Brute Fury 2.0

[Chance Jackson]

On 6/28/2023 at 5:32 PM, Ston said:

Tankers got buffed. Brutes don't really feel good to play in comparison. I think this would be a way to give Brutes something that makes them feel unique and a reason to pick them over a Scrapper or Tanker.

I could be convinced to remove the +recharge, but I'm pretty set on the +movement making Brutes more fun and fitting the theme of Fury.

What I want to avoid is Tankers being nerfed to make Brutes happier. And I think just adjusting Brute damage modifiers or target caps would be a bit of a boring change.

Scrappers, Stalkers, and Tankers each have something special that makes their gameplay unique. Brutes don't really have that right now in my opinion. Fury is almost always 85% in combat.

Instead of a run speed movement bonus which might make navigation more difficult for some people or on some maps how about taking a page from domination, by providing a self teleport power that becomes available at a sufficient level of fury to represent the "oh sh**" suddenly ultra fast movement of an enraged beast?

[lemming]

Maybe instead of +recharge, slow debuff resistance?  You don't get any faster, but you can't be slowed down.

[BrandX]

9 hours ago, lemming said:

Maybe instead of +recharge, slow debuff resistance?  You don't get any faster, but you can't be slowed down.

 

Oooooh.  I like that idea.  Do we put a cap on it?  Set amount as just part of Fury or the more fury the more slow resist?

[Hyperstrike]

So you're saying that for most of the game, Fury provides you with NOTHING.
But when speed debuffs appear later, you just don't hurt so bad?

Okay, honest opinion?

That's ...

[Ston]

13 hours ago, Hyperstrike said:

So you're saying that for most of the game, Fury provides you with NOTHING.
But when speed debuffs appear later, you just don't hurt so bad?

Okay, honest opinion?

That's ...

 

It doesn't provide nothing. But the buffs are very, almost annoyingly, consistent. Any time you're in combat, you probably are gonna be around 85% Fury. Any extra damage buffs aren't really going to help you. You're just gonna be doing constant damage. This isn't a bad thing on it's own, but it feels pretty lacking compared to other ATs.

Tankers can do ridiculous damage when they get double, sometimes triple, Build Up windows (BU + Gaussian's + Decimation). Relatively, Brutes will barely do this kind of extra damage with stacks of build up. This is on top of the nutty survivability Tanks get from their scales and ATOs.

Scrappers can put together insane kill windows with their ATO.

Stalkers can also put together crazy ST DPS with their ATO and scale with teammates. They can get high chances for recharging Build Up whenever they use an AoE.

Brutes just get... consistent damage? The +Fury ATO is rarely useful since you're gonna have around the same Fury most of the time in combat. The +Regen/+End ATO is kind of useful in damage auras..? But even that is pretty weak compared to other ATOs.

I mean the AT is fine as it is now. But myself and other players often have to try to justify picking it over the other melee ATs. I do think they should get some kind of additional effects/buffs to compensate for the Tanker buffs.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Ston

[Rudra]

4 minutes ago, Ston said:

I do think they should get some kind of additional effects/buffs to compensate for the Tanker buffs.

Or maybe the Tanker buffs could be scaled back a little since they definitely seem over-buffed? (At least to me.)

[Ston]

1 minute ago, Rudra said:

Or maybe the Tanker buffs could be scaled back a little since they definitely seem over-buffed? (At least to me.)

I agree Tankers are overbuffed. I've tried to argue this many times on the Forums and Discord. They could get nerfed, but I think it would be more fun to use this performance gap as an opportunity to think about how to balance them.

Tankers can probably just have their extra AoE radius turned into a taunt-only radius. But they can keep their target caps and damage scales. Meanwhile Brutes can get something to make them feel better to play in comparison.

[A.I.D.A.]

Walk back the tanker DPS buff to about the halfway point between pre-buff and current state. That's the answer. Tanker players may scream and cry, but it's better for the game overall. They needed some more damage, but not nearly this much more damage, and because they got it, brutes now feel superfluous.

Edited July 14, 2023 by A.I.D.A.

[Rigged]

With respect, I am actually convinced that the way to balance brutes is not by increasing their damage - this is a futile endeavor because there are four melee archetypes (not including EATs) and the bare second one outdamages any of the others all of them will complain. Instead, because Brutes are supposed to be a hybrid of Tanks and Scrappers, I really feel that the correct way forward would be to provide some of the overpowering advantages that tanks are getting to Brutes.

