Naraka

Yeah, you probably should have just hit the back button again. I'd also like to preface that I don't spam the devs at all. Posting on their forums shouldn't equate to spamming them. Lol no, I try to keep away from dev/mod attention. No, if I spam anything, it's spamming other players who think that balance is imaginary pixie dust that doesn't matter except in ones own imagination.

In this context, I see no issue looking at radical ideas, get opinions of certain aspects from different people's perspectives and just mull over what-ifs. I tend to do that myself when I feel the urge to post suggestions people get bogged down by things like difficulty to implement and/or just disliking something. I think having an interesting inherent that you're just going to remove seems like a less than optimal route to take here. I don't have as much experience with the other mentioned problem statements. Not sure why ATO buffs in a section about damage scalars. Either Scrappers outdamage Sent with the new scalar or it doesn't. Trying to extrapolate an approximate disparity after taking into account the AT's special ATO kind of defeats the point of even having special gears to modify the AT. They're supposed to be a bonus on top of what is already in place which accentuates a specialty or functionality. As for the idea at hand, just removing a mechanic to increase damage seems boring. It'd kind of be like just removing Stalker controlled crits and just increasing their scalar and sticking with random crits. As for the inherent, I see what you did with the extra debuffs...seems kind of a throw-away addition as I'm certain no one is ever going to not run that toggle. I don't hate it but I always see through trying to sacrifice things people don't care about for something good. It's the same argument I feel with the proc thread that people say "you're sacrificing set bonuses to get the extra damage" and that isn't really a sacrifice since you likely are getting the same stats you normally would get elsewhere. Those players abusing procs aren't walking around with unenhanced accuracy and base recharging attacks lol. They get what they need elsewhere and take the damage they want unhindered. Now if there was an *actual* sacrifice to using that inherent toggle, that might present some interesting dynamics...like if you didn't get rid of the opportunity bar but instead repurposed it to build while the toggle was off then when you put the toggle on, you get that sweet damage proc...but the proc scaled with the bar and everytime you got additional damage, the chance got lower and lower until it was dropped to a small 5% chance. The rest of this feels rank-and-file into the standard meta build goals so someone else can give a better commentary on this. Seems interesting but not my thing...

Which options? I'd like to see what and how those changes would have panned out. I trust you understand I don't just take people's words at face value. Also, I don't think removing chance is even a consideration for this game. Unless you just remove the whole ToHit/def formula completely, that just can't happen. ....r-resistance? I'm hesitant to point to that since it's such an obvious point but resistance debuffs are the only other method of increasing the overall damage a proc does and Defenders typically have higher values in them. So the example of a proc build you present is the one that contains the prime-exploitative power that cheats the nature of procs? Do you have any others that don't exploit the game?

Shock Therapy's biggest asset is the mez protection. Not only does it recharge quick enough that you can move it where you want it and have full mez protection (it even protects against knockback) but you can also use it as a breakfree. It has decent heal/absorb and with certain power combos, you can also drain a foe's END. It's an overall well-rounded support set with a little of everything but is a bit spammy. I think the best AT for Shock Therapy is Mastermind since you probably don't have that many attacks to use and you can protect your pets from getting knocked around too much.

I wouldn't say it's "good game balance", mostly a patchwork. To say the balance is good would mean it would rank among the best of MMO PvP balance and I'm remise to believe CoX approaches that. And like I said, it would depend on what kind of change you put in. If any of the suggestions I mentioned were put it, it's not removing procs or nerfing them, just repurposing some to fulfill a different goal to be used in different powers. So you might take the snipe but also try to pair it with a faster ranged attack to help benefit from the shifted use of some procs or Laserbeam eyes might utilize either damage procs without focusing on recharge or focus on the debuff procs that don't care about recharge. It's difficult to argue a hypothetical solution here since there is no concrete plan to compare to the current but no concrete plan will materialize because no one is willing to hypothesize about hypotheticals because they are so bent out of shape about change we have no idea if a better or more diverse situation exists.

