]

1 minute ago, Haijinx said:

Depends on if you go over the immortality threshold or not. 

 

Which depends on the team also.

 

With enough Support a Brute is almost equal to a Tanker survival in absolute terms.  And in most gameplay terms is effectively immortal at a much lower amount of support.  Which was one of the reasons Tankers got buffed damage in the first place.

 

This ignores that people don't always play on teams and that team composition varies considerably.

 

And the question is not if there should have been a buff or not but the extent of the buff.

[Infinitum]

On 2/5/2021 at 2:53 PM, Erratic1 said:

It is going to be different pre-50 while levelling when most Brutes not-IO'd out are going to have the exact same defense/resistance values as scrappers while tanks will enjoy being most of the way to cap?

On the same token - tankers not IOd out arent going to have nearly the dmg output a brute will have.

 

Once you IO you can bring both the tanker dmg up - but not to exceed brute dmg usually and brutes up to tanker levels of mitigation but usually wont exceed it.  

[Infinitum]

11 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

 

This ignores that people don't always play on teams and that team composition varies considerably.

 

And the question is not if there should have been a buff or not but the extent of the buff.

before the Tanker update Brutes were above Scrappers and Blasters in terms of dmg - now they are below blasters and even or slightly behind scrappers but still a good bit ahead of tanks from 50% fury up - which is easy to do.

 

It was and isnt a tanker issue but Brutes were likely too high before the Tanker update anyway.  Its now as close to parity as you can get between the melee sets.

[Erratic1]

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

On the same token - tankers not IOd out arent going to have nearly the dmg output a brute will have.

 

Once you IO you can bring both the tanker dmg up - but not to exceed brute dmg usually and brutes up to tanker levels of mitigation but usually wont exceed it.  

But the statement I was replying to was:

• Well, considering many of the claims being made only make sense in the context of a fully kitted out build, I am assuming that all of the “brutes are useless lol” supporting data was more or less gathered at 50+3.

Is a Tanker useless on teams because they don't do damage? No, because their job on the team is to hold aggro and survive. They will have better survivability the entire time levelling, contrary to the statement above and will have it once IO'd to the gills. So what is the Brute bringing to the table pre-50 or post-50? Less survability?

 

Granted, I don't really feel Brutes are useless on teams but if we're going to explore the claim being made beyond, "Lol, their wrong!"  it perhaps pays to actually consider what the case actually is--and the above statement that somehow things are different pre-50 doesn't hold up.

[Erratic1]

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

before the Tanker update Brutes were above Scrappers and Blasters in terms of dmg - now they are below blasters and even or slightly behind scrappers but still a good bit ahead of tanks from 50% fury up - which is easy to do.

 

It was and isnt a tanker issue but Brutes were likely too high before the Tanker update anyway.  Its now as close to parity as you can get between the melee sets.

Actually it was that Brutes could, with sufficient support, reach higher damage. On their own they did not.

 

I do not have a problem with Brutes doing less damage than Blasters or Scrapper (who have less survivability) even when supported. That extra survivability means something. Now, apply that principle vis-a-vis Tankers and Brutes. 

[Infinitum]

2 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

Actually it was that Brutes could, with sufficient support, reach higher damage. On their own they did not.

Yes they did.  And it wasn't even hard to do.

 

3 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

That extra survivability means something. Now, apply that principle vis-a-vis Tankers and Brutes. 

Yeah, brutes survive well enough to tank anything in the game and still do more damage than tankers.

[Erratic1]

1 minute ago, Infinitum said:

Yes they did.  And it wasn't even hard to do.

 

Yeah, brutes survive well enough to tank anything in the game and still do more damage than tankers.

Amazing how it is all about the numbers when discussing Brutes vs Blasters and Scrappers but it gets all qualitative when its Brutes vs Tankers--"well enough". And if the clearing speed difference between the two ATs is at 8% difference with the Tanker having 21% more ability to survive damage, clearly there is a realm in which they do not survive well enough or Tankers don't need the survivability as its useless and it can be trimmed.

 

Which is it?

[Infinitum]

9 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

So what is the Brute bringing to the table pre-50 or post-50? Less survability?

No, they bring more damage.

 

Would you rather Brutes primary and secondary roles be swapped - given tanker factors of dmg output and survivability - basically a tanker with fury and lower dmg caps?

 

That seems boring to me - brutes bring plenty to the table solo or teamed and can survive anything if built right while retaining an identity unique to them.

[Infinitum]

9 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

Amazing how it is all about the numbers when discussing Brutes vs Blasters and Scrappers but it gets all qualitative when its Brutes vs Tankers--"well enough". And if the clearing speed difference between the two ATs is at 8% difference with the Tanker having 21% more ability to survive damage, clearly there is a realm in which they do not survive well enough or Tankers don't need the survivability as its useless and it can be trimmed.

 

Which is it?

Go back and read the good enough tanker thread.  They do have excess mitigation - but some people like me like that - some dont and build for damage instead.  

 

Same thing with brutes you can make it more like a scrapper or more like a tanker - with a much greater dmg potential.

 

If You survive x y and z with 60% with a brute does it matter if a tanker has 80%

 

When talking in terms of dmg the dmg outputs do make a quantitative difference because more always registers - whereas with mitigation at certain points it really doesnt matter because you will survive it.  With brutes you have options to dive into incarnate powers that puts you on tanker level of mitigation - however tankers can never reach brutes dmg output because the brutes cap is much higher..

 

And You need to throw that 8% crap out because its one cherry picked test with one cross section of a build that favored the tanker - and the brute still won.

