An Identity for Brutes?

[ScarySai]

3 minutes ago, Saiyajinzoningen said:

what happened to fire armor?

I don't farm so I'm apparently out of the loop

 

Burn across the board for every AT was nuked from orbit, barely does any notable damage now, procs worse, and only spawns one patch. In essence, you have to proc it to do anything, funnily enough.

 

Brute burn was bugged in a way that heavily benefitted them. The patches spawned close to a mob's level and benefitted from fury, so instead of burn needing to be procced to do ANYTHING to a mob, things that stood in your burn took a lot of damage over time. This is the only reason fire armor was so popular on brutes for farming, and why rad tanks for active farming have largely taken over.

 

Now call me crazy, but maybe that's how the power should work.

Edited April 19 by ScarySai

[Lunar Ronin]

1 hour ago, skoryy said:

 

I mean, there's an awful lot of brutes I see out in the wild despite the constant refrain around here of 'Brutes Bad'.

 

Masterminds are the third most popular AT in the game according to the Massively OP article a month or so ago.  They also are considered the worst AT in the game for endgame by far, and need a lot of help.

 

Popularity means nothing.

[Haijinx]

10 minutes ago, Saiyajinzoningen said:

 

what happened to fire armor?

I don't farm so I'm apparently out of the loop

My brain is still stuck on us needing to take /AFK farming into account

[Haijinx]

10 minutes ago, Saiyajinzoningen said:

 

what happened to fire armor?

I don't farm so I'm apparently out of the loop

My brain is still stuck on us needing to take /AFK farming into account

[Shin Magmus]

     Well you can blame the current Powers Team for that.  The devs have passively acknowledged that Spines original animation times and DPAs are terrible, which is why Blasters/Doms get a much more powerful Lunge (Skewer), Dom Impale animation was sped up, and Blaster Thorn Burst animation was sped up.  By changing these numbers and buffing these powers, they are admitting that the powers were underperforming: which is a correct statement, they sucked.

 

     At the same time, the actual OG Spines powers that Thorns and Plant Manipulation are based on, were deliberately not buffed.  Spines is intentionally not buffed and kept bad, for the same reason that Radiation Melee is not buffed and kept bad: some people use it for farming.  The Powers Team is literally more concerned about keeping AE Farmers down, than with making all of the powersets be similarly good at the actual video game outside of AE.

[Saiyajinzoningen]

14 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

 

Burn across the board for every AT was nuked from orbit, barely does any notable damage now, procs worse, and only spawns one patch. In essence, you have to proc it to do anything, funnily enough.

 

Brute burn was bugged in a way that heavily benefitted them. The patches spawned close to a mob's level and benefitted from fury, so instead of burn needing to be procced to do ANYTHING to a mob, things that stood in your burn took a lot of damage over time. This is the only reason fire armor was so popular on brutes for farming, and why rad tanks for active farming have largely taken over.

 

Now call me crazy, but maybe that's how the power should work.

 

[ScarySai]

23 minutes ago, Shin Magmus said:

     Well you can blame the current Powers Team for that.  The devs have passively acknowledged that Spines original animation times and DPAs are terrible, which is why Blasters/Doms get a much more powerful Lunge (Skewer), Dom Impale animation was sped up, and Blaster Thorn Burst animation was sped up.  By changing these numbers and buffing these powers, they are admitting that the powers were underperforming: which is a correct statement, they sucked.

 

     At the same time, the actual OG Spines powers that Thorns and Plant Manipulation are based on, were deliberately not buffed.  Spines is intentionally not buffed and kept bad, for the same reason that Radiation Melee is not buffed and kept bad: some people use it for farming.  The Powers Team is literally more concerned about keeping AE Farmers down, than with making all of the powersets be similarly good at the actual video game outside of AE.

 

For some outlandish reason, they did this with stone assault too, but refuse to buff Stone and SS's version of hurl for some vague, nebulous balance-related consideration that doesn't make any sense at all.

Edited April 19 by ScarySai

[Azari]

I’m fine with brutes being the midway point between scrapper and tank.  They’re a good jack of all trades melee AT.

[Videra]

We really need to just, stop responding to certain people who add nothing to conversations and try to force everything to be a debate - even when logic and reason is against them.

[Videra]

Just now, ScarySai said:

If only GMs were as eager at silencing blatant trolls as they are with shutting down threads with actual discussion going on.

 

Yeah, for real. And the way they keep deleting Shin's posts even when they're entirely constructive debate? Cringe.

[wjrasmussen]

Just to add on the OP suggestion.  What you need to to is have EZ-to-kill mobs, in small groups, with large travel times to reach.  This should keep fury a bit in check.
So, good idea op.  Blame the op, not me.  He started this.

[Ston]

22 minutes ago, Azari said:

I’m fine with brutes being the midway point between scrapper and tank.  They’re a good jack of all trades melee AT.

Problem I see here is Tankers and Scrappers are better jack of all trades melee ATs. They can both do the job of brutes while having higher ceilings in durability or dps. Tanker because of recent buffs to their inherent ability. Scrappers because of ATOs. Brutes don’t really have anything makes them a good replacement for either of those ATs. Even if they can’t reach the same levels of performance, they should have a tool that’s more interactive that makes them at least a “fun” alternative to those ATs. 

[ScarySai]

1 minute ago, Ston said:

Problem I see here is Tankers and Scrappers are better jack of all trades melee ATs. They can both do the job of brutes while having higher ceilings in durability or dps. Tanker because of recent buffs to their inherent ability. Scrappers because of ATOs. Brutes don’t really have anything makes them a good replacement for either of those ATs. Even if they can’t reach the same levels of performance, they should have a tool that’s more interactive that makes them at least a “fun” alternative to those ATs. 

