An Identity for Brutes?

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

13 minutes ago, Videra said:

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?

I'm sorry, but I think there is a HUGE between 75% resistance and 90% resistance.

 

A brute pummels things, same as all other melee ATs.  I understand that you are speaking from your perspective, which I assume is high-end fully built characters.  But there are players that don't play that way for whatever reason.

[Ston]

1 minute ago, Haijinx said:

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

Players put a lot of work into finding those outliers. This is evident by Scrappers/Tankers being preferable 4* tank roles instead of Brutes. Also evident by DPS and durability tests done for all melee ATs. A lot of this comes down to minmax’ing their stats and making efficient use of their ATOs.

 

If you set the bar at a mid point, the effort of maximizing those ATs is for nothing if the goal is for everything to be mid together.

 

I don’t see requests for Brutes to outperform Scrappers and Tankers. I see observations that they don’t reach the same level of performance and should get changes to make them a more appealing choice than they currently are. 

[Videra]

Just now, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

I'm sorry, but I think there is a HUGE between 75% resistance and 90% resistance.

 

A brute pummels things, same as all other melee ATs.  I understand that you are speaking from your perspective, which I assume is high-end fully built characters.  But there are players that don't play that way for whatever reason.

 

Yes, but outside of team play, getting to that resistance cap is substantially more difficult without sacrificing a meaningful amount of damage. And the position most players *come from* on this matter is the vacuum that is solo play.

Doom, however, was spot in his assessment RE: Teamplay.

[FupDup]

There's a difference between relative balance and absolute balance.

(Relative means that you stayed the same but other things changed around you, absolute means that you actually changed directly). 

 

From a relative standpoint, Brutes now feel worse because Tankers are almost a direct upgrade (15% higher ST damage on Brutes isn't that big of an edge).

 

From an absolute standpoint, Brutes only received a very small nerf to their base kit (max damage buff reduced from 775% to 700%) in the same patch that buffed Tankers (the Fire Armor thing is separate from the AT as a whole). But then again, Brutes also got a slight buff to Fury in that same patch to make it generate a wee bit faster on teams and with attacks slower than Brawl. If the Brute changes were the only things that went through and Tankers never got touched, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

If we compare Brutes and Scrappers in a vacuum, there are actually quite a few advantages in their favor. A bit higher base HP, much higher max HP, much higher resist caps, universal taunt auras, and being able to function without ATOs (Scrappers without ATOs don't really have an inherent, like at all, the base chance is so freaking tiny). The one edge (admittedly a very important one) that Scrappers have over Brutes is that they put up much bigger orange numbers when fully built out. Fortunately for Scraps, the game's meta revolves entirely around orange numbers. 

 

But when we compare Brutes to Tanks, their only edge is around 15% higher ST damage while losing a whole bunch of other stuff in the process. 

 

Virtually no one thought that Brutes were some irredeemable pile of trash before that fateful patch. They were what everybody used in place of Tanks because Tanks didn't put up as many orange numbers. I'm not saying that Tanks shouldn't have been buffed (they should've been) or that Brutes shouldn't get any more changes (they should), I'm just trying to remind everybody of the past so we don't keep repeating it. 

 

What I think should happen:

 

Tankers:

*Base damage modifier reduced down to around 0.875-0.9 (currently 0.95, used to be 0.8) to find a middle ground between pre-buff and post-buff, in order to increase ST damage gap between them and Brutes

*Possibly nudge the AOE down a little bit if the above change is insufficient (but they still should remain the AOE kings of melee to distinguish them)

 

Brutes:

*Base HP increased a bit so it sits between Scrapper and Tanker a bit more evenly instead of being way closer to Scraps (max HP cap remains untouched)

*Base armor modifiers increased to around 0.8-0.85 (currently 0.75 for Brutes and Scrappers, 1.0 for Tanks)

*Replace +Fury ATO with something else, possibly Shin's recharge buff idea (but I would make it stackable similar to Unrelenting Fury)

*Some kind of change to Fury to make it a bit more unique (like Ston's speed idea or something, IDK)

Edited April 19 by FupDup

[Rudra]

Just now, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

I'm sorry, but I think there is a HUGE between 75% resistance and 90% resistance.

 

A brute pummels things, same as all other melee ATs.  I understand that you are speaking from your perspective, which I assume is high-end fully built characters.  But there are players that don't play that way for whatever reason.

Please be careful. You are moving into debate territory. I don't know how GMs are supposed to interact with debates, but it poses risks to do so as a GM.

[ScarySai]

31 minutes ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

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?  

