Luminara

It isn't possible to balance around a completely subjective concept, like fun. Not any aspect. Even attempting to do so only leads to strife. KB is a prime example of this. Within constraints. For example, not having IO sets with Dam/Mez, thus not having set bonuses from that approach to slotting, is a constraint. Not an oversight, not an accidental omission, a limitation. Limitations of this nature are necessary in order to create a baseline for balancing the game. You can't balance around players having Dam/Mez sets without making the content brutal for those who don't have them; and you can't balance around not having Dam/Mez sets without making the content trivial for those who do have them. Cryptic threw away most of the balance mechanisms used in other games when they developed CoH. Skill trees. Limiting powers/skills/spells/attacks to fewer than 10. Gear exclusive to each class, designed with carefully planned stat bonuses and only dropping from specific content. The holy trinity. Team content requiring said trinity. But in doing so, they discovered that some limitations have to exist, or content becomes impossible to balance. Thus ED, GDN, the purple patch, PToD, and the nerf to status effects which ended City of Statues. Yes, you can still slot for both Damage and Mez. But you can't maximize both and receive the top end set bonuses. That constraint is necessary in order to provide at least some passing semblance of parity between those who have Dam/Mez and those who do not. Objectively, I disagree. I don't think they're lacking simply because they don't have more popular procs or unique IOs. The player makes the procs, uniques or set bonuses useful, not the other way around. Subjectively, I can agree that there's often little reason to use some sets when practically anything else is available, and as often as not, the powers into which these IOs can be slotted may not even be worth taking. You just spent the last few posts arguing that Stun sets are bad. You went into detail about how bad the procs, specifically, are, and why. Not bad for your particular style, or bad for some of your builds, just bad. Given the analysis, comparisons and implied conclusion that the horribadness of Stun sets impacts all players, it doesn't read like an opinion. If the question is being asked with the presumption that there's a problem that must be rooted out and squashed, is it the right question? Here's a question: where's the evidence that there is a problem? Where are the performance metrics for what different procs do in regard to survivability and speed of progression? Where are the analyses showing how use of procs creates any kind of problem? If, as was previously posited by someone else, defenders using procs is a problem, why hasn't anyone posted run times and survivability comparisons for defenders with procs versus blasters? If players can take unenhanced characters, team up and use their powers to rampage through the game at max difficulty, then how do procs cause problems for teams? If a solo player's performance in missions is isolated and has no effect on other players, how does proc usage in that situation cause a problem? If procs skew progression and/or survivability so notably and obviously, why hasn't anyone posted any proof? If there's a performance gulf so vast, it should be incredibly easy to provide multiple examples. The lack thereof is noteworthy. Post the builds, run time comparisons, survivability breakdowns and other performance statistics. If you have evidence supporting your assertion, I'd love to see it. That's not a facetious remark, I'd actually love to see them. Not pylon tests, though. Pylons don't wander out of AoE radius at just the wrong moment. Pylons don't spread out and have to be aggroed or snuck around to find an optimal clump for cone usage. Pylons don't move, so they don't show the benefit of using a Slow or Immob. Pylons aren't good test subjects for a lot of powers. I'd like to see the results from your test map, not pylons. An in-depth examination of the benefits of the KB IO sets versus -Def and Accurate -Def sets, and how they pertain specifically to Axe and Broadsword, aid in survivability, improve progression speed, etc., would go much further toward providing impetus for change and provoking thought than a comparison of how many crayons are in each box. You appear to enjoy a vigorous debate, and aren't so thin-skinned as to take umbrage at a blunt tone. Identify whether there is a problem, what and where it is if one exists, and why and how it's a problem. Post comparisons in actual use to quantify and qualify any existing issue. You want more IO sets, but you also want IO sets to be balanced against one another. Have you analyzed the existing sets, compared their performance in the game and in use in different power sets? How do you provide parity or balance without doing that, without knowing at what point parity or balance currently sit? Have you considered any of the potential negative repercussions, such as how it will affect the use of converters, or market changes, or means of addressing them? You say that procs are over-performing. Have you performed tests, analyzed performance results, compared run times, collated incoming damage to determine survivability, examined total damage over time, anything? You've got comparisons and analyses of different power set combinations all over the place, a special AE map for testing... and you don't have a single chart or spreadsheet showing how heavy proc builds perform in comparison to traditional builds? You justify revising IO sets with comments about effectiveness and viability, but doesn't any use of IOs place us above the bar in both? The bar is SOs, after all. To what are you comparing in that determination of effectiveness and viability, then, and more importantly, where's the data to show that some IO set categories fail to offer sufficient improved effectiveness or viability when compared to other IO sets? How do you determine that any IO set fails to be effective or viable without testing and documenting the results? And if IO sets are causing some kind of problem, wouldn't adding more sets exacerbate that problem? If procs are over-powered, does it make sense to add more procs to the game? If set bonuses are straining the balance budget and causing player fatigue by making the game too easy, is it wise to increase the number of sets in each category? Quantitatively, why would 5 or 6 or 10 be better than 4, if 4 does everything that needs to be done and then some? Facts. Information. Tests. Verifiable and repeatable results. I want numbers, not rumors and guesses. Facts, not fantasy. Math, not maybes. If something is over-performing, or under-performing, show that it is, and how it is, so the problem is clear and actionable. I'm objective, I can adapt to anything and I'll support any change for the good of the game, but I want hard data that proves that something is necessary before I add my voice to the choir. This is Co*. That's how we do things. That's how we've always done things. A different forum address and development team doesn't change that. That's my take.

