Umbral

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If we're talking D&D, there was never a "race as class" functionality. There was always a class you had to choose and the only race that I recall specifically only having a single class to pick from was Dwarves (who got Fighter). Halflings could go as either Thieves or Fighters. Elves and Half-Elves both got access to Magic-User, Thief, and Fighter. Human was the only race that got access to all of the classes (Fighter, Thief, Magic-User, and Cleric).

[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking AD&D, they're talking D&D. Y'know, older school.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, this is D&D. I know this for a fact. Pamphlets and everything.

It would probably be better to refer to it as "Ignore this arc" and have it generate a private list of Arc IDs that you're ignoring.

You could always go with 5 piece Touch of the Nictus and a level 50 common rech IO. It'll net you some nice set bonuses, 88% +recharge, 68.9% +acc, and 97% +heal.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

When I was as new to gaming as you, we had to roll 3d6 for our stats! In order! And what class you could play was determined by those rolls ! And that was only if your race allowed it! /geezeroff

[/ QUOTE ]

Choices of classes foir races? Luxury!!

I remember when your race was your class, and you were grateful for that!

[/ QUOTE ]

If we're talking D&D, there was never a "race as class" functionality. There was always a class you had to choose and the only race that I recall specifically only having a single class to pick from was Dwarves (who got Fighter). Halflings could go as either Thieves or Fighters. Elves and Half-Elves both got access to Magic-User, Thief, and Fighter. Human was the only race that got access to all of the classes (Fighter, Thief, Magic-User, and Cleric).

Keep in mind that this was also back in the day when the maximum level you could attain in a class was also determined by your race. Halflings could only get to level 3 Fighter or level 8 Thief. Dwarves could get, at highest, level 7 Fighter. Humans could get the highest level (13 in general, though it depended on the specific class back then...). Half-Elves got close to full Human but were always a few levels short. Elves could get level 5 Fighter, level 6 Thief, and near the upper echelons of Magic-User, iirc.

Of course, all of this is coming from the old school 1st ed. D&D pamphlets that I was started on 15 years ago. I just really think that more kids should know their roots nowadays. :P

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Assassin's Shatter (Encaser them in Ice and the ice explodes, more visually appealing)


[/ QUOTE ]
I like your idea, but for a name I'd kind of think it would be Assassin's Winter or Assassin's Frost?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Assassin's Frost or Assassin's Breath. Assassin's Winter sounds like it would be a big AoE nuke type power. Either way, I definitely imagine the animation as being very slow but graceful for either of them, shrouded in mist as you slowly move to delicately touch, and thusly kill, your target.

Personally, I think you should do both. Blow bubbles and shout loudly. FF/Sonic is a great combination.

FF/* provides excellent team support and is one of the more fun sets to play because it is low maintenance enough to allow you to blast away to your heart's content. It also provides an absurd level of survivability to your team, especially if you take Maneuvers. With just SOs, you can provide 44.5% +defense to all positions and damage types except sonic to your entire team. With level 50 IOs, you can actually get above the soft cap. Best of all, you're doing all of that with 2 reasonably priced toggles and 2 click powers that will take 30 seconds every 4 minutes to apply.

*/Sonic is awesome because it's got loads of -res, which means that you'll be granting your group high quality offensive support while you deal damage, all the better because you've got 87.5% of your time to fill up with blastfending joy.

[ QUOTE ]
Umbral, while your comments are well thought out, it still come across (at least to me) that you to want to nerf brutes due to the percetption that they might be better than your scrappers. You seem to fear that people will say lol scrapper when you ask to join a team on your scrapper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, if you knew me particularly well, you'd realize that I actually get this riled up about most kinds of balance considerations within the confines of RPGs. Part of it is because I generally tend to go with the less min/max type characters because I enjoy the flavor of the character much more and would rather not be penalized for not choosing that specific character. I'd rather have each character operate off of the same baseline of performance than have some operate worse than others, especially after the difference has been pointed out.

I've got more than a few suggestions of how to help solve the issue with as little negative impact as possible, though I choose to withhold them because they're rather numerous and depend heavily on the specific implementation of the game (whether each power in the database needs to be modified independently, how ingrained the AT caps are, whether it would be preferably to bring Brutes down, Scrappers and any other ATs up, or a combination of the 2, etc.).

I'm not just complaining for complaint's sake (though I won't say that I'm not deriving a great deal of pleasure from a very lively and enjoyable debate), nor am I doing it because I think Scrappers should be the absolute best at whatever it is we do well. I genuinely believe that there is a problem that should be addressed and, if it were within my power, I would do what I could to address it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This begs the question then of what the "acceptable target" is. Thanks to the virtually very minor changes that have happened to Scrappers over the course of the game, I'm reasonably sure that Scrappers are very close to, if not the definition of, the acceptable balance target.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is absolutely no evidence there in support of that conclusion. All you can deduce from that is that Scrappers exist inside the boundaries of those targets. More importantly, being "very close to if not the definition of" implies that the balance target is a single number or line. It's not. It's a spread.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's also no evidence to the contrary so it's just as valid as any conceptualization of yours, especially since I'm already admitting to using a supposition based on lack of manipulation as a basis of normalcy. It's a reasonable enough metric in my view, but could mean any of a number of things since we're not privy to the inner workings of Castle's balancing methods.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, you're using a vague argument ("acceptable target") without ever giving a definition for it and using it as a counterargument for my own. You're simply inhibiting any potential debate by refusing to actual give a concrete definition for what you think the appropriate term would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't give a firm definition of it because the devs do not tell us what they use. They only have told us that they consider some things too good and some things too poor, and when things wander outside those boundaries, they are eligable for change. I can't specifiy those boundaries, because the devs have not explained them to us. Despite that, I think it's critical that you understand that this is the sort of approach that they take, because I think it's relevant to understanding why your approach, which seems to be based on either a much narrower range or even a single line, isn't going to set off their alarm bells. Unless, that is, Brutes wander outside the upper boundaries or Scrappers wander below the lower one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already realize that they use general ranges of performance in their comparisons and deliberations mainly because there are too many variables to account for but also because it's spectacularly difficult to quantify effectiveness contributions from different sources (holds, support, survival, damage, etc), but I also know that, when they're comparing sets with similar functionality, they'd be stupid not to use direct numerical comparison to determine differing levels of effectiveness since the comparison is direct and the unquantifiable variables are comparatively insignificant.

The reason that ranges are used for balance is because it would be too difficult to account for disparate functions. Scrappers and Brutes don't have significant enough disparate functions between the two of them to make numerical comparisons unnecessary.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There isn't any proof that there wouldn't be either, so it's not exactly a foolproof argument, especially since, assuming that people would go with the "best" (re: most powerful) option between the two if they were given all of the information and all else was equal (re: they have access to all the same content), people would side with Brutes over Scrappers.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't make a change in a working system because of something that could happen unless you think there is a very good reason for doing so. You have to either believe that the purported problem is unlikely but potentially severe, or highly likely. All you have presented is a set of mathematical evidence that Brutes can operate at higher levels than Scrappers. That is not compelling to me as an indicator of either a highly likely or a highly severe problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it be a compelling argument to bring up human psychology and the strong tendency for people to choose the most powerful of multiple tools available to them if the differences are readily obvious and the functions are identical? Ask a random person on the street whether sun screen with SPF 35 or SPF 40 is better. They'll tell you SPF 40. If the two sun screens were available for the identical price and from the same company, they'd also buy the SPF 40. It's a basic tenet of psychology and has a strong enough correlation to be consider an effect unto itself.

