Damage Procs and PPM tweaks or changes - Suggestion thread

[Caulderone]

31 minutes ago, MunkiLord said:

Any massive change to procs would mean I'd be doing several respecs and would be quite a time investment. Personally, I am 100% opposed to a change that impactful until we get a respec system that doesn't suck. A better respec system should absolutely be a higher priority than fixing procs. It needs to come first.

I disagree.  If the continued imbalance this has created keeps going on, it is only going to get harder and harder to address without everyone going ballistic.  Better to get it over with sooner rather than later, in my opinion.

[Bopper]

3 minutes ago, nzer said:

We can solve all three of these at the same time, I think, by applying a weighting to recharge time in the PPM formula to skew the proc chance more in favor of short recharge powers. This will make it harder to turn long recharge powers into nukes, compensate for the cost of animation time in short recharge powers @oedipus_tex mentioned, and lower the damage loss of additional recharge so people aren't avoiding slotting recharge because it will hurt their proc damage.

 

The downsides are that it turns procs into even more of math problem than they already are, and renders the actual PPM text meaningless, as the actual procs per minute depends on the recharge time on the power.

You pretty much described the original method, flat percentages. Which disproportionately favored fast attacks and AoEs. The math isn't hard, but it just brings back an old problem.

[nzer]

Just now, Bopper said:

You pretty much described the original method, flat percentages. Which disproportionately favored fast attacks and AoEs. The math isn't hard, but it just brings back an old problem.

No, I'm suggesting something in between the original method and what we have now, where how far in between it is can be tuned by adjusting the weighting. PPM would decrease as recharge time increases, but not to the degree that the proc chance is constant.

[macskull]

Just now, Bopper said:

You pretty much described the original method, flat percentages. Which disproportionately favored fast attacks and AoEs. The math isn't hard, but it just brings back an old problem.

I'm of the opinion that the current PPM system is more fundamentally flawed than the old flat-rate system if you're looking at it from a damage standpoint (and I think that's what most of the discussion revolves around). Sure, the old system favored fast-recharging powers and AoEs but the as-implemented PPM system doesn't actually result in that much of a damage loss in those same powers now while also providing a disproportionate boost everywhere else.

 

The PPM system also has some pretty bonkers implications in PvP builds, to the point where damage procs are now resisted in PvP (they generally weren't back on live). Honestly the simplest thing to do from a balance standpoint is just to go back to the flat-rate system.

[Caulderone]

1 minute ago, macskull said:

Honestly the simplest thing to do from a balance standpoint is just to go back to the flat-rate system.

Maybe some things should be PPM and some things should use the old system?

[Bopper]

37 minutes ago, oedipus_tex said:

The main reason the proc system favors long recharge powers is that a procs per minute system does not account for animation time

I noticed this problem as well, and I wonder if baking in the minimum formula somewhat could alleviate the problem. If we add 1 second to every MRT, it would add roughly PPM/60 to the probability of a proc (which is small, but for repeated attacks adds up). If we use total recharge (which includes base) to properly aim for a proc rate of PPM,wewould get something like this:

 

1 sec animate time, comparing attacks that cooldown in 4s and 15s (after recharge).

Prob4 = 3.5*(4+1+1)/60 =35%

Prob15 = 3.5*(15+1+1)/60 =  99.17%

 

In that minute of time, you can attack with the 4s attack 12 times. The 15s attack 3.75 times. 

 

Average number of procs per minute:

Proc4 = 0.35*12 = 4.2

Prob15 = 0.9917*3.75 = 3.7

 

Now I took the liberty of removing the cap of 90%, but if we keep it, then Proc15= 3.375

 

So a little gets added to help the fast attacks by removing some of their animation tax. But that's just 1 example, I'd have to see it for varying animation times.

[macskull]

2 minutes ago, Caulderone said:

Maybe some things should be PPM and some things should use the old system?

