America's Angel

July 5, 2021

18 minutes ago, Apparition said:

Hi. I led both Hamidon and Rikti mothership raids for years prior to sunset, I've routinely led raids on Homecoming for the past two years, I was the Hamidon tank in a successful five person Hamidon raid without any temporary powers, and I think damage procs need to be nerfed to the ground. Nice to meet you.

I've not seem a single other min/maxer advocate for a global nerf to damage procs, so this development is actually quite interesting.

I looked through the thread but couldn't find a post from you. Why do you think damage procs should be nerfed?

July 5, 2021

For AFK farming you can use mine: #38973. The enemies have quickness so they will gather quicker. It'll auto-kick you after 10 minutes which makes resetting easier. You'll make 30 mil an hour. With 3 AFK farmers you're lookin at 90 mil an hour. Which works out to 720 mil a day for your average 8 hour workday.

That said, and speaking as a full-time writer, 10 minute intervals are too short to be able to focus on the work. You're probably better off using one of Brigg's cave maps such as #2551. If you use Brigg's map, then park your characters at the intersections with pink dots for 30 mins each.

You'll earn less. But you'll be able to focus on your work more.

Although honestly, and this might be different for you, but I never AFK farm when writing. I need to be fully absorbed in the work in order to "flow". Constantly being pulled out to reset AFK farms ruins that flow state.

July 5, 2021

13 minutes ago, aethereal said:

You really haven't. You made a bunch of dubious assertions with no sourcing and people mostly ignored you.

Well this just isn't true. I've been quoted more than anyone else in the thread, and have received more emoji reactions (22) than anyone else. That said, I have noticed a few posters haven't responded when I explained that their ideas weren't viable. (Such as your idea about local recharge not affecting proc rate.) But I just assumed that was them accepting the correction. Although my posts are pretty long, so maybe it was just wearying them out? Who can say.

Also, with regards to your other post about Tactics, above. It's extremely unlikely that more players are taking tactics than Manuevers. In order to take Tactics, you have to first select Assault or Manuevers. As Manuevers is a good slot for the LOTG global, most players tend to take that over Assault.

July 5, 2021

7 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Nobody thinks that 1-2 procs in a given power is bad. The issue is where certain powers can LOAD up with procs while others cannot (lightning rod vs savage leap) as well as the relative impact procs have on certain ATs over others (defender vs Corruptor). Proc *bombs* can be a big problem where there are a bunch at once + they are relatively reliable beyond what they are intended to be.

Hey GB! Have a read through this thread. We already debunked most of these concerns.

Let me give you a brief rundown...

Defenders benefitting from damage procs more than Corruptors was debunked here. (And in the follow-up posts by Blackhearted.)

Aethereal's post here and my follow-up post here started to narrow down the viability of different reasons for/approaches to changing procs in general. (Not just damage procs) The intention was to move away from the broad-strokes, unspecific suggestions/claims that were plaguing the thread, into a more granular discussion that could then be quantified with data analysis.

Also worth pointing out that there has been no agreement on what the problem with damage procs actually is. (Or if there even is one!) Because of this, most of the posts in this thread have been solutions in search of problems. To remedy this, I made a post at the start of the thread, here, where I outlined some number-crunching steps that players who want to see damage procs nerfed can undertake to prove their claims that procs are overperforming/bad for game balance. (Having been through two beta cycles with the devs, I know firsthand that they respond best to data/numbers that PROVE a balance issue. Which is why I have been encouraging posters here to provide numbers.)

So far, no-one has provided any numbers. All justification for global proc nerfs in this thread have been anecdotal/appealing to authority ("everyone knows that..." etc). Obviously none of this is actionable data. But it does demonstrate a reticence that those calling for a global proc nerf have towards number crunching. This suggests to me that those who believe procs should be nerfed don't actually understand (or at the very least, aren't prepared to demonstrate that they understand) the numbers behind game balance. So their claims that ALL PROCS are causing power creep/must be nerfed/etc should be taken with a grain of salt.

This is to be expected, though. Most posters on internet forums tend to be casual-intermediate players, as we can see from this recent polling of the forum posters' level of wealth:

It's important to bear this in mind. And it does reflect my own experiences when discussing rebalancing procs with others. High-level players I've spoken to about this (PvPers, Raid Leaders, Speed Runners, etc) do not believe procs should be nerfed. Now, I'm sure there might be some out there who do. But I have yet to meet any. Which isn't surprising. Because the more you know about how this game balances, the more you realise that the PPM system we have right now is mostly excellent.

Key word there is "mostly". There are, of course, exceptions. But a few problem powers (Burn, Ground Zero, etc) and a few problem procs (Gaussian) and a few problem dynamics (AoE attacks triggering self-buffs) does not a global proc nerf justify. For example, I've yet to see any quantifiable evidence that Char with 6 procs is causing power creep, impacting other players, or making the user of Char significantly more powerful than before. (Without the use of inspiration chaining via email to plug the hole caused by the lack of set bonuses that 6-slotting char, and other powers, will cause.)

Honestly, nothing in this thread has changed since I posted this back on Page 2...

On 7/2/2021 at 6:56 PM, America's Angel said:

For all this talk of "fixing" procs, I've yet to see anyone clearly outline what the problem with them is.

If the problem cannot be clearly outlined, a discussion cannot be had, and a solution cannot be found.

So what might be more useful right now is, rather than suggesting things, why don't y'all try identifying things?

Actually run the numbers. Demonstrate the performance difference for a procless build vs a proc-filled build. Show the performance difference. (If there is one). And make sure you show the difference in both DPS and HPS. A procless build should have higher HPS due to more set bonuses. What you should be looking to compare is the overall DPS:HPS efficacy ratio of both builds.

