Were Brutes that Badly Nerfed?

[Infinitum]

16 hours ago, Erratic1 said:

 

I think the issue was your claim that in only edge cases were Tankers outperforming Brutes--something I pointed out was true only be stretching the definition of edge past majority of cases.

I think to be objective we need something other than Trapdoor results and builds loaded with procs because even thougb they are available and there doesn't make it the fault of the current ATs status to take full advantage of them. 

 

I had run 1:1 tanker/brute tests a few years ago in the Brutal Mission Simulator @Galaxy Brain built for that purpose, but I would say those results are outdated now. 

 

The tests would need to be run in 3 categories 1:1 tanker / brute built to similar mitigation values. 

1 - basic Crafted IOs to get a baseline.

2 - straight line IO set design - no proc bombs or 2 3 or 4 proc sets.  This will give you an idea peak performance based on inherant AT abilities and modifiers. 

3 - max proc builds 

 

This will illustrate where the problem is and whether or not the issue is how tankers were buffed or how the buffs interact with proc abuse.  Not that I blame anyone for playing the game with any available avenue. 

[Haijinx]

12 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

I think to be objective we need something other than Trapdoor results and builds loaded with procs because even thougb they are available and there doesn't make it the fault of the current ATs status to take full advantage of them. 

 

I had run 1:1 tanker/brute tests a few years ago in the Brutal Mission Simulator @Galaxy Brain built for that purpose, but I would say those results are outdated now. 

 

The tests would need to be run in 3 categories 1:1 tanker / brute built to similar mitigation values. 

1 - basic Crafted IOs to get a baseline.

2 - straight line IO set design - no proc bombs or 2 3 or 4 proc sets.  This will give you an idea peak performance based on inherant AT abilities and modifiers. 

3 - max proc builds 

 

This will illustrate where the problem is and whether or not the issue is how tankers were buffed or how the buffs interact with proc abuse.  Not that I blame anyone for playing the game with any available avenue. 

The fact that people see defenders as a damage AT should be telling us something.

[ScarySai]

The important distinction is that a similarly built brute and tank won't be other worlds apart(the tank still wins btw), aside from aoe if we're just talking 1:1 build clones, but that's not how people build.

 

But, between higher base values, generally better +dam scaling, two INSANELY useful atos, larger cones/target caps, and with the removal of most of the tank's exemping disadvantage? You can always build a tank that's stronger than the equivalent powersetted put brute.

 

Not only do tanks basically do almost everything a brute does better, but the handful of things brutes technically do better are so marginal that you'd be better off saving the copium for another occasion.

 

The fact this is still even a "debate" just amuses me. Find a single brute that can even keep pace with a rad/ss tank. Spoilers: you can't.

 

Nerf their target caps, they'll still be better. Nerf their defenses, while questionable, they'll still be better. Nerf procs, they'll still be better, because brutes lean on procs just as much, lol.

Edited April 2 by ScarySai

[Haijinx]

They never should have reverse hallfway cloned the ATs in the first place. Should have just added some power sets

 

Stalkers should have been /nin scrappers

 

Corruptors should have been pain/ defenders 

 

Brutes should have had a competing set to fire for plus damage that included a Fury mechanic

 

Doms could have gotten some control set that was weak on control but good on damage. 

 

The new AT should have been Mastermind.

 

That or never allow side switching ever. As it is the ATs are too close together.

[Haijinx]

Added brutes would have been tankers in my scenario 

 

Sorry on my phone.

[Lunar Ronin]

1 minute ago, Haijinx said:

That or never allow side switching ever. As it is the ATs are too close together.

 

Bingo.  Letting all ATs be able to be created blue side was one of Paragon Studios' biggest mistakes IMO, (and they made quite a few).  Red side ATs should have stayed red, blue side ATs should have stayed blue.  Maybe let Praetoria be the only way to bring a red side AT blue, just to give extra incentive to play gold side.

 

Regardless, way too late to close that Pandora's Box.

[Haijinx]

Tbh MMs could have been the VEAT

 

While I love soldiers and widows most of their functions can be approximated in other ways. 

