I am done with Brutes

[Sancerre]

i feel like with the recent sweep at tankers, brutes are in a good spot relative to tankers.

 

the discussion around brute's usefulness is foundationally biased here with regards to brute vs scrapper -- all this chatter about scrapper doing more damage than brute so why bring a brute?  flip the script.  if a scrapper did less damage than brute, why bring a scrapper?  there are four (4) melee ATs here all competing for validation (yes stalkers exist too, not that anyone here seems to care). 

 

in a world where you are chasing META -- if one is 'better' then the other is 'worse'.  period.  if you crunch out the numbers and spreadsheet this stuff, SOMEONE is going to win and be META.  and really the problem is specific powerset combinations.  nobody is complaining that kinetic melee/electric armor scrappers are too strong -- because super strength/fire brute will win out by a mile here... hell i bet a tanker would.  there are substantial deviations between AT powersets that you may consider subtle if you arent leveraging them... like having 50% more MAX HP on a brute, but it wont matter much if you pick an armor set that never touches your max HP because the base HP value of brute and scrapper is basically the same.  or the BIG deal breaker -- taunt auras.  myself and many others swear they will never touch a scrapper armor set without a taunt aura... meanwhile brute has it all baked in without thinking about it.

 

anyways, i think brutes could use some MINOR buffs/quality of life but are generally in a 'fine' spot with respect to the 4 melee ATs.  also important to note -- brutes are already 'fine' even with garbage ATOs, so i think that says a lot.

[Erratic1]

13 minutes ago, Sancerre said:

the discussion around brute's usefulness is foundationally biased here with regards to brute vs scrapper -- all this chatter about scrapper doing more damage than brute so why bring a brute?  flip the script.  if a scrapper did less damage than brute, why bring a scrapper?  there are four (4) melee ATs here all competing for validation (yes stalkers exist too, not that anyone here seems to care). 

 

You misunderstand the question.

 

Scrappers get to deal the most damage because, "that is all they do".

Tankers get to have the best survivability, in theory in exchange for less damage.

 

The question is: Why bring a Brute ever? The Brute will not do more damage than the Scrapper and will not survive as well as the Tanker (who due to area consideration is actually turning out damage far more comparable to what the Brute does overall than the Brute survive in comparison to the Tanker.

 

And keep in mind, it was once possible for, in an edge case with sufficient buffs (more than one damage buffer on the team) for the Brute to exceed the Scrapper, but that was nerfed out of existence. So you do not even have that, thin possibility (thin because on a team which had say a Tanker, 3 Blasters, a Scrapper, a Defender, a Controller, and a Brute enough buffs did not exist to get there) because Brute damage cap was lowered to keep that FROM EVER HAPPENING.

 

I do not think anyone here is advocating Brute do more damage than Scrapper, but rather that perhaps some of the gap which now exists be narrowed. 

 

I do no think that is in the cards, but still thought I would put you on the proper track of looking at things.

[Sancerre]

2 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

 

You misunderstand the question.

 

Scrappers get to deal the most damage because, "that is all they do".

Tankers get to have the best survivability, in theory in exchange for less damage.

 

The question is: Why bring a Brute ever? The Brute will not do more damage than the Scrapper and will not survive as well as the Tanker (who due to area consideration is actually turning out damage far more comparable to what the Brute does overall than the Brute survive in comparison to the Tanker.

 

And keep in mind, it was once possible for, in an edge case with sufficient buffs (more than one damage buffer on the team) for the Brute to exceed the Scrapper, but that was nerfed out of existence. So you do not even have that, thin possibility (thin because on a team which had say a Tanker, 3 Blasters, a Scrapper, a Defender, a Controller, and a Brute enough buffs did not exist to get there) because Brute damage cap was lowered to keep that FROM EVER HAPPENING.

 

I do not think anyone here is advocating Brute do more damage than Scrapper, but rather that perhaps some of the gap which now exists be narrowed. 

 

I do no think that is in the cards, but still thought I would put you on the proper track of looking at things.

 

you are reframing the question for your purposes.  but anyways --  you just posed the framework yourself here:  Tankers have the best survivability and Scrappers have the best damage.  but there are 4 melee ATs... so what are the other 2 (brutes and stalkers) supposed to be doing?  why do scrappers get to deal the most damage?  shouldnt stalkers?

 

regarding tankers -- with the new tanker adjustments, some spreadsheet junkies are reporting that brutes actually do MORE damage to 10 targets (as a sum) than tankers do to 16 targets (as a sum).  im not the one doing the math here but it doesnt look like you did either.

