I am done with Brutes

[Psi-bolt]

37 minutes ago, Snarky said:

in the 15 hours that passed between my post and you quoting me, they removed an indecipherable thing that may have been a sentence and added "removed passive global arc/radius buff"

 

unless, of course, you knew that and were trying to be irritating.  in that case, well played sir.

While I can be quite irritating, it’s never on purpose.  I just didn’t understand what you were concerned about because that line was there.  Whether it was there when you first read it, I’ll take you at your word that it wasn’t.

[Neiska]

40 minutes ago, Maelwys said:

The bits I were covering above all related to Tanker AoEs and Cones.

I do fully accept that not all Tanker secondaries (not primaries!) have lots of AoE. Super Strength is a good example here - Foot Stomp doesn't currently benefit from any radius buffs as its base radius is 15ft... however it does benefit from Target cap increases and under the new rules any targets beyond 10 would be taking far less damage than before.

FWIW personally I do believe that nerfs to Tanker AoE damage were needed; as they currently outperform every other melee AT in terms of AoE PVE damage - which is a pretty big niche. And IMO most of these proposed measures, whilst they constitute a nerf, are not world-endingly harsh.
So I think @twozerofoxtrot probably put it best in the Focused Feedback thread:

  

 

However I think the "each target above X will take Y% less damage than the previous target" is a bit harsh - a flat rate (say 50% lower damage) would be far better than the currently proposed curves (e.g. 100%>56%>31%>18%>10%>6% for cones)

A few people have already started posting benchmark numbers - Shags is noting a 41% increase in mission cleartimes on their Dark Melee Tanker; and IIRC even Tanker DM doesn't have a stupendously large amount of native AoE damage.
 

 

 

This was my rough napkin math for the AoE damage changes. It presumes max targets hit, for 100 damage for easy maths baseline. Not sure if this is 100% correct or not, and doesn't take things like resistance into consideration - but if these numbers are right, its a 32% damage loss for 16 targets, and a 46% loss for 10. A lot more variables can be added to be sure, but I just wanted the baseline as rough number to look at.

 

I agree. It is pretty dang harsh, if this is correct.

 

[Maelwys]

2 minutes ago, Neiska said:

I agree. It is pretty dang harsh, if this is correct.

Yups.

There are going to be a lot of upset Tanker players that never even touched damage procs thinking "why is this taking me so long to clear big groups of mobs now"

Although TBF compared to back on Live it's still way ahead (which only goes to show just how good Tankers have had it on HC in recent years!)
Things may (emphasis on may) still pan out in favour of Tankers for regular PVE gameplay; but as things stand currently Brutes will have the edge again for AE farming.

[Snarky]

36 minutes ago, Maelwys said:

Yups.

There are going to be a lot of upset Tanker players that never even touched damage procs thinking "why is this taking me so long to clear big groups of mobs now"

Although TBF compared to back on Live it's still way ahead (which only goes to show just how good Tankers have had it on HC in recent years!)
Things may (emphasis on may) still pan out in favour of Tankers for regular PVE gameplay; but as things stand currently Brutes will have the edge again for AE farming.

i do not farm.  but it has been so harsh to see so much given to Tanks in these years.  Especially after Brutes took years of giant nerfs and backhanded changes.

[Erratic1]

3 hours ago, Neiska said:

I agree. It is pretty dang harsh, if this is correct.

 

3 hours ago, Maelwys said:

There are going to be a lot of upset Tanker players that never even touched damage procs thinking "why is this taking me so long to clear big groups of mobs now"

 

I am not sure the calculation is correct. It presumes that those taking reduced damage continue to take reduced damage. But as targets are defeated, those still standing and partially damage start taking normal damage. 

 

I am playing a boardgame just now, but if the turns are slow enough perhaps I can (a) make sure the above thought is correct and, if so, (b) come up with a different calculation.

[twozerofoxtrot]

11 hours ago, Erratic1 said:

Well, time for me to start the campaign for Bute Ninjitsu. Not sure why Brutes don't get it since apparently every AT deserves every power.

 

Brute Ninjutsu would be sick. I would love Fury and Crits. Great call.

[Wavicle]

Just now, twozerofoxtrot said:

 

Brute Ninjutsu would be sick. I would love Fury and Crits. Great call.