 

 

[Haijinx]

5 minutes ago, Lunar Ronin said:

 

Bingo.  Letting all ATs be able to be created blue side was one of Paragon Studios' biggest mistakes IMO, (and they made quite a few).  Red side ATs should have stayed red, blue side ATs should have stayed blue.  Maybe let Praetoria be the only way to bring a red side AT blue, just to give extra incentive to play gold side.

 

Regardless, way too late to close that Pandora's Box.

 

Well that's the thing.  The Brute problem is they are between Scrappers and Tankers, but never should have been.

 

The Proc thing is a separate issue that comes up here because Brutes have such a pathetic base damage scale. 

[Infinitum]

31 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

The important distinction is that a similarly built brute and tank won't be other worlds apart(the tank still wins btw), aside from aoe if we're just talking 1:1 build clones, but that's not how people build.

That's what we need to find out.  Outside of giga proc'd builds what does a tanker do - what does the equivalently built brute do.

 

Once you get the trash out of the way and ST becomes the majority of your targets left the brute will pull away from most tankers even having slightly less sturdy defenses. 

 

I think one of the problems is people have drank the aoe juice on every AT to where the fact ST is a thing is lost - and to another point controls, sleeps, holds etc.  I get it too why waste time on a ST attack at 800 damage when you can use a proc bombed attack from one of the pools for 500.  Damage is king but maybe it shouldn't be. 

 

But again that isn't inherantly a tanker issue. 

[Gobbledigook]

Do other AT's have a problem with Tankers performance or is it just Brutes only?

 

Scrappers and Stalkers have far better dps than a Tanker, so i do not see many complaints from them.

 

Tankers are performing well and are much more fun to play now than in the past. Do you really want the old Tanker back? i certainly do not. I do agree that the extra aoE buff of Tanker was a little too much and could be lowered to 25% with target caps looked at.

 

Brutes are in an awkward position of being out damaged by Scrappers/Stalkers and out tanked by Tankers. They sit in the middle. Brutes need a better ATO proc and maybe a little something else, but Brutes are generally pretty good.

 

I would still like to see a comparison of Brutes vs Tankers without any procs at all.

[Lunar Ronin]

7 minutes ago, Gobbledigook said:

Do other AT's have a problem with Tankers performance or is it just Brutes only?

 

Scrappers and Stalkers have far better dps than a Tanker, so i do not see many complaints from them.

 

Tankers are performing well and are much more fun to play now than in the past. Do you really want the old Tanker back? i certainly do not. I do agree that the extra aoE buff of Tanker was a little too much and could be lowered to 25% with target caps looked at.

 

Brutes are in an awkward position of being out damaged by Scrappers/Stalkers and out tanked by Tankers. They sit in the middle. Brutes need a better ATO proc and maybe a little something else, but Brutes are generally pretty good.

 

I would still like to see a comparison of Brutes vs Tankers without any procs at all.

 

Tankers do a lot more AoE damage than Stalkers.  Amusingly, a few people have told me that Stalkers are not welcome on advanced mode speed running teams because "they don't do enough damage."  Yet, they'll take Scrappers and Tankers.  Things that make you go "Hmm."

[Erratic1]

33 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

That or never allow side switching ever. As it is the ATs are too close together.

 

Side switching would have been fine had powers not been proliferated all over the place.

 

Just waiting for Tankers to get Energy Aura and Scrapers/Stakes to get Super Strength. Then Brutes can be completely removed from the game.

[Infinitum]

Just now, Lunar Ronin said:

 

Tankers do a lot more AoE damage than Stalkers.  Amusingly, a few people have told me that Stalkers are not welcome on advanced mode speed running teams because "they don't do enough damage."  Yet, they'll take Scrappers and Tankers.  Things that make you go "Hmm."

That's crazy. And shows their ignorance.  There are a few classes of stalkers that outdo their scrapper counterpart by a fairly large margin - because their ATOs are much more suited to how stalkers function. 

