Tankers - So Where are we at?

[Paragon Vanguard]

Just now, skoryy said:

 

That's a whole lot of words for "I know you are but what am I."  But I'll be the actual adult and solve this problem with the ignore list.

Don't troll people, don't belittle, and you wont get called out on it. Ignore away, let the adults talk. 

[Erratic1]

58 minutes ago, Paragon Vanguard said:

So a Brute can max 90% resistance, do more damage, and we call THAT balanced?

 

Have you ever maxed resistances on a Brute? All that complaining you're doing about optimizing for AoE damage? That is what you have to do on a Brute to max resistances. And that means not infrequently not maximizing every damage power because a dead Brute deals no damage and Brutes do not causally, like Tankers, waltz into max resistances like Tankers do.

 

There is your balance...ignoring being poorer stewards of aggro. (Edit: And lower health and not having to consider overcap damage because Brutes ALWAYS have a lower target cap on their AoEs.)

Edited July 9 by Erratic1

[Warboss]

5 hours ago, Maelwys said:

So if you want them to deal more AoE damage; you'll need to alter your build - more global recharge, more AoEs; more damage procs, whatever.
 

 

I thought one of the reasons for these changes was to adjust how procs worked with AoEs. Is it worth procing AoEs or just slotting for normal damage (maybe include one proc (included in the set))? How about for ST attacks, is standard slotting or procing better?

Edited July 9 by Warboss

[tidge]

1 hour ago, Warboss said:

So after all is said and done. Tanks got nerfed. Did that resolve "the Brute" issue? Because the few Brutes I play still clear faster than my Tanks. I don't recall my Tankers ever clearing faster than my Brutes. Even so, what's instore for Brutes? Should they get buffed or modified, we'll be back in the same loop we're in now. I just don't see these changes (maybe aside from the proc issue) really resolving anything (other than impacting my enjoyment of the game),

 

Brutes don't need to be tweaked. The only Brute-related issue that comes up is for the %proc effect of the Brute ATOs, but Brutes are already "top performers" by commonly recited play metrics, and the only way that another AT looks like it is doing better than Brutes is the Scrappers leveraging their ATOs. IMO it would be a real stretch to motivate Brute buffs (including ATO changes) considering that the Scrapper AT can only be out-performing offensively with the Scrapper ATOs, and the Tankers get extra surviving out-performance because of the Tanker ATOs. If the Brute ATOs deserve to be reworked (more than some other ATOs) then I think the entire Fury mechanic should end up on the table for being revamped. (i.e. non-starters across the board, or the effort will be half-hearted)

[Triumphant]

So, I don't play tanks as much (which is the focus of this topic), so I won't opine on the tank changes too much and leave that to the more experienced tanker players.

 

However, I do play a great many brutes (one of my two favorite AT's these days) and I have to agree with tidge and others above, who say that Brutes (despite the somewhat lackluster ATO) are in a pretty good place right now and don't really need to be buffed (again, this is just my opinion).

 

So, if tankers do need a little more tinkering (and I don't know if that's true or not), I say give it to them.  Just don't be too hard on our hard-working Devs.  Adjusting an AT's balance is no doubt a delicate process, and regardless of what you change, you aren't going to be able to please everyone (or to put it differently, what ever changes one makes will be guaranteed to offend some players).  That's just plain fact.  🤷‍♂️

Edited July 9 by Triumphant

[Paragon Vanguard]

3 minutes ago, tidge said:

 

Brutes don't need to be tweaked. 

Agree totally. My Brutes perform well. I don't get the feeling that Brutes are under performing. I love Brutes, I play them more than tanks, as I feel they provide a more complete build ability. My top performer is a Dark/Dark Brute, a close second my SS/Invuln Brute. 

 

54 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

Have you ever maxed resistances on a Brute? 