 

Consider: Increasing the cone/AOE radii and target caps to match tankers. Increase the base brute mitigation scaling from 75% to 85% (a bit less than halfway in between scrappers and tankers). But no increase to the fury buff numbers or base damage. If you feel that fury drops too fast (been awhile since I played a brute), perhaps we can reduce the rate of decay so it is more consistently on the high end.

 

This would make Brutes the king of large scale melee AOE in a way that scrappers would never be able to compete against while allowing scrappers and stalkers to retain their position as the top single target and small-group DPS. It would also improve Brute resist and defence base numbers to help reach breakpoints easier. If we meddle solely with raw damage, the only result is that brutes would end up being nerfed back down when scrappers and stalkers complain.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Rigged

[Rudra]

35 minutes ago, Rigged said:

With respect, I am actually convinced that the way to balance brutes is not by increasing their damage - this is a futile endeavor because there are four melee archetypes (not including EATs) and the bare second one outdamages any of the others all of them will complain. Instead, because Brutes are supposed to be a hybrid of Tanks and Scrappers, I really feel that the correct way forward would be to provide some of the overpowering advantages that tanks are getting to Brutes.

 

Consider: Increasing the cone/AOE radii and target caps to match tankers. Increase the base brute mitigation scaling from 75% to 85% (a bit less than halfway in between scrappers and tankers). But no increase to the fury buff numbers or base damage. If you feel that fury drops too fast (been awhile since I played a brute), perhaps we can reduce the rate of decay so it is more consistently on the high end.

 

This would make Brutes the king of large scale melee AOE in a way that scrappers would never be able to compete against while allowing scrappers and stalkers to retain their position as the top single target and small-group DPS. It would also improve Brute resist and defence base numbers to help reach breakpoints easier. If we meddle solely with raw damage, the only result is that brutes would end up being nerfed back down when scrappers and stalkers complain.

I have to disagree. Constant buffing to find parity just means the ATs keep getting stronger and stronger. Finding AT parity can and should include nerfs as well. After all, Brutes saw nothing but nerfs to bring them in line with the blue side ATs after proliferation. A small scale nerf to Tankers to also bring them in line with the other ATs is not a bad thing.

 

If the only response to balance is yet more buffing, then we have constant power creep in the name of balance. And making Brutes match Tankers in some of the areas you have listed would have Tanker players screaming for Tankers to get buffed again to differentiate them from Brutes. Instead of more power creep, a small nerf to Tankers feels like the correct response to me.

[Saiyajinzoningen]

On 7/10/2023 at 11:59 AM, lemming said:

Maybe instead of +recharge, slow debuff resistance?  You don't get any faster, but you can't be slowed down.

 

this makes the most sense thematically, cause damn those knives of Artemis! (insert fist shake emote here)

[Rigged]

6 hours ago, Rudra said:

I have to disagree. Constant buffing to find parity just means the ATs keep getting stronger and stronger. Finding AT parity can and should include nerfs as well. After all, Brutes saw nothing but nerfs to bring them in line with the blue side ATs after proliferation. A small scale nerf to Tankers to also bring them in line with the other ATs is not a bad thing.

 

If the only response to balance is yet more buffing, then we have constant power creep in the name of balance. And making Brutes match Tankers in some of the areas you have listed would have Tanker players screaming for Tankers to get buffed again to differentiate them from Brutes. Instead of more power creep, a small nerf to Tankers feels like the correct response to me.

 

That's fine, too - but I am giving a suggestion on how to go about buffing brutes in the event that a tanker nerf is not on the cards, which is in line with the OP. I have no objection to tanker nerfs, but it is hard to say whether that will be the avenue chosen by the devs, especially since the main tanker buffs have been allowed to continue for three and a half years now.

 

My point is that doing the buff/nerf treadmill on pure damage is not the way to go for balancing brutes. If brutes must be buffed, we should look towards AOE or mitigation as possible other avenues for balance, because raw melee damage is the schtick of stalkers and scrappers. The issue is that, since Brutes and Scrappers and Stalkers all use the same mitigation scale, the main way they are currently differentiated is through their damage output and HP. Brutes need some buffing in the direction of the tank role to better differentiate them from the others and HP alone is honestly not enough. Even if tankers are nerfed, consideration should be given towards increasing brute mitigation at least marginally or giving them a mild buff to AOE radii/target caps.

