Rework bugged Brute's Fury ATO to also provide +Rech

[Rudra]

17 minutes ago, Laucianna said:

At that point why would you play a Scrapper over a brute? If they do the same damage (once someone builds up an easy to build bar judging by the videos) but one is a lot tankier that would just swap the issue from brute onto scrapper 🙂 

 

You see the core problem then. Before Proliferation, Brutes were the Tankers for red side. (Yes, there are claims that MMs were, but MMs couldn't pull it off until they got Bodyguard Mode added after the fact.) So Scrappers out-damage Brutes(, and some Tankers out-damage them too). So if you want damage, go play a Scrapper (or Stalker). Tankers and Brutes have the same damage resist caps, but Tankers start with better base stats for their resists. So if you want to be durable, go play a Tanker. You can't improve Brute's damage without stepping on Scrapper toes and you can't improve Brute's resilience without stepping on Tanker toes. So how do you break out Brutes in a manner that works for all Brute character concepts?

 

(Edit again: Also, please bear in mind that I do play Brutes. I have more Brute characters than any other melee AT. So I'm not dumping on Brutes, I'm trying to illustrate their dilemma.)

 

Edit yet again: Melee AT breakdown (at least from my point of view):

Stalker: Assassin AT. Sneak around and gank. Lots of fun.

Scrapper: Damage AT. In your face maul-fest. Lots of fun.

Tanker: Soak AT. Can take a pounding and not care. Lots of fun (for others).

Brute: The not a Scrapper or Tanker AT. Still lots of fun, but lacks a standout identity.

 

Edited April 18 by Rudra
Edited to add missing closing parenthesis. And again to add parenthesis.

[Laucianna]

2 minutes ago, Rudra said:

You see the core problem then. Before Proliferation, Brutes were the Tankers for red side. (Yes, there are claims that MMs were, but MMs couldn't pull it off until they got Bodyguard Mode added after the fact. So Scrappers out-damage Brutes, and some Tankers out-damage them too. So if you want damage, go play a Scrapper (or Stalker). Tankers and Brutes have the same damage resist caps, but Tankers start with better base stats for their resists. So if you want to be durable, go play a Tanker. You can't improve Brute's damage without stepping on Scrapper toes and you can't improve Brute's resilience without stepping on Tanker toes. So how do you break out Brutes in a manner that works for all Brute character concepts?

I feel that's a problem with a lot of the game sadly, it's why I play a Kheldian as we have something unique to just us. From what I know of Brutes their "unique" thing is building up your strength the longer they fight hence the increased damage cap

[FupDup]

In regards to "which direction to break Brutes in," I think slightly breaking them towards Tankers makes more sense since Scrappers and Stalkers are already kind of neck and neck against each other. We don't need a third AT competing for the same spot. Furthermore, a common character archetype in gaming and fiction is the "bruiser" (or off-tank) who has a combination of good damage and durability, so I think that having something sit between Scrappers and Tanks to fit that bill makes sense instead of making people choose all-or-nothing between pure tank or pure DPS. 

 

Tanks should retain their AOE advantage over Brutes to help them stay different but I think the ST gap should be widened a bit (15% is too small). In addition to that, something unique like the ATO suggestion in this thread and/or something else (like maybe Ston's idea for Fury to grant a speed boost). 

 

I really don't like the suggestion for Brutes to be basically better Scrappers but with a higher skill requirement because you're resigning the Scrapper to be nothing more than training wheels that experienced players will inevitably discard. 

Edited April 18 by FupDup

[Random Axis]

I like the suggested change, but what about having an endurance reduction proc? I big end discount would let the brute unload their big damage attacks without draining their blue bar. I realize that things like Cardiac fix that, but being able to deal tons of damage every 15-20 seconds for (almost) free means you wouldn't need Cardiac and could take something else. 

[FupDup]

Just now, Random Axis said:

I like the suggested change, but what about having an endurance reduction proc? I big end discount would let the brute unload their big damage attacks without draining their blue bar. I realize that things like Cardiac fix that, but being able to deal tons of damage every 15-20 seconds for (almost) free means you wouldn't need Cardiac and could take something else. 

The Unrelenting Fury proc already adds a stacking endurance discount, along with regen too. 

 

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Superior_Unrelenting_Fury:_Recharge/Chance_for_%2BRegen/%2BEnd_Discount

[Random Axis]

13 minutes ago, FupDup said:

The Unrelenting Fury proc already adds a stacking endurance discount, along with regen too. 

What an idiot I am for forgetting that! I'll leave the original comment there so I can model good behavior by not doubling down and arguing the point after being proven wrong.

[macskull]

3 hours ago, Vanden said:

What if it was just made into a damage proc? Both of the ranged damage-primary classes have a damage proc ATO, but none of the melee damage ATs do. Just keep it simple, you know?