Yes, I do reach max resist in battle, but he is an incarnate. One of the points missed is 80% resist or 90% resist, you aren't dropping either way. If I can only get my brute to 80% resist in an effort to push damage, the damage is more desirable, and while a dead brute cannot do damage, dead mobs dont kill brutes. That to me was always the trade off, and always how the build difference was between the brute and the tank. With the nerf, the trade off really feels hard against the tank. I hope that makes some kind of sense....

 

[Paragon Vanguard]

5 minutes ago, Triumphant said:

Adjusting an AT's balance is no doubt a delicate process, and regardless of what you change, you aren't going to be able to please everyone (or to put it differently, what ever changes one makes will be guaranteed to offend some players).  That's just plain fact.  🤷‍♂️

That is 100% true. Still I think it benefits to be able to speak out on things. I know the devs work hard, and I highly ....HIGHLY ..... appreciate them. If no one else feels like me about tanks, then so be it. It is what it is. You are so right though. Come tomorrow, I will simply have moved on, do what I need to make the play more enjoyable, and still love the game and still appreciate the devs. They have my eternal thanks and respect for bringing this game back to us, that will never change. 

[ZemX]

1 hour ago, Warboss said:

I don't recall my Tankers ever clearing faster than my Brutes.

 

This is what is particularly annoying about the nerf and it's why I say it can only have been motivated by the extreme corner-case of +4/x8 soloing and/or farming.  I don't see how, in any other situation, Tankers outdamage Brutes.  It HAS to be a situation where the larger Gauntlet AoEs could be kept cranking up to their target caps constantly.  They even said so in the dev notes.  

 

I accept the proc change.  That's fair.  And indeed some AoEs always suffered that, like Foot Stomp, because they were naturally 15ft radius even before.  Or already wide enough cones they were denied Gauntlet's boost.  So this puts everybody on the same page.  It's fair.   But the overcap damage cuts aren't.  I'd need to see data that proves that was ever a real problem outside of farming/soloing and I accept neither of those as valid for balancing because nowhere is it writ that Brutes should solo team-sized groups faster than Tankers.  Soloing involves BOTH damage and survivability.  It is not clearly in the domain of one or the other AT.  And even Ston's testing did not show a significant difference in clear speed anyway.

[Erratic1]

9 minutes ago, Paragon Vanguard said:

Yes, I do reach max resist in battle, but he is an incarnate. One of the points missed is 80% resist or 90% resist, you aren't dropping either way.

 

The difference between 80% and 90% is 100% more damage getting through. A hit for 2000 damage takes 400 health from the character with 80% resistance but only 200 from one with 90% resistance. Health regeneration/healing is therefore 100% more effective at keeping you standing.  So there is a quite meaningful difference, particularly when you factor in Brutes having lower base health.

 

18 minutes ago, Paragon Vanguard said:

If I can only get my brute to 80% resist in an effort to push damage, the damage is more desirable, and while a dead brute cannot do damage, dead mobs dont kill brutes.

 

The Brute hits fewer targets and can survive fewer targets. Yeah, against a single target the Brute will dispatch it faster. Allow me to note the game as actually played has Faaaaaaaaaaaaar more situations of groups than single targets.

[skoryy]

And once again we go straight to tankers vs brutes because the only metric that matters is breaking the Skinner box with speed clearing.

[Paragon Vanguard]

6 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

 

The difference between 80% and 90% is 100% more damage getting through. A hit for 2000 damage takes 400 health from the character with 80% resistance but only 200 from one with 90% resistance. Health regeneration/healing is therefore 100% more effective at keeping you standing.  So there is a quite meaningful difference, particularly when you factor in Brutes having lower base health.

 If I can take the 400 damage hit and drop the mob, then you are definitely at a huge advantage when the tank, while only taking 200 damage, survives, but takes longer to drop the mob. Its the over all effect of who can take the damage, finish the mobs, and move on. The brute already could do that better than the tank. I accepted that, even before the nerf, as it seemed like a fair enough trade off. The tank takes lesss managing, but the Brute isn't falling, kills mob, and moves on quicker. 

