Why a Brute?

[Erratic1]

Just now, tidge said:

 

I'd be convinced if it could be demonstrated that Brutes are measurable worse, in absolute terms, now compared to where they were in 2019. I am unconvinced that they are now worse because other ATs have surpassed them by whatever metric.

 

Ston has done that across three different threads with plenty of statistics. You hand-waved the results away. 

 

So I want the parameters of results you won't dismiss for not being content you don't play regularly.

[tidge]

Just now, Erratic1 said:

Ston has done that across three different threads with plenty of statistics. You hand-waved the results away.

 

The analyses I have seen have been relative AT-v-AT, not absolute (except for comparisons across primary/secondary within an AT) showing that Brute clear times have dropped since 2019(*1).

 

(*1) Obviously the post-2019 changes to resistances/defense/attack typing was a thing, but that change wasn't targeted at player ATs.

 

[Gobbledigook]

I would rather have a Brute helping me take an AV down than a Tanker. Tankers clears trash well but so does my defender. Corruptors aren't too shabby at trash clearing either lol and they buff a whole team.

Edited October 15 by Gobbledigook

[Maelwys]

I don't think a given Brute now performs any worse in 2024 compared to that same Brute in 2019; in terms of what it can do and clearspeed (the i26p4 changes buffed overall Fury generation and Ranged power damage slightly, so they're actually a smidge better now AFAIK).
However I do think the same Brute now performs much worse versus any given Tanker in 2024; compared to that same Brute versus that same Tanker in 2019 (because of the i26p4 Tanker Damage Scalar and Gauntlet changes).

So yeah, I'm with @tidge on this one - Tanks were given a (IMO much needed) buff to make them viable compared to the other Melee ATs, let alone attractive compared to just bringing another Corruptor/Blaster. Whilst this by itself doesn't detract from Brute Performance; it does rather bump Brutes to the back of the queue for most folk when picking a teammate. Brutes are now demonstrably lagging behind Tankers, Stalkers and Scrappers performancewise when IO'ed and ATO'ed up.
(And I for one am in the "Buff Brutes Plz" camp rather than advocating for Nerfing all the rest! )

[Gobbledigook]

The Brute needs its ATO reviewed. A good choice on this could make a big difference. See how that goes and tweak more if needed. We all need to push the development team and offer ideas to help.

 

Careful not to upset Scrappers/Stalkers or Tankers when doing it.

[Gobbledigook]

An example for Brute ATO proc could just be 3% defense 3%resistance proc that stacks 2 times, similar to MotT proc. 

A proc that gives all the Brutes single target attacks a resistance debuff lasting 10 seconds 1ppm.

 

These would increase Brute survival, but still not Tanker level and increased damage at times on a single target but behind Scrappers/Stalkers still. Tankers stay the AoE tank and scrappers/Stalkers the dps.

 

Trying not to offer anything that does not exist in the game already.

Edited October 15 by Gobbledigook

[Without_Pause]

1 hour ago, tidge said:

 

I'd be convinced if it could be demonstrated that Brutes are measurable worse, in absolute terms, now compared to where they were in 2019. I am unconvinced that they are now worse because other ATs have surpassed them by whatever metric.

Part of the problem is there isn't an exact science to it. Case in point, good luck getting those 16 target sized mobs in a typical cave mission. Pylon and Trapdoor scenarios are ideal settings to test out specific aspects. In terms of practical differences, my lean is Brutes are far closer to Tankers than what Trapdoor missions are showing. If a Brute and Tanker can do a mission at +4/x8 without deaths and a Tanker can clear it in 10 seconds faster, I can't be made to care.

[Sovera]

At the risk of being chased after with torches and pitchforks the Brute has no real place in the game and for everyone's peace of mind ought to be deleted (of course it would never happen). If anything it existing is just an headache for all involved and foremost the devs.

 

 

We have clear roles:

 

Tanker tanks, less damage, sturdiest of the bunch, can have an AoE niche but it is hindered by doing less damage.