This is what I do when putting together my super-min/max PvP builds. I look at my DPS and HPS. And I consider whether sacrificing DPS in some areas nets a higher HPS in other areas, making the overall "strength" of the build greater. This is the sort of analysis that has to happen. Also, you need to consider thresholds. What is the HPS you need to survive vs most content? How easy is it to get there? Do you need more set bonuses to do this than a proc-build would allow? Can the survival gap be filled with inspirations? If so, how does a proc-filled build without inspirations compare to a procless build without inspirations, numerically?

And this goes beyond a simple build-to-build comparison. You'd also have to look at how procs function on the powerset-level. By this I mean analyzing how much procs help/do not help balance the different sets relative to each other on a given AT. Fire Blast and Ice Blast, for example; Fire does more damage, but Ice has better proccing options. Take procs away, and does the performance gap between fire and ice widen? Do procs bring up middling sets greater than they boost the top sets? (You can only answer this by running the numbers.)

And this also extends to the AT level, too. Do some ATs benefit more from procs than others? For example - brutes are swimming in +dam, so are procs better for them than Scrappers? Procs don't use AT damage modifiers, so do they boost up the DPS of low-damage ATs more than they boost up the DPS of high-damage ATS? (This is not rhetorical. This is something you will need to sit down and calculate in Excel.)

These are the sort of questions you will need to ask when running your analysis.

Until this is done. Suggesting a "fix" is premature. Because you don't even know what you're trying to fix.

And this is worth stressing: numbers are reliable, humans aren't. The benefit of using quantitative analysis for balance is that it will lessen the impact of anecdotal observations in the discussion.

July 5, 2021

Top 10 Ranked 7/4/2021:

1 Madvillain
2 America’s Angel (+1)
3 T Mart (+1)
4 Alouu
5 Ridicc
6 Kencian (+1)
7 magecow
8 Blackhearted
9 Mushroom
10 Seductive

Ranks are calculated by Elo Score. Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZetLGnWhKXeE9o_5KG3ZI-rpdhde5YigzQlorIsOR4k/edit?usp=sharing

Reasons for movement:

We ran another Fightclub tournament tonight. We had to do it on Excelsior because the arena isn't working on Indomitable right now. Turned out to be a mixed blessing...we had a great turnout! We discovered that Excelsior has its own little Fightclub community forming! Was an absolute highlight Fightclubbing with so many new faces. (Also gave me a chance to try out my new EM/EA scrapper against a range of opponents. So far so good!)

It wasn't just violence, though. Here's some of the participants chilling in Pocket D before the matchups.

As always, if you're interested in seeing your name in the top 10, taking part in our weekly Sunday Fightclub events, or learning more about 1v1 melee fights, then feel free to join up to our discord, here: https://discord.gg/knq839NUM4

July 5, 2021

3 hours ago, th0ughtGun said:

So, I just thought of this, but has anyone mentioned the idea to have a damage proc’s actual damage scale with the AT’s base damage mod? So the same proc would do different damage dependent on the AT that uses it.

That would be a fair change across the board, would it not?

@BlackHearted already covered the defenders vs corruptors part more succinctly than I could. (I'm trying to ramble on forums less. You'll notice I've not had much luck, haha.) But I just wanted to comment on this idea.

This was one of the ideas we considered. But after looking at how it played in practice, we realised it would lead to severe game disbalance. The high damage ATs would have their damage buffed by procs further than the low damage ATs would. Which would widen the gap in AT performance.

Super over-simplified example:

Archetype X does 100 damage from powers + 10 damage from procs procs = 110 total damage

Archetype Y does 80 damage from powers + 10 damage from from procs = 90 total damage

Difference = 20

Now, if procs were changed to do 10% of an ATs "damage value" (made up term, but bear with me).

Archetype X does 100 damage from powers + 10 damage procs = 110 total damage

Archetype Y does 80 damage from powers + 8 damage from procs = 88 total damage

Difference = 22

So the gap widens.

Obviously those numbers are just made up, as is the term "damage value". But this is how it would play out if Procs were linked to AT damage scales.

It would actually be much worse than the example above shows, considering Blasters have almost double the damage scale of some other ranged ATs:

July 4, 2021

The PvP changes we've gotten have been nothing short of incredible.

July 4, 2021

1 hour ago, th0ughtGun said:

In theory , maybe. In practice, no. I’ve tested this over and over. Defenders simply have much much better build flexibility than Corruptors and as such don’t have to sacrifice much to load up the procs. If the Corruptor does this, they are giving up a lot. This leads to Defenders often outpacing Corruptors damage wise while maintaining better survival and buffs/de-buffs. There are many many people that have proven this with Pylon tests and such. This is similar to the issues between Brutes and Tanks.

If you slot the damage loadouts for the Corruptor and Defender equally, the Corruptor is doing more damage.

Does the Defender have more defense? Yes. Because their pool powers have a higher baseline starting number. But remember, we're using inspirations in proc builds (see my response to Goal #1, above), so that doesn't matter.

I think it's possibly accurate to say Defenders outpace Corruptors damage-wise in environments where:

-Players don't use inspirations.

-Players are soloing for the Vigilance damage boost.

-Players have to build for the defense softcap.

-Players aren't building for +HP.

But this feels like quite a niche testing environment, and not reflective of how procs are used in the game.

Another way to look at it - if Defenders did more damage than Corruptors, then the people who speedrun taskforces would do so with Defenders. They don't. They use fire/fire Blasters and fire/cold and fire/sonic Corruptors. It's because Corruptors do more damage in high-end play than Defenders.