Irrelevant. Nothing is supposed to be equally useful to everyone. The entire point of having varied sets and IOs in sets is to give players choices and options, just like having varied archetypes and power sets does, and you not pursuing an option doesn't make it bad or wrong. The design of the Invention system was structured entirely on and within the existing categorization of enhancements. Entirely. What came before (standard enhancements) was what informed and guided the design process of what followed (IOs). The intent of that system was to create a new avenue of growth and empowerment for players, within the established enhancement system. Not to break new ground in enhancement categorization, nor to supplant that categorization, but to supplement and complement it within the framework already in the game and familiar to players. The implementation of the Invention system revolved around creating and encouraging player choice - did the player want to focus on set bonuses, or on optimizing every aspect of a power? The player could do one or the other with IO sets, but never both. That was intentional. Deliberate. That was how the Invention system was laid out. If making a power the best it could be mattered, you franken-slotted. If you wanted set bonuses, you accepted a trade-off. The original categorization of enhancements was carefully created, exhaustively tested and laboriously gone over until it was as perfectly balanced and fair as possible. The IO system follows that categorization stringently, only diverging in four cases (Accurate Heal, Accurate Defense Debuff, Accurate ToHit Debuff, Recharge Intensive Pets), and in those cases, only because the design of multiple powers made them necessary. Those sets address oversights, nothing more. And your evidence to disprove all of this is a pair of IO sets added by the HC team and designed specifically to support and incite interest in a new EndMod power set that they released in the same update on a private server group. Ignoring, of course, the third EndMod set they added, which offers 0% enhancement to Damage, and that one of the two End/Dam options only enhances Damage by 68.9%, and that the HC team didn't design the Invention system, therefore cannot be attributed any intent in said design. Color me unconvinced. Uh, no, it would be an enormous step backward. We had City of Statues. We were nerfed so hard that controllers and dominators still feel it. Adding Dam/Stun IO set options wouldn't be nice, it'd be an invitation to repeating that festival of shit and tedium. You can slot Dam/Mez HOs like everyone else, or franken-slot, and be grateful that you still have that option. "Effective". "Fun". "Viable". "Fair". Those are such loaded words. I don't object to asking for more IO sets or options. I do object to painting that request as a general public service when it's really just a reflection of your power selections, slotting preferences and play style. You're not speaking as a fairly nominated and elected representative of all of us, you're speaking as a self-appointed authority. Well, I don't recognize your authority to define those terms. You are not the Fun Police. You're no more qualified or entitled to decide what is or isn't fair or fun for all than you are to decide whether anyone's characters are dressed "appropriately". The difference being, those procs still have an additional control mechanism to pass through. Better example: Tenebrous Tentacles. My TA/Dark slotting for this power uses three damage procs. I could slot the power to deal damage normally. I could slot it with Ragnarok or Positron's Blast for set bonuses. Instead, I accept that I'm risking dealing significantly less damage and skipping set bonuses in exchange for the potential to deal significantly more damage by slotting those three damage procs. If the hit check succeeds, I still have to pass three other checks for those three procs to deal damage. That proc damage is not guaranteed, even if the power hits. The base damage is guaranteed if the power hits. The Immob is guaranteed if the power hits. But the proc damage isn't. Yes, a proc bomb can miss, just like any other power. But a proc bomb that hits still has to pass another check (per proc) for the effects of those procs to occur. The minimum 5% chance for the power to miss isn't relevant, nearly every power in the game has to work within that limitation. The minimum 10% chance for procs to fail to trigger, in concert with any additional reduction in probability due to recharge time and PPM, is relevant, because it's a limitation specifically designed to control abuse and overuse of procs. It's a limitation that works. Six damage procs don't improve the hit chance of the power. Or reduce the endurance usage. Or allow it to cycle more frequently. Or have set bonuses. Limiting the comparison to only the damage stat is deliberately skewing it to display the power with six procs as being almost comparable. It's not. Use of a purple set does far more than simply nudge the damage up a bit. If you really can't swing purples or are below 50, franken-slot. The performance is still going to be slightly better than six-slotting with procs, and you won't have to justify spending the inf* on purples. You can sew your inf* into a nice skirt, or use it to flavor your oatmeal, or whatever people do if they aren't spending their gross over-supply of currency. A build not having access to any proc or unique IO, or even any IO set, is a choice, not an inherent limitation. The important choices aren't IOs, they're powers. We make those choices. We devise and abide by our own restrictions when we create our characters. Between primary, secondary, *PP and pool options, there are no IO sets that anyone can't use on any character. We might choose not to take the powers which would allow us to slot some IO sets, but that doesn't mean the game has to be restructured to change that, it means the game is respecting our choices and decisions. The very thing against which you rail is what makes this game rewarding to many of us. Having to make choices like this goads us into digging deeper, broadening our search, scratching away at the layers to find the missing pieces to make our builds as perfect as possible, and encourages us to find even more ways to work around the limitations we set for ourselves, expand our build concepts and discover unexpected things. And redesigning IO sets so no-one has to make any choices of consequence... it destroys the magic and wonder of that discovery process. If you're dissatisfied with your build's IO options, change your build, not the game.