1. Yes, because they do not shine in any areas, and scrappers/tanks can easily take their place even in the hardest content while having areas they excel in. Look at 4* comps with a taunter, you're not gonna see a brute unless it's regen, but more often than not, it will be a scrapper or tank.

 

2. Absolutely. Blasters are the chosen one, corruptors and defenders multiply the damage of themselves and their peers, supporting the team without being useless themselves, Kheldians, are slated for a rework, sentinels are the laughing stock of the game, masterminds are slated for a rework, control ATs such as dominators and controllers are largely considered weak at the high end and in need of a rework. 

 

3. Among other things, yes.

 

4. No, brutes have higher caps than stalkers and scrappers, but share the same scales, a well made brute is not significantly more durable than it's scrapper counterpart outside of external factors on average. Even defensively kitted brutes won't be getting too far past the 70s in all res without neutering their damage, at that point, you're just a gimped tank.

Edited April 19 by ScarySai

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

13 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 certainly don't mean to discourage you.  You are one of the few players that take the time to do comprehensive tests and shares that knowledge.  That's very helpful to me as a player, and I think it's also persuasive to the devs.  But your charts will always have one on top and one on the bottom.  The hope is that the difference between them is not too great.

[Troo]

7 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. 

 

This makes sense though I've always thought low, mid, and high should all be considered for the overall player base rather than catering to the best players/builders/number crunchers..

 

There are folks who break the mold, while other don't care what level they are, if they have optimized slotting, or if they are using the ideal attack chain. Kudos to everyone.

 

An Identity for Brutes? A villain melee archetype with damage and survivability positioned between Tanks and Scrappers. <-- if that's not broken it's working.

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

3 minutes ago, Videra said:

And the position most players *come from* on this matter is the vacuum that is solo play.

 

Please explain:  Where are you getting that from?  Why is *come from* between asterisks?  And why is solo play a vacuum?

[Haijinx]

4 minutes ago, Troo said:

 

This makes sense though I've always thought low, mid, and high should all be considered for the overall player base rather than catering to the best players/builders/number crunchers..

 

There are folks who break the mold, while other don't care what level they are, if they have optimized slotting, or if they are using the ideal attack chain. Kudos to everyone.

 

An Identity for Brutes? A villain melee archetype with damage and survivability positioned between Tanks and Scrappers. <-- if that's not broken it's working.

Think the "villian" ship has sailed.

[Troo]

Just now, Haijinx said:

Think the "villian" ship has sailed.

 

Never. 🙂

[ScarySai]

7 minutes ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

Please explain:  Where are you getting that from?  Why is *come from* between asterisks?  And why is solo play a vacuum?

 

Solo play is inherently a vacuum, there are no external factors besides what you bring with you.

 

Outside of barrier, temps, t9s or mog, you're not capping a brute's stats with the same ease as a tank, even with a good build.

Edited April 19 by ScarySai

[Videra]

1 minute ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

 

Please explain:  Where are you getting that from?  Why is *come from* between asterisks?  And why is solo play a vacuum?

 

Speaking as a support enjoyer who has a cold, a kin, a nature and even an empathy - I can tell you with my full heart that I don't believe for a second that the average player considers grouping when it comes to balance. Thus why I'm appealing to that - solo play is a vacuum because, outside of temporary powers, all you have is what's in your kit.  If I were to take my Savage/Bio and re-slot it as a Scrapper, it would be near identical in terms of survivability.

Yes, in a grouping scenario, the higher res caps might factor in - but there are a number of other ways that support characters keep you from dying than buffing your resistance - which yes, at a point where you've been buffed extensively, resistance will make you harder to kill. This doesn't take into account defense sets, -ToHit debuffs, defense buffs, et-al.

Either way, yes, at the top end - Tankers are absolutely smoking Brutes like a blunt. They've been supplanted completely - and should be balanced accordingly. A buff to give brutes a stronger niche at the top will still positively effect the less learned players at the bottom.

[ScarySai]

I actually directly proved that tank nerfs wouldn't make brutes more desirable a few months ago, so I do hope the solution isn't just to nuke tanks. They should keep some of the power they've been given - but brutes should have something that makes you want to roll a brute. I can't even fathom a brute I could tolerate right now if procs got whacked, they're more dependent on them than tanks are.

 

Maybe by default, since the entire scrapper class would crumble if the ato gets caught in the blast. Then we're back to square one and literally nobody is happy, lol.

Edited April 19 by ScarySai

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

I can understand and appreciate the perspective of super high-end 4* team play.  But that is only part of the game.  Soloists play.  Some people get to level 50 and then shelve it before getting incarnates and accolades and start at another.  Some people just want to look cool and create a superhero they thought about as a kid.  All are valid ways to play.