3 minutes ago, Jitsurei said:

This is generalizing a lot about how other people play, when in reality there’s just not a way for you to know who is making which builds and how they’re playing them. Not one proc build I’ve ever made has needed to rely on inspirations, and if there was no impact on the player base we probably wouldn’t be going over this every [insert increasingly frequent period of time here].

Actually, this is based on my being active in the min/maxing discords, and having a strong grasp of the general population of players who play with procc'd out characters at the high end whilst chaining inspirations.

30 is being generous. It's barely that.

Here's an example of what a proc-build actually looks like. It's the fire/fire blaster I use to solo task forces with on +4/8/murder GMs/etc.

Hopefully this will give some context about why proc builds require inspirations to perform optimally:

This Hero build was built using Mids Reborn 3.0.4.7
https://github.com/Reborn-Team/MidsReborn

Click this DataLink to open the build!

speedfirefiremu: Level 50 Mutation Blaster
Primary Power Set: Fire Blast
Secondary Power Set: Fire Manipulation
Power Pool: Fighting
Power Pool: Leaping
Power Pool: Speed
Power Pool: Leadership
Ancillary Pool: Flame Mastery

Hero Profile:
Level 1: Flares -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Ring of Fire -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Fire Ball -- Rgn-Dmg/EndRdx(A), Rgn-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(5), Rgn-Acc/Rchg(7), Rgn-Dmg(9), Rgn-Knock%(17), Bmbdmt-+FireDmg(29)
Level 4: Boxing -- AbsAmz-Stun(A), AbsAmz-Stun/Rchg(5), AbsAmz-Acc/Stun/Rchg(9), AbsAmz-Acc/Rchg(15), AbsAmz-EndRdx/Stun(23)
Level 6: Combat Jumping -- LucoftheG-Def/Rchg+(A), DefBuff-I(39)
Level 8: Super Speed -- BlsoftheZ-ResKB(A)
Level 10: Fire Sword Circle -- SprDfnBrr-Acc/Dmg(A), SprDfnBrr-Dmg/Rchg(11), SprDfnBrr-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(15), SprDfnBrr-Rchg/+Status Protect(43), SprDfnBrr-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(45)
Level 12: Maneuvers -- LucoftheG-Def/Rchg+(A)
Level 14: Hasten -- RechRdx-I(A), RechRdx-I(17)
Level 16: Build Up -- RechRdx-I(A), GssSynFr--Build%(29)
Level 18: Blaze -- Apc-Acc/Rchg(A), Apc-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(19), Apc-Dmg(19), Apc-Dmg/EndRdx(45), Apc-Dam%(46), GldJvl-Dam%(50)
Level 20: Cauterizing Aura -- PrfShf-EndMod(A), Erd-%Dam(21), TchoftheN-%Dam(21), Obl-%Dam(43), PrfShf-End%(46), ScrDrv-Dam%(48)
Level 22: Tough -- UnbGrd-ResDam(A), UnbGrd-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(23), UnbGrd-Max HP%(25), StdPrt-ResDam/Def+(27), GldArm-3defTpProc(27)
Level 24: Tactics -- HO:Cyto(A)
Level 26: Blazing Bolt -- StnoftheM-Dam%(A), SprBlsWrt-Rchg/Dmg%(31), HO:Nucle(31), SprBlsWrt-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(33), HO:Nucle(33), GldJvl-Dam%(33)
Level 28: Weave -- ShlWal-ResDam/Re TP(A), LucoftheG-Def/Rchg+(34)
Level 30: Burnout -- RechRdx-I(A)
Level 32: Inferno -- Arm-Dmg(A), Arm-Dmg/EndRdx(36), Arm-Dmg/Rchg(36), Arm-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(36), Arm-Acc/Rchg(37), Erd-%Dam(45)
Level 35: Char -- HO:Nucle(A), GldNet-Dam%(3), UnbCns-Dam%(3), GhsWdwEmb-Dam%(31), NrnSht-Dam%(34), GldJvl-Dam%(34)
Level 38: Burn -- ScrDrv-Dam%(A), Obl-%Dam(39), FuroftheG-ResDeb%(39), Erd-%Dam(40), HO:Nucle(40), Arm-Dam%(40)
Level 41: Fire Sword -- HO:Nucle(A), Hct-Dam%(42), Mk'Bit-Dam%(42), GldStr-%Dam(42), TchofDth-Dam%(46), SprBlsCol-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(48)
Level 44: Hot Feet -- Obl-%Dam(A), SprDfnBrr-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(25), ImpSwf-Dam%(43), ScrDrv-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(48), ScrDrv-Dam%(50), Erd-%Dam(50)
Level 47: Vengeance -- LucoftheG-Def/Rchg+(A)
Level 49: Fire Shield -- UnbGrd-ResDam(A), UnbGrd-ResDam/EndRdx(37), UnbGrd-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(37)
Level 1: Defiance
Level 1: Brawl -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Sprint -- UnbLea-Stlth(A)
Level 2: Rest -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Swift -- Run-I(A)
Level 2: Hurdle -- Jump-I(A)
Level 2: Health -- Pnc-Heal/+End(A), Prv-Absorb%(7), Mrc-Rcvry+(13)
Level 2: Stamina -- PrfShf-EndMod(A), EndMod-I(11), PrfShf-End%(13)
Level 49: Quick Form
Level 1: Prestige Power Dash -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Slide -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Quick -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Rush -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Surge -- Empty(A)
Level 4: Ninja Run
Level 50: Musculature Radial Paragon
Level 50: Portal Jockey
Level 50: Task Force Commander
Level 50: The Atlas Medallion
Level 50: Freedom Phalanx Reserve
------------

1 minute ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

This is exactly what I'm looking for, thank you! Could you point me to the source material if you know it offhand?