 

you come here with claims and feelings that brutes are miles behind scrapper damage and tankers also do the same/more damage than brutes but never provide anything of substance.  Ston did the most research that anyone has ever formally documented on this whole thing a couple years back at this point -- and the results were that brute damage (SOLO) is snugly inbetween scrappers and tankers... and in the passage of time, tankers have now been nerfed. 

 

come here with something to disprove Ston.  or explain why Ston's results are bad/biased/whatever.  In a perfectly balanced game, where should brutes be performing that Ston did NOT demonstrate?

[aethereal]

I think it's helpful to consider the way that Brutes functioned when they were introduced: where they were a risk/reward class, pushed by Fury to barrel ever onward in an environment in which it was common to rest either with the power or just by taking a 15 or 30 second wait for blue and green bars to recover -- maybe to wait for a heal to come off cooldown.  The Brute, in an environment where Fury was harder to build, was instead trying to keep forward momentum as long as they had the absolute minimum viable endurance and health.

 

That world is long, long gone, and without that dynamic, Brutes are in an awkward place, with Fury not really so much serving to push a style of play, but merely to be a damage bonus of whatever the current level of sustainable fury happens to be.  And this isn't a thing that you can bring back -- we'd have to rewrite almost everything about the modern game in order to recreate the dynamic of early Brutes.  But it's helpful to look at the current conversation as it would look if that dynamic still existed.  The Brute was not originally intended to function as "a scrapper with slightly lower damage and slightly higher survivability/taunt."  It was supposed to have a whole different style of play.

[Erratic1]

53 minutes ago, Sancerre said:

you are reframing the question for your purposes.

 

No, I am not. That has been the question. There is quite literally a thread in these, THE BRUTE FORUM, asking the question: 

 

57 minutes ago, Sancerre said:

but there are 4 melee ATs... so what are the other 2 (brutes and stalkers) supposed to be doing?  why do scrappers get to deal the most damage?  shouldnt stalkers?

 

Stalkers do far close to Scrapper damage than Brutes do and have better survivability options than Scrapper too.

 

58 minutes ago, Sancerre said:

regarding tankers -- with the new tanker adjustments, some spreadsheet junkies are reporting that brutes actually do MORE damage to 10 targets (as a sum) than tankers do to 16 targets (as a sum).  im not the one doing the math here but it doesnt look like you did either.

 

Unless you've read all my posts, perhaps less speculation on what I have done and what I have not done is in order?

1 hour ago, Sancerre said:

you come here with claims and feelings that brutes are miles behind scrapper damage and tankers also do the same/more damage than brutes but never provide anything of substance. 

 

Actually your whining in this thread started in regards to others posts noting the difference between Brute and Scrapper damage. Morever, someone who tosses out the line about some spreadsheet jockeys and goes with it should not be talking about anyone doing work.

1 hour ago, Sancerre said:

Ston did the most research that anyone has ever formally documented on this whole thing a couple years back at this point -- and the results were that brute damage (SOLO) is snugly inbetween scrappers and tankers... and in the passage of time, tankers have now been nerfed. 

 

Something which (a) every Tanker in these, the Brute forum, insisted would be both a return to Brute Uber Alles and make Tankers utterly unplayable, and (b) could arguably be said to come about because nothing was done to boost Brute so--going by your logic--something had to be done about Tankers.

 

Oh, and I will note, my first 50 post the previous patch was a Tanker. So I think I can say something about how things actually turned out in reality. 

 

 

[Wavicle]

I don’t understand the concept behind “tankers are the toughest, scrappers do the most damage, so why ever bring a brute?“

 

Brutes are tougher than scrappers and do better damage than tankers, so they’re right in between, that’s why you would bring a brute because they do most of what each of the other two do. I don’t see the issue with that concept. Now, if the numbers aren’t right, that’s a separate thing, but the basic idea that roots do most of what each of those other two archetypes do should be fine. Why is that a problem?

 

This concept that every archetype must be the best archetype that there is at one particular thing doesn’t hold up as far as I am concerned.

[Wavicle]

Heck, corrupters aren’t the best there is at anything. Blasters are better than them at damage, defenders are better than them at buffs. But corrupters do a good portion of what each of those other two do, and it’s not an issue with them. Why should it be an issue with with Brutes?

[Erratic1]

3 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

I don’t understand the concept behind “tankers are the toughest, scrappers do the most damage, so why ever bring a brute?“

 

If you want someone to take a pounding and hold the AV/Elite Boss/horde of attackers, presumably you want the toughest character (as well as the one who holds aggro the best). There is a reason Scrapper are not called upon to be Tankers.

 

If you want damage dealt as quickly as possible, you are not packing in a bunch of Sentinels.

 

What is so hard to get? At what point does it actually make sense to bring a Brute given either a Tanker or Scrapper is available to fill the slot? Either you do not need the survivability, in which case your group will clear faster by adding the Scrapper, or you do need the survivability, in which case a Tanker is the better choice.

