Buff Brutes... or Nerf Tanks.

[arcane]

8 minutes ago, America's Angel said:

 I made a Claws tank with the same attack power slotting/incarnates/+recharge as my Claws brute. (A clone!) 

A strange thing to do IYAM. Tankers have so much more mitigation that you can radically cut slotting of mitigation powers and set bonuses in favor of slotting much more aggressively for damage and procs and still be much tougher than a Brute. I’m not sure in what universe I’d ever consider slotting their offenses identically. You only did it for testing reasons, I’m sure, but it sure strips away a lot of relevant context.

[Apparition]

7 minutes ago, arcane said:

A strange thing to do IYAM. Tankers have so much more mitigation that you can radically cut slotting of mitigation powers and set bonuses in favor of slotting much more aggressively for damage and procs and still be much tougher than a Brute. I’m not sure in what universe I’d ever consider slotting their offenses identically. You only did it for testing reasons, I’m sure, but it sure strips away a lot of relevant context.

 

That is the crux of the issue.  As you said, testing identically or nearly identically slotting Brutes and Tankers accomplishes nothing.  A Brute slotted for survivability would be overkill on a Tanker, while a Tanker can load up on damage procs without impacting survivability.

 

IMO, damage procs need to be reined in, the Tanker damage modifier lowered to 0.85, and either the Brute damage cap increased back to 775% or have Fury increase by 3% like olden times.

[arcane]

If anything you would need to do your best to make their mitigation stats match and THEN testing damage now that you’ve controlled the other variables. But good luck getting a Brute on par with a Tanker in mitigation terms without ridiculous sacrifices.

[America's Angel]

24 minutes ago, arcane said:

A strange thing to do IYAM. Tankers have so much more mitigation that you can radically cut slotting of mitigation powers and set bonuses in favor of slotting much more aggressively for damage and procs and still be much tougher than a Brute. I’m not sure in what universe I’d ever consider slotting their offenses identically. You only did it for testing reasons, I’m sure, but it sure strips away a lot of relevant context.

  

11 minutes ago, Apparition said:

That is the crux of the issue.  As you said, testing identically or nearly identically slotting Brutes and Tankers accomplishes nothing.  A Brute slotted for survivability would be overkill on a Tanker, while a Tanker can load up on damage procs without impacting survivability.

 

IMO, damage procs need to be reined in, the Tanker damage modifier lowered to 0.85, and either the Brute damage cap increased back to 775% or have Fury increase by 3% like olden times.

 

We are comparing Brute and Tank damage. So we have to keep variables limited. I have no idea how Sovera and Bill's Claws tanks are slotted, so it would be inaccurate to compare their damage to my Claws Brute and try to draw any conclusions. This is why I rolled up a claws tank.

 

When it comes to building characters, the first thing I usually do is build out their attack chains to do as much damage as possible (and with enough recharge to sustain it). Once that's done, then I'll build for mitigation with whatever slots I have left over. So, if I had a tank and a brute with identical powers, I'd most likely have them with the exact same attack slotting on their attack chain powers.

 

The tanker and brute damage mods are fine where they are. I'm not entirely sure what damage procs have got to do with the conversation, but they are also fine as they are. (Outside of a few problem powers such as Burn.) Increasing the damage cap on brutes would probably be a good idea, though. (Worth testing out on Brainstorm, at least.)

[Mezmera]

14 minutes ago, America's Angel said:

I'm not entirely sure what damage procs have got to do with the conversation, but they are also fine as they are.

 

Tanker's have a higher base and can reach values much easier than Brutes and other ATs.  Say the same powersets between the two AT's were trying to reach a value of 70% resistance to whatever, it's much easier to do on the tank with less slotting of particular IO sets to reach the value desired.  So with the extra slots available to the tank to reach that same value a Brute would need to dedicate for set bonuses the tank can just slot a bunch of damage procs into their attacks.  This thus exacerbates the problem because the tanker does not have to maintain a fury mechanic and has room to slot procs much easier than other AT's that need to balance in more survivability.  

 

Mind you I think Brutes and Tanks are fine, maybe Tanks got a bit over tuned but whatever.  I do think 1-2 damage procs in certain powers are fine but when it gets to be 4-5 procs that's a bit too much.  It feels like the old devs put too many damage procs into the game but with the way things are at the moment it's going to be hard to put that genie back in the bottle.  I could see them changing some damage procs in some sets from damage to other benefits like heals and debuffs and the like.   

[Bill Z Bubba]

53 minutes ago, arcane said:

A strange thing to do IYAM. Tankers have so much more mitigation that you can radically cut slotting of mitigation powers and set bonuses in favor of slotting much more aggressively for damage and procs and still be much tougher than a Brute. I’m not sure in what universe I’d ever consider slotting their offenses identically. You only did it for testing reasons, I’m sure, but it sure strips away a lot of relevant context.

 

All three of mine do have the same slotting at least on the attack side.

 

Followup uses a full set of AT IO, scrapper with the +crit chance, brute with the +fury set and the tank with the +damres set.

Focus is 5 +5 Apocalypse (no dam/rec) and Glad Jav chance for toxic.

Slash is 5 +5 Hecatomb (no dam/rec) and the Achiles' chance for -resist.

 

I suspect that for AA's claws, followup is more heavily proced because it needs far less recharge in it for the fu-focus-slash-crosspunch chain and it gets another -res slotted in CP. But I don't have the power picks to spare to pick up kick and CP and even a cursory glance shows what I would have to lose should I try. Then again, I don't build for insp spamming either.