There will be a shift from Scrapper to Brute. I assure you there will be, especially among the power gaming crowd. I'd rather the reason to switch between the 2 ATs be play style and concept choices rather than the fact that Scrappers are demonstrably inferior.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you prefer one AT over another doesn't really mean much, just like my own preference for Scrappers over Brutes doesn't really mean much, especially from a balance standpoint. Because we play the game for fun, we'll go for whichever AT is more entertaining to play for ourselves. However, balance shouldn't factor that in, especially since it is heavily dependent on the player rather than on the game itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you're talking about a "problem" defiined as who will play more of what AT, you have no choice but to factor that in. You apparently refuse to acknowledge that this performance gap you've identified does not clearly indicate that people will migrate from the Scrapper AT to the Brute one. That is an assuption than necessarily assumes that performance is the dominant indicator of what AT will be played. But we have copious evidence to the contrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I never said it would ever be a dominant factor. But it will be a factor in the decision. It shouldn't be. That's what balance is all about. No AT should be demonstrably better in all functional respects than any other AT. Brutes are demonstrably better in all functional respects than Scrappers. That's wrong and should be fixed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can never account for the player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why the devs datamine to find out what most of the players are actually doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with datamining is that it's notoriously unreliable. Datamining has shown that Scrappers are the most played AT on CoX, but, if you actually go and check who is online, you'll find more controllers than anything else. The reason that datamining is used is because it is solid and confirmable data. You can state, without question, that this many Scrappers have been made since CoX went live. You cannot, however, say how many of them are still active or even played regularly. Datamining is in no way the wonder tool you make it out to be. The devs have even stated that datamining is simply a necessary sin.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I could quite easily point you to something quite simple to illustrate this. Look at the number of controllers regularly played and then look at the numbers of defenders regularly played. I can almost assure you that there will be more controllers than there will be defenders. A simple way to do this would be to take a few population datapoints on multiple servers at multiple times. Do a quick search for defenders and another for controllers. I am more than confident you will find a statistically significant difference between the 2 populations.

[/ QUOTE ]

We were given those numbers. But again, I consider your methodolgy in analyzing those numbers flawed. The goal is not parity in player selection of the available ATs. The goal is that any given AT have a "healthy" population, a healthy playtime, and a health leveling rate. Everything else is secondary, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, we get into varying definitions of ambiguous terms (which, as you've stated before, you're unwilling to even venture definition of). How do you (not the devs) define "healthy" in this context? A certain minimum percentage of created or played characters of the AT? A certain amount of play time across all character? I'm very curious as to where you as a player, exclusively within the confines of this debate, would define it, especially since you're so gung-ho at determining intent and need for rebalancing in any way (which is by no means a requirement for any rebalancing).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However the Controller-Defender parity issues isn't quite as black and white as the Scrapper-Brute parity issue. Defenders are still (nearly) 33% more effective at support that Controllers are. Controllers beat Defenders on damage, but Defenders beat Controllers on support.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is usually described as far more stark a difference than this, because you left out the primary role of all Controllers - control. (Not all controllers are actually that effective at damage dealing.) The usual argument about the disparity in those ATs is that Controllers bring far more to a team because they bring nearly as good a force muliplication, plus control. In essence they can replace both a Tanker and a Defender with two Controllers and come out ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can understand the inclusion of control into the accounts (I generally feel that's balanced out significantly by Defender's ability to debuff absurdly well with the secondary effects of their blasts, but that's secondary) though I don't honestly see how Controllers can actually replace both Tankers and Defenders, except for the sets such as Illusion control which have powers that specifically allow them to control aggro. Crowd control and aggro control are only vaguely related functions. Crowd control is nowhere near permanent enough to prevent attacks from reaching the rest of the team, especially since there are incorporated down times in all control powers. The only time you will actually get Controllers replacing Tankers and Defenders is when you get enough Controllers to create redundant overlap and are not fighting enemies that are not mez protected (AVs, Cimerorans, etc).

I'll concede that the two effects are related, but neither is going to replace the other completely.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aren't you showing that the player base is acting in the manner I describe by saying that there are already substantially fewer Defenders than there should be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hardly, and I'm curious how you read that into my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wrote...

[ QUOTE ]
I do not believe that a significant part of the playerbase will behave in the way you describe, because if they did, there would already be fewer Defenders than there are now.

[/ QUOTE ]

The implication of this bolded statement is that there is already a smaller than expected number of Defenders than their should be, if all things were equal. The semantics of your statement suggest that the uncommon would be even less common under the effects of the condition. That's where I was getting it from.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You imply that there should be more and yet, for some reason, there aren't as many as there should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I implied no such thing. Among other things, I've made no statements about how many there should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try reading the bolded phrase again. You may have wanted to say something else, but the implication is present. If you meant something different, feel free to reword it, but it read exactly as that to me.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it's questionable as to whether an AT is outside of the arbitrary average, to determine how far it is outside, a direct comparison needs to be made to determine an accurate magnitude of "outsideness".

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is a symantical distinction. Yes, because the range exists to bound all the ATs, then by definition any AT outside the bounds is "overpowered" compared to its peers by defintion. I do not believe that distinction is important. I believe it is actually irrelevant to singleing out any two ATs for comparison, because the perforance bands to not exist relative only to those two ATs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's also assuming that all ATs are within the same bounds as all other ATs. Considering you've already made the argument that sufficiently buffed Scrappers make Tankers redundant, and agreed that Brutes are stronger than Tankers, then Brutes are stonger bother Tankers and Scrappers. The difference isn't solely between 2 ATs. It's between multiple ATs because it's all a web of interrelatedness.

Either way, the entire point of all of the ATs is that they do something different from the others. Scrappers can perform fewer functions than Brutes, and, in the 2 functions that Brutes and Scrappers do share, the 2 are equivalent in one and Scrappers underperform in the other. With every other AT comparison it's possible to bring up a function that the other AT performs that could feasibly balance out the higher performance of the other. Dominators-Controllers: Controllers have support, Dominators have more damage and stronger controls. Masterminds-Defenders:Masterminds have better damage and survivability, Defenders have stronger support and additional debuff capacity.

Brutes-Scrappers is simply: Brutes are harder to kill.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is one of the primary reasons why I calculate according to scalars and caps rather than specific power sets and builds. Assuming that the power sets are themselves balanced, scalar would be the primary distinguishing difference between the ATs, illustrating any underlying imbalances between the 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I beleive this is radically in error. I know that the devs do not balance in this way, and I would argue against it if they did. You are artificially limiting your scope in your definition for balance. For example, this would ignore any AT which had prolific controls in its attcks as a rule of thumb - something which is not visible in a consideration of scalars and caps alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that's why you use the qualitative benefit of controls and other secondary benefits of attacking. The comparisons I've made have been purely scalar based because I'm comparing ATs within the same role (damage:damage) without making any commentary on secondary benefits or because I'm analyzing damage exclusively. Either way, I haven't quantified controls quantified because they have yet to be a significant enough variable in the balance equivalence or are addressed after the fact labeling them a qualitative factors that contribute however much (such as the comments I've made concerning Stalker demoralization and Placate).