 

I am terrible at explaining this, I am well aware. LOL

[Maelwys]

20 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

The difference between 80% and 90% is 100% more damage getting through. A hit for 2000 damage takes 400 health from the character with 80% resistance but only 200 from one with 90% resistance. Health regeneration/healing is therefore 100% more effective at keeping you standing.  So there is a quite meaningful difference, particularly when you factor in Brutes having lower base health.

Whilst this is true... another way to look at it is that for the vast majority of the game (without thinking of extreme survivability scenarios...) Tankers often simply don't need to chase additional resistance or defence or MaxHP; because with just bog-standard ED-capped slotting of their core abilities and no set bonuses a Tanker's elevated base values result in a substantially higher immortality line than an equivalent Brute. And that baseline survivability ends up being more than enough to survive indefinitely against whatever they're likely to be fighting (outside of very specific content).

Especially with ATOs; because the Superior Might of the Tanker proc is so damn good.

And if you find yourself in the position of not having to care one whit about increasing your character's survivability, that frees you up from having to take certain powers (like the fighting pool) and lets you concentrate entirely on ramping up your damage output via global recharge and oodles of damage procs.

Yes, building for damage over survivability is horrible and meta and immersion breaking and everything; but there's no denying that it's efficient and effective.
 

Edited July 9 by Maelwys

[Maelwys]

1 hour ago, Warboss said:

I thought one of the reasons for these changes was to adjust how procs worked with AoEs. Is it worth procing AoEs or just slotting for normal damage (maybe include one proc (included in the set))? How about for ST attacks, is standard slotting or procing better?

Most Tanker AoEs do have a slightly lower proc activation rate than before, due to the larger radius now being part of the baseline attack instead of a global buff.
But yes, it's definitely still worth proccing them; unless you really need to use them for muling set bonuses.
  

On 6/28/2025 at 9:47 PM, Maelwys said:

Taking Fire Sword Circle as an example:

With a 10ft base radius (on Brutes, Scrappers, etc and Tankers before i28p2) each 3.5PPM damage Proc in it will have a 62.2314% activation chance. With a 15ft base radius (on Tankers post i28p2) that drops to a 49.2062% activation chance. Since 3.5 PPM Damage Procs typically deal 71.751 damage, that works out to an average loss of just -9.3 damage per proc per target, before resistances and Purple Patch.

And due to the "Overcap" damage reductions, that number will drop even further whenever you're hitting more than 10 targets, for just -3.1 damage per proc per target.

Even taken across the maximum 16 targets that's not a huge deal considering that FSC even when completely unslotted was dealing nearly 1500 damage before the patch.

 

And ST attacks (and Cones in the end!) were not touched.

 

Edited July 9 by Maelwys

[Erratic1]

4 minutes ago, Paragon Vanguard said:

If I can take the 400 damage hit and drop the mob, then you are definitely at a huge advantage when the tank, while only taking 200 damage, survives, but takes longer to drop the mob.

 

Stop being disingenuous. You are not one-shotting things as a Brute and you are fighting more than one thing at a time ( otherwise your complaints mean nothing here....you were complaining about AoE changes, weren't you?).

[Paragon Vanguard]

Just now, Erratic1 said:

 

Stop being disingenuous. You are not one-shotting things as a Brute and you are fighting more than one thing at a time ( otherwise your complaints mean nothing here....you were complaining about AoE changes, weren't you?).

No I was not. I was talking about over all performance. Don't accuse me of being disingenuous just because you don't agree. I have not been rude to anyone, except a troll, you don't need to be rude. I am very much in conversation, and if you don't like the conversation don't get involved. Pretty simple son. 