I did. She, her husband @Kalkin and I used to play together. Rose came into this world with a countdown ticking away in her ear. She understood her own mortality in a way very few of us will ever comprehend. A lot of people, if they'd had to live with that, would never have bothered to try to do anything with their lives. A lot of people who don't live with that never try to do anything with their lives, actually. I was one of those people. I wasn't doing anything with my life when I met Rose and Kal. Working, to keep paying rent, so I could keep working. That was my entire existence. Meeting Rose and learning what she lived with, and how she dealt with it... she changed the direction of my life. Rose knew she didn't have forever. She didn't hate the world for that. She didn't give up and lie in bed, waiting for the end. She didn't turn to drugs or alcohol or some other self-destructive solution. She accepted that she had only so long, and decided to use the time she had to be happy. A career. A husband. A family. Friends. Love. An ordinary life. These were the things she wanted, and those were the things she reached out and grasped, held on to and reveled in. And all of that was before I met her and Kal. No-one I've ever known has amazed me more. Rose had more courage, determination and dignity than I thought anyone could have. Just knowing that she could face the kind of adversity she did, achieve everything she did, build the life she had, and still be one of the happiest and most thoughtful people I'd encountered... it affected me more profoundly than I can say. She inspired me to do more, to do better, with my life. Rose was my hero. We tend to use that word a little too frequently, attaching it to people without really meaning it. I mean it in this case. Rose was my hero. My life is infinitely better for having known her, for trying to live up to the example she set for me. I wouldn't have this cabin, the land it's on, the confidence and inner peace I've developed, if it weren't for her. Knowing that she was brave enough to get up off of her ass and do something with the time she had, while I, in my comparatively good health, just sat and waited to die... I was ashamed, and angry at myself, and determined to do better. To be better. To be more like Rose. After her first transplant, we lost contact. Rose and Kal went their way, I went mine. I was actually delighted to see her leave Co*, though, because it meant she was out of that house. It meant she was living, the way she had been before the CF grew really bad. Over the years, I wondered what she'd done, how she and Kal were, and I wanted to let her know what I'd done and what she meant to me. When I found these forums, the first thing I did was look through the reconnection posts to see if she and Kal were around, and when I saw that they were, I was thrilled. I... I intended to play with her and Kal, but I just never got around to it. I thought they'd always be there. I thought she'd always be there. There's a gaping hole inside me right now. I've been crying since I read the announcement. The world feels emptier without her, even though we weren't as close as some of you were with her. I miss her. I wanted to talk to her, to catch up with her, one more time, but I'm not sad because I didn't have a chance for closure. I'm sad because my hero is gone. But I'm looking around, reminding myself of everything I've done since we met, everything I did because she inspired me to do and be more, and I remind myself that Rose... Rose was strong, so I'll be strong, too. And I hope I can do it half as well as she did. @Kalkin, if there's anything I can do, for you or your family...

Oh god... not Rose.