If I were to actually begin comparing mez intensive ATs, I would actually start looking at the mez scalar to determine if there are any discrepancies. Seeing as there are only 2 ATs that are actually mez intensive (Controller and Dominator) and they share the exact same mez scalars, it's a moot point either way.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd heartily disagree that a heavily buffed Scrapper is capable of replacing a Tanker on a team unless the entire team is so heavily buffed that aggro is no longer an issue (at which point it's not an issue of the Scrapper replacing the Tanker, it's an issue of the plethora of buffs rendering the Tanker redundant).

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this very strange, for two reasons. One, it's extremely common for a team to be exactly as buffed as described. Two, the more damage a team is capable of dealing the less relevant uncontrolled aggro is. Three, aggro can be managed with controls.

Tankers are completely superfluous. No team is required to have one. That said, I would never turn one away simply on the basis that it was a Tanker, and I take exception to people who optimize that way, because (again) we are all so suped up it mostly doesn't matter what we bring.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, it's only common for teams to be as buffed to the gills as you imply when the teams are specifically built for such. Most teams are not, in fact, hyper optimized like this. The only support set that could feasibly protect this well under normal team make up is FF/* and that's simply because it can layer huge quantities of +def which will contribute more to a group's survival than -dam or +res.

Secondly, it takes a lot more control than you imply to make up for the aggro control that a Tanker has thanks to the low uptimes of Controller AoE mez powers. Under SO circumstances, it would take multiple Controllers cycling through their controls as quickly as possible to make up for the aggro that a single Tanker could maintain. The Tanker is also more likely to be dealing more damage than the Controllers are because the Tanker is going to be using attacks slotted for damage rather than control powers slotted for control.

Lastly, as an addendum to your "Tankers are completely superfluous" comment, every AT is completely superfluous. There is no "required" AT, though, for some challenges, there are required "roles" (tank, support, damage) that need to be fulfilled in order to achieve it (STF for one). Trying to make it look like Tankers are unique in their capacity for easy replacement is an argument destined for failure.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A Scrapper buffed to the extent you imply is only going to be able to serve as a Tanker if they've actually gone through the effort of acquiring the ability to obtain and maintain aggro on a a group. Blueside, Tankers are in no threat of being rendered irrelevant by buffed up Scrappers. Scrappers just can't keep aggro as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point. There's no need to buff up the Scrapper that level. You don't need anyone to play damage sponge. What Tankers are threatened by is the aggregate contribution of the rest of the team, not just Scrappers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is an issue of buff contribution and force multiplication more than it is any innate weakness in the design of the Tanker, Scrapper, or Blaster ATs. Scrappers and Blasters could easily be just as threatened by buff compilation as Tankers are. Defenders and Controllers have been demonstrating this since the beginning of the game, though, before ED it was less important because everyone was already performing near cap capability. Teams of 8 Defenders are some of the classic super teams (and still are).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How bad does a disparity have to be between existing ATs in order for it to be of a sufficient magnitude to demonstrate a problem? You already admit that there is a disparity and that the disparity is readily obvious. How much worse does it have to get, in your view, before it becomes a problem that requires addressing?

[/ QUOTE ]

When it either a) exceeds whatever the metrics the devs have for upper performance or b) it causes a seismic shift in AT population. And I mean that we end up with something like 10% or less of all heroside characters being Scrappers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interestingly, I doubt any AT would get examined by your definition (and not the easy, cop-out "dev metrics" definition that doesn't even answer the question). Dominators and Stalkers were never 10% of the villain side population. In fact, IIRC, Stalkers were actually the most populous AT red side even before they increased their hp, damage scalar, and benefit of their inherent power. By your definition (and I do mean your definition, not your cop-out), Stalkers should never have gotten a buff because they were only demonstrably underperforming on paper. Their population numbers were fine so they shouldn't have been fixed. Dominators would be in the same boat as well, but they're getting their damage increased. Funny that.

The big problem I see between our 2 balance considerations is that you would actually like to see it become a problem before it gets fixed whereas I would actually prefer to head to he problem off and prevent it from ever being a problem.

To use a couple metaphors, you'd prefer to see sea levels rise 12 feet before doing anything to solve global warming. You'd want a species to become fully endangered (and probably in dire risk of extinction) before putting forth any effort to rescue the species. That's the difference. I see imbalance and want it to be addressed because a serious problem could arise. You'd rather let it sit and become a serious problem before doing anything to fix it, just in case it didn't become one, even though you do admit that it could easily become one.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd once again like to ask for some disambiguation of terms from you. You're a great fan of using ambiguous terms like "meaningful difference" and "noticeable disparity" without ever giving solid definitions for them. I've tried very hard to make sure that all of the terms that I've used in this argument have been as clear and concise as possible, which is one of the reasons I'm partial to using numbers. They're definite, quantitative, and capable of illustrating a difference without question.

[/ QUOTE ]

All you have is these numbers. You have no expression for the significance of those numbers. You seem claim the performance gap is "large". What basis do you have for that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I do understand the significance of those numbers. It's pretty obvious. It's the difference between requiring 14 minion equivalences shooting at you for 22 seconds to kill you and requiring 17 on a softcapped */SR. It's the difference between 60 hp/sec and 75 hp/sec regeneration on a */WP. It's an extra 2 seconds of reaction time when you've got 75 dps penetrating your preferred method of mitigation. That's pretty significant.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're arguments, on the other hand, are completely without specificity. The definition of most of your arguments is completely up to interpretation, which is one of the reasons why we can't seem to agree. You refuse to pin yourself down so that the debate can actually take place.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I've said, I don't know what numbers the devs use or I'd apply them here. Hell, I don't know if the devs actually use hard numbers for this sort of thing. All I know is that there are some sort of boundaries, and the primary "balance" concern is whether the ATs and powersets are operating within them or not. I don't have to provide you with those values, because they're not germane to the point I'm making - you're comparing two ATs and the devs are not. If the two ATs are both inside the dev's boundaries whatever those are then it doesn't matter nearly so much how they perform relative to one another.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's inappropriate to compare 2 ATs then why are you so adamant concerning the Tanker-Controller comparison?

As to the inability to bring forth any numbers or even solid definitions because, as you point out, we're not devs, the devs are also omnipotent. It's methods like these that Arcanaville (who I know has Castle's ear and has a significant effect upon his final considerations) uses to point out inequities. The numbers are useful and are used. You're assuming that just because the devs don't show calculations like this, even though they're one of the best tools at their disposal for determining differences that they aren't done.