[Erratic1]

10 minutes ago, Maelwys said:

Whilst this is true... another way to look at it is that for the vast majority of the game (without thinking of extreme survivability scenarios...) Tankers often simply don't need to chase additional resistance or defence or MaxHP; because with just bog-standard ED-capped slotting of their core abilities and no set bonuses a Tanker's elevated base values result in a substantially higher immortality line than an equivalent Brute. And that baseline survivability ends up being more than enough to survive indefinitely against whatever they're likely to be fighting (outside of very specific content).

 

And what that added survivability turns into (at least for me) is playing in ways I dont on my Brutes until much later in the scheme of things). Repeatedly In this and other threads there is the accusation that nerfs are because of edge cases involving edge set builds, procs, and/or +4x8. On simple SOs, Tankers reach considerably greater survivability than Brutes. That additional survivability can be parlayed into approaches to clearing a Brute doesn't dare attempt until later or with more investment.

 

My Tankers gather up groups because area damage is more effective than soloing groups down and the Tankers WILL live. When I'm down to a few foe left, I move on because the time spent dispatching them is better served by maximizing how many I am hitting than working those few down and they are going to follow any way.

[Erratic1]

9 minutes ago, Paragon Vanguard said:

No I was not. I was talking about over all performance. Don't accuse me of being disingenuous just because you don't agree. I have not been rude to anyone, except a troll, you don't need to be rude. I am very much in conversation, and if you don't like the conversation don't get involved. Pretty simple son. 

 

 I am calling you disingenuous because you keep asserting difference in performance which aren't there. The Brute doesn't take just one hit because he kills faster...he spends less time, true, but multiple hits are coming in and going out otherwise Fury would not be up and he would not he dong more damage in the first place.

 

 

 

[tidge]

There is one area of the Tanker v. Brute discussion that I feel obligated to point out, and (slyly) point fingers at the HC team who made a big change to the game (that I like!) but sort of gets ignored. What I write below has echoes of @ZemX comments about "what content and play style does the dev team even think about?"

 

The fundamental difference between Tankers and Brutes is that Tankers get an offensive secondary, while Brutes get an offensive primary. Until Tankers start getting their attack chains, not to mention slots to go in the attacks... there is zero chance for Tankers to outperform Brutes in terms of clear times... unless the Brutes are somehow skimping on their own offensive options. When the HC Dev Team lowered the levels at which higher-tier powers (and Epics/Patrons) could be selected, they further shrank the parts of the game where there is a clear difference between these two ATs that often get compared head-to-head.

 

As @Maelwys points out just above: Tankers have a little bit more wiggle room than Brutes for 'surviving' ... but as can be demonstrated by Scrappers, with a lower level of survivability than both Brutes and Tankers and access to the same armors, for a lot of content it is the damage that contributes to faster clear times (and thus in-game rewards).

 

That we had (per Ston) three melee ATs all being able to finish specific non-tivial content within seconds of each other, despite their different areas of nominal excellence and build choices, was to be celebrated.

[Maelwys]

18 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

My Tankers gather up groups because area damage is more effective than soloing groups down and the Tankers WILL live. When I'm down to a few foe left, I move on because the time spent dispatching them is better served by maximizing how many I am hitting than working those few down and they are going to follow any way.

This bit speaks to me. Whilst testing the Tanker changes on Brainstorm I had to explain multiple times that my playstyle does not involve completely killing off one group of foes before moving on to the next group. Apparently there are a lot of people out there who feel that keeping your AoE Target Caps saturated by constantly dragging the leftovers from one spawn into the middle of the next spawn is "doing it wrong"... 🤷‍♂️ (I could understand if it was in a lowbie teaming situation where maintaining rock-solid aggro control overly mattered, but this was pure endgame solo performance testing!)