 

It seems to me that the devs, live and HC, have tried to reign in the top end and boost the bottom end.  And that makes sense to me, even if I, as a player, have complained about some of the nerfs handed down over the years.

[golstat2003]

1 minute ago, ScarySai said:

I actually directly proved that tank nerfs wouldn't make brutes more desirable a few months ago, so I do hope the solution isn't just to nuke tanks. They should keep some of the power they've been given - but brutes should have something that makes you want to roll a brute. I can't even fathom a brute I could tolerate right now if procs got whacked, they're more dependent on them than tanks are.

 

Maybe by default, since the entire scrapper class would crumble if the ato gets caught in the blast.

 

That is also my other fear when these types of suggestions come up. That the eventual soluton "becuase powercreep" will be to harshly nerf Tanks, while doing little for brutes.

[Shin Magmus]

16 minutes ago, Videra said:

 

Yes, but outside of team play, getting to that resistance cap is substantially more difficult without sacrificing a meaningful amount of damage. And the position most players *come from* on this matter is the vacuum that is solo play.

Doom, however, was spot in his assessment RE: Teamplay.

I tried to explain this earlier, there's so many threads now.  Brutes don't get to be at those numbers for free.  Either the situational team buffs have to carry the Brute there, or the Brute has to 6-slot their ATO sets (sacrificing offensive Purple set bonuses and any option for damage procs, killing DPS) to chase the 6% Res bonuses at the end of the set.  The Unrelenting Fury set in particular is basically mandatory to 6-slot for those bonuses, and that kills an entire attack in your build, relegating it to being low DPS... but at least you won't die.

 

Scrappers and Stalkers do not need to do this because they can hit their 75% Caps easily from their Base.  Tankers do not need to do this because they can hit their higher 90% Caps easier from their higher base (and with the assistance of an ATO proc that is just the Unrelenting Fury set bonus but better).  Only Brutes have this huge differential between their higher 90% Caps but lower base.  This is well-established knowledge and it's a shame that we have to explain this, especially to a GM.  Brutes need help.

[golstat2003]

2 minutes ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

I can understand and appreciate the perspective of super high-end 4* team play.  But that is only part of the game.  Soloists play.  Some people get to level 50 and then shelve it before getting incarnates and accolades and start at another.  Some people just want to look cool and create a superhero they thought about as a kid.  All are valid ways to play.

 

It seems to me that the devs, live and HC, have tried to reign in the top end and boost the bottom end.  And that makes sense to me, even if I, as a player, have complained about some of the nerfs handed down over the years.

 

oh boy . . . . lol

 

EDIT: I hope the eventual solution is changes to Brutes that ALL or at least 90% of Brute players can agree to. Not another nerf to Tanks.

 

EDIT: The Brute ATO should at the very least be updated.

Edited April 19 by golstat2003

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

7 minutes ago, Shin Magmus said:

This is well-established knowledge and it's a shame that we have to explain this, especially to a GM. 

 

I understand that players have to make build choices.  But, as stated by Videra, you also have team buffs, and might use inspirations and other purchasable buffs to get to those caps.  I also understand that some of those might not be available at 4* play.  But you will have Barrier spam and team buffs.

 

PS - It takes no special knowledge to be a GM.  Just a willingness to volunteer and follow rules.

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

17 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

The Brute ATO should at the very least be updated.

 

I think this may be the one thing that everyone here, or almost everyone, can agree on.

[CrusaderDroid]

59 minutes ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

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.

Thank you for not locking the thread! I've noticed significantly fewer locked threads lately and I think that's a dramatic upgrade in modding. I appreciate the hard work you and others are putting in.

 

I think you might be buying into the false dichotomy that Brutes have to be directly boosted in damage or tanking to be viable, though. I don't think either of those works. +recharge does lead to more damage, admittedly, but +recharge gets there through more powers, period - which also means any powers that have cool extra effects get to enjoy those extra effects more. It's also why I tossed out the rather-out-there idea that Fury could ramp up CC magnitude instead.

 

Reason being is that if we keep Brutes stuck in this weird intermediate state between Scrapper and Tanker, there's pretty much no hope for this triangle here. It's possible to make a change to make Brute desirable if we push it in one of those directions, but then we'll end up rehashing a similar discussion with Scrapper or Tanker or whatever. Stalker successfully distinguishes itself from Scrapper by trading AoE and a little of its defensive powers for stealth and huge single target damage. I believe we need a similar distinction to get Brute out of the intermediate state and into its own, unique design space.

