Buff Brutes... or Nerf Tanks.

[Haijinx]

13 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

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

 

 

[Bill Z Bubba]

9 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

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.

 

Fair. But again, if your easier ways of judging survivability never put your brute at risk, then you're not testing in a way that's worthwhile.

[Infinitum]

3 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

 

 

Bill kinda reminds me of a Satanic version of Al Bundy - and I mean that as a compliment.

[Bill Z Bubba]

Just now, Infinitum said:

Bill kinda reminds me of a Satanic version of Al Bundy - and I mean that as a compliment.

 

It's not taken as one and I love that guy. What I can do means nothing to me or anyone else. What I do in relation to providing factual data, otoh, means a lot to me. That's why I've never had a problem admitting when I'm wrong.

 

Too bad the whole of humanity doesn't feel the same way.

[Infinitum]

Just now, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

Fair. But again, if your easier ways of judging survivability never put your brute at risk, then you're not testing in a way that's worthwhile.

The games normal gameplay doesn't really put anything worth its salt at risk - and I believe from survival testing in ITF scenarios that all my brutes could do it - but I can't get past the time investment.

 

I don't think I have any tankers that could do it honestly but I build them stronger than is needed with the hopes of one day facing the battalion.

[Infinitum]

1 minute ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

It's not taken as one and I love that guy. What I can do means nothing to me or anyone else. What I do in relation to providing factual data, otoh, means a lot to me. That's why I've never had a problem admitting when I'm wrong.

 

Too bad the whole of humanity doesn't feel the same way.

What are we talking about again here?

[Bill Z Bubba]

8 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

What are we talking about again here?

 

That the extra mitigation provided to tanks is much higher than the extra damage provided to brutes. Same thing I said in the OP.

 

You know, the thing folks either say isn't true without backing it up with useful and factual data or simply state that it's meaningless.

 

If it isn't true across the board, prove it. If it's actually meaningless, then let's nerf tank mitigation to be equitable to the brute's higher damage output. Edit: OR put tank's damage back to where it should be.

 

It ain't rocket surgery.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[Infinitum]

1 minute ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

That the extra mitigation provided to tanks is much higher than the extra damage provided to brutes. Same thing I said in the OP.

 

You know, the thing folks either say isn't true without backing it up with useful and factual data or simply state that it's meaningless.

 

If it isn't true across the board, prove it. If it's actually meaningless, then let's nerf tank mitigation to be equitable to the brute's higher damage output.

 

It ain't rocket surgery.

Brutal mission simulator - just because neither dies doesn't mean the test is invalidated.

 

My brutes were more stressed but pulled through - but did out dmg the tankers by 25%

 

So if there were a challenge in the game that tankers could out survive the brute I would call it fair because we have that simulator of extreme gameplay that proves the brute outdoes the tankers dmg - there could be potentially a point where a tanker could outsurvive the brute - but it would never out dmg the brute - and that's a fact.

 

But that doesn't mean the tankers is out of balance - but working as intended.

[Bill Z Bubba]

4 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

just because neither dies doesn't mean the test is invalidated.

 

You are wrong. If the simulation does not provide a meaningful test, it's not valid. If there's no risk of defeat, there's no meaningful test.

 

It's nothing but a test of damage output and pylons and clear alls of anything else can provide that.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[Wavicle]

14 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

That the extra mitigation provided to tanks is much higher than the extra damage provided to brutes. Same thing I said in the OP.

 

You know, the thing folks either say isn't true without backing it up with useful and factual data or simply state that it's meaningless.

 

If it isn't true across the board, prove it. If it's actually meaningless, then let's nerf tank mitigation to be equitable to the brute's higher damage output. Edit: OR put tank's damage back to where it should be.

 

It ain't rocket surgery.

 

The problem, Bill, is that the tests people are submitting are showing that the difference in survivability is noticeable, but small and the difference in damage is also noticeable, but also small. You're right, it ain't rocket surgery. But people are backing it up and their results say that while numerically you may be right, the results in game are balanced.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Wavicle

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 minute ago, Wavicle said:

and their results say that while numerically you may be right, the results in game are balanced.

 

These two statements are mutually exclusive. Either I'm numerically correct and the two archetypes are not balanced or I'm wrong and they are.

 

What people "feel" means precisely nothing.

[Wavicle]

Just now, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

These two statements are mutually exclusive. Either I'm numerically correct and the two archetypes are not balanced or I'm wrong and they are.

 

What people "feel" means precisely nothing.

 

No, that's incorrect.

This is your postulate:

"That the extra mitigation provided to tanks is much higher than the extra damage provided to brutes."

 

And that is correct.

But your conclusion, which seems to be "And that isn't fair" is NOT backed up by the data.

[Wavicle]

Yes, tanks get more defense than brutes get damage.

 

No, that isn't unfair, because of the way the game works and the way IOs and Incarnates are set up.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Wavicle

[Infinitum]

[Bill Z Bubba]

Just now, Wavicle said:

But your conclusion, which seems to be "And that isn't fair" is NOT backed up by the data.