Anticipate the Brute version of Ninjitsu adding +Damage, like the Sentinel version, not Crits.

[Neiska]

8 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

 

 

I am not sure the calculation is correct. It presumes that those taking reduced damage continue to take reduced damage. But as targets are defeated, those still standing and partially damage start taking normal damage. 

 

I am playing a boardgame just now, but if the turns are slow enough perhaps I can (a) make sure the above thought is correct and, if so, (b) come up with a different calculation.

 

well the notes say each target beyond the first takes reduced damage after the next, so unless im reading it wrong its a stacking reduced damage per target effect.

[Yomo Kimyata]

On 5/28/2025 at 7:48 PM, BelleSorciere said:

In powers that had their target cap increased from 10 to 16, each target above 10 will take 25% less damage than the previous target

In powers that had their target cap increased from 5 to 10, each target above 5 will take 44% less damage than the previous target

 

Target caps increased.  Doing less than full damage to additional targets that didn't take any damage before, and laying down gauntlet to additional targets that didn't take gauntlet before.  

 

I find it difficult to categorize this as a nerf.

[Wavicle]

Just now, Yomo Kimyata said:

 

Target caps increased.  Doing less than full damage to additional targets that didn't take any damage before, and laying down gauntlet to additional targets that didn't take gauntlet before.  

 

I find it difficult to categorize this as a nerf.

The target caps were increased a couple years ago. Currently on Live Tankers hit these same target caps for 100% damage. It IS absolutely a nerf.

[Snarky]

6 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Let me see if I can explain why this is a nerf for Tanks in a way that you and I will both understand. And, as usual, if I'm wrong someone please correct me.

 

Self damage buff lowered from 1.0x to 0.875x

This a nerf to Build Up and Rage. - Nerf

-Res modifiers lowered to match other melee ATs

Less ability to reduce the resistance of enemies. - Nerf

Diminishing returns:

In powers that had their target cap increased from 10 to 16, each target above 10 will take 25% less damage than the previous target

Reduced damage output of AoEs. - Nerf

In powers that had their target cap increased from 5 to 10, each target above 5 will take 44% less damage than the previous target

Reduced damage output of AoEs. - Nerf

Gauntlet is immune to these diminishing returns

No change.

Removed passive global Arc/Radius buff

This one is complicated. The damage of AoEs varies by their area of effect. Smaller AoEs do more damage. The bonus meant that the damage was based on the base value, but the actual area hit was increased by the bonus from Gauntlet. Now that the AoEs are larger their damage will be reduced to match their actual area of effect. - Nerf

Increased the radius and range of all tanker Primary and Secondary Cones by 50%

Cones no longer have their arc boosted

See this looks like a buff, and it would be if it were on a Blaster, but on a Tank its a nerf. See the cones will be longer, sure, but they're also more narrow. Who cares if they're longer? A tank will have the enemies clustered as tightly around them as possible, so a long narrow cone is going to miss a lot more enemies. Think Cleave vs Breath of Fire. Which one is going to be better for a tank? - Nerf

Increased the radius of all tanker Primary and Secondary Sphere AoEs by 50%

The increase wont push radius above 15ft

Ok, so these two look like a buff, right? They're not. Remember, the bonus area of effect was removed. And then it was added back in by just increasing the base size of the AoE. Which, as I mentioned above, means that the damage will be reduced by the AoE size and then further reduced on some enemies by the new 'Diminishing Returns' addition. Oh, it will also reduce proc rate. So builds that rely heavily on procs for damage will have their damage output lowered as well. - Nerf

 

So did I miss anything everyone? Is there anything in these notes that looks like a secret buff that I missed?

best explanation i have seen.  if mostly correct, as i read it

[Neiska]

3 minutes ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

 

Target caps increased.  Doing less than full damage to additional targets that didn't take any damage before, and laying down gauntlet to additional targets that didn't take gauntlet before.  

 

I find it difficult to categorize this as a nerf.

 

Currently some powers cap at 16, all taking 100% damage, and some powers cap at 10, all also taking 100% damage.

Now, for the 16 cap powers, each target after 10 beyond the first each progressively takes 25% less per foe. For the 10 cap, each one beyond 5 each take 44% less per step.