 

8 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

 

This concept that every archetype must be the best archetype that there is at one particular thing doesn’t hold up as far as I am concerned.

 

Then why were Brutes nerfed to guarantee Scrappers top billing? And why can Brutes not get increase survivability?

[Erratic1]

9 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

Heck, corrupters aren’t the best there is at anything. Blasters are better than them at damage, defenders are better than them at buffs. But corrupters do a good portion of what each of those other two do, and it’s not an issue with them. Why should it be an issue with with Brutes?

 

Corrupters are the superior damaging buff option--they do more damage than Defender and Controller while still providing compelling buffs.

 

So your premise is off.

Edited yesterday at 01:47 AM by Erratic1

[Wavicle]

23 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

 

Corrupters are the superior damaging buff option--they do more damage than Defender and Controller while still providing compelling buffs.

 

So your premise is off.

No, my premise is perfect. Brute does more damage than tanker, while still providing tanking sufficient for almost every encounter in the game.

[Erratic1]

Just now, Wavicle said:

No, my premise is perfect. Brute does more damage than tanker, while still providing tanking sufficient for almost every encounter in the game.

 

Tanker is not coming to a team to do damage. So yes, you fundamentally misunderstand the premise of the question (or are incapable of understanding it).

[Wavicle]

Just now, Erratic1 said:

 

Tanker is not coming to a team to do damage. So yes, you fundamentally misunderstand the premise of the question (or are incapable of understanding it).

Somehow, I’m able to discuss it without insulting the person I’m discussing it with, maybe you should work on that.

 

Everybody is on the team to do damage. That is your misapprehension, that everything must be divided. That’s not how this game works.

[Erratic1]

Just now, Wavicle said:

Somehow, I’m able to discuss it without insulting the person I’m discussing it with, maybe you should work on that.

 

I did not insult you. I put out the possibility when not only did you fail to understand the first time around (your own words), but then when it was spelled out in detail you still failed to understand.

 

Just now, Wavicle said:

 

Everybody is on the team to do damage. That is your misapprehension, that everything must be divided. That’s not how this game works.

 

Everyone doing damage and everyone being there to do it are two different things. Everyone on the ITF my Pyro/Dark controller ran last week dealing damage, but I assure you, my character was not there to be dispatching things but rather making sure others did not get hurt, keeping them up when they did, and buffing their damage output.

 

He was not there because he was going to make anything fall over quickly.

[Wavicle]

Regardless, nothing you or anyone else has said, demonstrates in any way that there is anything wrong with the concept of a tank class that can tank almost as well as another tank class, while also doing damage better than that class. There’s nothing wrong with that at all, just a lot of complaining with nothing to back it up.

 

We need data. Either brutes are too far behind scrappers and not far enough ahead of tankers or they aren’t. Anecdotes are not enough.

[Wavicle]

8 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

I did not insult you. I put out the possibility when not only did you fail to understand the first time around (your own words), but then when it was spelled out in detail you still failed to understand.

Yes, you absolutely did. Suggesting that I am incapable of understanding it, when you haven’t explained it any better than anyone else did, is an insult.

[Erratic1]

1 minute ago, Wavicle said:

Regardless, nothing you or anyone else has said, demonstrates in any way that there is anything wrong with the concept of a tank class that can tank almost as well as another tank class, while also doing damage better than that class.

 

Except Brutes do not tank as well as Tankers. They are inherently not as survivable and more importantly to a team, they do not hold aggro as well.

[Wavicle]

Just now, Erratic1 said:

 

Except Brutes do not tank as well as Tankers. They are inherently not as survivable and more importantly to a team, they do not hold aggro as well.

Almost, I said. It’s right there. Sufficiently, is what I implied. And yes, they absolutely do, tank sufficiently. They tank almost as well as tankers, and well enough for almost everything in the game.

[Erratic1]

1 minute ago, Wavicle said:

Yes, you absolutely did. Suggesting that I am incapable of understanding it, when you haven’t explained it any better than anyone else did, is an insult.

 

I explained it quite clearly. And the fact that you note others hold the position and understand it really bolsters the consideration.

 

Still, I will apologize for the suggestion.

[aethereal]

54 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

I don’t understand the concept behind “tankers are the toughest, scrappers do the most damage, so why ever bring a brute?“

 

Brutes are tougher than scrappers and do better damage than tankers, so they’re right in between, that’s why you would bring a brute because they do most of what each of the other two do. I don’t see the issue with that concept. Now, if the numbers aren’t right, that’s a separate thing, but the basic idea that roots do most of what each of those other two archetypes do should be fine. Why is that a problem?

 

I think it's just been traditionally a hard balance to hit, not that there's anything inherently conceptually wrong with it.