People were talking about Hero Patron Pools which I think is a smelly idea, but faction pools seem like a better concept to me. Would be cool to have an Animus Arcanum pool that used some magic attacks + a couple of floating weapons as pets. As lore pets, I'm indifferent since I don't often use Incarnate powers. I also suggested a new Mastermind henchmen set around this faction:

It really depends what changes are made. And even if it actively harms this balance, it, just like any balance change, will simply create a new balance. As for the proc'able pool attacks in PvP, it probably does no favors to build diversity since likely certain ATs will always pick up a snipe pool and/or the more proc'able ranged attack and everyone will grab a hold to load out with procs.

Defender's is easy to remember...people complained about it not being Vigilance but rather "Negligence" for ever. Controllers, I want to say had their inherent power changed? I just remember it being Containment because that's what their crit was called but maybe they changed it to Overpower? Masterminds is easy since I often have to keep watching over my pets to make sure they have the Supremacy buff if I send them in to attack. I've only ever played Peacebringer so Cosmic Balance is theirs but the Warshade version works similar. I've never played SoA. As for Scourge, I do pick Corruptors specifically for their benefit of critting on multi-hit attacks. Picking an Ice or Fire Corruptor because it can crit the little hits otherwise I'll make a Defender. I have a thread outlining my view of Opportunity. It's likely just not useful later in the game outside of that first -res effect.

What are we arguing here? It's not like a specially built character is difficult to use or challenging to plan here. Most meta-type builds aim to utilize as tight a chain of attacks with as few powers as possible and running on easily saturated buffs and/or always-running effects. Little-to-no downtime with minimal variance of play and conditions that, once built out, don't provide much meaningful opposition to adapt to. And with other outsourced buffs for recovery, rech and accuracy outside of inspirations, it's doubtful even a badly built proc-monster can't be compensated for to play well. I suppose one could brag about not using SG buffs and/or P2W/temp powers but those are, frankly, no different than using incarnate powers or filling out a character with the same meta-build goals of softcapped def and high recharge with only an arbitrary stop-gate on certain effects.

But the devs haven't expressed any kind of concern about those thus it's a non-topic that cannot be discussed by the players. It's weird, that logic. I don't think having a particular dev's attention ever stops players suggesting to look at sub-par aspects of the game.

Which suggestions are you referring to? If they went for a plan similar to my 2nd suggestion, you could still set your proc bombs off but maybe 2 of your 6 procs would have a much lower chance of going off because they are static % chance like the old system was. On the others hand, if some were like in the old system, you could aim for a buzzsaw-lite build. That's not removing build versatility, that's increasing it.

Sure. But if ever a change comes in that messes up your build, I want you to keep the same mentality you wrote up there and roll with it. That being said, I still feel my 2nd proposition could assist in not only limiting some of the excesses of procs but also open up old build strategies that were nerfed with the new system (although to a limited capacity).

Don't get it twisted, I use and abuse procs too. I just think it's a bit wonky when you compare Lightning Rod either with standard slotting or proc'ed with Savage Leap built with procs and there is no real way to bring them closer in performance whatsoever. You'd have to add another IO to all those sets so you can still get the #6 (or what have you) bonus.

Well I didn't particularly outline in my OP what issue requires nerfing procs, I did point to other issues of procs that aren't damage that are being held back by the current formula and implementation. As for the other proc stuff, I did go by the consensus that the devs were looking to alter procs was a given. It's no secret that damage procs can be bonkers in specific powers. Overall, it creates a haves/have-nots for powers that don't have the ability to load up on procs. That is an underlying issue no one has talked about and I don't think the solution should be just give everything the ability to proc-bomb by adding more procs to the system. It would be better to make the procs more in-line with standard slotting. But I didn't really want to get into the hoopla of debating about whether there is or isn't a problem because that's boring and probably more for a discussion in the General forum. This was more supposed to be talking about how solutions would affect the current slotting game. Only to prove if proc should be looked at? That's a lot of work but I think plenty of players have already demonstrated the strength of proc-monster builds. I don't think it's necessary to need to provide spreadsheets and meta-calculations just to have a license to talk about procs when there are dozens of threads that exist here on the forums. Ice Blast should perform better for self-preservation. Why should it also have similar damage? Are the procs for debuffs/controls on par with the procs for damage? You're probably not going to ever get to talk about those kind of subjects if you only fixate on hammering down the question of "are we allowed to change procs?" with a drawn out debate. There's no reason to be coy here, we know procs are strong in many circumstances and we don't need to prove that here.