 

A lot of people don't realize that Brutes were only the popular tank AT eons ago because they were essentially the only option. This isn't 2008, Stalkers are good, Scrappers actually do something now, and tanks aren't a joke AT anymore.

Edited April 19 by ScarySai

[golstat2003]

1 hour ago, skoryy said:

 

There's a balance to strike between 'this is what the number crunching says' and 'this is what the players are actually doing.' 

 

In those cases where multiple players are saying different things (in this case there is definetly NOT any consensus at all on Brute performance from players) I would hope the devs then look at the related numbers.

[golstat2003]

1 hour ago, Shin Magmus said:

     The popularity of an AT (or powerset) has no bearing on how good it is.  If popularity determined quality, then Call of Duty would be the best video game of all time.  Empathy would be the best buff/debuff powerset of all time (when it's actually currently the worst choice you can pick since the FF rework and so many buffs to its other competition).  Just because a lot of people made AE farming brutes: doesn't mean anything.  Don't use popularity as a reason for anything in a discussion like this.

 

Right, then the devs should be looking at the numbers on actual performance.

[golstat2003]

1 hour ago, Lyone_Manes said:

As someone who plays "Bad" options, I would prefer we not base corrections on popularity. 😛

 

Being popular just means it should be even more heavily considered for proper balance, as more people are affected by it.

 

Pretty much this. Also after the Fire Armor changes . . . I am very way when I see someone suggest changes they think everyone wants that might very make a set or AT worse for multiple players of said set or AT.

[ScarySai]

1 minute ago, golstat2003 said:

 

Pretty much this. Also after the Fire Armor changes . . . I am very way when I see someone suggest changes they think everyone wants that might very make a set or AT worse for multiple players of said set or AT.

 

I'll never understand how the creators of axe cyclone could possibly take issue with the armor meant for sacrificing durability for damage ending up doing more damage.

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

I really don't like to hide posts or stifle debates.  But when folks prefer to poke each other instead of discussing the game, I have to.

 

I also don't like closing threads . . . 

 

There's definitely a desire among some folks to improve brutes as an AT and others that think everything is fine as is.  Those are both opinions and you are free to state them and substantiate them, if you can.  But insinuating that people having a different opinion are stupid just won't cut it.  

 

"But GooglyMoogly, it's obvious that brutes are bad and saying otherwise makes you wrong."  That too, is an opinion.  Prove it.  Why are brutes worse?  "Because they do less damage than stalkers and scrappers"  That's also an opinion as it will depend on the powersets, the build and the player.  But let's pretend that's a fact.  Does the presumed fact automatically make the entire AT bad?  Don't other ATs also do less damage than stalkers and scrappers and even brutes?  Does that make them bad too?

 

"Well, they also aren't as tanky as tanks."  OK, let's accept that as true.  But aren't brutes, on average, sturdier than stalkers and scrappers?  

 

One thing I will certainly grant is that scrappers and stalkers won the ATO lottery and brutes got one of the least noticeable special ATOs.

Edited April 19 by GM_GooglyMoogly

[Indystruck]

Well if we can't argue what's worse and better because things fluctuate on skill level, why have discussions? Generally these sort of tests assume equal skill level. Like, if you factor in player dependcies, you might as well not look at numbers, because now you're right back to "well i just like how it feels".

 

[Indystruck]

(also historically these forums go 'prove it' and then say 'no you didn't jump through the right hoops, do it again, but i can't be bothered to do it' which generally makes people not care about actually getting the hard data because of a violently casual playerbase)

[Videra]

5 minutes ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

"Well, they also aren't as tanky as tanks."  OK, let's accept that as true.  But aren't brutes, on average, sturdier than stalkers and scrappers? 

 

No. They have the same resistance and defense scalars that scrappers do - their caps are higher, yes, but actually benefiting from that requires them to sabotage their own damage potential through slotting sets instead of procs.

So, they're as sturdy as scrappers on average, do less ST damage than scrappers, and are outstripped in AOE and survivability both by tankers. What is a Brute's purpose?

[Ston]

7 minutes ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

That's also an opinion as it will depend on the powersets, the build and the player.

This is really discouraging when it comes to these kinds of discussions. I think the best design comes when you balance around the highest levels of performance. This way we can set the bar high and see what needs to be brought up. 

[Haijinx]

2 minutes ago, Ston said:

This is really discouraging when it comes to these kinds of discussions. I think the best design comes when you balance around the highest levels of performance. This way we can set the bar high and see what needs to be brought up. 

I would suggest a mid point set might be better, after all outliers are outliers

[Haijinx]

I don't think Googly said what's been attributed to him here, at least not to that level of extreme. 

 

 

[Doomrider]

1 minute ago, Videra said:

 

No. They have the same resistance and defense scalars that scrappers do - their caps are higher, yes, but actually benefiting from that requires them to sabotage their own damage potential through slotting sets instead of procs.

So, they're as sturdy as scrappers on average, do less ST damage than scrappers, and are outstripped in AOE and survivability both by tankers. What is a Brute's purpose?

Eh, I don't think it necessarily requires sacrificing their own damage potential to put their higher hp and res caps to use. That argument certainly has more merit if you look at in the vacuum of solo play though.
On teams, where resistance buffs aren't unheard of, that 90% res cap is going to allow brute to take a fair bit more damage the scrapper equivalent.
But for defensive sets, this where their caps don't help them nearly as much, and where sturdiness between the brute and scrapper equivalent start to look almost identical. 

They lost their identity a long time ago and any edge they had at being an offensive tank, went away with Tank buffs.
When you can make a Tank easily more sturdy AND more damaging than a Brute, you've completely supplanted the AT. 
There are a few sets that are outliers that shine on Brutes, but generally speaking there isn't much incentive to play Brute, if you arguing performance.