Hey it's me, the Sentinel, a ranged damage-primary class that doesn't get a damage proc ATO (though it's fitting that someone would completely forget that Sentinels exist).

 

As an aside, giving Brutes an AT-unique damage proc would be of pretty limited utility since there are already three non-unique melee damage procs (one of which is the least-resisted damage type on average), compared to only one non-unique ranged damage proc (which is the most-resisted damage type on average)

Edited April 19 by macskull

[Videra]

Here's a short-hand list of the most direct options to fix brutes:

1) Defense/Res Scalars between Tankers and Scrappers
2) Roll back the fury change that was made near the start of HC's lifespan so that it is at once an actual gameplay mechanic again and also provides the damage it used to.
3) Fix the garbage ATOs
4) That's it. That's literally all they have to do.

This game has been optimized to hell and back, these simple changes would put Brutes where they should be - ahead of Tankers in ST, behind Scrappers and Stalkers in ST, roughly parallel to tankers in AOE.

Edited April 19 by Videra

[Indystruck]

2 hours ago, Rudra said:

I don't know. Maybe a global chance for fear, so Brutes are scarier to enemies than other ATs. 

 

Chance for fear is already a part of a redside ATO kit.

[macskull]

I would support giving Brutes the pre-I18 Fury buff (3% damage per point of Fury, 850% damage cap). Who cares if a Brute at damage cap can theoretically outdamage a Blaster at damage cap? The Brute's got to work a hell of a lot harder to get there and can't really maintain those numbers for a long duration.

[Rudra]

23 minutes ago, Indystruck said:

2 hours ago, Rudra said:

I don't know. Maybe a global chance for fear, so Brutes are scarier to enemies than other ATs. 

 

Chance for fear is already a part of a redside ATO kit.

I know. However, like I said, I think it would work better for Brutes. The main difference would be that the SoA ATO only triggers off the slotted power, but the Brute one could have a (lower) chance to trigger globally off the Brute's primary attacks. (Edit: Besides, @ThatGuyCDude and @PeregrineFalcon already came up with much better alternate proposals.)

Edited April 19 by Rudra

[Vanden]

15 hours ago, ShinMagmus said:

That's *fine*, but also boring.  It's possible to give Brutes some sort of identity, which they sorely lack in the current version of the game.  A Dmg proc is always going to be good though, and it's certainly an upgrade from a bugged and weak +dmg buff proc on self.  I think Recharge will be something that entices more players to play Brutes though.

 

Boring is fine with me. As far as trying to give Brutes more identity, I don't think a weaker version of the Force Feedback proc (as you've outlined it) is gonna do it.

Edited April 19 by Vanden

[Shin Magmus]

10 hours ago, Rudra said:

If the comment is wrong, then prove it, because your response does not. A chain is very much developed the way I said. A chain can be changed as power availability changes, like I said. And I already conceded that you were correct about me being able to simply not change my chain and so go unaffected. So your continued argument against that makes no sense. I can not want more +recharge fit into everything just as much as you can want more +recharge fit into everything. That makes it a question of preferences. You would prefer more +recharge, I would prefer more variety in improvements.

 

Edit: Example: a character has attacks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The character runs a chain going 1, 5, 3, 2, 4, 1, 3, 2, 4, 1, 5, 3, 2, 4, 1, 3, 2, 4  and so on. Now those powers become available more frequently. So the player decides to change the chain to just be 1, 5, 3, 2, 4, 1, 5, 3, 2, 4. Power 5 is used more frequently in the chain, so the chain has changed. (Edit again: To remove power 8 since I forgot to put it in the example sequences.)

Cowards deleting my comments won't make flawed arguments become correct.   If your character is too weak to use a different chain when given more +Recharge, shrimply don't do that.  Use the old chain you were using, and benefit from the +Recharge in your sustain and utility powers with them being available more often.  As I said before, you have the power to just NOT change your attack chain and then you have no issues. 

 

Use your words, not comment deletion.

[Rudra]

1 hour ago, ShinMagmus said:

Cowards deleting my comments won't make flawed arguments become correct.   If your character is too weak to use a different chain when given more +Recharge, shrimply don't do that.  Use the old chain you were using, and benefit from the +Recharge in your sustain and utility powers with them being available more often.  As I said before, you have the power to just NOT change your attack chain and then you have no issues. 

 

Use your words, not comment deletion.

How many times are you going to go back to that after I already said you were right about it? Also, why are you telling me to "use my words, not comment deletion"? I'm not a GM. (Edit: Neither have I reported any comments or asked for any comments to be removed.) Edit: This is like the 4th time in this thread I said you were correct about that.