 

Scrapper is the melee role. Brawls alongside the Tanker but is squishier (though this is debatable in the world where IOs exist). AoEs are smaller but also hit harder and overall will obliterate with crits.

 

Things get iffier once we bring up Stalkers since they lost their backstab identity and turned into brawlers like Scrappers who also have crit mechanics making it harder to separate both.

 

And then there's the Brute who is a bruiser. It must be less tanky than a Tanker or why bring a Tanker, and less damaging than a Scrapper/Stalker or why bring a Scrapper/Stalker, Now good luck achieving this delicate balance in a game that: A) has 286 possible permutations for the AT (if my math does not fail me with 22 primaries and 13 secondaries), and B) has IOs and damage procs.

 

Even with the Tanker example people are not praising the output of Ice Armor paired with Ice Melee but talking of Rad Armor paired with Super Strength.

[Erratic1]

25 minutes ago, Sovera said:

At the risk of being chased after with torches and pitchforks the Brute has no real place in the game and for everyone's peace of mind ought to be deleted (of course it would never happen). If anything it existing is just an headache for all involved and foremost the devs.

 

I could get behind this pretty easily except for one thing...

 

It would reward those who campaigned for so long to put Brutes in the position they are in now. 

 

Toss in something to satisfy my spite...say removing Tankers inherently improved defense/resistance values (so they have to build to cap like Brutes do now) and lowering Scrapper/Stalker damage (let them build Fury to get back to what they have now) and I'm down for it. It has the beauty of preserving some of what makes Brutes what they are.

 

Tanker fans shouldn't have a problem. Don't they they routinely offer their survivability is overkill? And Scrappers/Stalkers would keep crits.

[Sovera]

28 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

 

I could get behind this pretty easily except for one thing...

 

It would reward those who campaigned for so long to put Brutes in the position they are in now. 

 

Toss in something to satisfy my spite...say removing Tankers inherently improved defense/resistance values (so they have to build to cap like Brutes do now) and lowering Scrapper/Stalker damage (let them build Fury to get back to what they have now) and I'm down for it. It has the beauty of preserving some of what makes Brutes what they are.

 

Tanker fans shouldn't have a problem. Don't they they routinely offer their survivability is overkill? And Scrappers/Stalkers would keep crits.

 

I don't actually advocate for the removal of the Brute because I don't think that the game is so serious it warrants it and neither does it have any DPS meters. We're not talking mythic raiding with every (very limited) class specs under scrutiny as literally hundreds of thousands of people put up their logs and constantly internecine fights about which class/spec is trash and should not be brought to a raid/M+. But even WoW devs have a hard time balancing a measly three specs per class.

 

And then we have CoH with its 286 permutations on top of stuff like IOs. Heck, when was the last time IOs were balanced? Never? But overperforming trinkets or set bonuses in WoW get tweaked if they disturb the envisioned balance of the classes, it's not the class itself that gets balanced because of a certain interaction.

 

 

I'd like to see the IO problem addressed before starting to mess with ATs, but Brutes, of all ATs, are the ones who are IMO the hardest to balance. We can argue Scrapper and Stalker are the same and it's about flavour since both are damage dealers but one plays with stealth and the other brawls. We can argue Defenders and Corruptors are about the same flavour as one gets their buffs sooner or the other gets their attacker sooner. But the Brute needs to juggle being a damage dealer with being a tank and it either disturbs the damage dealers or disturbs the tanks.

 

Not an easy balancing act and I don't envy the devs. But I still like my Brutes and have more of them than I have Tankers.

[Octogoat]

Gonna make an HBO Rome reference here so forgive me the dated reference. You play a brute if you want to be Titus Pullo, a tanker if you want to be Lucius Vorenus.

[tidge]

30 minutes ago, Octogoat said:

Gonna make an HBO Rome reference here so forgive me the dated reference. You play a brute if you want to be Titus Pullo, a tanker if you want to be Lucius Vorenus.