I think at that point it becomes a delicate balancing act and there's no guarantee there'd be any rhyme or reason. I guess if damage procs were flat-rate and non-damage procs used PPM, it might be okay, if the concern is how much extra damage things do now?

 

Full disclosure: I don't actually think there's anything wrong with PPM in its current form and quite frankly it should just be left alone because whatever changes end up getting made are going to be immensely unpopular. The only scenario I think PPM is questionable in is PvP and even that could be solved by tweaking diminishing returns curves for damage resistance instead of messing with PPM.

[Apparition]

8 minutes ago, Caulderone said:

Maybe some things should be PPM and some things should use the old system?

 

That would be my suggestion.  Change damage procs back to the old system, and keep other procs PPM.

[MunkiLord]

21 minutes ago, Caulderone said:

I disagree.  If the continued imbalance this has created keeps going on, it is only going to get harder and harder to address without everyone going ballistic.  Better to get it over with sooner rather than later, in my opinion.

  

22 minutes ago, Apparition said:

 

Not really.  The biggest problem with damage procs IMO is that they completely invalidate the Corruptor AT.  Before sunset, even in Issue 23, you saw a fair share of Corruptors around.  Now?  You see one in a blue moon.  Why?  Because most Defenders can now out buff, out debuff, and out damage most Corruptors.  IMO, fixing that extreme disparity is a bigger priority than a respec system.

It will be even tougher to sell such a significant change when adjusting a ton of characters is such a terrible player experience. The respec system is terrible and it is a bad player experience, The change people are asking for would go across more than just one powerset, one AT, it would impact countless characters to varying degrees. A big nerf, which is what this would be, would go over much better if adjusting characters was made easier and more pleasant. 

[Bopper]

10 minutes ago, macskull said:

I'm of the opinion that the current PPM system is more fundamentally flawed than the old flat-rate system if you're looking at it from a damage standpoint (and I think that's what most of the discussion revolves around). Sure, the old system favored fast-recharging powers and AoEs but the as-implemented PPM system doesn't actually result in that much of a damage loss in those same powers now while also providing a disproportionate boost everywhere else.

 

The PPM system also has some pretty bonkers implications in PvP builds, to the point where damage procs are now resisted in PvP (they generally weren't back on live). Honestly the simplest thing to do from a balance standpoint is just to go back to the flat-rate system.

I'm taking the current system off the table. I know all of its flaws. I'm speaking more to ideas of using total recharge and comparing its merits (better attempt at balance for all attacks having same proc rate) as opposed to a flat rate system that hurts longer recharging powers

[macskull]

29 minutes ago, Apparition said:

 

Not really.  The biggest problem with damage procs IMO is that they completely invalidate the Corruptor AT.  Before sunset, even in Issue 23, you saw a fair share of Corruptors around.  Now?  You see one in a blue moon.  Why?  Because most Defenders can now out buff, out debuff, and out damage most Corruptors.  IMO, fixing that extreme disparity is a bigger priority than a respec system.

Really? The additional damage proc is one of the reasons I'd roll a Corruptor over a Defender in many cases. There's only one non-unique ranged damage proc so every bit you can get helps and this is one of my chief complaints with the Defender and Sentinel ATO sets.

Edited March 11, 2020 by macskull

[Caulderone]

1 minute ago, MunkiLord said:

The change people are asking for

Well, it is more like expecting instead of asking for.  Ever since Bopper put out his guide and Proc-mania began, I've been expecting a nerf (and I pretty much agree it is needed, too).

[MunkiLord]

2 minutes ago, Caulderone said:

Well, it is more like expecting instead of asking for.  Ever since Bopper put out his guide and Proc-mania began, I've been expecting a nerf (and I pretty much agree it is needed, too).

Semantics. The point is respec is a shit mechanic in this game. If people are going to need/want to do it in mass because of a change, regardless of the reason of the change, it will go over better if fixing their characters is a smooth and straightforward process. I'm not even opposed to the nerf, I'll deal with whatever nerfs are thrown out. But adjusting to nerfs should be as painless as possible.