Define "unequal opportunity", in the context of Stun sets, because I don't see a lack of equivalency in the Stun set bonuses versus other mez set bonuses, or bonuses from other sets. Recovery, +HP, Regen, a variety of +Def and +Res, +Recharge, +Accuracy... a +Movement Speed bonus. There's even a purple Stun set. You spend post after post insisting that there's an inequity and cap it off with "lol Stun IO's", after commenting on Power Transfer as an example of a step up in addressing that perceived inequity, but the bonuses in Power Transfer aren't unique or unusual. They aren't even as good or as diverse as the bonuses in Stun sets. So what, exactly, is the inequity you insist exists? Lack of Dam/Stun sets? Hey, shocker, there are no Dam/Hold sets, either. Or Dam/Confuse. Or Dam/Immob. Or Dam/Sleep. Or Dam/Fear. We were never intended to be able to slot every power for every effect and receive every set bonus. The design called for requiring the player to choose what he/she wanted to improve in a power, to provide balance by not allowing every power to be slotted in every way which would permit maximizing every aspect and effect and acquire every set bonus. Is it that Stun sets don't have special IOs like the Panacea/LotG/Numina's uniques, or damage procs? So what. Where was it written that every set had to have the same special IO options that every other set offered? How is it unfair? Because the existing options don't match your preferences, or aren't popular slotting options? Again, so what. Why does every power in the game need to heal, or improve endurance management, or deal damage, or have "equal" options for slotting special IOs or procs? Your claim of a lack of fair slotting opportunities appears to stem from your personal preferences, not from analysis of game balance or design philosophy. There's no documentation stating that every power or power set has to be equally slottable for special IOs or procs, or that all set bonuses have to be available to all powers or power set combinations, or that every power needs an IO set which complements everything the power does. None. Nor does game balance require that level of parity. A person can play with no IOs, or a perfectly optimized FotM build with maximal set bonuses and damage procs/special IOs out the wazoo, or a silly build packed with "lol Stun" sets and still have fun, progress at a reasonable pace and thrive. Going one step further, I'm going to point out that they could've built set bonuses and procs into the powers themselves, if parity between power sets, slotting bonuses and special IOs was the goal. They could've tagged every slot in a power to deliver a set bonus when it was filled, and set the sixth slot as a proc, and skipped making IO sets altogether, if they really wanted to make the system "fair" in the sense of everyone having the same options. But they didn't. They sat us all down at an all you can eat buffet... and you're saying that there's a problem because we don't all have plates the same shape and color. There's no X% probability check for Life Drain to deal damage if the hit check succeeds. There's no variable recharge mechanic built into Torrent, or requirement that Y number of critters be present to assure that it recharges in a set amount of time. Those are limitations which exist within the proc system, not in the powers, and they're applicable even if you don't want to address them. If they're that accessible, there's no reason not to use them in a comparison. Isn't the point of proc-heavy powers... to go above and beyond what a power is supposed to do? Is that not, in fact, the entire purpose of procs? So, what, you're saying that we should be limiting the comparison to what's available while leveling? If so, the proc-heavy performance is still lower than simply franken-slotting uncommon and rare set IOs and using two standard procs instead of six when looking at total cycle time for the damage dealt, based on what I'm seeing when I throw a build together and differentiate only that one power's slotting. The damage per cycle time still comes out lower for the proc-heavy slotting than for the franken-slotted version. So however you want to limit the comparison, six-slotting with procs just doesn't come out ahead, either with best in slot or for a leveling build. Because "good enough" requires a greater investment of effort for a lower return on that investment. IO set bonuses allow us to work smarter, not harder. Maybe the person playing that Fire/Empathy corruptor cares more about playing a Fire/Empathy corruptor than about set bonuses. Maybe... it's just possible that... people who play this game care more about character concepts and having a good time with their characters than they do about being optimal, and recognize that, since the game's challenge is still rooted in SO-level builds, they can do that without the need for 3000 more IO sets or bonus homogenization to make them all "equal". If all you see when you look at the game is set bonuses and procs, maybe it's time to take a step back and remember that there's more to it than that.

This was everything I hoped for when I saw the title. ❤️

Why does every set/set combination need to be identical in terms of slotting, when every set/set combination is going to do different things and perform differently even with identical slotting opportunities? But it is a limitation. A series of limitations. At least one power has to have KB/KU for the proc to be slotted. That power has to be used, even if it's not an ideal power and may result in a loss of DPS. The power has to hit. The proc has to trigger. Only after all of those conditions are satisfied can the +Recharge be applied. The +Recharge buff is not guaranteed. You're advocating a change to procs for everyone based on what a limited few can accomplish once they satisfy all of the requirements, and ignoring that those requirements exist at all in the process. It's not "way better". It's not even a little better. It's worse. The conditional requirements are higher, the damage output isn't better unless you're slotting it with purples and every proc triggers every time, and even if every proc triggers every time, the damage output for total cycle time is still lower than it would be if you slotted 5/6 Hecatomb and the Unbreakable Constraint proc. You've also hampered yourself with higher endurance costs and lower potential survivability (zero set bonuses for individual procs), and you have to work harder than you would with less proc-centric slotting. That's not even "as good as". And as an example of why procs need a nerf, it's accomplished nothing beyond proving that procs are fine right where they are.

Maybe they should give us the ability to use two power sets on every character so it's less unfair. We could have a primary set and a secondary set, and mix and match as we please, and have plenty of opportunities to slot in a variety of ways. Boy howdy, that'd be nifty.