 

Edit again: My other 2 comments were deleted when the GM shortened the thread, but here is one you thumbs downed with the 3rd concession highlighted:

11 hours ago, Rudra said:

If the comment is wrong, then prove it, because your response does not. A chain is very much developed the way I said. A chain can be changed as power availability changes, like I said. And I already conceded that you were correct about me being able to simply not change my chain and so go unaffected. So your continued argument against that makes no sense. I can not want more +recharge fit into everything just as much as you can want more +recharge fit into everything. That makes it a question of preferences. You would prefer more +recharge, I would prefer more variety in improvements.

 

Edit: Example: a character has attacks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The character runs a chain going 1, 5, 3, 2, 4, 1, 3, 2, 4, 1, 5, 3, 2, 4, 1, 3, 2, 4  and so on. Now those powers become available more frequently. So the player decides to change the chain to just be 1, 5, 3, 2, 4, 1, 5, 3, 2, 4. Power 5 is used more frequently in the chain, so the chain has changed. (Edit again: To remove power 8 since I forgot to put it in the example sequences.)

Edited April 19 by Rudra

[Shin Magmus]

6 hours ago, Videra said:

Here's a short-hand list of the most direct options to fix brutes:

1) Defense/Res Scalars between Tankers and Scrappers
2) Roll back the fury change that was made near the start of HC's lifespan so that it is at once an actual gameplay mechanic again and also provides the damage it used to.
3) Fix the garbage ATOs
4) That's it. That's literally all they have to do.

This game has been optimized to hell and back, these simple changes would put Brutes where they should be - ahead of Tankers in ST, behind Scrappers and Stalkers in ST, roughly parallel to tankers in AOE.

     The reason that this list of changes works, is that Brutes are often expected to tank for the entire team in any context, but Scrappers and Stalkers do not have the same expectations levied upon them: except all 3 of these ATs have the same base Def/Res from all their powers across all their armorsets.  The only way that a Brute is natively any tougher than a Scrapper is in a moderate Base HP Difference.  This leads to a mismatch between player/team expectations, and reality.

 

     Brutes have to invest significant set bonuses to attain higher Res than Scrappers.  The Brute cap is higher but the Brute base stats are not.  Poor players, and those with bad builds, will not have 6-slotted Unrelenting Fury for the 6% Res to 6x types bonus: and that is the chief way in which Brutes are currently any tougher than Scrappers.  Buffing Brute defensive scalars to a midway point between Scrappers and Tankers is the most logical fix to this.  There will also be a second order effect where this increases Brute damage output because they are able to freely slot more procs etc. in the slots they used to need for set bonuses (to not die).

 

 

[Shin Magmus]

8 hours ago, Indystruck said:

Chance for fear is already a part of a redside ATO kit.

Chance for -dmg and -fear: a bit superfluous but a pretty cool proc nonetheless for VEATs.  It's purely defensive though, so slotting it is never "meta" (and that means I'm sure some players would prefer something else).

[Haijinx]

See this is why Jranger wasn't a brute

[GM Tock]

22 hours ago, Shin Magmus said:

Cowards deleting my comments won't make flawed arguments become correct.  

 

Use your words, not comment deletion.

We don't have an opinion as GMs on any player Suggestions or Feedback. 

 

There's a reason for this.  Because steering a conversation about hypothetical changes isn't really our job, whether they become realized later or not.  And 2nd, GMs are not developers to begin with.  Anything I say about what is or isn't a good idea out of our community has no value to these discussions at all.  This isn't a matter of low self-esteem, it's a reality of a public-facing role in a community.  Professionalism requires this out of me.

 

At the risk of making this thread about moderation issues (this is all I'll say on the matter): Removed comments have a Code of Conduct issue, that's all.  If I remove a post, it does NOT mean necessarily that I disagree with the points made in it that aren't Code of Conduct violations.  If you feel a GM is editorializing and not being impartial to the topic, you can raise the matter to a Lead GM who will address the issue with us.  (Orange names on this page.)

 

With that out of the way, please continue the topic.

[Shin Magmus]

   Well then, since we've reached the end of the topic:  BugFix the ATO to grant a consistent 7 Fury.  Add a +20% Recharge bonus for 10.25s when the proc goes off (10% for non-Superior version).  That's it, shrimply patch it in and Brutes will be one step closer to relevancy.

[CrusaderDroid]

 

1 hour ago, Shin Magmus said:

   Well then, since we've reached the end of the topic:  BugFix the ATO to grant a consistent 7 Fury.  Add a +20% Recharge bonus for 10.25s when the proc goes off (10% for non-Superior version).  That's it, shrimply patch it in and Brutes will be one step closer to relevancy.

Looks fine to me. It won't be the end of the world if it goes through, it's a good first step. I'd rather see something attempted and then reverted than no action at all - at least attempting it gives us data for the future.

[Shin Magmus]