As far as I'm concerned, Powerhouse and his/her/its team are the only ones who have opinions that are particularly relevant to me, so I'd like to have a handle on what they figure the specific problems are in order to determine what my responses will be. Thanks!

Powerhouse mentioned it offhand in the Golden Standard Testers beta-testing discord. I'm not going to screencap his messages here, because it's a gated discord that you have to agree to the rules to before joining. But anyone is free to join up and search through the devs' post history. :)

Here's the link:

https://discord.gg/DptUBzh

Just to repeat - it was mentioned off hand. He was not committing to it.

July 4, 2021

2 minutes ago, aethereal said:

I think this is on-point. Let me throw out some things that I've seen people talk about. These aren't all my own views, just trying to synthesize what I've seen in this and other threads.

Goal 1: Reduce the dominance of "Proc Builds"

Some people feel that the most powerful builds in the games are ones in which many or most of the powers most commonly used are slotted very heavily for procs (4-6 slots devoted to procs, necessarily mainly-but-not-exclusively damage procs, but also heavily featuring -res procs and maybe Force Feedback). This strikes people as undesirable.

Analysis: I think people should be a little more crisp in their definition of why this is a problem. If someone wants to slot heavily for damage at the expense of set bonuses, why is that a bad thing? I think one element of the critique is simply that it's overtuned, that the differential between a proc build and a non-proc build is too much. But I think another element of the critique is more aesthetic, like it's just not really "right" to have a build stuffed with damage procs at the expense of all else. Like maybe it's a reversion to the pre-ED days of 1 acc, 5 damage slotting? It's one-note and tired? There may also be an element of feeling like it's exclusionary.

Solutions: People should contemplate whether all they want is for the damage amount of damage procs to be reduced by about 10%. That would certainly make proc builds considerably less attractive.

Goal 2: Specifically avoid turning non-damage powers into damage powers

People like @arcane have been explicit about this. They feel like they don't like the ability to turn for example DNA Siphon, or various low or non-damage holds, into powerful damage powers because they're on long recharge timers and can slot a ton of different damage procs. Whether or not this is part and parcel of an overall "proc build," some people may feel this is a problem even if there's only one power in the build that's heavily procced.

Analysis: Again, a bit more clarity into why this is a problem is in order. Is there a sense that a power has a "purpose," and you shouldn't be able to change the power's "purpose" with slotting? Or perhaps it's more that they feel like it puts the spotlight on powers that are intended to be situational, and don't like how central certain epic/ancillary/patron powers can end up being (though is that it? Do people who hold this view not care if people slot out Suppressive Fire, a primary power pick, in the way they might slot out an epic hold?)

Solutions: You could imagine point solutions here. DNA Siphon doesn't really need to do damage, its damage is completely negligible. If it couldn't take PBAoE Damage sets, it couldn't realistically be turned into a proc bomb. But the holds, it kinda depends on how much we care about the absurd number of damage procs in hold sets. Those seem to be explicitly created to allow Controllers/Doms to turn their hold powers into damage powers? I think?

Goal 3: Improve AT balance

Very specifically, I think a lot of people feel like the only advantage Corruptors have over Defenders is damage, and that Defenders can entirely close that gap with procs, leaving Corruptors without a role. Similarly, I think, though perhaps somewhat less well-foundedly, people worry that Tankers have entirely overtaken Brutes. And then more holistically, I think some people are concerned that a change to procs, if it does not change CoH's current "balance meta" might result in (further?) dominance of Scrappers/Blasters over lower-damage ATs. That is, that the current system allows a role for non-damage ATs and that nerfs to procs may push everyone further to Scraps/Blasts.

Analysis: I think it's true that Corruptors have a rough time of it right now. The concerns about Brutes seem overblown. This seems like a place where procs have a very marginal position in the overall problem and I doubt that this is a place where we can make big changes with any reasonable change to procs. I think that people who are claiming that the current proc mechanics help AT balance need to make their case clearly: are they saying that without procs, most non-Blaster/Scrapper ATs are fundamentally bad? Presumably the overwhelming majority of players aren't creating proc-heavy builds, and that will be true of any reasonable change to the proc system. Procs are a bad patch to AT balance, I think, unless you can make the case that the AT balance problem is only an issue at like the tip-top of the game, people trying for Masters-of badges of hard TFs and such.

Solutions: No idea, I don't really buy this as a problem.

Goal 4: Blunt the Meta/Reward more Builds

(Note: this is my goal, so I may present it more sympathetically)

Procs currently have mechanics that are much less legible and much more complicated than almost any other mechanic in the game (maybe with the exception of some "strength to" relationships). They are unfriendly to anyone who isn't heavily invested in reading about game mechanics and discussing builds offline. This makes the game less newbie-friendly. Current proc mechanics are also very attached to "building global recharge" and "concentrating on four or so powers that can be used once per 5-10 seconds with lots of global recharge," in a way that reinforces previously dominant character build strategies.

Analysis: It is certainly true that procs are not the only reason to read about game mechanics, get invested in builds, build global recharge, or focus on 15-20 second recharge powers, and reasonable changes to the proc system will make at most marginal headway in improving these problems. That said, I think it's also the case that procs are genuinely the worst offenders in this category.