 

Reworking builds in Mid's, perhaps after researching adjustments to make. Buying more enhancements, perhaps needing to boost them, doing the actual respec, reslotting, fixing power trays. This could be a thing people need/want to do for zero, one, or twenty characters. That's a lot of time investment on top of those characters being immediately weaker(to varying degrees).

 

All in all, sounds like a terrible player experience from beginning to end.

[nzer]

@Bopper, here's a better explanation of what I'm suggesting. It's a graph of a modified version of the proc chance formula for a single target click power where y is proc chance, x is modified recharge time, T_A is the power's activation time, P is procs per minute, L and E are scale factors I've added, and the green line is the current formula. I'm not saying we should go back to flat percentages, just skewing slightly in favor of faster recharging powers.

Edited March 12, 2020 by nzer

[Bopper]

4 minutes ago, nzer said:

@Bopper, here's a better explanation of what I'm suggesting. It's a graph of a modified version of the proc chance formula for a single target click power where y is proc chance, x is modified recharge time, T_A is the power's activation time, P is procs per minute, L and E are scale factors I've added, and the green line is the current formula. I'm not saying we should go back to flat percentages, just skewing slightly in favor of faster recharging powers.

I actually like your use of exponential scaling as opposed to linear. I'll have to play around with things and see if there's a right balance in there. Are the L and E currently arbitrary, or are you having something in mind?

[nzer]

Just now, Bopper said:

I actually like your use of exponential scaling as opposed to linear. I'll have to play around with things and see if there's a right balance in there. Are the L and E currently arbitrary, or are you having something in mind?

They're basically arbitrary, I just wanted something that looked mostly sane at a wide range of PPMs. Definitely play around with it, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts.

[Frosticus]

3 hours ago, Bopper said:

That feels like an unnecessary restriction. The beauty with procs is that it offered playstyles that weren't traditional. You were able to create your own style and it could be fun and creative. Restricting players to conform to rules on how they can slot essentially suggests there's only one right way to play. This type of response makes me fear that we will go back to builds strictly chasing the best set bonuses: purples, winters, ATOs, and plug the rest with recharge and defense. Itll feel like builds and powerset combinations will become cookie cutter again.

 

All that being said, I wouldn't be surprised if they approach this similarly to enhancement diversification, where perhaps for each like-proc that fires from the same power will have a diminished effect. So if there are 6 damage procs (1 purple), if the purple fires, it has top priority and has 100% effect. If a 2nd proc fires, it has 80% effect. A 3rd gets 60%. A 4th gets 40%. A 5th gets 20%. A 6th gets 10%.

Yes, that's the thing. Most "traditional" builds are objectively stronger than proc heavy builds in many measurable ways like having more  global recharge, better attack chains, requiring less attacks to fill attack chains, and often way better def/surivability overall. Proc builds definitely hit harder though, but often do similar dps. Of course when a proc build gets buffed up by outside sources well that is when they greatly exceed tradition build conventions.

 

2 hours ago, Apparition said:

 

Not really.  The biggest problem with damage procs IMO is that they completely invalidate the Corruptor AT.  Before sunset, even in Issue 23, you saw a fair share of Corruptors around.  Now?  You see one in a blue moon.  Why?  Because most Defenders can now out buff, out debuff, and out damage most Corruptors.  IMO, fixing that extreme disparity is a bigger priority than a respec system.

Corrs just need their ATO to improve scourge and maybe a tiny bump to their base damage (like 0.05). Scrapper and Stalker ATO's have improved those AT's tremendously (not that they needed the power increase heh, but the ATO's make them more fun) and play super well into their inherents. Corrs  just need more scourge. The AT shines so bright when you start to get into that sweet spot.

[Alouu]

Hey all! I've been thinking about this since Captain Powerhouse posted about this too, and I've come up with a replacement implementation (with a lot of feedback from @Bopper) which I think answers the most problems whilst creating the least new ones.