 

This threads needs a Titus Pullo reference like it needs a hole in its head!

[Erratic1]

47 minutes ago, Sovera said:

 

I'd like to see the IO problem addressed before starting to mess with ATs, but Brutes, of all ATs, are the ones who are IMO the hardest to balance. We can argue Scrapper and Stalker are the same and it's about flavour since both are damage dealers but one plays with stealth and the other brawls. We can argue Defenders and Corruptors are about the same flavour as one gets their buffs sooner or the other gets their attacker sooner. But the Brute needs to juggle being a damage dealer with being a tank and it either disturbs the damage dealers or disturbs the tanks.

 

The issue between Brutes and Tankers is, to my view, minorly related to ATO. Changes to Tankers were not based on their ATOs but universally to the AT. Yes, Brutes have crap ATOs, but that is its own issue.

 

If Scrappers and Stalkers can exist in the same role space, why do Brutes have to be excluded from any niche? Have Fury buff Brute defense/resistance variably as it does damage with a max target matching...say 40% of the difference between the current gulf between Brute and Tanker base values. Brutes would deal no more damage but would be a bit better at surviving and hence able to actually engage in, "Go, go, go!" play.

[Without_Pause]

Being more survivable while still being less so than Tankers and Tankers still having better clear speeds isn't the solution you think it is. 

[Gobbledigook]

I don't think Brutes will get major changes anytime soon. Trying to get fury to buff defense/resistance also will very likely go no where fast and be a waste of time.

 

Changing the ATO will probably have a much better chance. I would rather keep it realistic. It's not like Brutes are unplayable.

[Erratic1]

19 minutes ago, Without_Pause said:

Being more survivable while still being less so than Tankers and Tankers still having better clear speeds isn't the solution you think it is. 

 

I think a more survivable Brute would have better clear speeds. Some of what shows a Brute down is recovery from being less survivable.

[Maelwys]

I've voiced this idea before... but I'd actually quite like to see the "Brute's Fury" and "Unrelenting Fury" ATOs both tweaked to become AoE Damage and Survivability buffs (adhering to the cottage rule as they'd still buff the Brute in much the same manner as before; whilst also giving teammates a potential reason to bring a Brute over a Scrapper).

For example: Unrelenting Fury could grant 5% Resistance (or a decent amount of +Absorb) and 10% Regeneration/Recovery... and Brute's Fury could grant +15% Damage (but not tied to Fury). Each of those buffs could last several seconds and stack a few times (IMO ~5-7 PPM and a 10.25 second duration that stacks up to 3 times would seem feasible, as per the existing Tanker and Dominator ATO effects) and the effects could apply in a 60ft AoE radius to all teammates (either at full or half strength depending on balance testing).

Whilst that'd not hugely impact the Soloing capability of Brutes; it would make them substantially more valuable as team members - at least to smaller teams.

Alternatively, the Brute's Fury ATO could simply be recoded to cause all their powers to have a chance to inflict a substantial Damage Resistance Debuff (which would buff Brute performance when solo *AND* help teams out).

Meh, I can dream...

[Gobbledigook]

2 hours ago, Maelwys said:

Alternatively, the Brute's Fury ATO could simply be recoded to cause all their powers to have a chance to inflict a substantial Damage Resistance Debuff (which would buff Brute performance when solo *AND* help teams out).

The Brute could become the single target tank whilst the Tanker the AoE tank. Nothing wrong in having more than one tank type AT's, ( i know we have Kheldians). We have more than one buffer/dps etc AT's.

 

A damage resistance debuff proc ATO to the Brute but only on the single target attacks. A small damage buff with increased team value.

 

An ATO proc similar to MotT proc for Tankers, but with reduced effect like 3-4% defense/resist stacking twice for example. Or attach it to fury but that could be more work to do. They could be better tanks allowing more AT choice for the role.