 

6 hours ago, Rudra said:

then we have constant power creep in the name of balance

 

Do consider that your kneejerk aversion to power creep and relentless harping about it in this forum belongs more in an i24 purist server rather than HC, which has long ago abandoned the Live balance status quo. HC has upended the entire balance equation in multiple ways, which are now going to be very difficult to revert, especially since they have allowed them to stand for long enough to seep into the status quo. We have power creep in multiple high-performing ATs which the rest have to work alongside and quite frankly the pace of range AT buffs do not look like they are going to slow even though it is clear that those ATs were overbuffed entire issues ago. If you want to complain about power creep, kindly direct that at the dev balance philosophy and not player suggestions to keep up, because it is very clear that avoiding power creep is not in the dev priorities. Like I said earlier, shutting down discussion by wishing for a tanker nerf is not going to be productive considering the HC devs have let those buffs stand for three and a half years now. This is longer than the lifespan of some MMOs. If you do not mind, you can go on wishing for them while the rest of us work with the reality we're in.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Rigged

[Rudra]

1 hour ago, Rigged said:

8 hours ago, Rudra said:

I have to disagree. Constant buffing to find parity just means the ATs keep getting stronger and stronger. Finding AT parity can and should include nerfs as well. After all, Brutes saw nothing but nerfs to bring them in line with the blue side ATs after proliferation. A small scale nerf to Tankers to also bring them in line with the other ATs is not a bad thing.

 

If the only response to balance is yet more buffing, then we have constant power creep in the name of balance. And making Brutes match Tankers in some of the areas you have listed would have Tanker players screaming for Tankers to get buffed again to differentiate them from Brutes. Instead of more power creep, a small nerf to Tankers feels like the correct response to me.

Expand  

 

That's fine, too - but I am giving a suggestion on how to go about buffing brutes in the event that a tanker nerf is not on the cards, which is in line with the OP. I have no objection to tanker nerfs, but it is hard to say whether that will be the avenue chosen by the devs, especially since the main tanker buffs have been allowed to continue for three and a half years now.

 

My point is that doing the buff/nerf treadmill on pure damage is not the way to go for balancing brutes. If brutes must be buffed, we should look towards AOE or mitigation as possible other avenues for balance, because raw melee damage is the schtick of stalkers and scrappers. The issue is that, since Brutes and Scrappers and Stalkers all use the same mitigation scale, the main way they are currently differentiated is through their damage output and HP. Brutes need some buffing in the direction of the tank role to better differentiate them from the others and HP alone is honestly not enough. Even if tankers are nerfed, consideration should be given towards increasing brute mitigation at least marginally or giving them a mild buff to AOE radii/target caps.

I actually agree with this part.

 

1 hour ago, Rigged said:

 

Do consider that your kneejerk aversion to power creep and relentless harping about it in this forum belongs more in an i24 purist server rather than HC, which has long ago abandoned the Live balance status quo. HC has upended the entire balance equation in multiple ways, which are now going to be very difficult to revert, especially since they have allowed them to stand for long enough to seep into the status quo. We have power creep in multiple high-performing ATs which the rest have to work alongside and quite frankly the pace of range AT buffs do not look like they are going to slow even though it is clear that those ATs were overbuffed entire issues ago. If you want to complain about power creep, kindly direct that at the dev balance philosophy and not player suggestions to keep up, because it is very clear that avoiding power creep is not in the dev priorities. Like I said earlier, shutting down discussion by wishing for a tanker nerf is not going to be productive considering the HC devs have let those buffs stand for three and a half years now. This is longer than the lifespan of some MMOs. If you do not mind, you can go on wishing for them while the rest of us work with the reality we're in.

Edited 1 hour ago by Rigged

Whereas I very much disagree with this part. Pointing out that power creep is a thing and is being proposed, or that it will occur if specific events are put in motion, is not a knee jerk reaction. It is pointing out something that some players do not seem to see or seem unwilling to see. The base game is not and has not and looks like will not be any more difficult than it was back on Live. Yes, we have Hard Mode content now, but that is not the base game, it is a high difficulty option for some TFs/SFs that looks to eventually be proliferated to other TFs/SFs. It does not affect the base game. Further, I have absolutely no control over any of the devs, so my only option for pointing out that a proposal would make the base game even easier than it is now is to point it out in the thread being discussed. I have no means of holding a round table discussion with the devs about their design philosophy. I have no means of altering what they are working on or will be working on. All I can do is flag something that is a concern to me and hope the devs read it and agree. Neither did my comment shut down discussion as evidenced by the first half of your post in response to me. A productive discussion can be had, even between someone like me advocating for a minor (unstated type) nerf and anyone advocating for a buff. As I said at the start of this thread, I was and am fine with the OP, because it is a sidegrade rather than a buff. I also resent the fact you are implying that I am not working with reality of the game as is, as I am very much trying to keep the current state of the game in mind when I make my posts.