Edited February 7, 2021 by Infinitum

[Erratic1]

1 minute ago, Infinitum said:

No, they bring more damage. 

The bring higher damage per hit but area means something.  A Brute who could one-shot opponents faced with 1000 opponents takes 1000 swings to kill them. A tanker who hits 5 foes at once for 50% of their lives does not hit as hard but he is dealing more damage over time because 5*50%=250% versus 1*100%. The increased area of the area attacks on Tankers directly translates into extra damage done over time over the case of not having the extra area. So it is misleading (intentional or not) to only point at raw damage scales.

 

1 minute ago, Infinitum said:

 

Would you rather Brutes primary and secondary roles be swapped - given tanker factors of dmg output and survivability - basically a tanker with fury and lower dmg caps?

What I would prefer is a feeling of honest argument.

 

1 minute ago, Infinitum said:

 

That seems boring to me - brutes bring plenty to the table solo or teamed and can survive anything if built right while retaining an identity unique to them.

 

Nothing is compelling you to reply.

[Erratic1]

1 minute ago, Infinitum said:

And You need to throw that 8% crap out because its one cherry picked test with one cross section of a build that favored the tanker - and the brute still won.

It is at least a data point. What data point do you have that argues otherwise?

[Infinitum]

Just now, Erratic1 said:

It is at least a data point. What data point do you have that argues otherwise?

That doesnt demonstrate anything other than the brute defeated the tanker in a passive clear test.

 

No survivability was tested - the only data point is that the brute won.

[Erratic1]

1 minute ago, Infinitum said:

That doesnt demonstrate anything other than the brute defeated the tanker in a passive clear test.

 

No survivability was tested - the only data point is that the brute won.

So your positions hps are not meaningful to surviving? That's rather discrediting of your argument.

 

And again, 8% greater clear versus 21% more health is what was demonstrated.

[Infinitum]

1 minute ago, Erratic1 said:

So your positions hps are not meaningful to surviving? That's rather discrediting of your argument.

 

And again, 8% greater clear versus 21% more health is what was demonstrated.

It doesn't discredit anything.  I build to 90% on my tankers cause its a challenge - I don't have to, and it also doesnt make it unfair that brutes cant do that because they have anywhere from 15% to 40% more dmg capacity than a similar tanker from 50% fury up.

 

Its two different ATs that do similar but at the same time different things - and both are very versatile due to that nature.

 

The 21% isnt tested in that test scenario you could make that 50% its a passive test and invalid.  If you want to test brute survivability I have at least 5 that can survive an indefinate herd on monster island just like all my tankers - and STILl have more dmg potential.

[Erratic1]

 

Just now, Infinitum said:

The 21% isnt tested in that test scenario you could make that 50% its a passive test and invalid. 

 

??? That sentence doesn't parse. 

Just now, Infinitum said:

If you want to test brute survivability I have at least 5 that can survive an indefinate herd on monster island just like all my tankers - and STILl have more dmg potential.

Feel free to post the numbers on kill times.

[GM Tempest]

Keep it civil, folks.

[arcane]

11 hours ago, Erratic1 said:

It is at least a data point. What data point do you have that argues otherwise?

Well the shared experiences of every brute that actually plays the game instead of City of Pylon Testers, for starters. “A data point” (1) with no larger established testing methodology and with all the player’s build philosophy biases in play means absolutely zero.

[Snarky]

9 hours ago, GM Tempest said:

Keep it civil, folks.

I start the best threads.  Just sayin'

 

Seriously though.  I think it is a decent balance right now.  I have a couple fully built Tanks.  I am glad for the Tanker Buffs.  they needed something.  As much as I hate to admit it, the great Brute "correction" (and thanks to Homecoming Team revised and made better) was necessary because Brutes were outdamaging Scrappers.  Not even in doubt.

 

What we have is Tanks have better survivability and not quite as good damage.  Brutes have better damage and not quite as good survivability.

 

And that's Numberwang!  Let's rotate the board.

Edited February 7, 2021 by Snarky

[Infinitum]

3 minutes ago, Snarky said:

I start the best threads.  Just sayin'

I am missing the part that got uncivil myself.

[Snarky]

8 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

I am missing the part that got uncivil myself.

it got...warmer....over the last couple pages.  But its a low drama message board so thats about all we will see lol.

[Erratic1]

31 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

Well the shared experiences of every brute that actually plays the game instead of City of Pylon Testers, for starters. “A data point” (1) with no larger established testing methodology and with all the player’s build philosophy biases in play means absolutely zero.

You speak for every person who plays Brutes? 

[Infinitum]

5 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

You speak for every person who plays Brutes? 

That isn't at all what they said any more than the 8% you keep throwing around is accurate as THE number brutes excel tanks by.

[arcane]

17 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

You speak for every person who plays Brutes? 

Considering people that call brutes useless would be unwise to play brutes and that’s apparently the mindset I’m arguing against... yes maybe I do.

 

or what infinitum said lol

Edited February 7, 2021 by arcaneholocaust

[Erratic1]

5 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

Considering people that call brutes useless would be unwise to play brutes and that’s apparently the mindset I’m arguing against... yes maybe I do.

 

or what infinitum said lol

Considering (a) I play brutes and (b) 13 posts before yours said I don't consider Brutes useless, I am not sure what you're arguing against.

 

As for what Infinitum said, I wouldn't know since he is on my ignore list.

Edited February 7, 2021 by Erratic1

[Bill Z Bubba]

6 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

Considering people that call brutes useless would be unwise to play brutes and that’s apparently the mindset I’m arguing against... yes maybe I do.

You don't. I've got plenty of them.