macskull

I think it's time we readjusted IO scaling for IOs below level 27, since they were originally scaled based off an enhancement system that doesn't really exist anymore.

Checks watch Is it time for another Ultimo thread already?

I understand that, and my point stands.

Thumbs up for listening to feedback and making the overcap reduction a flat value, but thumbs down for making it such a low value. Why not just 50%?

Well… it’s not false. They are technically correct, but once again as I’ve been pointing out that information on its own isn’t useful.

It would seem so, but that seems like an entirely different thread at this point. Anyways, care to address the facts of the argument, or is the weight of evidence still not enough to convince you?

A different thread in which they misunderstood how streakbreaker worked seems to have leaked into this one.

For what it's worth, he's not wrong, and the PPM value of an enhancement does tell you how many times on average a proc will fire in minute assuming you're using the power off cooldown every time. It's just that that's... not very useful information on its own. Alright, so we went there despite it being wildly off-topic and your understanding of the system being demonstrably false. You're even contradicting yourself within the same three sentences - in one sentence you say streakbreaker allows one miss before forcing a hit but two sentences later you say you need to miss twice before streakbreaker forces a hit. Which is it? Thankfully, that's really easy to figure out. The numbers in the post you are quoting are the number of misses allowed before streakbreaker forces a hit. If I have a greater than 90% chance to hit, I can miss one time and the streakbreaker will force a hit on the next attack. If you want to test this in game, bring your level 50 into Atlas Park and start throwing single-target attacks at random low level mobs. Eventually you will miss one of those attacks, and the next attack will always be forced to hit by streakbreaker. Just in case you don't want to go ingame and check for yourself, I'll dig through the 100,000+ data points I have saved in combat logs from when I was doing some streakbreaker testing earlier this year. Hell, I'll even send you the log files and the source code for the tool I use so you can check for yourself, if you want. Anyways, here's the results of those: If streakbreaker actually needed two misses with a >90% hit rate to trigger, the number of total misses would be double the number of streakbreaker hits. Clearly you can see that's not true. Once again, receipts.

Hi it's me, a person who does not make claims without the receipts to back them up. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Saying PPM is the basis of the calculations for the chance of a proc to trigger is no more true than saying power activation time or AoE radius is the basis of the calculations. They’re all just parts of the equation. At the end of the day, this discussion is entirely irrelevant, since the lead powers dev has already said they want actual proc chance to be displayed ingame.

A few problems with this example: Even if the 90% proc chance cap didn’t exist, a single-target power with a 30 second recharge would not have a 100% chance to trigger a 2PPM proc unless that power also had a zero-second cast time. You can use the PPM value of a proc to get a rough idea of how often a proc will trigger in a single-target power (again, because cast time affects proc rate), but what about an AoE? That percentage is a fixed number for a given proc slotted in a given power with a given amount of slotted recharge. Here’s the rub: while the PPM value shown by the game for a given proc is true, it isn’t usually useful on its own and rarely provides enough information for a user to make an informed decision. Showing the actual chance a proc has to trigger would be far more user-friendly.

One nice thing about the CoF change is that enhancements affect magnitude and not duration, so if it's enhanced you can actually affect bosses with it now. It's not as strong as it was during some of the earlier beta builds but it's still pretty good. It does all do -str(knock) which makes your existing knockback protection go further in addition to doing -dmg, all in a larger radius than before. CoF was an obvious, no-brainer skip before these changes but skipping it now would be a mistake IMO. At the very least I'd recommend most people swap out Oppressive Gloom for Cloak of Fear.

I can't remember if I've already said this here or if it was somewhere else, but when they post patch notes they just post what the change is instead of what it actually does and that second bit is what's not immediately obvious for these changes. Hell, even I immediately realized it would affect proc rates but didn't put two and two together with it also reducing base damage until someone else pointed it out to me. There should probably be a "design note" in the Tanker section of the patch notes for this update.

Again, not a dev so I don't know the exact details, but the damage formula is not some dynamic thing where you plug in the power's base stats and it spits out a damage number. The damage formula is used to determine what a power's damage should be, but the actual final numbers are manually entered when creating or modifying a power, so it would not be possible for both the radius and the final damage number to change without it being an intentional act. Sure, a dev could have just bumped the radius and left the damage alone, but at that point you'd have almost every AoE power for an entire archetype ignoring the damage formula. Given the current dev team's insistence that everything follows the rules, I highly doubt this would have happened. EDIT: I read your linked comment and it's saying the exact same thing. There is zero chance this was not intentional. I can also refer back to dev statements made during the original round of Tanker changes where they explicitly acknowledged having the radius and arc buffs added by a separate power after the fact meant powers would both deal more damage and have a higher proc chance than they'd otherwise suggest. It was an intentional change then, and the changes on test are an intentional change now.

It is absolutely intentional. The patch notes only say what the change is and not necessarily what the actual effects of the change are, which is pretty normal for patch notes - it’s just that the Tanker changes are kind of abstract so it’s not immediately obvious from the patch notes what the change actually accomplishes.