I could easily do a scalar damage comparison for Blasters, Stalkers, Scrappers, and Brutes and break out of the 2 AT comparison mold that you seem to so eagerly hang up upon but the fact of the matter is that Scrappers, Blasters, and Stalkers are all balanced very closely already. Blasters get the AoE, Stalkers get the higher damage, and Scrappers get the higher mitigation. Brutes have higher damage than any but the Stalker but maintain better survivability than any of them and it only gets worse whenever they start getting buffed and IO up.

[ QUOTE ]
What the heck are you people talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

History. You should learn some of yours so you'll understand us old men of the gaming world.

/geezeron

When I was as new to gaming as you, we had to roll 3d6 for our stats! In order! And what class you could play was determined by those rolls ! And that was only if your race allowed it! And we had to roll our first hit dice so it was possible to have a Magic-User with more hit points than the Fighter! And everyone leveled up at different speeds! And... And...

/geezeroff

[ QUOTE ]
Buffer would get supressed anyway once you attack them..=.=

[/ QUOTE ]

That would require you actually get in range to attack them (not everyone is a ranged character and it's not too hard to simply skirt the periphery of a person's range if the buddy you're buffing is the one engaging you)

[ QUOTE ]
the difference between Brutes and Scrappers is minor - as was stated earlier in the thread, if you have enough survivability already and deal similar damage who cares that the guy over there has 100 more hp than you?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's actually a difference of 160.7 if both are at their base values and 803.2 at their caps. The big issue with this is that, because Brutes have more hit points, they've also got larger self heals and greater regeneration, plus a longer reaction time. It's a difference of 12% at it's smallest, which isn't to be ignored in the slightest. That's a pretty big increase in survivability.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget Super Strength, Stone Melee, and technically Lightning Rod is a location based ranged attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both of the Hurl powers are atrocious attacks. They've got horrible DPA and have long activation times. Lightning Rod qualifies as a ranged attack about as much as Shield Charge does.

The reason I bring this up is because Focus and Impale are, by design and intent, supposed to be highly effect ranged attacks within their sets. That's what sets them apart. I doubt anyone would attribute any of the Tanker sets mentioned as being especially Assault like. The ranged attacks within just aren't up to snuff.

[ QUOTE ]
And I would argue whether Combustion, Breath of Fire and Frost are long range melee attacks, or short range ranged attacks. (Frost is well within melee norms, but Combustion has the exact same range as Spine Burst. In fact, that may suggest why Scrappers and Brutes don't get Combustion...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Breath of Fire is easily a long range melee attack as is Frost. Their ranges are only marginally better than melee range (by 8 and 3 respective). The additional range in either isn't going to allow for kiting like Shockwave, Focus, Throw Spines, and Impale. The single target attacks have a range of 40 and the cones have ranges of 30. A short range ranged attack would probably be closer to 20-25 than 15.

[ QUOTE ]
even though for now I'm leaning towards fire/mm due to the potential for aoe destruction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, if you're curious, Arch/MM can actually maintain greater levels of AoE dps than Fire/MM can. The advantages of Fire/MM are that fire is the least resisted damage type in the game whereas lethal is the most and fire has greater single target damage potential because Blaze is absurdly awesome.

[ QUOTE ]
The way I see it, 330% regen would regen 3.3 bars a second. +330% regen is a whole other matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even see how you're getting that 330% regen any ways. Whenever people give out build information, they're generally doing it through power contribution (re: Mids info) rather than whatever method you're interpreting.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then why are the caps there in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please reconsider that answer in the context of the question that I asked. Specifically, it was asked in relation to comparison of Scrappers and Brutes at their top end of performance. Caps do not exist explicitly to enforce comparative roles, they exist to enforce stand-alone performance limits. A Brute's limits exist to bound their absolute performance limits as Brutes, not in comparison to the performance to Scrappers. Yes, it happens that you can then compare the limits of the two ATs, and you can choose those limits in ways that help define or refine their roles. They do not, however, fundamentally exist for that purpose. They exist to limit the absolute upper bound of what that AT can achieve.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm honestly curious where you think the upper bounds come from then, if not from arbitrary design assignments of desired roles. If they're there for some other purpose than preventing Defenders from achieving super Scrapper level damage simply by virtue of inordinate buffing capability (and the other cases of caps preventing substantial buffs from causing 1 AT to operate in the realm of another), I'd like to know. I'm not suggesting that it's the only tool, but it's definitely one that is determined by the role as determined by the developers. All of the ATs designed nominally as "damage dealers" have a greater than 300% +dam cap (though, Corrupters blur it a bit by being damage dealers that bring substantial de/buffs).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Brutes, thanks to their caps, don't follow any precedent of cap balance. That, in and of itself, at least brings up the consideration of a change.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure lack of precedence indicates a requirement for review. Performance in excess of acceptable targets would, however, and if that performance excess were found to be a result of the combination of caps the AT sports, then that would be a possible course for change.

That consideration, if warrented, exists outside any question of comparison to Scrappers in shared play.

[/ QUOTE ]

This begs the question then of what the "acceptable target" is. Thanks to the virtually very minor changes that have happened to Scrappers over the course of the game, I'm reasonably sure that Scrappers are very close to, if not the definition of, the acceptable balance target.

Once again, you're using a vague argument ("acceptable target") without ever giving a definition for it and using it as a counterargument for my own. You're simply inhibiting any potential debate by refusing to actual give a concrete definition for what you think the appropriate term would be. We might actually be able to agree on something if you'd actually give a position on what you think a specific appropriate point of balance would be as well as the "band" surrounding it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of the primary reasons that this discussion has been brought up now is because of GoRo.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not what I meant. There is no proof that mixing Scrappers and Brutes on the same side is going to have any deliterious affect on the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't any proof that there wouldn't be either, so it's not exactly a foolproof argument, especially since, assuming that people would go with the "best" (re: most powerful) option between the two if they were given all of the information and all else was equal (re: they have access to all the same content), people would side with Brutes over Scrappers.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a reason to address the changes. It's not out yet, but the reason is there nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why you keep harping on this as though your readers don't understand that there's an expansion coming that's going to put Scrappers and Brutes on the same sides. We get that. I'm saying the Brute damage/mitigation math combined with the fact that they're going to be on teams with Scrappers brings me no angst. Yes, they can perform higher in both damage and mitgation. I agree. I simply do not see it as an issue for concern. And again, I remind you - I play both ATs and I prefer Scrappers, and nothing about this bothers me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you prefer one AT over another doesn't really mean much, just like my own preference for Scrappers over Brutes doesn't really mean much, especially from a balance standpoint. Because we play the game for fun, we'll go for whichever AT is more entertaining to play for ourselves. However, balance shouldn't factor that in, especially since it is heavily dependent on the player rather than on the game itself. You can never account for the player. Balance should however be a factor in design because it means that every AT is going to have as similar as possible performance levels allowing players to pick according to their play style choice without being penalized for having a play style preference that is most comfortable with an innately weaker AT.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious as to what reasons you think exist for Tankers or Blasters to no longer see play. Tankers are still capable of better unbuffed mitigation and aggro control than any other AT in the game. Blasters are, arguably, the best AoE AT in the game (Corrupters are close because they can buff, but lose out because they have a functional scalar of .95 whereas Blasters have 1.125). There are still reasons to play them from a numbers standpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, though I realize that there's some personal opinion involved. Here's what I think is the difference in your viewpoint and mine.