Solutions: @nihilii's proposal to have proc rate not be affected by local recharge would make headway here. Having in-game "real numbers" that calculated proc rates for you would help. I think there are clearly some bigger changes that we could make that would make proc rate less dependent on knowing the minutia of internal details about powers (so for example we could establish power "schedules" or modifiers to proc rates that are explicit -- and yes, short-recharge and area effect powers could have ones that make procs less likely to fire, but it'd be like damage, where if you happen to know the design principles, you know that damage and recharge are related, but the game clearly tells you what the damage is, rather than expecting you to calculate it yourself based on recharge).

Goal 5: Preserve Advanced Build Options

@nihilii has been forcefully pointing out that he likes making the tradeoff between additional damage and set bonuses. In the past, we've definitely seen other people make similar comments: that the proc system creates productive tension between build goals, and this makes for more stimulating, interesting build options.

Analysis: Note that to some extent this goal stands in tension with goal 4, as one way to make builds more complex is to make an ever-more-baroque chain of unique effects for any given power to proc. But they aren't entirely incompatible -- you can certainly still have procs be valuable and stand in tension to set bonuses while also making them more legible.

Solutions: Not adopting solutions of "only allow fewer procs per power/per build" is the main solution here. Also not nerfing procs into the ground.

Goal 6: Avoid randomness/Avoid Low Proc Rates

@America's Angel advocates for removing elements of randomness from the system in order to make PvP more deterministic. I think there is also a broad sense that low proc rates in general aren't productive, even if they have on some level a high rate of return.

Analysis: @America's Angel should be realistic about the possibility of removing randomness from the game, which I think is a very minority position. But there's a difference between removing randomness altogether and avoiding very low/spiky rates of proc firing, where everything is just a crap-shoot of "nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, whee I got lucky and got a huge reward!"

Solutions: Moving from a PPM doctrine of purely varying proc rate, and starting to vary scalar effects, would I think be pretty valuable. Making a proc not have a 10% chance to activate for 70 damage, but have a 50% chance to activate for 14 damage, seems like it would be a win on fast-recharging powers.

Goal 7: Avoid certainty/Avoid High Proc Rates

In direct contradiction to goal 6 is the sense that allowing a 90% proc rate removes in some sense the concept that these are procs, and that part of the trade off on accepting procs should be accepting randomness rather than near-certainty. We have an assertion that @Captain Powerhouse thinks this is important.

Analysis: I think people should be clear that this stands in pretty direct opposition to the revealed preferences of pretty much everyone. The entire build community has rallied around building for the highest proc rates possible. I think we also deserve some clarity on whether this considered a problem only for damage procs, or whether it will have (much more significant) impacts on things like the Scrapper chance-for-+50%-crit rate ATO, the Stalker chance-to-hide ATO, the Gaussian's chance-for-build-up proc, etc.

Solutions: Despite being the opposite of goal 6, you can use the same solution, varying the scalar of the proc effect rather than purely the rate. Instead of a 90% chance for 70 damage, you can have a 75% chance for 84 damage.

Stated Goal #1 - "Removing dominance of (damage) proc builds"

Damage proc builds (aka "proc monsters") are only dominant if you factor in inspirations. (I.e. using purple insps instead of building for defense, or using red insps instead of slotting for damage.)

If you take out inspirations, IO set bonused builds out-perform proc builds.

Verdict: No.

Next steps: n/a

Stated Goal#2 - "Stop non/low damage attacks from being proc-bombs"

I agree that non-damaging attacks such as Infrigidate possibly shouldn't be proccable. But low damage attacks being able to do high damage is fine. It's a building option that costs slots and add diversity to builds. (And, as other experienced players have pointed out, it comes at a tradeoff.)

The only issue with damage procs, is how they perform in high-damage AoE powers such as Burn. But as I mentioned before, that is a power-issue, not a proc issue.

Just to be clear - damage procs by themselves are not causing damage creep. They are only causing damage creep when paired with OP powers like burn, or OP things like T4 damage inspirations.

Nerfing procs, without first looking at these OP things, would be an over-correction in the worst possible way.

Verdict:

No (to low damage powers)

Tentative Yes (to non-damage powers)

Yes (to OP AOE powers)

Next steps:

Create a list of these OP AOE powers

Stated Goal #3 - "Stop Defenders doing more damage than Corruptors"

Procs buff each AT equally. So the differential in Defender and Corruptor damage does not change due to procs.

If anything it's actually the opposite - Corruptors do even more damage than defenders due to having access to an additional damage proc in their ATOs.

Verdict: No

Next Steps: n/a

Stated Goal #4 - "Stop Local Recharge from Reducing Proc Rate"

We considered this. But this would lead to a buff to procs, which would lead to procs needing to have their damage values lowered. Which in turn meant that everything stayed the same as it is now...except recharge would become even more important to slot/build for. (Which is the opposite intended result of this goal.)

Verdict: No

Next Steps: n/a

Stated Goal #5 - "Maintain the diversity that procs provide builds"

Agree with this one.

Verdict: Yes

Next Steps: Continue to push back on ideas worse than the current system.

Stated Goal #6 - "Remove randomness and remove low proc rates."

Lower proc rates and removing randomness are separate points. Low proc rates are fine. DPS calculators just divide the damage of the proc by the % chance to fire, anyway. (It averages out over long fights.)