W̵̮̭̤̝͎͚̞̏͊̅̾̿̿̀́̽̄̑͊̈̊̀͋̍̅͐̾̌̈́̎̅̑̀̕̕͝͝͠͝͝͝ę̶̨̢̛̹̗̠͓̮̘̝̠͙͎̭͓̳̘͎͎̘̘̞̙̻͔͕̞̞͉͎̟̻̤̖̟̯̙͕̠̜̣͉͚̜͍̖̋͌͋̈͌̉́͛̏̀̈̂̒͂͒̔͂́̊̕͘̚ͅͅ ̵̡̧̛̥̹͈̲̫̪͇̠̦̞̜͚͕̗̬͚̹͔̺̦͍̩͎̹͇͈͔̳̩͈̦͎̝̤̹̮̓͊̉͛͒̉̑͒̆͐͌̓̀̉̑̽̏̆͆͋̅̾͛͂̍͒̓̅͑̑̌̓͛̀͘̕̚̚ͅͅA̷̡̘̤̥̦͒̈́̂͆̃́̏͌̄̆̓̑̂͆̈́̎̒́̆́̇̿́̑͛͒͛̈́̎̕͠͝ȑ̵̢̹͈̭̪̖͇͍̞̦͎̝̖̯͚́͐͆̐͆̾͒͛̑́̾́͒ĕ̴̢̛̻̱̘̞͚̣̰̜̣̠͓͎͈̳̣̏̆̄́̐͆̂͌̋͌͐̓̄̃̈́̒̔̐͒́̍́͆͑͆̾̌̏̋͌̇̃̀͘͘̕͠͠͝ ̸̡̨̡͕͕̼̯͖̫̞̦̤̮̣̝̺̮͇̖̹̹͚̘̬͙̙̖̰͔̟̯̜̠̻͔̲̭͌͛͒̀̍̈̆͑̐́̄́̀̿͊̾͂͘ͅͅͅL̷̡̧̧̛͓̠͓̥̰̭̣͍͔̼̲̦̲̱͖̩̼̱̹̱̄e̸̡̢͙͚̟̫̼̜͉͉̮̲͔̖̣̗̖̻̩̦̰̒̅̀̾͆̓̄͂̂̒̑͂̈͜͠ͅg̵̢̧̛̣̺̱͇̗͎͉̖͍̰͔̟̠͇̺̬͉̟̠̲̲̬̹̫͎̺̙̲̘͙̰͚̪̟͖̦͇̹̺̤̤͇̞͗̒̀͗̽̅͆͂̍̊̍̉̈̿̈͋́͊͂̓̈́͒̃̿́̎͑͗̕̚͠͠į̵̢̩̥͈̘͕̗̥͈͓̥͈̭̪̥̩̯̹̭͕̦̠̠̮͎̻͛̏͊͑̏̀̿͆͑̅̑̈́͗͛͛͌͐̏̽̄͑̄̇̑̕͘͜͠͠ͅơ̶̡̨̧̜̰̦̞̫̼̞̯̱̥͇͓͇̦͙̂͑̔̎̓̅̆̿̈̈́͌̂̄̏̆͂̊̾͑̍̊̀̑̌͝͝ń̷̨̯̫̺͙̣̗̮͕̟̘̙̩̙̤͖̦̰̣̼̞̀͊̕ ...ahem, now there is merit to this part of the discussion. First of all, there could be multiple avenues of KB>KD using IO set bonuses as well as changing things from being specific powers to globals. Beyond that, I think *some* uses of KB>KD are broken and alter the balance and could warrant a revisit for balance (main culprit here would be Bonfire).

That's why I kind of opened up with multiple avenues of discussion. The thing is, the change from % procs to PPM procs kind of screwed over some of that creativity too which is just something I'd like to bring to light if ideas are being bounced around for change or for players, if changes do come down the pipeline, not just fixating on the negatives and looking toward broader ideas of how a changed system could bring about more creativity even at the cost of reduction of some of the maximal build strategies. Like I mentioned before, I'm curious what you feel about the other non-damage procs. Heck, even the +ToHit proc in the -ToHit sets probably doesn't see much use...I'm interested in siphoning some of the "proc bomb" synergy into the lesser used procs too.

Either my snark was 80 proof or the expiration date was past due but my criticism was moderated and deleted. I'm still looking to make a Fire Blast Sent, just don't know what unique secondary to use...