Lets make up a scale. To be moderately challenged at most of the game, you need to be a 5 on this scale. To be challenged only by the hardest stuff in the game, you are an 8.

By the time they're 50, I think most Scrappers are a 6 or 7. I think most Brutes are a 6-8. By the time you add IOs on them, Scrappers are more like a 7-9 and most Brutes are like a 8-10. But for most of the game, you only need to be a 5.

When we need to be a 5 to succeed in general and an 8 to succeed against the hardest normal stuff available, I cease to be terribly concerned about relative balance in ATs who are operating in the levels above 7. It's not compelling to me that this is a meaningful concern even if it's a real phenomena. Meanwhile, you're very worried about a Brute being a 9 while a Scrapper is an 8. (Note: all actual numbers used are meaningless and for the purpose of example.)

[/ QUOTE ]

(Note: I'm going to be using your numbers, readily realizing that the numbers you use are completely arbitrary and mean nothing)

Personally, I would see a 1 point disparity in performance between any 2 ATs on that scale (as long as the performance is review across all conditions and weighted for the AT's designed preferred role) as something that needs to be fixed. It may not seem like much, but it is a quantifiable and noticeable difference if you're actually paying attention.

The big problem is that most people aren't paying attention. In the early issues, it took a while for the devs to realize from the players that Scrappers were underperforming in damage on teams. The Brute-Scrapper disparity is even harder to see but I've already addressed those reasons elsewhere in this thread (and recently to boot!) and I don't want to begin sounding like a broken record (my apologies if you felt I was using redundant argument concerning GoRo, btw).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, if both Brutes and Scrappers are available for all content, there isn't much reason outside of specific play style concerns to go with a Scrapper rather than a Brute. If/when everyone learns that Brutes put out equivalent damage numbers as Scrappers while being significantly harder to kill, many fewer people will play Scrappers than do now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Queue every debate on Controllers vs. Defenders that has ever graced the boards. I flatly believe you are wrong. However, even if you are right, I do not believe the devs are likely to take the course you are suggesting as how to address it, if they choose to address it at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I could quite easily point you to something quite simple to illustrate this. Look at the number of controllers regularly played and then look at the numbers of defenders regularly played. I can almost assure you that there will be more controllers than there will be defenders. A simple way to do this would be to take a few population datapoints on multiple servers at multiple times. Do a quick search for defenders and another for controllers. I am more than confident you will find a statistically significant difference between the 2 populations.

However the Controller-Defender parity issues isn't quite as black and white as the Scrapper-Brute parity issue. Defenders are still (nearly) 33% more effective at support that Controllers are. Controllers beat Defenders on damage, but Defenders beat Controllers on support. In all of the comparisons we've made, Brutes are just as good at damage as Scrappers and better at survival. The Controller-Defender choice still has a form of numerical preference attached: would you rather have better damage or better support? Brute-Scrapper on the other hand is simply a decision of whether you would rather have better or worse survivability.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then what would you conclude from them? That, even though the numbers show a disparity that no such disparity exists? Care to show any kind of evidence for that conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand how you could come to that interpretation of what I'm saying, as I think I've said it explicitly several times, even in the post you are responding to. I conclude that there is a disparity and that it is not particularly important. I do not believe that a significant part of the playerbase will behave in the way you describe, because if they did, there would already be fewer Defenders than there are now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you showing that the player base is acting in the manner I describe by saying that there are already substantially fewer Defenders than there should be? You imply that there should be more and yet, for some reason, there aren't as many as there should be. Possible explanations could include the fact that they have substantially lower damage than Controllers which doesn't equate to their increase in support capability, but that would be assuming that players pay attention to their output, even if it's only done slowly or partially by the player base.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A numerical disparity is a tool used to demonstrate a real disparity. If you'd care to use some other tool to denote a lack of disparity in capability and potential, then, please, bring it up. Don't just blow off evidence that is contrary to your opinion because you don't think that there is a reason for the change.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am stating that your facts are not proof of the conclusion you draw, which is that this will create a problem in the game. You are ignoring what I'm saying, and presenting a strawman in its stead.

Your evidence shows a numerical imbalance. That imblance is not proven to be unhealthy or to have the effect you predict of exodus from Scrapper players to Brute players. The two ATs have different playstyles and appeal to different players, just a Controllers and Defenders do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I never used a straw man. I applied the same basis of conclusion to your argument that you attempted to apply to my argument. You were implying that, if the disparity were significant enough to merit a change, there would be a similar disparity in the number of players playing Brute and the number of players playing Scrappers. My counterargument, rather than ignoring your argument and putting a weaker argument in its place, simply stated that the current situation (re: Co-op zones) is not the same as a situation that is looking likely in GoRo.

Most players stick to a single side because they prefer the ambiance, players, and any number of other factors about that specific side. Because of this, the only exposure that they get to ATs on the other side are rare (re: co-op) and late in the game (35+) when they've already established their character and devoted some time to it. However, if ever the 2 sides were to mix more completely, that would shift significantly because people would have a greater level of exposure so that they are able to determine through observation the differences obvious in the numbers. The average player has never been accused of being particularly astute or observant (which is one of the many reasons why "h34l0rs" remain popular but buff sets like FF/* aren't) but, over time, especially when confronted by binary conclusions such as "dead"-"not dead", "solo"-"can't solo", and "excellent damage"-"mediocre damage", people learn which is more potent and tend to go with the better option. Of course, this is simply a tendency and requires ready, active, and complete exposure through all stages.

This has already happened with Defenders and Controllers (as I stated previously), so it's not unlikely that it will also happen between Brutes and Stalkers should a similar situation of exposure occur.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then how would you expect to denote a discrepancy in performance unless it's used in comparison with another? The point of comparing Scrappers to Brutes and vice versa (AT A to AT B) is that it illustrates the fact that AT A is operating outside of the band of "normal" performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not illustrated at all. There is a radical leap there that implies that Scrappers exist at the boundary of performance, and that absolute performance above that of Scrappers is unacceptable. This is not proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, it does serve to illustrate the point that, at some juncture, AT:AT comparisons have to occur because the band is an qualitative abstraction that has direct bearing on numbers. If it's questionable as to whether an AT is outside of the arbitrary average, to determine how far it is outside, a direct comparison needs to be made to determine an accurate magnitude of "outsideness".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, when comparing 2 ATs that have an easy and direct association between their powers and functions, you can and should compare them directly along the numerical values of their performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this was how things are done, I think you would see much less variation in performance among the Scrapper powersets as we see here in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that there are a large number of things unaccounted for in the calculations at the beginning of this thread, right? AoE capability, mitigation capability, additional utility, and a number of other important balance facts are ignored because the calculations here are for a specific purpose: single target, high yield optimization calculations for damage. Parry/DA, Siphon Life, knockdown, mez effects, and everything else that isn't directly related to single target damage is being ignored, though they would never be ignored in a proper balance calculation.