 

Also, the constant stream of buffs originated back on Live where the Live devs seemed to vastly prefer buffing ATs to find parity than to nerf them. Particularly as the game got older. Most likely because the player base tends to get upset when faced with nerfs. So what HC is doing isn't new either.

[A.I.D.A.]

Sensible balance has nothing to do with "i24 purist servers" and everything to do with sensible balance. Brutes and tankers receive varying levels of extra survivability in comparison to scrappers and stalkers, and so they should trade off in the damage department proportionally.

 

Ideally, in terms of damage capability among the melee-set archetypes (those that select from melee power sets for their AT attacks, like Electric Melee, Katana, etc.), scrappers and stalkers should be equal at the top, with brutes in second and tankers in third. This is because that is the inverse of these archetypes' capability to build for durability. Tankers need to invest very little to cap their chosen armour set's strong point, and brutes need to invest a bit more to reach that parity. Scrappers and stalkers are more fragile than brutes, and should accordingly deal more damage. This isn't a very hard concept to grasp, but people definitely seem to either have a hard time grasping it, or pretend to have a hard time grasping it while they complain about the defensive character they made needing to outlast enemies rather than overwhelm them with hard and fast damage. Tank players want to have their cake and eat it too, and modern game design, not only on Homecoming, but across multiple games and genres, seems inclined to give it to them. It's the wrong design choice, but it's the common one these days.

 

The fact that post-buff tankers deal about the same damage in AoE (when the vast majority of game content is AoE smackdowns) as scrappers, is an aberration of balance. It's a bad decision. There is not enough single-target focus in this game to make "scrappers shine on AVs / single hard targets" a valuable enough distinction.

 

Edited July 15, 2023 by A.I.D.A.

[honoroit]

2 hours ago, A.I.D.A. said:

Sensible balance has nothing to do with "i24 purist servers" and everything to do with sensible balance. Brutes and tankers receive varying levels of extra survivability in comparison to scrappers and stalkers, and so they should trade off in the damage department proportionally.

 

Ideally, in terms of damage capability among the melee-set archetypes (those that select from melee power sets for their AT attacks, like Electric Melee, Katana, etc.), scrappers and stalkers should be equal at the top, with brutes in second and tankers in third. This is because that is the inverse of these archetypes' capability to build for durability. Tankers need to invest very little to cap their chosen armour set's strong point, and brutes need to invest a bit more to reach that parity. Scrappers and stalkers are more fragile than brutes, and should accordingly deal more damage. This isn't a very hard concept to grasp, but people definitely seem to either have a hard time grasping it, or pretend to have a hard time grasping it while they complain about the defensive character they made needing to outlast enemies rather than overwhelm them with hard and fast damage. Tank players want to have their cake and eat it too, and modern game design, not only on Homecoming, but across multiple games and genres, seems inclined to give it to them. It's the wrong design choice, but it's the common one these days.

 

The fact that post-buff tankers deal about the same damage in AoE (when the vast majority of game content is AoE smackdowns) as scrappers, is an aberration of balance. It's a bad decision. There is not enough single-target focus in this game to make "scrappers shine on AVs / single hard targets" a valuable enough distinction.

 

 

scrappers seem underpowered, to me. id much rather take a stalker and get things like moonbeam out of stealth, without having to take ninjutsu/ea.  

 

tanks are fine.  buff scrappers.  brutes are THE farm solo active class, mostly. theyre fine.

 

tho, a 'i run fast because im enraged' - among OPs original suggests - sounds fun!

 

i always forget sentinels, because theyre not great.  they pay very heavily for an armor secondary.

Edited July 15, 2023 by honoroit

[A.I.D.A.]

The only things in this game that need buffs are enemy groups 🙂

 

Some player archetypes need nerfs, but throwing buffs around to rebalance after previous ill-advised buffs is just more and more power creep. The fact that we already have had some power creep isn't a good reason to make it worse. That's like saying, "Well, I've already spilled some milk all over my kitchen floor, better dump the rest of the carton out too, and leave it sit for five days."

 

Doubling down on mistakes does not make them somehow become non-mistakes.

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by A.I.D.A.

[Zect]

On 6/29/2023 at 5:32 AM, Ston said:

Tankers got buffed. Brutes don't really feel good to play in comparison.

 

Up to this point, you are correct. Everything else in your post is wrong.

 

The correct change is to nerf tankers. Brutes are just fine and fun to play as long as you don't have to wonder why you aren't playing the AT with both superior defenses and superior DPS.

[Gloomfall]

Honestly, I do like the idea of both Recharge and Movement Speed bonuses, but I don't like the idea of tying it to a scaling mechanic such as Fury. Having a static bonus out the gate and scaling damage on fury makes the most sense to me.