Here's a list to show what I mean. All of these do the same damage in long fights:

10% to do 100 damage

20% to do 90 damage

30% to do 80 damage

40% to do 70 damage

50% to do 60 damage

60% to do 50 damage

70% to do 40 damage

80% to do 30 damage

90% to do 20 damage

100% chance to do 10 damage

So if they all do the same damage, and the 100% one is best for balance, then the obvious solution is to change the variable in procs from %chance to fire to %damage

Verdict: Possibly

Next Steps: Discuss Further

Stated Goal #7 - "If procs have a 90% chance to fire they're not really procs"

It's important to point out that Powerhouse only mentioned this in the context of self-buffing procs. Being able to put these in AoEs, or super-long recharging (~30s) self-buff powers (Buildup/Aim), or in certain toggles, means they have an insanely high uptime for a tiny slot investment. (The slot investment being so small makes it a no brainer, meaning that if you don't do it, you're building wrong. This is an example of bad balance, because it creates build homogeny.)

Now, while I agree with the solution of switching the variable in damage procs from %chance to fire to %dam, I'm not sure it would work as well for self-buffing procs. Take Gaussian, for example...

Gaussian In Buildup (Live): 90% chance of +100% dam and +40% ToHit

Gaussian in Buildup (Goal7): 100% chance of +90% dam and +36% tohit

Build Up doing 145% of its original +dam value and 190% of its original +ToHit value at the cost of one slot is unbalanced.

Gaussian in Invincibility (Live) vs aggro capped spawn = 90% chance to fire every 10s. Uptime, 45%. Effective damage buff 45% and Effective ToHit buff of 18%.

Gaussian in Invincibility (Goal7) vs aggro capped spawn = 100% chance to fire every 10s. Uptime, 100%. Actual damage buff of 45% and Actual ToHit buff of 18%.

Invincibility giving a 2.6% damage buff and (additional) 1% ToHit buff, per enemy in range, at the cost of a single slot, would be unbalanced.

You can also do something similar with it in Tactics.

Applying this idea to other procs - putting the FF proc into Cross Punch would give you a perma 27.07% +recharge boost.

Also, in the case of using AoEs for self-buffing procs (such as the scrapper 50% ATO), you'd be looking at a 100% chance to fire rate once you were over x enemies in range.

Verdict: No

Next Steps: Granular analysis of each self-buffing proc needed. Conversation currently too broad strokes to find an appropriate goal.

3 minutes ago, Clave Dark 5 said:

Thanks for that, but I was asking how often such abuse really happens or "creates a problem."

A game as complex is going to have outliers on both extremes: Burn with procs, and I dunno, say Mastermind Mercenaries. If the game can tolerate seriously under performance in one area, giving with the other hand some over performance is also tolerable.

And I still don't know how often this is happening anyway, and therefore somehow breaking the game.

There's about ~30 players who chain inspirations with damage procc'd out builds in PvE.

The impact on the playerbase is non-existent.

July 4, 2021

I like to create a little shared universe for all my characters. Part of the fun of making new characters is figuring out how to connect them to the rest of my cast. This also makes it easier to come up with stuff, as I'm not starting from scratch each time.

Even my farmers have bios! My main one, a rad/fire, is a robot Angel created. (Yes, it's called "Angelbot".)

The idea for the bio tends to come as I'm putting the costume together.

July 4, 2021

9 hours ago, Naraka said:

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.

PvPers have a vested interest in the game being balanced. We're constantly asking for nerfs/buffs to all sorts of different things in order to achieve this.

A while back we looked in depth at alternatives to the current proc system wrt ST damage procs. Our reason for doing so wasn't because procs are broken, or in need of "fixing", but because we wanted to double-check that the current system was the best option available. After a lot of number crunching and analysis, we found that most of the alternatives offered to the current system (including the options in your original post) were inferior to the current system, in terms of game balance.

The only option that was an improvement, was what I mentioned in an earlier post:

On 7/2/2021 at 9:03 PM, America's Angel said:

[...]In the case of damage procs - they would go from doing (for example) 90% chance of 71.75 damage to doing 100% chance of doing 64.575 damage. (It would be the amount of damage they do that varies, rather than the % chance to fire.)

This would balance better because you would be doing the same amount of damage every time. (Rather than 71.75 damage 90% of the time, and 0 damage 10% of the time.) The more we reduce luck, the better the game balances.

(Tangent - this is also why PvPers want the chance to hit cap raising from 95% to 100%.)

July 3, 2021

3 hours ago, Naraka said:

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.

One of the ways procs help balance melee ATs in PvP is by allowing players to "patch up" weaknesses in their primaries. For example...

Your primary doesn't have a place you can slot the Achilles -res proc? No worries - take Laser Beam Eyes in your epic, or Weaken Resolve in your power pool, and slot it there.
Your primary doesn't have a cone/aoe with a good procrate for the FOTG -res proc? No worries - take Cross Punch and put it in there.
Your primary doesn't have a heal in it like dark melee and rad melee? No worries. Take Char or another epic hold and put the superior entomb proc in there.

By allowing the above, Procs can make B-tier sets competitive with A-tier sets.

Also, each option comes with a tradeoff - if you go with laser beam eyes you're doing more -res, but you're missing out on the snipe. Char does a lot of damage, and it also opens up Melt Armour, but the recharge of Char is longer than the snipes, so it comes with more building woes where you have to figure out how to change your attack chain to fit it in without losing too much DPS. And yes the snipes are good, but you're missing out on a -res proc, so you have to go with Weaken Resolve, which limits your pool options...

Do you see? There is no clear-cut favorite. Procs make all of these options viable, but with drawbacks. This diversity of options that procs provides is an example of good game balance.

If procs were removed/nerfed, you would just take the snipe, as the other options would be worthless/do much less damage. A clear #1 option like this would be an example of bad game balance.