 

Which is a total net damage reduction of 32% for 16 cap powers, and 43% for 10 cap. Unless of course I did the math wrong and/or misunderstood the patch notes. But I would call a 32% and 43% damage reduction pretty significant.

[Erratic1]

21 minutes ago, Neiska said:

 

well the notes say each target beyond the first takes reduced damage after the next, so unless im reading it wrong its a stacking reduced damage per target effect.

 

In that particular instant of being hit, yes. But the calculation of doing 31% less damage is only for that particular attack. Things are going to be defeated leaving partially damaged foes to be fully hit on the next area attack and they will always be fully damaged by single target attacks.

 

[NNNNNNNNNN][A][B][C][D][E][[F] will become [NNNNNNNABC][D][E][F] once the first three [N] are defeated, with [A], [\B], and [C] now taking full damage and [D], [E], and [F] taking increased damage.

 

Granted, as the decreased damage will be distributed randomly, it is true that the average will hold while targets live, once they start going down, you are going to see more damage going out compared to your calculation because the lowest damage is falling out of the consideration.

Edited yesterday at 12:09 AM by Erratic1

[Neiska]

18 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

 

In that particular instant of being hit, yes. But the calculation of doing 31% less damage is only for that particular attack. Things are going to be defeated leaving partially damaged foes to be fully hit on the next area attack and they will always be fully damaged by single target attacks.

 

[NNNNNNNNNN][A][B][C][D][E][[F] will become [NNNNNNNABC][D][E][F] once the first three [N] are defeated, with [A], [\B], and [C] now taking full damage and [D], [E], and [F] taking increased damage.

 

Granted, as the decreased damage will be distributed randomly, it is true that the average will hold while targets live, once they start going down, you are going to see more damage going out compared to your calculation because the lowest damage is falling out of the consideration.

 

Unless you are engaged with more enemies, such as more than 1 spawn, in which case you will gain a G, H, I, etc. And I am not claiming my math is accurate or correct, its best guess on my part and does miss variables like resists, but this is all also assuming that you are hitting everything, with reduced arcs and so on as well. We wont know for sure until we see it in action. But my initial reaction is its a hard aoe nerf for tankers, depending on circumstances.

[Erratic1]

 

4 minutes ago, Neiska said:

Unless you are engaged with more enemies, such as more than 1 spawn, in which case you will gain a G, H, I, etc.

 

The alphabet ends because you are not fighting infinite monsters. Nor are you, presumably, endlessly chain fighting from mission beginning to mission end--some foes are the end of the chain and so the damage calculation will go up because you are not fighting foes, but rather 12, or 8, or 4.

Edited yesterday at 12:29 AM by Erratic1

[Thraxen]

Just play scrappers lol

[Neiska]

4 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

 

 

The alphabet ends because you are not fighting infinite monsters. Nor are you, presumably, endlessly chain fighting from mission beginning to mission end--some foes are the end of the chain and so the damage calculation will go up because you are not fighting foes, but rather 12, or 8, or 4.

 

I quite regularly engage 3-4 groups, especially while farming. At +4/8 difficulty. I do agree that is not the norm though, but that doesn't mean that its not impossible or people don't do it either. I actually prefer "en masse" fighting style, especially with tankers or MMs. Though with this, that is very likely to change.

[Snarky]

12 minutes ago, Neiska said:

 

I quite regularly engage 3-4 groups, especially while farming. At +4/8 difficulty. I do agree that is not the norm though, but that doesn't mean that its not impossible or people don't do it either. I actually prefer "en masse" fighting style, especially with tankers or MMs. Though with this, that is very likely to change.

i almost always pull as much as i can.  and these days i am normally on Corruptors and Blasters.  leveraging anything you can to survive another minute and do more DPS, which requires more meat for the machine.  yes, i realize this makes my OP statement to stop playing Brutes much less serious.  But it is me, i need my hyperbole Damit!

[Erratic1]

 

8 minutes ago, Neiska said:

 

I quite regularly engage 3-4 groups, especially while farming. At +4/8 difficulty. I do agree that is not the norm though, but that doesn't mean that its not impossible or people don't do it either. I actually prefer "en masse" fighting style, especially with tankers or MMs. Though with this, that is very likely to change.