Circling back around to this, I did a rough reproduction of this build to get a better idea of how it would perform. What isn't mentioned is that it's dependent on the Force Feedback +Recharge proc. That's what makes it possible for Seismic Smash to cycle in that period of time. If the proc doesn't trigger, or the power with the proc misses, the cycle time is longer. That's a pretty sizable limitation that should be noted, not glossed over or ignored. Two limitations, in fact - the Accuracy cap and the proc trigger probability cap. Additionally, the average damage over time doesn't favor six-slotting procs so heavily that it's a clear and obvious choice in this case, to my eyes. In my repro, Seismic Smash's recharge time is 5.16s and the average damage output with six 71.75 damage procs is 670.7. Slotting the power with 5/6 Hecatomb, including the damage proc, and placing the Unbreakable Constraint damage proc in the sixth slot, though, leads to a recharge time of 4.14s and average damage output of 669.7. Slotting with two purple procs and four 71.75 damage procs leads to an average of 734.3 damage, which is better, but still not mind blowing when compared to the average output of the Hecatomb 5/6 + UC proc slotting. Furthermore, when I examined the potential DPS of both attacks, accounting for maximum damage if all procs triggered and accounting for the complete cycle time of the power (animation plus recharge), I found that, even with 2 purple procs, the six proc slotting came out at lower DPS (114.0779522978476) than the Hecatomb 5/6 + Unbreakable Constraint purple proc (118.7158469945355). The damage can be higher per use of the power when slotted with six procs, but the damage over time is lower than slotting traditionally and adding one extra proc. And bear in mind that this was ignoring the 90% probability cap. Frankly, I don't see the allure. Or a compelling argument for proc nerfs. But that wasn't why I came back to this post. What's been bothering me about this is that it has certain negative implications regarding player investment and expectation. Any build focused this heavily on +Recharge is going to cost (i know, it's how i build most of my characters). I'm not saying that it's difficult to acquire the funding for this kind of build, but it does require an investment of time. Time spent farming, or converting and selling enhancements on the market, or creating that jaw-dropping costume that wins the contest. Time has to be spent to pay for all of the purples and ATOs that this build is going to need. Are we, then, concluding that the time a player invests in creating, leveling and kitting out a build should not be rewarded? This build requires heavy micro-management. There's Hasten and Domination to juggle, since only one of them can be set to auto-fire. The +Recharge from the FF proc has to be maintained or recovered (when it misses or fails to trigger). The endurance usage is high, so constant attention to that is necessary. This build is a lot of extra work for the player. Are we saying that working harder should not be rewarded? The build is comparatively light on AoE damage potential. A high damage single-target attack, with a 1.7s animation time, is of limited value in this game, whereas AoE damage offers significantly better return on investment. Consequently, the player is giving up the potential for higher AoE damage in favor of higher single-target damage. Isn't that always a factor in builds? Shouldn't that choice matter? Animation time imposes a ceiling on DPS. Recharge times directly impact DPS. Dumping the majority of one's damage output into one or two powers six-slotted with procs, on slower recharge times and with longer animation times doesn't actually improve DPS, because the overwhelming majority of combat in this game revolves around defeating minions and lieutenants, foes with far fewer HP. Having great DPS on pylon tests means exactly diddly squat in actual play, and in most cases, those heavily procced attacks are going to be overkill. Wasted animation time is a net loss in DPS. Slower recharge times are a net loss in DPS if you don't have comparable powers to fill your attack chain. Solo, it's manageable, but annoying. In teams, it can rapidly lead to feeling completely useless, with everything dying while you're still stuck in your animation, or the player displaying a single-minded focus on bosses and ignoring everything else to the detriment of cooperative and friendly play. When builds like these cross an indefinable line between "really good" and "rubbish unless there's a boss or better", is it the development team's responsibility to play nursemaid and prevent players from crossing that line? Shouldn't players be permitted to screw themselves over for the 95% or the game involving minions/lieutenants so the can shine in the remaining 5%, if that's what they want to do? The high endurance cost of Seismic Smash is a limiting factor. Only specific builds are going to work with this kind of slotting. Players who slot this way aren't going to be doing it on every imaginable build, it's only viable for builds which can improve Recovery in some way, include means of reducing endurance costs natively, or can drain endurance as a tertiary mechanism to support the use of powers not slotted for Endurance Reduction. Essentially, players sacrifice the opportunity to play more varied builds in order to make something like this work without even more effort on their part. Is that compromise not worthy of some compensation in game play? Lastly, the people playing builds like these are likely to be long-term players who have accumulated a great deal of experience and knowledge. Theory crafting at this level doesn't come from glancing at powers in the character creation screen six weeks after discovering the game. Figuring out how to squeeze everything in, how to pay for all of the enhancements, how to tweak just the right ways and in the right places... that's not newbies doing that, that's vets. Are we to expect every benefit of experience and knowledge to be nerfed? If so, best get started on turning every power in to Brawl, because that's the only possible solution. All of the talk about what procs can do when abused, but nothing about what it costs the player to do that. Time, work, animation times, recharge times, diversity, many factors are just as important as whether or not a character beat up something 2s faster than another character. If someone is playing a character that can't perform well unless a certain power hits and a certain proc triggers, they're constantly having issues with endurance, they're struggling to keep up a rapid pace because they spend too much time locked into longer animations, they're broke because they spent all of their inf* on their "perfect" proc monster build, and they're not contributing much to teams until there's a boss/EB/AV/GM, and in the long run, they're still not dealing as much damage as players who are slotted "normally", are they really a threat to game balance?