I'm with you here. Most of the characters I have that use incarnate powers are moreso used to assist in funding other characters and aren't often used outside of that. But at the same time, saying "just don't use them" kind of undermines the point of the discussion as some players that find procs OP likely already don't use them similar to players that don't like the balance of incarnates might just ignore them all together. As for a lot of your other suggestions, altering the balance of IO bonuses outside of procs isn't the purpose of this thread. Not putting it off the table, just saying it's going off topic. As for the prospect of limiting procs, what about Razzle Dazzle, Stupefy, Absolute Amazement, Dark Watcher's, etc procs?

I don't completely disagree with you but at the same time, there is a spectrum to nerfs and not everything that is too powerful needs the Regen treatment....I was going to say the GDN treatment but we're still kind of steeped in def-softcapped supremacy so perhaps that wasn't enough.

As a fan of proc damage, I feel, as a solution, that would be the most radical and most draconian of solutions worthy of the slot of Proposition #12.

Proposition #3: Set-allied Procs This one is truly radical and would need a rework of a lot of sets to do. Set allied procs would be just a blanket alteration of how procs are calculated via same-set effects. Think of it like adding the proc to a set would give either a PPM chance that is 1/3 lower than the current chance OR 1/3 the damage of a current proc and every relevant set IO would then increase the chance and/or damage of the proc up to a maximum of +3. I say +3 because that is the minimum number of IOs in a set so having *at least* 3 of an IO with a proc damage bonus would get you current PPM damage. This does several things: it limits the maximal proc damage to, maybe 3? I say maybe because having a proc set of IOs up to 3 + a proc set of IOs up to 2 + 1 more proc set *MIGHT* get you a marginal increase of *POSSIBLE* damage *IF* you crunch the numbers and the activation and cooldowns line up...but you're weighing that marginal damage increase against the bonuses you'd get from changing that +2 set to +3 OR sacrificing the slot for it OR the enhancement bonus of the power itself. It's hard to weigh the overall effect of such a change since the circumstances of slotting the procs differs...which is why I would suggest a "buff" aspect to such a proposition to make it even *MORE* worthwhile to have only *ONE* proc in a set *IF* you decided to slot out a power with up to 5 same-set IOs. In the case of, say, a Defender's Neutrino Bolt, slotting the "proc" for neg-energy damage by itself would net you a low chance of occurring and the damage would be reduced...but if you decided to slot it up to 4 or 5 slots all with Touch of Lady Grey, for every enhancement you increase the damage and chance of that proc equal to 1.75-2 procs of damage at maximal PPM standards. In this case, rather than having lots of procs, you would want same set enhancements to give you *better* procs instead of more. On top of that, rather than the sole proc IO, you'd likely have to alter all of them to be actual enhancements (changing the "chance to do x damage" into +accuracy/x or something) and then make the actual effect of the proc inherent to the IO set. This would be the most radically different suggestion and doing away with the 1/2 proc power choices but for the benefit of increasing that proc. Conceptually, it might be better if you're trying to approximate a unique power effect but it would be *VERY* different from the current form.

Proposition #2: Multi-formula Procs So there was a previous system of % chance procs before PPM. If we look back at this particular system, that was a bit broken for certain high-activation powers like Caltrops (capable of slotting the Positron's Blast proc, the Javelin's Volley proc, the Annihilation proc, the Pace of the Turtle proc, the Impede Swiftness proc, the Overwhelming Force proc and any ATO proc that might be useful) or low recharge powers, right? Was that a wholly bad thing, tho? It was? Okay, well what if some of those procs weren't % base? What if some were PPM and some were %? There might be a big more worth to having Pace of the Turtle proc be % based, Javelin's Volley proc be % based and the others be PPM based? You could even add other formulas or even have every proc have a unique formula to calculate their activations. What does this do? It diversifies the conditions to maximize the procs so they don't all fall under "whatever recharges quickest", "whatever activates most often", "what appeases the area factor, recharge and/or activation speed of the formula", etc. The main issue this solution would tackle is stacking *A LOT* of procs into singular powers. I feel this would be an interesting possibility mainly for build diversity. As is, using procs under PPM on low recharging powers isn't that attractive but Holds tend to have either long activations or long recharges on top of having several hold damage procs, you can transform that control into a blast. I don't want to particularly take that functionality away but do see it might be useful to limit that hold from becoming a tier 3 blast into just a tier 2 blast instead. On top of that, you could create new options to make this avenue more universal. Like for -rech procs, you could change it to a unique "proc over time %" option where instead of a simple % chance to proc a certain -rech debuff, it will proc -rech every second that stacks or recharges while the power that activates it is in effect. Or for something like the Razzle Dazzle immobilize proc, make it 100% proc for 5sec *IF* the target is stunned and a base % chance to proc if they aren't. In this proposition, there could be more freedom to balance procs on an individual basis and have a better limiting factor on "proc bombs" (looking at you, Savage Leap) while making other "useless procs" more useful. I think this is the most flexible and balance-able.