This is one of the primary reasons why I calculate according to scalars and caps rather than specific power sets and builds. Assuming that the power sets are themselves balanced, scalar would be the primary distinguishing difference between the ATs, illustrating any underlying imbalances between the 2.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do realize that there is also role blurring and has always been, and I've addressed the history and even the issues concerning this. Scrappers and Blasters have always had an interesting history because, when they're on a team, they're both doing the same thing but with different methods. Tankers and Scrappers less so because, on a team, they do completely different things. The only times I've seen Tanker/Scrapper comparisons is for solo performance comparisons wherein the Tanker wants to do more damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet this nicely ignores a common theme in Tanker-related discussions: the question of whether a Tanker is even needed on a heroside team. Yes, if you have a Tanker and a Scrapper, they probably are filling different roles. However, a team, especially a high-end team, has no compelling "need" for a Tanker except in a few high-end situtions like the LRSF (and even then it's optional). And so the question stands: why have a Tanker when you can have a Scrapper instead, buff him/her to levels where their total mitigation across all types is sufficient to withstand anything but a tower-buffed Lord Recluse, and then back them up with force mutlipliers that will go further on their higher damage cap?

This is far more relevant at the peaks of performance that this thread is focusing on, and yet there is no mass migration away from Tankers. It's true the AT isn't wildly popular, but there are many reasons often cited for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd heartily disagree that a heavily buffed Scrapper is capable of replacing a Tanker on a team unless the entire team is so heavily buffed that aggro is no longer an issue (at which point it's not an issue of the Scrapper replacing the Tanker, it's an issue of the plethora of buffs rendering the Tanker redundant). A Scrapper buffed to the extent you imply is only going to be able to serve as a Tanker if they've actually gone through the effort of acquiring the ability to obtain and maintain aggro on a a group. Blueside, Tankers are in no threat of being rendered irrelevant by buffed up Scrappers. Scrappers just can't keep aggro as well.

The primary reason I've seen as to why there are fewer Tankers than Scrappers though is because there is less demand for the Tanker role when on a team. Multiple Scrappers are still completely useful on a team because more damage is always nice. Multiple Tankers on a team, however, are generally viewed as less than useful because one Tanker is generally more than enough to handle all of the aggro that the team will find so that any Tankers after the first will simply be contributing less than the first.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really have to be, and I don't think that I've ever said I was. I've always thought that Brutes were too powerful. The entire issue is that the numbers, which are completely objective, agree with me. I don't have to be objective whenever the numbers agree with me. In fact, that would be deleterious to my position because then people like yourself would continually ignore the numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

The numbers do not "agree with" your position. Your can point to the numbers as defense of your argument. However, they are not proof of your argument. This is important: I do not claim that the numbers are your argument. You are presenting them as evidence of a (coming) problem. There is counter evidence that suggests that this conclusion is not well defended by numbers alone. If it was, there would be worse disparity among existing hero ATs.

[/ QUOTE ]

How bad does a disparity have to be between existing ATs in order for it to be of a sufficient magnitude to demonstrate a problem? You already admit that there is a disparity and that the disparity is readily obvious. How much worse does it have to get, in your view, before it becomes a problem that requires addressing?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm absolutely certain that if they did this analysis they would bring Brutes down if they were actually concerned with numerical balance. I don't have a single worry that Castle would castrate Scrappers somehow like you suggest because I've yet to see any non-anecdotal evidence of Scrappers outperforming any other AT in that AT's designated role.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not primarily how they balance, and never has been. I won't say they never consider it, but we know that's not what they look at. My concern is more that if you want them to start balancing things that are only meanginfully imbalanced at levels of performance no one needs to operate at, then you might not like what you get. The result might be that, to make the comparison meaningful, you get a reduction across the board. To be reduced, Scrappers to not need to be stealing anyone's role - they only need be performing to far above what's needed. Of course if everyone is performing above what's needed, there's also the chance everyone could be brought lower. I don't consider it likely, but I do consider it one of the only things that would make the devs care about the Scrapper/Brute comparisons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd once again like to ask for some disambiguation of terms from you. You're a great fan of using ambiguous terms like "meaningful difference" and "noticeable disparity" without ever giving solid definitions for them. I've tried very hard to make sure that all of the terms that I've used in this argument have been as clear and concise as possible, which is one of the reasons I'm partial to using numbers. They're definite, quantitative, and capable of illustrating a difference without question. You're arguments, on the other hand, are completely without specificity. The definition of most of your arguments is completely up to interpretation, which is one of the reasons why we can't seem to agree. You refuse to pin yourself down so that the debate can actually take place.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd honestly like you to find a significant AT power disparity blue-side that I haven't address somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by "addressed". Controller/Defender comparisons go far beyond just damage and buff/debuff scalars, just as Tanker/Scrapper comparisons go beyond damage/mitigation. "Imbalances", in the sense of trading off B to get more of A, where A and B define some role in a team, clearly exist and are sometimes quite extreme. And yet plenty of people still play the "less efficient" ATs, powersets and builds.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "addressed" I mean "brought up to the community at large during some point in time". I've made the Controller-Defender disparity argument a number of times. I made the Blaster-Scrapper argument nearly as many (back when it was actually substantial). I've weighed in on the Tanker-Scrapper issue just as much. I've even made comments and calculations on Controller-Defender-MM-Corrupter discussions.

As to population disparities, one of the things to consider, as I've stated before even within the confines of this post, is that some players are willing to ignore some degree of numerical inferiority if the build they are playing is more enjoyable to them. I already made a much more in depth commentary on this earlier, so I'll end it here.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tankers are still capable of better unbuffed mitigation and aggro control than any other AT in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note: Two things about this statement. First, the only edge Tankers have over Brutes in regards to aggro management is AoE Gauntlet (which I personally think is overrated). Everything else (st-Gauntlet, auras, Taunt, durations, etc) are identical. At the same time, Taunt is just a threat multiplier - since Brutes do far more damage than a Tanker, they'll generate far more threat.

What I'm trying to say is, if a Tanker and Brute play identically, the Brute will generate more threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know, Taunt mags still stack which means that, in all cases except for single target aggro, the Tanker is actually going to be generating more aggro than the Brute is. Tankers are "Gauntletting out" to 4 additional targets with all of their attacks which means that they're generating greater magnitude taunt effects and getting a greater multiplier than Brutes will. In the realm of multi target aggro maintenance, the Tanker is still king.

Of course, this also illustrates a bit more as to how borked Brutes are because they've got more than 1 real inherent: Fury (which is an incredibly powerful inherent) and Punchvoke. Punchvoke isn't specifically mentioned, though it does give them additional team utility (which I've mentioned a number of times in the Brute-Scrapper comparisons) but not on par with Gauntlet (which wouldn't really be far considering they're already doing substantially more damage than Tankers are).