We have no idea if the planet is going to continue to spin, or the sun continue to fuse hydrogen, or the universe continue to exist, when we wake up each morning. But we can examine the evidence and reach a reasonable and accurate conclusion by applying logic and reasoning. This is equally applicable to human behavior and action, doubly so when the subject documents his goals and decision-making process and engages in discussion with others. As I've said several times, Synapse was direct and forthright in what he was doing, why he was doing it, how he was going to do it and what he expected as a result. The PPM mechanic as it is now matches. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm going to call it a duck, even if a bunch of fear-mongering panic monkeys are insisting that it's a kumquat. Well, I guess that means I'm sleeping alone tonight. Where's my sad face... 😞

You're right. I'm wrong. Thank you. That still brings the problem back around to identifying the power before modifying the trigger probability. Neither the PPM equation nor the proc system itself specifically identify powers, which means some method of identification would be required. There are 200-300 powers in *PPs which would fit the model suggested for modified proc trigger chances, so it can't be as simple as "If power = X, then -20% chance". X would be a sizeable list, an extra 200-300 lines of unique power names. That's not a simple modification to a formula, it's a database crammed into the formula. A separate database would be easier to work with, and it would have to be a database specific to PPM because the existing powers database would have thousands of entries, making it much slower. Even with a small database and a quick "is the power in here" check, it's not simple, or as fast (adding more checks and verifications slows down the processing, potentially adding a delay of 1/3-1/2s for even a fast pass).

Synapse posted his plan for the PPM revision on the original forums. Everything he said he wanted to do with the changes, he did. He did it the way he wanted to do it. The end product matched what he stated to be his desire. Are you implying that he changed the goal or decided to revise the system further? Do you have any evidence of that? Or are you just offering a lot of mights and maybes? Certainly. The problem isn't in the formula, it's in the powers. Most of them aren't archetype-specific, they're table entries which are later modified by the archetype scalars of the character. So for the formula to adjust proc trigger probability on the fly for different powers, it not only needs additional math to create that adjusted probability, it also needs a way to identify powers accordingly. It needs to be directly tied into the character-side scalar calculations which modify power entries on a per-character basis, or it needs that folded into the PPM formula. Even if it were as simple as "If DefenderEpic=Yes, Then -20% Probability", we wouldn't use something that rudimentary because it would arbitrarily penalize every *PP power without making a distinction, when we're only trying to adjust for the powers with high recharge times. So flag-based variations would require multiple lines, one for every power for which we desired an adjustment in a *PP, for every *PP. It's not nearly as straight-forward as merely editing the formula. Yeah, and having a +Recharge buff in TA would be nice, too, so it has parity with Rad. But it doesn't, and I neither ask for it nor expect it, because I don't want to play Rad-With-a-Bow, I want to play TA. Different IO sets should do different things, just as different power sets do different things. Constraining IO set bonuses to artificially impose parity between builds isn't a good thing, it's a kick in the genitalia for everyone who appreciates having options and building characters in their own way. I don't have to open a poll or use the developers' tools to determine how popular +Movement Speed bonuses are, I already know they're not popular. But I like them. I use them. I pursue them in my builds, even at the expense of +Recharge, +Defense, +Resistance, +HP or anything else that might be a "more useful" allocation of those slots. If you homogenize IO sets, you either remove those +Movement Speed bonuses, or you restrict me to only using the sets with those bonuses, because you can't put every bonus in every set, and either way, I'm under the bus. Diversity, freedom of choice, having options, those are some of the most fundamental strengths of Co*. Homogenizing IO sets so we're all "equal" isn't promoting equality, it's quelling diversity, squashing freedom, taking away options. No. Fuck no. Homogenize your milk, leave my set bonuses alone.

We're playing where it would have ended up. Everything we've been talking about was in the I24 beta. Planning for those changes began (at least) seven months prior to the game's closure. There were three I24 beta patches to the test server before Paragon stopped working on things - the PPM changes were in the first and not a single change was made to it after that. These changes weren't something they whipped up on the spur of the moment and dumped on the beta server as an afterthought or last minute addition. Nor was left incomplete, or untested. It was finished before it left the alpha stage. If anything, Synapse likely expected to have to buff it, if there were too many complaints, but surprisingly, very few people who tested it (or understood the math) considered it to be anything other than a talking point. Almost everyone either felt that it had little or no impact on them, or saw it as an improvement (moar damageses!). The PPM system we're working with right now is exactly what Synapse envisioned, outlined, created, implemented and was satisfied with. Since the HC servers opened, people have been running around, waving their hands in the air and screaming about proc nerfs looming on the horizon... but the changes to PPM and folding IO set procs into the PPM system in I24 was the nerf. It's an example of nerfing done right. It reined in the most extreme outliers at the top end without hurting anyone else, and it didn't even cost those outliers so much that they couldn't play without constantly worrying about being spanked (again), as evidenced by the constant fear expressed by people on these forums. No two sets are going to have the same slotting options. Nor should they. Nor will they, ever. Perfect balance between power sets will never happen. Calling for proc restrictions in order to impose your sense of equity between sets isn't balance, it's homogeny. Not interested. It doesn't work that way. The formula isn't applied to powers, it only checks the relevant aspects of the power to determine a proc's final maximum chance to trigger. You'd have to rework the formula to create new checks and trigger modifiers, and come up with a way that didn't turn it from a neat, compact equation to a massive, bloated, processor-hanging nightmare.