 

At least until recently, Tankers have been "pretty good damage, actually," and Scrappers were and are, "actually quite survivable and do a decent job tanking if they have a taunt aura," which has not left a large and fertile ground for Brutes to be actually functionally worse at tanking than Tankers but still actually functionally better at tanking than Scrappers, and similarly with damage.

 

A big thing about mitigation is that all the armored classes are capable of a ton of mitigation, so being "more durable than a Scrapper" often doesn't cash out to much.  Like, having overkill survivability isn't necessarily a meaningful advantage.

 

With the recent Tanker changes, I could see Brutes resuming the function of the premiere AT for "if you need something tankier than a Scrapper without giving up more damage than you have to," which was their role before the Tanker buffs.  But who knows, maybe this time they actually hit the dynamic of being well-situated in the middle of Scrappers and Tankers.

[Wavicle]

The vast majority of situations don't require a tank at all, but having one can be handy. In those situations (MOST of the game) the Brute provides sufficient tanking while providing more damage than a Tanker would. That is the Brutes place on a team. Without data demonstrating that Tankers do better damage than Brutes, the case saying Brutes are worthless falls apart in the face of these facts.

[Erratic1]

3 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

Almost, I said. It’s right there. Sufficiently, is what I implied. And yes, they absolutely do, tank sufficiently. They tank almost as well as tankers, and well enough for almost everything in the game.

 

No they don't. Hence all those times where people ask for a Tanker and reluctantly accept a Brute....or Scrapper...or Sentinel...or pets when a Tanker isn't available.

 

I can punch one guy with a single-target attack on a Tanker and see other nearby foes being taunted. That doesn't happen for a Brute. So those other foes peel off far more easily, and that is meaningful to the health of those dealing damage and getting aggro. It is also somewhat frustrating for the Brute.

[Wavicle]

Just now, Erratic1 said:

 

No they don't. Hence all those times where people ask for a Tanker and reluctantly accept a Brute....or Scrapper...or Sentinel...or pets when a Tanker isn't available.

 

I can punch one guy with a single-target attack on a Tanker and see other nearby foes being taunted. That doesn't happen for a Brute. So those other foes peel off far more easily, and that is meaningful to the health of those dealing damage and getting aggro. It is also somewhat frustrating for the Brute.

 

Ok, well we just disagree on that matter of opinion. That's ok.

[Erratic1]

2 minutes ago, aethereal said:

With the recent Tanker changes, I could see Brutes resuming the function of the premiere AT for "if you need something tankier than a Scrapper without giving up more damage than you have to," which was their role before the Tanker buffs.  But who knows, maybe this time they actually hit the dynamic of being well-situated in the middle of Scrappers and Tankers.

 

Tankers lost none of their survivability and only lost damage on a team to the extent they were reaching saturation--something merely jumping into the middle of a spawn does not necessarily equal, particularly if there are quick-fingered controllers about. Again, I do not think Tankers have generally been on a team because of trash. They are there as a punching bag for Romulus/Jurassik/Babbage/etc. 

[aethereal]

14 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

They are there as a punching bag for Romulus/Jurassik/Babbage/etc. 

 

I mean, I think that Brutes are perfectly capable of tanking sufficiently well to handle an AV or GM in most situations (so are Scrappers.  My experience with several Stalkers indicates that they're also sufficiently durable to handle the aggro of an AV/GM, but can't hold its attention).  Of course, AVs and GMs are hardly a speedbump for a well-optimized 8 man, level 50 team under most circumstances, so who knows.

 

I have no experience with hard mode, so I can't comment with any authority, but the fact that hard mode players are vocally extremely against building lots of mitigation suggests to me that the durability of a Tank isn't super important there, either.

[Erratic1]

2 minutes ago, aethereal said:

 

I mean, I think that Brutes are perfectly capable of tanking sufficiently well to handle an AV or GM in most situations (so are Scrappers.  My experience with several Stalkers indicates that they're also sufficiently durable to handle the aggro of an AV/GM, but can't hold its attention).  Of course, AVs and GMs are hardly a speedbump for a well-optimized 8 man, level 50 team under most circumstances, so who knows.

 

You are right, against a single target a Brute, for the most part, is likely good enough. Not sure I want one as the sole tank on an ITF (though to be honest, I might have done that in the not too distant past...hard to remember).

 

2 minutes ago, aethereal said:

 

I have no experience with hard mode, so I can't comment with any authority, but the fact that hard mode players are vocally extremely against building lots of mitigation suggests to me that the durability of a Tank isn't super important there, either.

 

The hard mode people I am aware of tend to think as you do from what I have seen. Not sure if that involves building differently on the Brute or it emerges from how those doing so build as a group.