 

The premise for the implementation is this:

 

Procs now have a lockout time which applies when they “roll”, this happens regardless of whether the proc activates or not. This lockout time applies to all procs in a power once it kicks in, and prevents them from "rolling" whilst it is in effect. The lockout time is small however, being only 40% of the base recharge of the power.

 

Animation + (Base Recharge /2.5) )

 

The second part of the implementation is in regards to area factor. I have changed this to be both more aggressive, and anti-scale against recharge. This doesn't prevent proc rates in AOE's from reaching 90% eventually, but it takes a base recharge of over 90 seconds to accomplish that now instead of only the ~40 seconds it does in the current implementation. This new area factor also throws out the use of the radius and cone of the AOE, and instead uses the number of targets that were actually just hit. The formula is as follows:

 

Max( ( 0.1 + PPM / 25 ), ((Base Recharge/1+Animation) * PPM ) /60) / ( 1+( Targets ^1/3 -1 ) * Base Recharge ^1/3 )

 

Thanks to the area factor now being based on the number of targets you actually hit, if you only hit a few enemies with your AOE then you will only be punished by an area factor proportional to that. Of course that means that if you only hit one single enemy with your AOE, you will get proc chances as if you were using a single target power against a single target.

 

You may notice a few other changes in the formula above. First the minimum proc rates are using a different formula and this makes them more generous than they are now, however these minimum rates are divided by the area factor. This means there are different minimum rates depending on whether you are using a single target or AOE power, and also how many enemies you happened to hit with that AOE.

 

Secondly, proc rates being reduced by enhanced recharge has been removed from the formula. Since the introduction of lockout times means that you will be constrained to not have your procs fire more often than a certain interval regardless, there is no need for some types of recharge to reduce proc rates while other types of recharge do not.

 

I am aware that users in this thread have posted several competing ideas for implementations, and I have devised a table that compares the various implementations people have suggested against various criteria, see below:

 

Proposal ->	Current	L.D.A.F	Flat Rate	B.E.P.C	50% Cap	Global MRT	Nzer's
Can you have fun proc-bursting high recharge single target powers?	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Rarely	Yes
Can you abuse proc-bursting with high recharge AOE powers?	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Rarely	Mostly
Can you have fun proc-lotterying low recharge single target powers?	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
Can you abuse proc-lotterying low recharge AOE powers?	No	No	Yes (!)	No*	No	No	No
Do all forms of recharge affect the player equally?	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No
Do external recharge buffs punish the player's proc chances?	No	No	No	No	No	Yes (!)	No
How is burst damage affected compared to currently?	No Effect	No Effect	Huge Nerf	Huge Buff (!!)	Nerf	Nerf	Small Nerf
How far can PPM be abused for single target powers?	Up to 5x	Up to 2.5x	At least 2.16x	No Abuse	Up to 5x	No Abuse	Up to 5x
How far can PPM be abused  for AOE powers?	Up to 29.7x (!!)	Up to 8.28x	At least 12.5x	Up to 5.95x	Up to 29.7x (!!)	Up to 5.95x	Up to 28.8x (!!)
How easy is the system to understand at a basic level?	Easy	Easy	Very Easy	Hard	Easy	Easy	Moderate

 

To explain a few things about this table:

 

L.D.A.F is the implementation I'm proposing here, it stands for Lockout and Dynamic Area Factor.

B.E.P.C is an idea of Bopper's, it stands for Background Enhancement Period Cycling

50% Cap comes from @Caulderone and means using the current formula but with 50% as the cap instead of 90%

Global MRT means to use all recharge to reduce proc rates, not just enhancement recharge.