As to the Stalker-Scrapper parity issue, I did a quick numerical analysis a while back and remembered Stalkers actually doing quite well for themselves on the comparative damage lists. They were second best to Scrappers when solo and actually managed to achieve the absolute highest peak functional damage scalar. The big benefit that Stalkers get is their increased chance to Critical, which more than makes up for their lower scalar to such an extent that they will, in general, deal more damage than a Scrapper. There is also the issue of additional utility as well thanks to demoralization from Assassin's attacks and the incredible protection derived from Placate. All in all, Stalkers are actually quite balanced with Scrappers. They're not the solo fighters that Scrappers are, but they get substantially more from a team and contribute substantially more to teams thanks to demoralization.

If anyone is curious as to numbers...

Damage (Stalker numbers would actually be slightly higher because crit rate is substantially higher when attacking from Hidden)...
Scrapper: 1.125 * 1.08 = 1.215 scalar
Stalker (solo): 1.0 * (1+.1+.03*0) = 1.1 scalar
Stalker (small team of 4): 1.0 * (1+.1+.03*3) = 1.19 scalar
Stalker (full team): 1.0 * (1+.1+.03*7) = 1.31

Hit Points (re: survivability b/c other modifiers and caps are identical)...
Scrapper: 1338.6 (2409.5 max)
Stalker: 1204.8 (1606.4 max)
Scrappers are 11% and 50% greater.

Also, what was the second thing? You only got to one.

I don't really agree with mez resistance, seeing as that's more the providence of break frees in my opinion, however, I would more than appreciate an increase to the effectiveness of orange insps to the order of 15/22.5/30% +res and some kind of debuff resistance added to them (of the same magnitude).

IIRC, the inspiration numbers are an artifact of how defense operated back when orange inspirations were first added. Resistance was considered to be significantly stronger than defense because resistance was a flat reduction whereas defense was a chance based reduction and actually contributed much less when enemies received +tohit rather than +acc against lower level players.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The entire point of my "some kind of parity needs to exist" is that, between Brutes and Scrappers, there isn't really any at the top end.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the question remains: why does there need to be, when the vast majority of the player base doesn't operate there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why are the caps there in the first place? The caps exist to prevent players from achieving any performance above a certain mark. Part of this is to specifically dictate role and capacity (Scrappers had a lower cap than Tankers so that, even if the Scrapper had a taunt aura, he wouldn't be able to "tank" as well as a Tanker) but also to mitigate outlier performance. Brutes, thanks to their caps, don't follow any precedent of cap balance. That, in and of itself, at least brings up the consideration of a change.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if the playerbase did operate there, the devs don't (and arguably should not) balance on the basis of parity in this way. When both Scrappers and Brutes are arguably both more damaging and more survivably than they need to be to be successful in the mainstream game, why should they be convinced there's a need to ensure mathematical symmetry in their relative damage and survival?

That's not compelling on its own. You need a reason for them to care about that symmetry. If it results in real, measurable problems for the ATs, such as a mass migration from players of one AT to players of another, then the devs can see that and perhaps choose to make some sort of change to improve on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the primary reasons that this discussion has been brought up now is because of GoRo. In normal play (even co-op), the Brute/Tanker/Scrapper issue didn't really see much consideration because the actual portion of the player base that actively interacted with the other other side ATs wasn't particularly large. The only times you're going to specifically interact with the other side is when you're in RWZ (generally meaning either LGTF or Mothership Raiding) or Cimerora (which pretty much means ITF). In neither of these situations is the marked difference going to be particularly easy to see (not that the average player is even capable of seeing a difference like this). The tools to observe it (peripherals to calculate real DPS and damage avoided) aren't readily available. If they were, I predict there would be much more attention to it, but, as it stands, it's pretty much the exclusive domain of number crunchers.

When players are capable of full side switching (re: GoRo), the differences are going to be more readily present. Back before Scrappers got their damage increased in I2-3 (woo, Critical!), even though the differences between Blaster and Scrapper damage weren't particularly disparate, players still noticed because they were dealing with the differences for the entire duration of their team play.

There is a reason to address the changes. It's not out yet, but the reason is there nonetheless.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I take Brutes doing just as much damage while being 12.5% harder to kill at the very least, thanks to their higher hit points, with a grain of salt. This is something that many of you who currently see parity are missing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see parity. I see a lack of parity that doesn't concern me. If parity were all-important, I think no one would have played (or perhaps still played) either Blasters or Tankers, and I think no one would play a Defender when they could play a Controller instead.

I understand the math. I do not believe the math points to the same basis for concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious as to what reasons you think exist for Tankers or Blasters to no longer see play. Tankers are still capable of better unbuffed mitigation and aggro control than any other AT in the game. Blasters are, arguably, the best AoE AT in the game (Corrupters are close because they can buff, but lose out because they have a functional scalar of .95 whereas Blasters have 1.125). There are still reasons to play them from a numbers standpoint. However, if both Brutes and Scrappers are available for all content, there isn't much reason outside of specific play style concerns to go with a Scrapper rather than a Brute. If/when everyone learns that Brutes put out equivalent damage numbers as Scrappers while being significantly harder to kill, many fewer people will play Scrappers than do now. I'd rather the disparity were fixed before it becomes a problem.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because of this obvious advantage, it screams to me the need for a change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obvious numbers do not necessarily indicate obvious conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then what would you conclude from them? That, even though the numbers show a disparity that no such disparity exists? Care to show any kind of evidence for that conclusion?

A numerical disparity is a tool used to demonstrate a real disparity. If you'd care to use some other tool to denote a lack of disparity in capability and potential, then, please, bring it up. Don't just blow off evidence that is contrary to your opinion because you don't think that there is a reason for the change.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only reason we're not going to see the changes to the AT to see some actual parity is because Castle doesn't want to rock the boat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, but not for the reasons you probably hold it true. You believe that Castle should address imbalances simply because they exist. Castle (and the other devs) believe they should address things that operate outside possibly loosely-defined boundaries of minimum and maximum performance. Doing otherwise "rocks the boat" to little benefit to the game as a whole.

Only a few of the dev-checked boundaries seem to be relative measures. The devs are not especially concerned that AT A outperforms AT B. They are only concerned that both AT A and AT B perform within some band of "normal" performance for the metric in question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then how would you expect to denote a discrepancy in performance unless it's used in comparison with another? The point of comparing Scrappers to Brutes and vice versa (AT A to AT B) is that it illustrates the fact that AT A is operating outside of the band of "normal" performance.

The band of "normal" performance you reference is also only used because it's impossible to get an adequate quantitative comparison for functions that have no direct relation. How much value does a mag 3 hold have compared to a 1.5 scalar attack? What's the relation? It's impossible to do this accurately so a qualitative value is assigned for these comparisons. However, when comparing 2 ATs that have an easy and direct association between their powers and functions, you can and should compare them directly along the numerical values of their performance. There's no need to compare damage to hold for contribution because the only forms of contribution each is balanced around as an AT are personal mitigation and damage. That's why the numbers are brought up and why something needs to be done to address the imbalance.