 

Fair doesn't play into it. I don't care what's fair. I care about what's correct. Thank you for admitting that the difference between mitigation values and damage output are numerical nonsense.

[Wavicle]

Just now, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

Fair doesn't play into it. I don't care what's fair. I care about what's correct. Thank you for admitting that the difference between mitigation values and damage output are numerical nonsense.

 

You are presupposing that in order to be "balanced" the numbers for defense and damage should be identical, but that is an assumption that isn't backed up by any data at all.

[Infinitum]

Even if there were content that could kill the brute - it would still have a role to play as off tank outputting vastly more dmg in a team situation while the tanker survives it and keeps the attention.

 

If anything if we ever got content like that it would further define the roles each can play.

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 minute ago, Wavicle said:

You are presupposing that in order to be "balanced" the numbers for defense and damage should be identical, but that is an assumption that isn't backed up by any data at all.

 

Not at all. If you use a wide enough brush you can easily state that all the ATs are perfectly balanced because they can all solo at +0/x1 with no bosses or AVs without issue.

 

It's still completely false numerically. Specifically because of the numbers backing the entire combat system.

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 minute ago, Infinitum said:

Even if there were content that could kill the brute - it would still have a role to play as off tank outputting vastly more dmg in a team situation while the tanker survives it and keeps the attention.

 

If anything if we ever got content like that it would further define the roles each can play.

 

Irrelevant. I've never stated brutes don't have a role. No AT has a useful role in my mind. We can complete every task in this game with the absence of any AT. Roles mean nothing to me. That's a dodge and not the topic here.

[Haijinx]

19 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

That the extra mitigation provided to tanks is much higher than the extra damage provided to brutes. Same thing I said in the OP.

 

You know, the thing folks either say isn't true without backing it up with useful and factual data or simply state that it's meaningless.

 

If it isn't true across the board, prove it. If it's actually meaningless, then let's nerf tank mitigation to be equitable to the brute's higher damage output. Edit: OR put tank's damage back to where it should be.

 

It ain't rocket surgery.

 

Its definitely true.

 

We are butting against the limitation with having too many Melee ATs without enough differences again.  

 

Realisticaly Brute Armor set modifiers should probably be bumped up.  So they actually have more mitigation than scrappers, not just HP and not just at the cap.  Since basically they are now seen as a "TANKING" AT that lives a bit down the DPS slide from Tankers.    

 

That's normal in a lot of MMOs.  

 

The Brute was designed not to live on Teams with Scrappers and Tankers.  In that other world, they were and would have remained fine.

 

If a Brute were more survivable it would reduce this disparity that you point out as well, without having to Nerf Tankers, or let Brutes step on Scrappers' toes DPS wise.  

 

 

[AerialAssault]

[Infinitum]

3 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

Irrelevant. I've never stated brutes don't have a role. No AT has a useful role in my mind. We can complete every task in this game with the absence of any AT. Roles mean nothing to me. That's a dodge and not the topic here.

But a werner rules ITF or similar scenario throws teaming out the windows - anything that could kill a brute isn't really meant for soloing - because the fact remains the brute would still outgun the tanker even if it died.  Just because the tanker under unreasonable scenarios can take hours to accomplish something the brute cant without dying doesnt negate the fact the brute will still out dmg the tanker and that's isnt imbalance.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Infinitum

[Existential Adam]

A big thumbs down to your suggestion for three primary reasons:

1) Leading off with nerf tanks or do what I say. Really hard to take the rest seriously.

2) As is, brutes allegedly have the best farming builds. Buff them further?

3) Before any more changes are made to melee sets, the tier 9 armors need to be made playable instead of death sentences.

[Mezmera]

1 minute ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

Irrelevant. I've never stated brutes don't have a role. No AT has a useful role in my mind. We can complete every task in this game with the absence of any AT. Roles mean nothing to me. That's a dodge and not the topic here.

 

Well I've run an "all melee" Underground Itrial and we could not dent that last Warwalkers regen even with walking him to the corner.  Then I've run an "all squishy" Underground Itrial with my dom lead tanking and we smashed that robot with ease.  

 

Different AT's do have different things they bring to the situation.  I'd take a team of all squishies with some debuffs all day before I take some Tanks/Brutes.

[Bill Z Bubba]

4 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

But a werner rules ITF or similar scenario throws teaming out the windows - anything that could kill a brute isn't really meant for soloing - because the fact remains the brute would still outgun the tanker even if it died.  Just because the tanker under unreasonable scenarios can take hours to accomplish something the brute cant without dying doesnt negate the fact the brute will still out dmg the tanker and that's isnt imbalance.

 

You're correct that it throws teaming out the window. As it should for any proper test. Teaming introduces more variables than what folks like us can deal with.

 

I don't give a shit that brutes outdamage tanks. They should and I'm glad that I was able to test that, see it, and admit I was wrong when I was wrong.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that tanks are far too close to brute damage in comparison to their heightened mitigation, a fact that you continually hand-wave away as meaningless.