 

I am not all that concerned with farming and doubt the game is going to be balanced around it.

 

Outside of farming, particularly solo, is there a good reason to be fighting more targets than your powers can hit other than you couldn't help but get whatever excess there is?

[Neiska]

12 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

 

 

I am not all that concerned with farming and doubt the game is going to be balanced around it.

 

Outside of farming, particularly solo, is there a good reason to be fighting more targets than your powers can hit other than you couldn't help but get whatever excess there is?

 

Speed? Fun? Challenge? Farming Badges? Kill Count Missions? Lots of reasons more than just AE/Farming. And I am not at all concerned about balancing around +0/0 going one group at a time, spawn by spawn.

Edited yesterday at 01:10 AM by Neiska

[Krimson]

21 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

 

 

I am not all that concerned with farming and doubt the game is going to be balanced around it.

 

Outside of farming, particularly solo, is there a good reason to be fighting more targets than your powers can hit other than you couldn't help but get whatever excess there is?

I slot all of my toons to be Smashing/Lethal farmers, capping S/L Res and any other Res that's easy to cap, and then beefing up defense. That way I can farm most of the game. Dark Astoria Knives of Vengeance are pretty much an S/L farm and DA Tsoo are close enough. Rikti can be farmed thusly, and several other groups. My Elec/Elec Tanker is also Energy Res capped, so I was farming Carnies earlier.

 

I used to Fire Farm, and I can still do it with my S/L Tankers and Brutes, but I don't see a lot of point to it when you can slot for S/L and farm most of the game.

[Krimson]

@Snarky My Dark/Dark Brute was my very first Giant Monster hunter. One day, for fun, I decided to roll up on Kraken and to my surprise, he died. Sure, I used Envenomed Daggers, but the fight was over in three minutes. Now, I do have a Bio/Savage Tanker who has soloed about 20 various Giant Monsters, but I would never recommend anyone doing that. If I want to fight bosses and I want to be nice and sturdy, I bring a Brute.

 

I play Brutes and Tankers differently. My Tankers are designed to carry the group and protect them. By carry I mean deal enough DPS to clear the map myself if I have to. There are times when I've had to. Tankers are always slotted with Taunt. Brutes are different. I don't slot Taunt in them, I rely on punchvoke. When I'm playing Brutes, I have it right in the bio that I will aggro everything I see, and that players might want to hold back if they are squishy. Brutes are for wading in and hitting stuff and not worrying about anyone else. You're a Brute, be brutal. Brutes have a distinct advantage when it comes to bosses. 

 

Blah blah, everything I said could apply to Scrappers. But I've only got one slotted Scrapper, and I have at least five Brutes. There must be some reason I'd rather make a Brute than a Scrapper, says the Tanker player.

[Yomo Kimyata]

1 hour ago, Wavicle said:

The target caps were increased a couple years ago. Currently on Live Tankers hit these same target caps for 100% damage. It IS absolutely a nerf.

 

1 hour ago, Neiska said:

 

Currently some powers cap at 16, all taking 100% damage, and some powers cap at 10, all also taking 100% damage.

Now, for the 16 cap powers, each target after 10 beyond the first each progressively takes 25% less per foe. For the 10 cap, each one beyond 5 each take 44% less per step.

 

Which is a total net damage reduction of 32% for 16 cap powers, and 43% for 10 cap. Unless of course I did the math wrong and/or misunderstood the patch notes. But I would call a 32% and 43% damage reduction pretty significant.

 

Huh, I would have sworn that when the patch notes were first published that there was a short specific list of tanker powers that were increased in cap for the patch, but that seems to been edited away and I'm certainly not going to check back and forth between test and live to see which powers were affected.  That's what I was referring to and the language is really odd if they were only referring to the old cap buffs.

 

As for powers that had previously been given cap buffs, yes, the suggested changes would be a nerf from current levels but still a net buff from a couple of years ago.  So I hear you.

[Wavicle]

Mind you, I’m not complaining. It’sa good change.

[Glacier Peak]

So are Brutes good this round? I read through three pages of comments in this thread about Tankers and I'm not seeing how this relates to Brutes.