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, it's not as if we don't already have some role overlap in heroside ATs already - see earlier references to the Defender/Controller comparisons and other ongoing threads on Tanker/Scrapper comparisons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do realize that there is also role blurring and has always been, and I've addressed the history and even the issues concerning this. Scrappers and Blasters have always had an interesting history because, when they're on a team, they're both doing the same thing but with different methods. Tankers and Scrappers less so because, on a team, they do completely different things. The only times I've seen Tanker/Scrapper comparisons is for solo performance comparisons wherein the Tanker wants to do more damage.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which is all [censored] stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which really doesn't cast you as objective in this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really have to be, and I don't think that I've ever said I was. I've always thought that Brutes were too powerful. The entire issue is that the numbers, which are completely objective, agree with me. I don't have to be objective whenever the numbers agree with me. In fact, that would be deleterious to my position because then people like yourself would continually ignore the numbers.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Brutes are too strong as they are now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that the same can be said for Scrappers. Do you really want them to go fiddling with an AT that's more "broken" and hope they'll turn a blind eye elsewhere?

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you defining broken? Capable of soloing an AV or a pylon? Able to complete the RWZ challenge? I've seen every AT do every single one of those things. I'm absolutely certain that if they did this analysis they would bring Brutes down if they were actually concerned with numerical balance. I don't have a single worry that Castle would castrate Scrappers somehow like you suggest because I've yet to see any non-anecdotal evidence of Scrappers outperforming any other AT in that AT's designated role.

Interestingly enough, I've been presenting non-anecdotal evidence of Brutes outperforming other ATs within their designated role for a while. GoRo is simply a reason more important for the balance to finally happen than simply "balance for balance's sake".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we've opened up the "AT power disparity can o' worms" and Castle is unwilling to put forth the effort to address it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're conveniently ignoring that "AT power disparity" has existed among heroes for a long time, and it doesn't seem to have done anything unfortunate to the game or the ATs involved. You just seem particularly agitated that it's now going to exist for an AT that either didn't face it before, or was the commonly-accepted winner in a lot of previous comparisons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd honestly like you to find a significant AT power disparity blue-side that I haven't address somewhere. The only one that really exists now is the Defender:Controller disparity because Controllers get substantially better damage (.65 scalar v. 1.0-1.1 real scalar) while only having a slightly worse buff capability (.75 scalar v. 1.0 scalar, though there are a number of affects that aren't affected by it). The Tanker:Scrapper and Blaster:Scrapper disparities can be argued, but they don't have much base any more because each AT brings something unique to a team that no other can (Tankers get mad mitigation and absolutely unequaled aggro, Blasters get better AoE, Scrappers beat down bosses).

[ QUOTE ]
why would you remove the peack ability of a build up power ?
With just standar SO and hasten (well kinda normal build), build up will be used every 30 to 45sec.

In a "average" pick-up team what mean 30-45 sec ?

Well kinda every 2 group of mob.

To Kill all in 15-20s seems not too unreallystic (and at high lvl it will be less)

So basiclly when you are using it, it will last half of the fight every 2 fights.
Or with a good dmg team, build up will last all the fight every 3 fights.

It's not unsignifiant.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, good god man! English! Learn it!

Secondly, Build Up's contribution isn't as impressive as you would actually think. Assuming 100% recharge, that's a 45 second recharge and 1.32 seconds activation time. The buff lasts 10 seconds, so that's 10 seconds (slightly less actually because the buff hits in the middle of the activation rather than right at the end) of 100% or 80% +dam every 46.43 seconds. That's only 21.54% +dam for a Scrapper normalized over the recharge and 17.23% +dam for a Brute. It doesn't get much better at high recharge.

Soul Drain and Follow Up, on the other hand, have to be factored in because they achieve much higher number and get vastly better with more recharge because they have much better baseline uptime:downtime ratios than Build Up does.

<<Content Monger

I loves my souvenirs... yes... my pretties...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And then they both hit BU and the scrapper does more damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's specific burst effect. You'd be amazed at how little BU actually contributes to real DPS, especially if you think that BU is going to be an equalizing factor.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the high recharge builds we are talking about have better than 33% up time for Build Up powers and almost perma-Soul Drain. I'd call that significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you (or someone else along the same line of debate) say that we should ignore the high recharge outlier builds because they're not indicative of normal performance?

[ QUOTE ]
~ Even if you argue that Brutes are too good are we really looking at the fact that Gloom is too good? Granted DB and War Mace don't use it but everything else relies on it pretty heavily.

[/ QUOTE ]

In all of my calculations, I have specifically regarded scalars, which are a much better tool of baseline number comparison than attack strings. The chains that Billz has done are looking for absolute peak performance over time. I've always tried to use average performance across as many conditions as possible, which is what balance considerations pay attention to as opposed to absolute peak.

[ QUOTE ]
And then they both hit BU and the scrapper does more damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's specific burst effect. You'd be amazed at how little BU actually contributes to real DPS, especially if you think that BU is going to be an equalizing factor.

[ QUOTE ]
Then the brute has to run to the next mob and their fury bar drops, meaning when they get to the next spawn, the scrapper starts out with more damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that's the point of using 75% as the baseline average. I find it completely stupid for people who defend Brutes to consistently insist that whatever Fury metric we're using for is flawed because it's going to drop whenever they rush to the next mob. Of course it is, but it's not going to drop from 75%. It's going to drop from 90%, where it should be when the Brute finishes the mob, and, over the course of the all of the fights that they take part in, it averages out to 75% Fury.

As to the argument of "starting out with more damage" that's not really an argument. That's a declared intent of the developers that doesn't really apply since a Brute may be starting the fight low, they're going to eventually hit high Fury if they're even remotely good players. This is why an average is used. It's the assumed median Fury value for Brutes actively fighting.

This discussion would be a lot nicer if the defenders of the Brute numbers actually knew anything about the terminology or the underlying concepts.

[ QUOTE ]
Kk, i understand why i get supressed when i attack someone, or hit aim maybe...or even heal myself....however what i don't understand is why i do i get supressed when i try to buff my teammates like casting ice shields on them for example. I mean my teammate is jumping somewhere over half of the RV and i get all supressed buffing them so i am basically trying to chase them with sprint like speed..... @_@

I could assume that it is hard to implement but seriously why do i get punished for buffing my teammates (not even healing them actually)? Removing travel supression for buffing teammates would be nice. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the reason it's done is so that you can't just bounce around forever buffing your teammates kiting everyone else. I makes a bit less sense because of the significant diminishing returns but that's the reason. So buffers can get caught.

Interestingly enough Chaos, there has already been a comparison done for the 75% Fury Brute compared to a Scrapper. It still sided with the Brute.

75% Fury = 150% +dam, assuming 95% +dam slotting (this is the assumed slotting benefit)

Brute: .75*(1+1.5+.95) = 2.5875
Scrapper: 1.125*(1+.95)*1.08 = 2.36925

So... under "normal" circumstances, that's 9.2% better damage and 12.5% better survivability. Next please? I'm enjoying being proven right concerning Brutes and Scrappers in all of these situations.

[ QUOTE ]
If we got only two contestents I say we run this next saturday.
Not the tamarrow saturday, but 5/30/09 which give us a week ta plan what we is gonna do ta ya.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you not gonna allow me to do it on my FF/sonic fender?