I don't think it's a secret that procs and the PPM system is being looked at and I'd like to talk about it, the purpose of procs, the implication a proc change would have and your personal view about procs or how to change them. Overall, I was a big fan of procs back in the day, not because I liked to game them in high recharge powers but rather I liked to have "crits" on my defender or tanker. I just enjoyed the "reward" of occasionally getting something extra...kind of like getting that KB chance in your Radiation blast cone. I'm only aware of the old % chance system and a rudimentary understanding of the current PPM system that was introduced on live (I think) and adjusted with the new formula on HC. I feel that, from reading the prospect of the PPM feedback thus far, that there are a good amount of circumstances that IO procs have outpaced certain aspects of damage that probably weren't meant to happen and that's part of why procs are getting looked at. I would like to keep in mind that damage procs aren't the only thing on the table here that should be considered. Things like KB>KD, debuff procs and buff procs are also in this mess and should be considered when rebalancing is occurring. That all being said, to express my personal views of the current state of procs: ...it's tough to say. As a fan of old procs and using them to either make artificial "crits" for some ATs that don't have them or to specialize in using a particular power that manifests it into a "proc attack", I do enjoy building certain powers to use them. If they redid the balance around procs, I wouldn't be too bummed because I tend to recognize when something is too gameable...BUT....how? Separating my own bias of my enjoyment of procs in this suggestion thread, how would it be possible to alter the trajectory of balance for this particular feature? I think I'll try and outline my own ideas here but isn't @Bopper the expert on them? Anyways...I'll try to organize the propositions from least radical to most just because I want to get some conversation going. Proposition #1: Tweak the PPM formula Probably the easiest and the one I'm least capable of commenting about. I have used the current formula to keep my procs at a decent range of chance but I'm not going to pretend I've mulled over HOW you could tweak the formula to balance it for the many many circumstances and power applications. I will say, if this is going to be the the one used, I'd implore giving special treatment to debuff procs that aren't -res (lol). Things like endurance drain, -ToHit, etc seem bogged downed and underpowered in the current system.

I personally don't get why people are so down (granted I don't play endgame because it's pretty boring). It's the closest things so far to playing a Scrapper but also wanting to use the conceptual powers of a ranged set. People wanted a melee version of DP for Scrappers for the longest and Sent is basically that. Playing an offensive armored character but wanting to use those sonic or psychic blasts? Sent is your go-to. Basically, it's like playing a Scrapper but not wanting to use Savage Melee or Titan Weapons for the 12th time so you use Assault Rifle or Electric Blast instead.

I would argue that, yes, other ATs do have to do that. It's just people forget that non-IO'ed builds exist and don't remember when their Brute was getting mauled and decided to fall back until some powers came off cooldown or just to try again fresh since you weakened their numbers. And when I said retreat, there's a bit of a spectrum to that (although my poorly auto-corrected non-proof read post doesn't demonstrate it). Retreat doesn't have to mean completely abandon the engagement. You have mobility, in a sense, in that you can occupy an engagement while also positioning yourself more advantageously. Find a corner not to hide behind but rather to summon your pets at to give you a few more seconds to get them ready. There's also the option of just foddering your pets and sending more in regardless, which would be the more rudimentary version of MM but that requires falling back into a defensive position and moving your pets forward. Not every engagement is just you + pets in the middle of a swath of foes and if that is how you tackle every engagement then difficulty summoning in those conditions should be the tax you pay considering how simplistic that is compared to practically any other AT.