 

I do not feel the Tanker needs a major nerf for the reason they are much more fun to play now than before and do nothing that other ATs can do. Yes they have good survival skills but other AT's can buff teams etc and still do good AoE damage. May as well nerf Fulcrum shift if you do 🙃

Edited October 16 by Gobbledigook

[brass_eagle]

14 hours ago, tidge said:

"One simply trick" for maintaining Fury was (PB)AoE, so when Tankers got improved AoE (to make them better at Tanking, which was IMO a very smart and effective change (with the effect of speeding up Tanker clear times), it wasn't possible to argue (or gloat in some cases) that Brutes are superior to Tankers. So now the simple argument that "Brute better than Tankers" has become, in the minds of many "Tankers better than Brutes"... which for some folks hurts. Of the vocal critics of "where are Brutes now" it is still (weirdly, IMO) common that an argument is made that "the way to fix Brutes is to nerf Tankers." I find this weird because Brutes were never under-performing by any metric, but Tankers were, by several metrics.

 

 

I love the way you have said this so elegantly. Brutes have not been nerfed. Comparison is important for balance--but history and context is even more so. Brutes have always done well. Even with "slows" or "ice armor"... Fury was more than okay. 

 

The AoE increase (subjectively) makes some sets feel like they were supposed to though. Maybe that's cause for a review on some of the dinky (ONLY) 8 ft PBAoEs in underperforming sets. Maybe not. But you have said here the crux--

 

It's not that Brutes are underperforming... it's now that someone has something I don't. 

[Erratic1]

1 hour ago, brass_eagle said:

 

I love the way you have said this so elegantly. Brutes have not been nerfed. Comparison is important for balance--but history and context is even more so. Brutes have always done well. Even with "slows" or "ice armor"... Fury was more than okay. 

 

This is a lot like saying, "Everyone else is getting paid more but your salary stayed the same, so you're okay." You and Tidge both ignore the reality and objectivity of actual, documented performance. Again, there it this (and more but not in the mood to link every indicator):

 

 

1 hour ago, brass_eagle said:

It's not that Brutes are underperforming... it's now that someone has something I don't. 

 

Yeah, role protection. Everyone other melee AT had to have a defined role and Brutes got nerfed while other AT were buffed. And you're here agreeing with someone who literally only ever comes to the Brute forums to naysay any changes to Brutes--an AT they admit they do not like and treat their posts as somehow objective. Someone who in fact, when asked to describe what would prove to them Brutes are underperforming avoided giving any answer.

 

Edited October 16 by Erratic1

[tidge]

Meanwhile Kheldians are in a far worse position than Brutes. It is silly IMO to keep pointing to "evidence" that some other AT now performs better than Brutes that there is some great injustice that needs to be corrected. Try comparing Kheldian solo performance against a Brutes solo performance in something like a Penny Yin TF if you want to witness a real discrepancy in times. I guarantee the difference in times won't be measured on the order of 20 seconds.

[Erratic1]

7 minutes ago, tidge said:

Meanwhile Kheldians are in a far worse position than Brutes.

 

Then feel free to advocate for then...IN THE KHELDIAN subforum.

 

Do you ever, you know, talk about Brutes in this subforum? Again, the only time you post here is to bring up other ATs.

[tidge]

It is not lost on me that the following is exactly the sort of argument that is used to explain why men should always be paid more than women for the same job, because historically men have been paid more than women.

 

 

4 hours ago, Erratic1 said:

 

This is a lot like saying, "Everyone else is getting paid more but your salary stayed the same, so you're okay." You and Tidge both ignore the reality and objectivity of actual, documented performance. Again, there it this (and more but not in the mood to link every indicator):

 

[Erratic1]

3 minutes ago, tidge said:

It is not lost on me that the following is exactly the sort of argument that is used to explain why men should always be paid more than women for the same job, because historically men have been paid more than women.

 

And of course, your argument would have applied to men being ahead in the first place....Women's position hasn't change, so why should it? They should be perfectly okay staying where they are.

 

Can we be done with the defamation though indirect suggestion of sexism?

[Sovera]

Forum PvP is wild.