PPMs were being increased for every proc. Increased, not lowered. For every proc, not only ATO procs, or only Winter procs, or only purple procs. This would've permitted procs to be slotted into powers with faster recharge times and/or shorter animations, without sacrificing PPM rate, due to how the PPM formula is calculated, allowing for more frequent use of powers with procs across the board, in addition to the increased likelihood of procs triggering. That's a net increase in damage potential. The PPM formula was being adjusted to account for Recharge Reduction slotted in powers, which would've been a net improvement for the overwhelming majority of players. Even the outliers, the people who relied entirely on global +Recharge buffs and eschewed Recharge Reduction in proc-heavy powers, would've been able to adapt to this system and still see beneficial results, not the least of which was far less work (no need to juggle Hasten and Ageless and Lore pets with +Recharge buffs and second account pocket Emps casting Fortitude and whatever else they did to keep their recharge times manageable without slotting Recharge Reduction) and far less variability to their damage output. That looks suspiciously buffy to me. Proc chances were being capped at 90% chance to trigger, rather than guaranteed X/minute. Small nerf, but in conjunction with the adjustment to the recharge time part of the formula, unlikely to matter to anyone who didn't have a proc monster build. This would've evened out the curve a bit, bringing the most extreme proc monster examples slightly lower, but not really affecting most players. Lastly, all procs which had a % chance to trigger, rather than a PPM number, were being switched to the PPM mechanic (and as noted above, PPMs were being increased). IO set damage procs were especially well positioned to benefit from that, with their fixed 20% chance to trigger. That buff might actually have been over-powered, but I would've had to have my hands on it to say for certain. As I said, they had plenty of opportunities to nerf set bonuses and procs into the ground. Not seeing that in their last look at IOs.

In a team, everyone's responsible for dealing damage. It's everyone's job. You don't have an exclusive license to deal damage simply because you're playing a certain archetype. And in a team, your damage output is just one part of the whole. You don't matter, what your team does as a cohesive unit is what matters. Making it about you, about how much damage you do, about whether or not "your" territory is being invaded, is your problem, not the game's, not the developers'. If the team is functioning and everyone is participating, then why should you care whether or not a defender dealt 10% of your damage output, or 59.24%, or 90%? As long as everyone's doing something and it's all working, why does anyone else's damage output concern you to any degree? Solo, it's not your business. Low damage archetypes using procs aren't going to skew the reward metrics, ESPECIALLY not with fire farming being such a major enterprise. Other people using procs in solo content doesn't affect you, so don't go out of your way to affect them.

I click the big, ugly blue button in the navigation window, the one labeled Exit Mission, and use the buffs to beat the shit out of things outside. Makes more sense than letting the buffs, and thugs, expire without my intervention.

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days. It's odd that the focus is on low damage archetypes using procs to achieve near-blaster damage output. Specifically, it's odd because tanks, brutes, stalkers, scrappers, Kheldians, Soldiers of Arachnos and sentinels all have comparable survivability, which allows them to slot in the same ways low damage archetypes can... and potentially exceed blaster damage output, not just almost match it, because they also have comparable proc slotting potential... but no-one's complained about that in this thread. No, the complaints are about the archetypes which actually need the kind of help provided by damage procs. I understand now that this isn't about procs, it's about blasters being upset because they're not special. Because they're in the same rickety dingy with the rest of us. Because they're experiencing what "support" players have gone through since the game was released, that realization that they're no more necessary than anyone else because the game was designed to marginalize everyone, every archetype, in teams. And instead of asking for buffs and giving rational arguments for those buffs, they're kicking and screaming and demand nerfs to procs, and repeatedly pointing their fingers at the ones who suck the hind teat, insisting that they're the real problem while crossing their fingers and hoping no-one mentions that every high damage archetype is just as much of a threat to their pyrite- and paste-studded tin throne. Reality check - procs didn't steal your job, blasters. You're still blowing spawns to pieces while those low damage archetypes are staring at their power trays and gnashing their teeth in frustration because the rest of the team has run to the next spawn before they've even finished clicking/toggling on those debuffs, or chasing after others so they can do something with those buffs that they can't use on themselves. Or they're giving up and following after your one-track mind example, just trying to hit something while there's still something to hit, and still not doing it as well as you do. And they're wondering when you're going to notice that the dudes with status protection are pumping out as much pain as you are, and just as fast, and thinking that you're an idiot for shouting at them for trying to keep up. "HOW DARE YOU, PUNY DEFENDER! YOU DEFEATED THAT LIEUTENANT WITH A SINGLE USE OF THAT HOLD YOU SLOTTED WITH FIVE PROCS! YOU HAVE STOLEN MY TRASH KILL! I'LL HAVE THE DEVELOPERS NERF YOUR PROCS, YOU DIRTY CHEATING CHEATER WHO CHEATS! Uh... carry on, mega damage dealing tank/brute/scrapper/stalker/sentinel/Kheldian/SoA. Wonderful work you're doing, big fan. All thumbs up." Paragon had five years to do something about set bonuses and procs. Five years. What did they do? Buffed set bonuses. Buffed procs. Add more and stronger set bonuses and procs. And we know they weren't shy about nerfing things, sometimes to the point of outright gutting them. Strange, isn't it, that they didn't consider set bonuses or procs to be so detrimental to the game that they were in need of nerfs, when they were so quick to nerf anything else to oblivion when it threatened any aspect of the game. And still, we have some players who think the game needs to be redesigned around the "holy trinity" model, shoving low damage, low hit point archetypes into the back of the bus (while ignoring seven other archetypes who do the same thing (faster, as fast as blasters)). And people wonder why I seem a bit cranky from time to time. Hm... Yeah, procs do make blasters less exciting as an archetype, in that they reinforce the game's expectation that everyone, every player and every character, deals damage, by allowing everyone to deal damage better. And IO set bonuses make support less exciting by reinforcing the expectation that everyone be capable of bringing their own support (what, you thought the Medicine pool was only accessible to Empathy/* defenders? that the Concealment pool was planned out to be used as LotG unique IO mules four years before IOs entered the game? that the Leadership pool was only available if you lead X number of *Fs? that all of those "sustain" powers and controls liberally offered to every archetype were just there to fill space in the character creation screen?). But that's not the fault of IOs, it's the fault of the game. This is how it was designed. Teaming will always marginalize every archetype in the game. IOs, set bonuses and procs just made that a little clearer to some people... a decade plus after IOs were released, in some cases, but hey, better late than never, right?