 

Energy melee for instance is sick on a stalker. Combine that with Shield and you have an aoe stalker that's just rude. 

 

Electric Melee is another. 

[Erratic1]

14 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Once you get the trash out of the way and ST becomes the majority of your targets left the brute will pull away from most tankers even having slightly less sturdy defenses. 

 

Trash is the majority of missions, and not having Giganto-sized AoEs means more ST fighting groups down for the Brute. Moreover, the AoE powers are far less plentiful and on longer times than ST powers. Power Crash and Whirling Hands is not how a Brute takes down groups, Barrage, Energy Transfer, etc are.

[Infinitum]

7 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

Just waiting for Tankers to get Energy Aura and Scrapers/Stakes to get Super Strength. Then Brutes can be completely removed from the game.

I think you are unnecessarily carrying this to the extreme there - that just is not nor ever will be the case.  I am currently leveling 2 brutes that I have a tanker counterpart. That I am having more fun on the brute - because they do more in your face damage up front and there's also an excitement from playing on the edge of victory or defeat and biting off more than you can chew occasionally - and still winning.  I like the brute better in those cases. 

[Erratic1]

19 minutes ago, Gobbledigook said:

Tankers are performing well and are much more fun to play now than in the past. Do you really want the old Tanker back?

 

Has anybody asked for such? Or is this just to demand ignoring Brutes doing less damage than the tanking primary AT?

[Infinitum]

2 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

 

Trash is the majority of missions, and not having Giganto-sized AoEs means more ST fighting groups down for the Brute. Moreover, the AoE powers are far less plentiful and on longer times than ST powers. Power Crash and Whirling Hands is not how a Brute takes down groups, Barrage, Energy Transfer, etc are.

Brute Energy Punch, bone Smasher, total focus, and energy transfer is a bad day for most groups.  I never use Barrage on anything unless I have a free spot or have to. 

 

I the brute aoe is still good enough and stronger than a tanker aoe and will kill the trash just not as many as the tanker will at one time.

[Erratic1]

11 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Electric Melee is another. 

 

In fact, Stalker is the only AT I have ever heard found Electric Melee good.

[Infinitum]

Just now, Erratic1 said:

 

In fact, Stalker is the only AT I have ever heard found Electric Melee good.

It's good on all 4 actually, I think it's best on the stalker - just IMO though. 

[Wavicle]

1 minute ago, Erratic1 said:

 

In fact, Stalker is the only AT I have ever heard found Electric Melee good.

Then you should try it again. Thunderstrike was recently buffed such that the set is better than it used to be.

[Infinitum]

Just now, Wavicle said:

Then you should try it again. Thunderstrike was recently buffed such that the set is better than it used to be.

Truth. It made it a lot better.   

[Erratic1]

1 minute ago, Infinitum said:

Brute Energy Punch, bone Smasher, total focus, and energy transfer is a bad day for most groups.  I never use Barrage on anything unless I have a free spot or have to. 

 

I the brute aoe is still good enough and stronger than a tanker aoe and will kill the trash just not as many as the tanker will at one time.

 

So when the Tanker ignores the first group, who will follow him, and leads them to the second group, confident in shrugging off a group's worth of attacks, and AoEs them down, the Brute is working the groups separately and taking longer to do it?

 

Real data point here: Fury decays. If you have to rest as a Brute, you are doing inferior damage for need to rebuild Fury. You are now hitting fewer targets for less damage. If Tankers had to build up the size of their AoEs....

 

...hmm....

 

You know...area tied to Fury...

 

Nah, the wailing from the Tanker subforum would be too painful.

[Erratic1]

9 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

It's good on all 4 actually, I think it's best on the stalker - just IMO though. 

 

I've done it multiple times...just not loving it though I want to.

 

But I'm crazy. I'm currently play up a KM Tanker.

Edited April 2 by Erratic1

[Erratic1]

9 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

Then you should try it again. Thunderstrike was recently buffed such that the set is better than it used to be.

 

I'll dust off my Elec/Stone Brute and check it out.

[Haijinx]

Stalkers get that extra ST attack which really helps that set.