 

It may seem odd to some people why some of these criteria exist. For example why is it a good thing to be able to proc-burst with long recharge powers, or proc-lottery with short recharge powers? My answer to that is, these things must not be entangled with the balance connotations that they have, the balance of the system is assessed in other criteria in the table. While it is true that any system that allows proc-burst is likely to have procs being overall stronger than a system that does not, it isn't certain that the one property is dependent on the other. In fact this L.D.A.F implementation I am proposing is such a system that actually allows such things but at the same time makes procs weaker overall. So knowing that, including the ability to do these things as criteria is based around the fact that both of them are fun!

 

Another question people may have is, where did I pull the numbers for this table? For example how do I know that under the current system on a single target power you can exceed the PPM rating of your proc by a factor of 5 times? Or that in an AOE power you can exceed the PPM rating of your proc by a factor of 29.7 times!

 

The answer to the first question is simple, its possible to reach a +400% recharge bonus, which will lower your base recharge to 1/5 of its normal amount. It is possible to do this without lowering your proc rates if it is achieved with recharge set bonuses, powers like hasten and other buffs from your teammates. So the maximum effective proc rate you can achieve is 5 times your PPM in the current system. For AOE's, first we take the PPM rating and imagine it as being equal to 1 (as in 100% of itself), and then divide that by the area factor of an assumed AOE. Then we multiply that number by the amount of targets you just hit, and then we use the same logic regarding recharge as previously.

 

If anybody has questions about how any of the other conclusions was arrived at in the table above, please ask and I will explain! Also if anyone thinks there are criteria I left out then please mention this as well and I will consider if it is worthy of adding. Finally, I know that I have left some user's ideas for implementations out, like @nzer who seemed to have a good one! It will take me a bit more time to think about how the implementation works and how it meets or fails to meet the various criteria, but ill try and get around to it soon.

*Edit: This is done, though I had to make some assumptions about how he wanted it implemented.

 

So with all that out the way, I believe L.D.A.F has the best potential of the various competitors considering it's positive to negative criteria ratio as shown above. It is also possible to tweak the system in several ways if they are considered to be problematic, and I will go into that now.

 

First there are the minimums, that is defined by this part of the formula:

 

Max( ( 0.1 + PPM / 25 )

 

I decided to make these more generous because I have heard sentiment in various places from people who miss being able to “proc-lottery” their quick recharge powers, shadow punch on dark melee seems to be the go-to example. Since the overall effect of L.D.A.F is to reduce the abuse-ability of PPM by half for single target powers, and by over two thirds for AOE powers, it seemed safe to me to make these minimums more generous. However if this turns out not to be the case then it is perfectly fixable by tweaking this portion of the formula, without impacting any of the other benefits that L.D.A.F brings.

 

Next there is the area factor, that is defined by this part of the formula:

 

/ ( 1+( Targets ^1/3 -1 ) * Base Recharge ^1/3 )

 

Here I use cube roots, as you see the two variables involved are the Target count you just hit with your AOE, and the Base Recharge of that AOE. Even though these are cube roots, another way to look at them is by raising to the power of 0.33333, so in that respect they are very tweak-able! In fact this area factor can be as punishing or lenient as desired, and not only that but you can decide whether it is the anti-scaling on recharge you want to change (so that it takes a longer recharge AOE to reach the same proc rate for example), or the targets factor (so that each additional target you hit with an AOE reduces the proc rate by more or less than currently).

 

One concern that @Bopper raised to me regarding this area factor was it might be difficult for the CoH game engine to process these cube roots. However I think this problem can probably be worked around neatly by using look-up tables which have the varying target and recharge numbers plugged in. This is possible because there are only 15 (16-1) target possibilities, and only a few numbers that are used for AOE base recharge values for example 16s, 20s and 60s are common ones. So creating a look-up table here seems entirely feasible if the computational ability of the engine isn't up to the task.

 

Finally we have the lockout formula, ill re-paste here:

 

Animation + (Base Recharge /2.5)

 

You will notice the number 2.5 conspicuously standing out in this formula. This is what I like to refer to as the “leniency factor”. If this number was set to 1, then getting an effective PPM rate that was above the PPM rating of your proc would be impossible. Another way to think about it is that the lockout time would be set to be exactly the same as the amount of time it takes for you to recharge your power and use it again when you don't have any +recharge at all.