If someone isn't consistently leveraging those Tanker larger target caps; then IMO it's pretty obviously that they're going to be underperforming.
The good news is that if you didn't constantly fight >10 foes before the patch then it's rather unlikely that you'll notice much of a drop in performance... ⛅
 

Edited July 9 by Maelwys

[ZemX]

4 minutes ago, Maelwys said:

Apparently there are a lot of people out there who feel that keeping your AoE Target Caps saturated by constantly dragging the leftovers from one spawn into the middle of the next spawn is "doing it wrong"... 🤷‍♂️

 

Who?  Because that is not what I am saying.  I am saying, in fact, that is what I EXPECT to happen... but only when soloing or farming.   I have not seen this happen in teams.  Almost the opposite in fact.  I have trouble getting teammates to bring stragglers like rezzing Freaks to the next spawn even.   They single-mindedly want to grind each spawn to dust before moving on.   And they sometimes even get upset I've moved on to the next spawn to get it all taunted-up and clustered up on me.    Then there are controllers/doms doing confuses and immobs and what-not, further preventing enemy clustering.   There's no chance to keep AoEs saturated on a team like that.  Not in my experience.

[Erratic1]

11 minutes ago, tidge said:

As @Maelwys points out just above: Tankers have a little bit more wiggle room than Brutes for 'surviving' ... but as can be demonstrated by Scrappers, with a lower level of survivability than both Brutes and Tankers and access to the same armors, for a lot of content it is the damage that contributes to faster clear times (and thus in-game rewards).

 

Brutes and Scrappers have same base resistance and defense values in their powers and identical defense caps. Scrappers are only limited as goes resistance caps. As for a lot of content where they do more damage, that is a factor of when Scrappers get their ATOs.

[Paragon Vanguard]

14 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

 

The Brute doesn't take just one hit because he kills faster...he spends less time, true, but multiple hits are coming in and going out otherwise Fury would not be up and he would not he dong more damage in the first place.

 

 

 

 

Please, just an honest answer. Who can finish mobs...dragging left overs or whatever....quicker? Even before the nerf, bearing in mind that the Brute, while taking more damage, should not be dropping. Who cleared the mobs and moved on? That's a measure, albeit simple, of over all performance. 

 

[Maelwys]

3 minutes ago, Paragon Vanguard said:

Please, just an honest answer. Who can finish mobs...dragging left overs or whatever....quicker? Even before the nerf, bearing in mind that the Brute, while taking more damage, should not be dropping. Who cleared the mobs and moved on? That's a measure, albeit simple, of over all performance. 

 

Are there less than eleven mobs?

 

If yes, then it'll be a Scrapper with a Taunt Aura. If no, then before i28p2 the answer would have been a Tanker... but now it's a Scrapper with a Taunt Aura.

 

Brutes do not clear things the fastest, unless those things are trying to run away and you can't stop them without Punchvoke. They do however have a much higher survivability ceiling than a Scrapper... so in content where 90% resistance matters they can pull ahead.

[Maelwys]

17 minutes ago, ZemX said:

 There's no chance to keep AoEs saturated on a team like that.  Not in my experience.

 

To be fair, those are the sort of teams where having Taunt and/or Fold Space are invaluable. Because if you can't drag the spawn you're currently fighting into a fresh spawn, then you can always drag the fresh spawn to you instead.

[Erratic1]

9 minutes ago, Paragon Vanguard said:

 

Please, just an honest answer. Who can finish mobs...dragging left overs or whatever....quicker? Even before the nerf, bearing in mind that the Brute, while taking more damage, should not be dropping. Who cleared the mobs and moved on? That's a measure, albeit simple, of over all performance. 

 

9 minutes ago, Paragon Vanguard said:

 

 

All of my answers have been honest.

 

Who clears a single spawn of whites in a +0x1 mission faster? The Brute, obviously. Not going to suggest such does not exist, particularly at low levels, but it is usually a bit more varied, particularly as you get out ouf low level missions. The Rikti which greet you when rescuing a Midnighter are likely to be yellow and orange, for example. 

 

Now for your honest answer: Who is more likely to have to stop and recover from damage taken after fighting a spawn, particularly those with lieutenants and bosses?