[Pzn]

4 hours ago, Brutal Justice said:

 

I am open to any suggestion that has a goal of adding value to other sets and curbing some of the power creep.  I just figured setting a cap would require the least amount of dev work.  

Sorry but the nerfs need to specifically target a niche population (tanker players or proc builds for example).  If they affected my favorite thing (soft capping defense) then I would not be happy.  We should only nerf other people that call attention to my poor performance by out doing me.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Pzn

[Infinitum]

2 hours ago, arcane said:

If anything you would need to do your best to make their mitigation stats match and THEN testing damage now that you’ve controlled the other variables. But good luck getting a Brute on par with a Tanker in mitigation terms without ridiculous sacrifices.

What if both survive fine similarly slotted in - oh man if only a mission simulator that was brutal existed - then we could see how they stack up... Oh wait...

[Bill Z Bubba]

4 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

What if both survive fine similarly slotted in - oh man if only a mission simulator that was brutal existed - then we could see how they stack up... Oh wait...

 

This implies that the brutal mission simulator is actually, ya know, brutal. The 801s are pretty brutal.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[Mezmera]

2 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

This implies that the brutal mission simulator is actually, ya know, brutal.

 

There's one I played a week ago with every minion in the group replaced with an Elite Boss with an occasional AV thrown in.  16 EB's are a pretty tough fight especially if some have cold debuffs and laser rifles.  

Edited May 21, 2021 by Mezmera

[Infinitum]

5 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

This implies that the brutal mission simulator is actually, ya know, brutal. The 801s are pretty brutal.

Its good enough to get a survivability vs dmg perspective - my similar brutes were always around 25% faster than the similar tanker.

[Bill Z Bubba]

2 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Its good enough to get a survivability vs dmg perspective - my similar brutes were always around 25% faster than the similar tanker.

 

But if the brute never died, then the tank's extra mitigation was never coming into play and thus isn't a valid test, is it?

[Wavicle]

You are going around in circles friends.

 

Brutes are able to tank, and Tankers do plenty of damage though not as much as Brutes. What is the problem?

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 minute ago, Wavicle said:

You are going around in circles friends.

 

Brutes are able to tank, and Tankers do plenty of damage though not as much as Brutes. What is the problem?

 

Yea, we are. The problem only exists for those that actually give a damn about archetype balance and we're obviously in the minority. So, whatever.

[ScarySai]

Certain sets excel on one over the other. Savage will always be best on a brute, super strength will always be better on a tank.

[Wavicle]

Just now, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

Yea, we are. The problem only exists for those that actually give a damn about archetype balance and we're obviously in the minority. So, whatever.

No, I care about AT balance and I think they’re balanced enough. Brutes do better damage, Tanks are tougher, but neither by enough that it is a huge deal. That IS balance.

[Infinitum]

15 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

But if the brute never died, then the tank's extra mitigation was never coming into play and thus isn't a valid test, is it?

If you build either tanker or brute that can die in any of homecomings content then you are missing the boat.

[Bill Z Bubba]

10 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

If you build either tanker or brute that can die in any of homecomings content then you are missing the boat.

 

What's your brute's time for a Werner rules ITF?

[Sovera]

3 hours ago, Apparition said:

 

That is the crux of the issue.  As you said, testing identically or nearly identically slotting Brutes and Tankers accomplishes nothing.  A Brute slotted for survivability would be overkill on a Tanker, while a Tanker can load up on damage procs without impacting survivability.

 

IMO, damage procs need to be reined in, the Tanker damage modifier lowered to 0.85, and either the Brute damage cap increased back to 775% or have Fury increase by 3% like olden times.

 

I've waxed long and poetic on the Brunker theme so rest assured unlike what others may have slotted 'for fairness' in comparing ATs my slotting is minimal for survival to just squeak past or reach the defensive caps, and then pour the rest into offense. As we have said several times already in Blaster VS Sentinels we can up a Brute's survival, but we can't up a Tanker's damage all that much. Even so 5 minutes later I barely dented the AV as my post showed where AA's tanker actually killed it in 7 minutes. Not sure what is the secret ingredient in their sauce is without them posting their build.

 

 

I, in fact, come from a string of tests done a few days earlier and posted on the Brunker thread over the Tanker side of the forums, where I tried to up a Fire/Ice Melee's damage and nothing I did really moved the scale. Super proc monstering my heaviest attacks, proc monstering my weaker attacks, add different attacks, change rotations, add more procs, etc.

 

While on paper a Freezing Touch all procced out at 700 damage seems absurdly better than a 'normal' slotted Freezing Touch at 540 damage the fact is that it did not budge the scale more than whiffing would account for. Actually, it made it worse. 4:20 and 4:30 was the reward for super proc monstering Freezing Touch.

 

As long as I did not add -res procs into the mix nothing I did moved the needle down from 4 minutes from my usual slotting. It's all documented.

 

[skoryy]

In my best Rocket J Squirrel voice:  "Again?"

[ScarySai]

Let's just all agree that I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

[AerialAssault]

 

This thread in a nutshell.

[Infinitum]

29 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

What's your brute's time for a Werner rules ITF?

You go to polk high?

 

Never felt the need to do it on anything actually.

[Bill Z Bubba]

20 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

You go to polk high?

 

Never felt the need to do it on anything actually.

 

I don't know what polk high is but thanks for being somewhat honest.

[Infinitum]

5 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

I don't know what polk high is but thanks for being somewhat honest.

That was completely honest, I get why its done and what it means - but I don't want to spend the time to do it myself.  There are easier ways to gauge that survivability level and I don't feel the need the prestige from doing it, but that's just me - to each their own.