 

If you want to add additional stuff to scale on Fury then I would probably suggest something like health regen, power regen, or defense bonuses.

[Herotu]

 

  

On 7/14/2023 at 4:19 PM, Rigged said:

Do consider that your kneejerk aversion to power creep and relentless harping about it in this forum belongs more in an i24 purist server rather than HC, which has long ago abandoned the Live balance status quo. HC has upended the entire balance equation in multiple ways, which are now going to be very difficult to revert, especially since they have allowed them to stand for long enough to seep into the status quo. We have power creep in multiple high-performing ATs which the rest have to work alongside and quite frankly the pace of range AT buffs do not look like they are going to slow even though it is clear that those ATs were overbuffed entire issues ago. If you want to complain about power creep, kindly direct that at the dev balance philosophy and not player suggestions to keep up, because it is very clear that avoiding power creep is not in the dev priorities. Like I said earlier, shutting down discussion by wishing for a tanker nerf is not going to be productive considering the HC devs have let those buffs stand for three and a half years now. This is longer than the lifespan of some MMOs. If you do not mind, you can go on wishing for them while the rest of us work with the reality we're in.

 

This has some good solid arguments but becomes rather dumb at the end. 

Whilst it's good to bear in mind the devs' actions and from them form impressions of their opinions, I think it's wrong to try to shut others down and pretend to represent "the rest of us". I've done that plenty myself, so I know when I see something silly. 

Anyway, the rest of us think the devs should consider buffing or introducing a broader array of non-damage powers for baddies, such as (I know I'll regret this) controls.- hey, it's not a fair playing field, the baddies can't do (much of) the most powerful stuff. To make it more fun, how about each time you CC someone that's already CC'd, they lose both CCs. Then you have to think when using powers instead of /follow and auto-cast. It could apply to baddies casting CCs too.. Imagine the chaos... the beautiful chaos, muahahaha. Just thinking aloud. Again. Sorry.

 

 

[srmalloy]

50 minutes ago, Herotu said:

To make it more fun, how about each time you CC someone that's already CC'd, they lose both CCs.

Thereby removing the long-standing tactic of stacking holds on bosses, EBs, and AVs to keep them held as much as possible, limiting the CC capability of an entire team/league to that which one character can generate. What do you propose to buff to compensate for this severe nerf?

 

Or, if we're going to hand out nerfs with a sixteen-ton nerf bat, let's extend the mechanic to other character abilities -- if you damage a target that's already damaged, the damage from both attacks is instantly healed.

[Solarverse]

Brutes and Tanks were fine until we let villains become heroes and vice/versa. Now we have a conundrum where both can be either and as the ol saying goes (except toward Tanks in this instance) "There can only be one."

 

If there is a need to re-imagine Brutes, it should be done from the standpoint of, "Brutes are not Tanks."

 

Other than that, I don't really care one way or the other what is done with Brutes, since I never have played them. I have always preferred Tanks, even before Tanks were cool, heh.

[honoroit]

perfect phone call.

no collusion.

total exhonoration.

'i would like to ask you to do us a favor'

 

brutes should run fast 🏃‍♂️when furious!

[arcane]

5 hours ago, honoroit said:

perfect phone call.

no collusion.

total exhonoration.

'i would like to ask you to do us a favor'

 

brutes should run fast 🏃‍♂️when furious!

Respectfully, your posts are fucking weird

[WumpusRat]

On 7/14/2023 at 12:43 AM, Rigged said:

Increase the base brute mitigation scaling from 75% to 85% (a bit less than halfway in between scrappers and tankers)

Am I missing something with this? Brutes already have a 90% mitigation cap, just like tankers.

 

Personally, my brutes feel more powerful at taking down enemies than my tankers do. Stuff that my tankers are killing in two hits my brutes often kill with a single attack, due to having the extra +170% damage bonus. Maybe it's because I build for set bonuses rather than loading powers with as many procs as can fit that it feels that way, though.

[Rigged]

1 hour ago, WumpusRat said:

Am I missing something with this? Brutes already have a 90% mitigation cap, just like tankers.

 

Personally, my brutes feel more powerful at taking down enemies than my tankers do. Stuff that my tankers are killing in two hits my brutes often kill with a single attack, due to having the extra +170% damage bonus. Maybe it's because I build for set bonuses rather than loading powers with as many procs as can fit that it feels that way, though.

 

Scaling, not cap. A Brute has 75% the mitigation scaling of a tanker, which is the same as a scrapper. A power that gives 10% resist to a tanker will give only 7.5% resist to a brute.