 

That starts with trying to pick something that it should excel at so it's got a clear identity. It can't be raw damage. It probably shouldn't be raw tanking either. I think anything along those lines is kicking the can down the road. +recharge is at least "neutral" in that it affects every power you have, so it can be useful on its own as a stopgap or in conjunction with any number of future changes. I'm not dead set on +recharge either, it's just one tool among several that can be used here. Whatever the case is, I don't think Brute's going to be fine until it has a unique design space and identity all its own, without having to intrude on Scrapper or Tanker.

[ScarySai]

12 minutes ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

But, as stated by Videra, you also have team buffs, and might use inspirations and other purchasable buffs to get to those caps.  I also understand that some of those might not be available at 4* play.  But you will have Barrier spam and team buffs.

 

That's fine if you just want to discuss normal play, but when it comes to balance, this is a terrible argument.

 

Does kinetic melee not need a buff because I can eat a bunch of reds and do more damage than someone who isn't? Is regen better than bio or stone because I can keep a tray full of purples and oranges on me at all times? Is sentinel good because some -res is better than no -res?

 

A barrier'd fire scrapper is capable of replacing a brute in the hardest content of the game, and they don't even have a taunt aura, if we really want to bring things like that into it. It doesn't help the case of brutes, and only really spreads the general misinformation.

Edited April 19 by ScarySai

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

The problem is that there is no objective standard . . . other than DPS.  Some players like to eke out every possible drop.  I take it that you are one of them.

 

But you have to realize that not everyone plays the way that you do.  Nor do they want to.  You keep insinuating, or outright stating, that makes them . . . less.

 

This is a game that can be played many ways.  Your way is not the only way.

 

And even if your way was the only way there will always be one powerset or one AT at the top of the chart and another at the bottom; Unless we just give everyone the exact same attack stats.  And that, to me, would be boring and worse.

[Shin Magmus]

     I mean, making Brutes be able to use their powers more frequently, or tank easier, also has the practical effect of instantly making them less likely to die on teams.  I mentioned this before as well in my endless Brute Battle of Defiant Fury, but simply being a Brute instead of a Scrapper will cause most teams to look at you with the expectation that you tank.  Even though we just discussed (again), that your base numbers as a Brute are the same as a Scrapper.  Lotta Brutes just faceplant almost instantly... happens very often on PUG teams on Everlasting.

 

     Tankers are blessed to just work.  Brutes have to be built to work.  This is why some buffs to Brutes are in order: it's not just that they don't have an identity compared to the other melee ATs and are outclassed at the high end.  They actually struggle the most with poverty builds on teams... not because they can't deal damage: Fury mechanics are great for helping Brutes deal dmg regardless of slotting.  No, the struggle is that dead characters deal no damage.  I don't have poverty builds, but I team with people who do and I see their struggles second-hand.  I play this game a lot.

[CrusaderDroid]

1 minute ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:

The problem is that there is no objective standard . . . other than DPS.  Some players like to eke out every possible drop.  I take it that you are one of them.

 

But you have to realize that not everyone plays the way that you do.  Nor do they want to.  You keep insinuating, or outright stating, that makes them . . . less.

 

This is a game that can be played many ways.  Your way is not the only way.

 

And even if your way was the only way there will always be one powerset or one AT at the top of the chart and another at the bottom; Unless we just give everyone the exact same attack stats.  And that, to me, would be boring and worse.

I'm not one of those guys that needs to be at the top. This seems overly...reductive? Fatalistic? Defeatist? Can't really find a word for it, but it sounds like it's just giving up. It's entirely possible to take something working fine for...let's just say 50% of the playerbase, and then make changes that bump it so that 65% to 70% of the playerbase like it. If that can be done without alienating a significant number of the original 50%, why not?

 

Fighting games pretty quickly sort themselves into tiers, from best to worst. That's unavoidable. What is avoidable is the gap between the tiers - some of the more memorable games have low tiers that still have their own unique strengths, enough that a skilled player can take them and win competitively in spite of their weaknesses. I think that's pretty admirable, and something that can easily apply here. If we can close the gap such that the lowest performing powers or ATs still have something unique and awesome to bring to the table, then let's do it. Yeah, there'll always be something better, but it still leads to richer gameplay. Shouldn't that be a primary goal of every dev?

 

In this case: Brute doesn't need to be the best AT in the game. It isn't even the worst AT in the game. It is, however, hurting from an identity crisis caused by being caught between two solidly-defined ATs. If there's a tiering for ATs, a change in its identity might not - and doesn't need to! - move it in that tier list, but it can still get us measurable gains in gameplay feel.