 

By setting this number to 2.5, this allows players to get up to +150% recharge from any combination of sources they want (enhancements, hasten, set bonuses, team-mate buffs) before they have to worry about the lockout period. This is where I happen to think the sweet-spot is in order to reap the various advantages listed in the table above, but if the devs disagree then tweaking this “leniency factor” is also an easy dial to turn.

 

 

Edit: I realised I neglected to describe how these changes would function in toggles, "patches" and chain attacks. So ill do that here:

 

For chain attacks there are two options for implementation:

 

A: Have the procs not fire until the whole chain is completed and the "Targets" number for the dynamic area factor acquired.

B: Estimate an "average" number of targets. This could be a fixed proportion of the total potential targets.

 

For Toggles:

Firstly, lockout time would be coded in such a way that it does not lockout procs from "rolling" multiple times in a single use of a power. Instead the lockout time would apply to  future uses of that same power. So for example, if you have an Obliteration:Chance for Smashing Damage proc in your Lightning Field, and you turn Lightning Field on and leave it on, then you may proc that Obliteration as many times as you like as frequently as the chances allow with no lockout ever kicking in. However there IS still a lockout period being applied, it is just applying to future uses of the Lightning Field power! So if you turn Lightning field on and off over and over in a group of enemies, you will get put in lockout as soon as the Obliteration proc "rolls" for the first time, and Lightning Field will be put in proc lockout for 4 seconds (because lightning field has a 10 second base recharge).

 

So to sum that up, lockout pretty much doesnt effect toggles as long as you use them as they are intended (dont spam turning them off and on).

 

Because the L.D.A.F system uses a dynamic area factor which depends on the number of targets hit, for AOE toggles this will be recalculated once every "interval" which is when you turn the toggle on and every 10 seconds afterwards. There is already a system in place that only allows toggles to proc once per interval, and L.D.A.F would not touch this.

 

For AOE "rains/patches":

Currently the way these work is on initial cast and every 10 seconds thereafter they roll their procs based on as if the power had a recharge time of 10 seconds. The amount of these 10 second "intervals" is known beforehand (eg. in a 15 second rain you get 2, one at 0 seconds and one at 10 seconds), so the way they work under the L.D.A.F system will go like this:

 

First, the proc chance is calculated without calcualting an "area factor" (so as if the power was a single target power). Then that proc chance is divided by the number of total "intervals" that the patch is already known to have. Each "interval" the number of targets in the patch being hit is determined, which in turn determines the area factor under the L.D.A.F system. The divided proc chances are then divided again by this area factor for this "interval", and then the procs are rolled. (fire off, or dont). For each seperate "interval" that the rain/patch has, the area factor is recalculated and the procs "roll" for that interval is based on the area factor calculation for that interval. Because lockout does not apply to procs "rolling" multiple times in a single use of a power, but to future casts of that same power, it is possible (although of course far from guaranteed) to have a single proc fire off on each "interval" in the rain/patch's duration.

 

Overall you get the same total chance as in a normal AOE but split over however many intervals there are in that particular power. The final difference to the current system is that the actual recharge of the "patch/rain" is used, rather than assuming that the recharge time is 10 seconds. Those 10 second "intervals" are kept however to be used for proc application.

 

Here is an example of how it would work for the power "Ice Storm", slotted with a Positron's Blast chance for energy damage.

 

First the single target rate for bonfire is calculated, which would be 362% (because we dont cap it to 90% yet)

Then that chance is divided by the total number of "intervals" that "Ice Storm" has, which is 2 (at 0s, and 10s) making 181%

 

Assume that when the player casts Ice Storm that there are 10 targets within the AOE. That means on the first interval, (interval 0s) the area factor is 5.51

Now we know the area factor for the first interval we can divide 181% by that. So that gives us 32.8%

So when you first cast the Ice Storm the 10 enemies in the AOE each have a 32% chance of getting hit by the Positron's Blast proc.