July 3, 2021

One interesting thing about procs is that they actively help in balancing melee PvP sets relative to each other. Thanks to procs, a whole range of powersets are viable in 1v1 melee PvP that otherwise wouldn't be. Add in pool attacks like Cross Punch and epic attacks like char, the epic snipes, laser beam eyes, fossilize, gloom, etc all being really proccable, and suddenly the existence of procs lets experienced builders turn what most consider sub-tier combos, into tournament winning ones.

Don't get me wrong, a claws brute or an EM scrapper is still going to clean up based on their primaries being the best, but hugely proccable primaries/pools/epics do help in narrowing the gap between those powerful top sets, and the various runner up sets.

Remove procs/globally nerf procs damage/nerf procs fire rate, and you will be actively harming this balance.

Fortunately, as I mentioned here, it seems the devs are mostly concerned with how procs play with AoEs. In melee PvP, this would pretty much only negatively impact Cross Punch. And this would be an easy nerf to fix - you'd just raise its internal recharge high enough to give it a proc rate of 47%. (As it currently has on live.)

July 3, 2021

1 hour ago, arcane said:

This is what I keep hearing. I only have it on one little controller. Thinking it sounds like I need to work it into my next melee.

Do you always load it with procs (FF/FotG/damages) or is it better with damage enhanced? Think my elec/poison just had avalanches in it because melee defense is hard to find.

It depends on the set. But I've done all of the following:

5xArmageddon + FOTG

5xDamProcs + FOTG

Dam IO + 4 procs + FOTG

53nuc+ 53acc/dam/endWO + 4procs + FOTG

Cross Punch is a blank canvas that can be adapted to fit your needs. And is a perfect example of just how much freedom procs give to players to build characters differently.

July 3, 2021

It's actually a great power if you take both kick and boxing. Best to think of it as a ST attack. I take it on almost every melee character I have.

July 3, 2021

3 hours ago, Clave Dark 5 said:

I'm late to this thread and have only skimmed it, but... how big a problem is "players abusing procs" anyway? I mean, it's not like every build is sick with them like they are purples and AT IOs (you know, if you're worrying about players getting OPed).

It's mostly just your typical forum hysteria. One thing I've learnt over the years is that forum consensus rarely reflects what's in game.

Now, with that said, there are a FEW powers which can genuinely abuse procs. But that's less a proc issue and more a power issue. As I said in one of my earlier posts, these powers are few and far between. The vast vast majority of powers play fine with damage procs.

Let me paint you a picture of one of these powers to demonstrate what abuse actually looks like, and to show you how the claims that 6-slotting damage procs in a ST hold doesn't even come close to being a genuine balance concern. Let's look at Burn.

Burn has a 90% proc rate, can slot 5 damage procs, and actually procs twice. (Once upon cast, and then once a split-second after this as the first burn patch spawns.) What this means is that you can:

1. Cast burn, and have 5 damage procs fire alongside the FOTG proc

2. Almost immediately after this, those five procs will then proc AGAIN as the first burn patch spawns... although this time those procs are firing for MORE damage because the mob has just been hit by the FOTG -res proc.

So, you have 10 procs hitting your enemies, 5 of which are doing 120% damage, PLUS all of the regular damage from burn.

What this means is that /fire blasters have a ~1000 damage nuke available every ~10s, that also does -20% res. (The most important debuff in the game.)

Oh and that thing about it proccing twice? That's not actually true. It can actually proc three times.

There are a few other powers like this. But it is genuinely only a handful. The powersets they're in are popular, though. Which gives the illusion of the "problem" being more all-encompassing than it actually is.

July 2, 2021

1 hour ago, BZRKR said:

What does HPS mean? Health Per Second? Or is it just Hit PointS?

Heals Per Second. It's a catch-all term that encompasses heals, regen, res, def, and absorb. It essentially lets you convert the entire mitigation of a character into a single value.

For example:

30% energy res would be 150HPS vs incoming damage of 500DPS.

A heal that does 1000HP every 50s would be 20HPS.

Stuff like that.

36 minutes ago, arcane said:

We already know the HC devs are looking at procs. This thread is not a call to nerf. It is a discussion hoping to influence the nature of an already inevitable nerf.

Calling it a "nerf" is a bit presumptuous. All we know so far is that:

Powerhouse doesn't believe procs can really be considered procs if their chance to fire is near-guaranteed (90%) every time.
Powerhouse doesn't like that AoE attacks essentially guarantee self-buff procs to fire.
Powerhouse doesn't like that some AoE powers are proc bombs.

As you can see, his concerns aren't balance concerns, they're more game design concerns. (I.e. "Procs aren't supposed to do this!" rather than "Procs are OP!") Because of this, most of the suggestions in this thread don't address Powerhouse's concerns. (Which is why I posted what I did, above. To encourage those who ARE looking to nerf procs for balance reasons to do some legwork to justify their suggestions.)

Now, with regards to Powerhouse's concerns, above:

#1 is solved by renaming procs to something else, or by changing their behavior. I.e. In the case of damage procs - they would go from doing (for example) 90% chance of 71.75 damage to doing 100% chance of doing 64.575 damage. (It would be the amount of damage they do that varies, rather than the % chance to fire.)

#2 is solved by having self-buffing Procs in AoEs only trigger against a single target. (Easier said than done, I imagine.)

#3 is solved by changing the internal recharge value of some AoE powers so that they proc much much less, but otherwise still perform the same in PvE. Now, to be clear, this would be a very short list of AoE powers, with Burn at the top of it. It would be a rebalancing of a few, select, overperforming AoE powers. It would absolutely not be a global proc nerf or "procpocalypse" that impacted every AoE power in the game. Nerfing the proc rate of every AoE power would be a huge overstep.