Coming soon, to a Wi-Fi hotspot near you - City of Negotiated Settlements and Peaceful Resolutions! Calmly discuss issues! Rationally debate perspectives! Achieve lasting peace through diplomacy and understanding! Welcome to Paragon City, the most peaceful place in the world, where nothing happens that can't be resolved through dialog!

Blasphemer.

Not going into another archetype versus archetype debate. Start another thread, or dig up the last one that discussed it (in which i mentioned that Scourge is just as shitty as Vigilance... and neither really plays into procs, though at least Scourge can benefit from the lower HP of targets resulting from random procs triggering, as opposed to the zilch that Vigilance does in respect to procs (they neither use endurance nor benefit from +Damage)).

Defenders have to work for their supper. Buffing/debuffing/controlling takes time, and with lower HP and lower damage scalars, defenders are required to spend that time if they wish to both achieve decent results and survive to move on to the next spawn, especially with increased difficulty settings or in Incarnate/* Ward content. Like @Apparition, you're completely dismissing that and presenting this argument from the perspective of defenders waltzing into spawns and blowing them to bits like blasters do. They can eventually deal appreciable damage, after they've enabled the conditions for that to happen, and when the RNG gives it to them. Damage procs only do one thing. And all archetypes were designed to deal damage as part of their play style. The earliest version of CoH, as a matter of fact, used a free-form power selection model, and it was scrapped because testing showed that it was possible for players to create characters which couldn't deal any damage. Cryptic specifically steered the game away from that by implementing archetypes as a means of forcing all players to take at least one attack so they could deal damage. The intended play style is to deal damage. That's true for every archetype, every player. That is one of the constants of this game. But that's just pedantry. You meant we're doing something "wrong" by playing defenders who deal more than minor damage. Nope. Defenders were never intended to deal minor damage, they were intended to deal appreciable damage after putting in the appropriate time and effort to make it possible. Using the tools the developers gave them, deliberately and knowingly, to set up those conditional environments which amplified their damage output. Tools like -Res at the highest scalar value, pseudo-pets like Lightning Storm and OSA which deal far more than minor amounts of damage, and the same blast sets that blasters had. Procs don't alleviate the requirement to create those conditional environments. We still have to use our tools to make those procs worthwhile, and to stay alive long enough to see them do something. We're not shitting on blasters' lawns because we're not moving at blasters' speeds. All of the archetypes were designed to be flexible. They had to be in order to avoid the tank/healer/damage dealer standardization that was occurring in the industry at the time. And, again, all archetypes were designed to deal damage. Relying on archetypes to provide a sense of uniqueness is like relying on a Social Security number to provide a sense of identity. Roles are for people who need to be told what to do and how to play.

An archetype which has exactly the same opportunities for slotting exactly the same procs. Procs don't invalidate corruptors simply because defenders have access to them, any more than defenders are invalidated by corruptors using procs. Shitty inherents and poorly differentiated scalars are what create a sense of invalidation between the two, not access to procs, or procs working how they do. Yeah, I'm sure everyone who plays blasters is furious over the fact that what they can do in 5-10s, a defender might manage to reproduce after investing 20-30s, if the RNG decides to smile upon them. 🙄

When a defender still has to spend more time setting up to deal that damage than the blaster spends just getting on with it, and then only has a chance to deal as much damage as the blaster, no, there's no problem. Zero. Animation times matter, and expecting players to spend two to four times as long doing something just because they picked the "wrong" archetype is crap. This isn't 1997, Co* isn't EQ or WoW and the idea that there should be a greater damage penalty to accompany the existing animation time penalty associated with playing archetypes which are already dealing lower damage is antiquated.