Now we calculate the area factor again for the second interval.

Let's assume that by this point 10 seconds later most of the enemies have died, and there are only 3 left in the AOE. So for this second interval the area factor is 2.73

Dividing 181% by this new area factor gives us 66%

So those last three remaining enemies in the AOE by the time 10 seconds have passed each have a 66% chance to take another hit of the Positron's blast proc.

 

 

 

A changelog based on feedback from Bopper, for the curious:

Spoiler

Initial Formula:

Max[(15+PPM^2)/100, ((BaseRecharge/(1 + EnhancementRech/100) + AnimationTime) PPM)/60]/(Targets^(1/2))

 

My own feedback: The area factor isnt enough to prevent long recharges from capping the proc rate, needs a more aggressive area factor!

 

Second Iteration Formula:

Max[(15+PPM^2)/100, ((BaseRecharge/(1 + EnhancementRech/100) + AnimationTime) PPM)/60]/(1+(Targets^(1/3)-1)BaseRecharge^(1/3))

 

Bopper's Feedback: These new minimums are too generous to higher PPM values.

 

Third Iteration Formula:

Max[0.2+(PPM/50), ((BaseRecharge/(1 + EnhancementRech/100) + AnimationTime) PPM)/60]/(1+(Targets^(1/3)-1)BaseRecharge^(1/3))

 

Bopper's Feedback: You did a good job on the AOE's and the minimums are now fine too, but single target powers are still abuseable.

A long discussion about that statement followed before I begrudgingly agreed a solution might be in order.

 

First Iteration Lockout Formula:

Note: Recharge Enhancement effecting PPM is also removed from the main formula at this time.

Lockout = Base Recharge / 2.5

 

Bopper's Feedback: That won't cap recharge abuse at +150% as you intend because of animation times.

 

Second Iteration Lockout Formula:

Lockout = Animation + (Base Recharge / 2.5)

 

Edit: After further testing it seems that the second iteration minimums were too generous to low PPM rated procs (eg 2 PPM), so the new minimums are given by:

 

Max( ( 0.1 + PPM / 25 ), ((Base Recharge/1+Animation) * PPM ) /60) / ( 1+( Targets ^1/3 -1 ) * Base Recharge ^1/3 )

 

Edit 2: Added animation time into the area factor:

 

Max( ( 0.1 + PPM / 25 ), ((Base Recharge/1+Animation) * PPM ) /60) / ( 1+( Targets ^1/3 -1 ) * (Animation Time + Base Recharge) ^1/3 )

 

 

Edited March 18, 2020 by Alouu

[Parabola]

1 hour ago, Alouu said:

Snip

Impressive stuff Alouu. I'm sure I understood some of it!

 

I can't really comment on the maths of all this but I certainly agree that something needs to be done with PPM. My only thought is that at the same time as adjusting the formula to tame the performance of damage procs there really should be a balance pass over the buff/debuff/mez procs. Many of these are currently completely worthless not because of how often or not they trigger (although true in some cases) but because their effects are too minor, low magnitude or flat out counterproductive (who wants to add a chance for knockback to a stun?).

 

It would also be great if the same set of changes also addressed the behaviour of powers that currently do not proc at all or exhibit strange proc behaviour. I'm thinking things like seeker drones not proccing anything (as far as I am aware) or rain powers being very unreliable indeed.

 

If these changes arrived as a package with the PPM change it might sweeten the pill a little!

[nihilii]

I fail to understand *why* something needs to be done with procs. All it does is provide build options. You are not getting something for free, you sacrifice set bonuses for the sake of damage.

If procs get nerfed back to flat rate or whatever, we'll just go back to the old way of building things. There will be less variance. Damage ATs will pull ahead even further. Boooooooooooring.

The real problem with PPM is a lack of tutorial/interface explaining the concept to players ingame.