To my knowledge there has been no mention of ST damage procs or debuff procs being looked at. So any comment on ST procs doing "too much damage" is just forum hearsay and should be treated as such.

July 2, 2021

For all this talk of "fixing" procs, I've yet to see anyone clearly outline what the problem with them is.

If the problem cannot be clearly outlined, a discussion cannot be had, and a solution cannot be found.

So what might be more useful right now is, rather than suggesting things, why don't y'all try identifying things?

Actually run the numbers. Demonstrate the performance difference for a procless build vs a proc-filled build. Show the performance difference. (If there is one). And make sure you show the difference in both DPS and HPS. A procless build should have higher HPS due to more set bonuses. What you should be looking to compare is the overall DPS:HPS efficacy ratio of both builds.

This is what I do when putting together my super-min/max PvP builds. I look at my DPS and HPS. And I consider whether sacrificing DPS in some areas nets a higher HPS in other areas, making the overall "strength" of the build greater. This is the sort of analysis that has to happen. Also, you need to consider thresholds. What is the HPS you need to survive vs most content? How easy is it to get there? Do you need more set bonuses to do this than a proc-build would allow? Can the survival gap be filled with inspirations? If so, how does a proc-filled build without inspirations compare to a procless build without inspirations, numerically?

And this goes beyond a simple build-to-build comparison. You'd also have to look at how procs function on the powerset-level. By this I mean analyzing how much procs help/do not help balance the different sets relative to each other on a given AT. Fire Blast and Ice Blast, for example; Fire does more damage, but Ice has better proccing options. Take procs away, and does the performance gap between fire and ice widen? Do procs bring up middling sets greater than they boost the top sets? (You can only answer this by running the numbers.)

And this also extends to the AT level, too. Do some ATs benefit more from procs than others? For example - brutes are swimming in +dam, so are procs better for them than Scrappers? Procs don't use AT damage modifiers, so do they boost up the DPS of low-damage ATs more than they boost up the DPS of high-damage ATS? (This is not rhetorical. This is something you will need to sit down and calculate in Excel.)

These are the sort of questions you will need to ask when running your analysis.

Until this is done. Suggesting a "fix" is premature. Because you don't even know what you're trying to fix.

And this is worth stressing: numbers are reliable, humans aren't. The benefit of using quantitative analysis for balance is that it will lessen the impact of anecdotal observations in the discussion.

July 1, 2021

June 29, 2021

I look down at my mitten hands.

I scream.

June 28, 2021

27 minutes ago, Captain Citadel said:

Is this an Invuln/Staff tank or something? How'd you do this?

Inv/MA with Cardiac Alpha, the P2W Defense Amplifier, and the tanker ATO double-stacked. (I have 100% uptime on this).

June 28, 2021

Top 10 Ranked 6/27/2021:

1 Madvillain
2 Alouu
3 America’s Angel
4 T Mart (+3)
5 Ridicc
6 magecow
7 Kencian
8 Blackhearted
9 Mushroom (+1)
10 Lhynn (+1)

Ranks are calculated by Elo Score. Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZetLGnWhKXeE9o_5KG3ZI-rpdhde5YigzQlorIsOR4k/edit?usp=sharing

Reasons for movement:

Last night we ran our regular Sunday Fightclub event. Was a great night. T Mart showed up With his Claws/Regen brute "SantyClaws" and managed another 4-0 clean sweep! He is the only player in the Leaderboard with a 100% win record!

Who's going to be the first to drop him?

As always, if you're interested in seeing your name in the top 10, taking part in our weekly Sunday Fightclub events, or learning more about 1v1 melee fights, then feel free to join up to our discord, here: https://discord.gg/knq839NUM4

On 6/27/2021 at 6:25 PM, th0ughtGun said:

I wish you guys did a little later, I am on Indom and I have a claws/SR scrapper I would like to try out. But 5pm EST is too early for me, wouldn't be on at that time. Regardless, this looks really fun and is an awesome idea!

Yeah we do it quite early because I'm based in the UK, and we have a bunch of Europeans who also like to Fightclub.

That said, I'm working on something for people who can't make our weekly events. Stay tuned.

June 27, 2021

You have two options when it comes to picking an origin pool:

Mitigation (Rune of Protection, Unleashed Potential)
Offense (Adrenal Booster).

The sets are balanced in such a way that the HPS boost provided by the Mitigation options and the DPS boost provided by the Offense option add to your character's efficacy score (DPS:HPS) equally. Because of this, not only are they balanced in PvE, but they also work as counters to each other in PvP. (I.e. If someone brings Adrenal Booster, you can counter it with Rune of Protection).

Here's the numbers if you're curious:

https://cod.uberguy.net/html/power.html?power=pool.force_of_will.unleash_potential
https://cod.uberguy.net/html/power.html?power=pool.sorcery.rune_of_protection
https://cod.uberguy.net/html/power.html?power=pool.experimentation.adrenal_booster

If players could select multiple origin pools, then the relative balance of these T5s would be upset.

There are also some other minor concerns with allowing players to take multiple origin pools. The main one being being able to take both Adrenal Booster and Weaken Resolve (with the achilles proc slotted) in one build.

If the origin pools were changed to allow players to select multiple ones in a single build, then the above balance concerns would need to be addressed.

June 27, 2021

Rad Melee/Fire Armour brute.

June 26, 2021

On 6/24/2021 at 12:20 AM, CR Mochi said:

NPC Costume Code

America’s Angel

Heck yeah.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Events

Store

Articles

Patch Notes

Posts posted by America's Angel