[ScarySai]

Either revert to pre-i24 rules or don't touch it.

 

I'll be frank: I don't trust Captain Powerhouse to fix this without either making procs useless, or breaking things more.

[Parabola]

16 minutes ago, nihilii said:

I fail to understand *why* something needs to be done with procs. All it does is provide build options. You are not getting something for free, you sacrifice set bonuses for the sake of damage.

If procs get nerfed back to flat rate or whatever, we'll just go back to the old way of building things. There will be less variance. Damage ATs will pull ahead even further. Boooooooooooring.

The real problem with PPM is a lack of tutorial/interface explaining the concept to players ingame.

There are probably better and more complete answers to this but to my mind the reason this should be done is that the damage modifier is a fundamental point of balance between AT's. Defenders should do less damage than corruptors but procs are ignoring these modifiers. Worse still (for corruptors) due to defenders higher buff modifiers they are actually easier to build into high functioning proc monsters.

 

I've used defenders and corruptors as they seem the clearest example but it affects other AT's too. The problem of damage output being the only important metric in the high level game is a wider problem (argued about discussed at length elsewhere) and not one that can be solved by throwing extra damage at low damage AT's.

Edited March 11, 2020 by parabola

[DSorrow]

13 minutes ago, nihilii said:

I fail to understand *why* something needs to be done with procs. All it does is provide build options. You are not getting something for free, you sacrifice set bonuses for the sake of damage.

I very much agree with this. Before PPM procs and +Res set bonuses the only two things worth building for were Defense and global +Rech. Personally I like the fact that we can now choose between ridiculous defense and offense or a balance between the two rather than just having the first one as an option.

[nihilii]

3 minutes ago, parabola said:

The problem of damage output being the only important metric in the high level game is wider problem (argued about discussed at length elsewhere) and not one that can be solved by throwing extra damage at low damage AT's.

I think this statement needs to be demonstrated.

It's fine to discuss how the game should work ideally, but in practical terms, giving damage options to low damage ATs is a significantly easier task than to reengineer the whole game for non-damage effects to be worth it.

For that matter, even in the Paragon Studios times most buffs followed that route. Defenders got Vigilance for a solo damage buff. Scrappers saw their damage scale raise from 1.0 to 1.125. Doms got a damage scale buff too along with the Domination rework. Blasters got more damage when it turned out they weren't doing enough. I think the game was improved with every single one of these buffs.

[Parabola]

8 minutes ago, nihilii said:

I think this statement needs to be demonstrated.

Sure, it's a matter of perception. If you are completely happy with the balance of the high level game then I doubt anything I say about it will change that. I consider the current balance between defenders and corruptors a problem in the same way that I consider the whole balance of the incarnate game a problem but that is just the way I see it.

 

31 minutes ago, nihilii said:

For that matter, even in the Paragon Studios times most buffs followed that route. Defenders got Vigilance for a solo damage buff. Scrappers saw their damage scale raise from 1.0 to 1.125. Doms got a damage scale buff too along with the Domination rework. Blasters got more damage when it turned out they weren't doing enough. I think the game was improved with every single one of these buffs.

Blasters and scrappers are damage AT's so giving them more damage isn't paradigm changing. Dominators were in pretty bad shape as an AT and had a radical rework - the damage scale increase was in effect damage taken out of domination. And as you say the defender change only affects solo play - they weren't able to solo effectively enough and so had a very targeted buff. I agree that all these buffs improved the game but none of them are the equivalent in my mind to the current situation with procs buffing the damage of low damage AT's.

 

I'd like to add that I too enjoy being able to build in interesting ways. I've commented on a beta thread recently that it's a shame that defence and recharge are the only things worth building for. I would like to see other bonuses be given a once over to see if they can be made more appealing - it would be great to be able to build significantly for resists, damage, regen, max hp etc. Whatever changes are made to them procs should remain valuable additions to a build, but they shouldn't be allowed to upset AT balance.