Damage Procs and PPM tweaks or changes - Suggestion thread

[Caulderone]

6 hours ago, Alouu said:

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.

At this point, it looks to me that your proposal and Nzer's are the best of the bunch.  Focusing on those two and coming up with the best overall proposal also would limit the necessity of absolutely requiring respecs MunkiLord is worried about.

 

I look forward to your comparison of Nzer's with yours.  I think both look workable and tweakable if further modifications needed to happen down the line.

 

I also agree with a comment above by Parabola that several of the non-damage procs likely need some love, but that probably is a low priority target.

[nihilii]

16 minutes ago, parabola said:

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'm just saying the theory adding damage to lower damage ATs doesn't help is a matter of opinion.

Given that the game *is* damage-focused...

...Idealistic look might be to rework the game so damage isn't so overwhelmingly important.

...Pragmatic look can be to share the goods.

I pick option 2. But really, I pick it because it enhances build options. Increased player agency > game perfectly balanced according to hypothetical rules, IMHO. If procs were so overwhelmingly good nobody would even use set bonuses anymore, I'd vote against procs (or for buffing set bonuses, more like).

[Frosticus]

2 hours ago, parabola said:

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.

I know this is "common forum knowledge", but I can tell you it simply isn't true.

What is true?

- yes defenders are much easier to build due to higher defensive modifiers

- yes some (and this number is much smaller than people think) defenders can out-damage corruptors in a solo setting in some scenarios

-defenders can self buff better, but external buffs and even shared buffs, help corrs more

 

What is also true?

- corrs do way more damage on teams with a much higher damage cap at their disposal and scourge. Oodles more sometimes. Oodles

- In low buff teams, corrs do more damage than defenders as vigilance drops to 0

- corrs get access to attacks much earlier. I know nobody thinks sub 50 matters, but it does. Some of the lower level task forces see corrs eclipsing defender damage.

 

I'm down for improving corrs a bit and have advocated for it with clear examples in the past, but their issues have almost nothing to do with procs, or a handful of solo builds where defenders edge them out.

 

With regard to procs:

-I've build a lot of proc builds, imo the only issue I have with them is how they behave with some epic powers due to their longer base recharges. That I can turn epic dominate into as high a damage power as a t3 attack could be problematic at a glance. Again though, I can't touch the recharge on dominate, whereas I can fully enhance the t3and get it cycling 2- 3x as fast as dominate. I forgo all set bonuses in the epic hold, but not in my attack. Plus, as soon as buffs start flying around t3s greatly overshadow  epic holds as the hold has negligible base damage to enhance. So epic holds are a knee jerk reaction imo, that shine while solo, but fall behind quickly when buffs stack up.

[Galaxy Brain]

Gotta mirror an earlier comment, but what is currently the problem trying to be solved?

[Caulderone]

4 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Gotta mirror an earlier comment, but what is currently the problem trying to be solved?

I linked the post by CP in the first post.

Procs in long recharge powers are viewed by many, CP obviously included, as being too good.

 

I wanted us to discuss options, knowing that from CPs post things likely will be changed at some point, to see if we could come up with a good change.

[Leo_G]

51 minutes ago, Caulderone said:

I linked the post by CP in the first post.

Procs in long recharge powers are viewed by many, CP obviously included, as being too good.

 

I wanted us to discuss options, knowing that from CPs post things likely will be changed at some point, to see if we could come up with a good change.

Funnily enough, there are likely far more "too good" setups that aren't exploiting procs that are more outlier as well. I see procs as more of a low-damage AT game. It's making more difference with them than, for example, a Stalker... Although some proc outliers exist there too (Savage Leap). 

[ScarySai]

The 'fix' if it's ever implemented should keep procs valuable/make them more valuable, especially in attack chains, while reigning in long-recharge proc bombs. Procs should be valuable in short recharging powers as well, hence why I'm in favor of pre-i24 ruling. There's no reason why my -res proc should be less valuable in say, foot stomp, than it would be in the rad armor AoE that I totally forgot the name of as I'm writing this.

 

My primary concern with fixing this is that I fear a rush job, over-correction or over-complicating of the issue. We saw it with super strength - especially rage, Gun drone on devices, consumption on DM, and the entire electrical affinity set. Simply put, I have heavy reservations that this would be done properly.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by ScarySai

[Caulderone]

That's all the more reason for us to discuss it now and come up with a solid solution before the Devs even get around to it.

[Galaxy Brain]

2 hours ago, Caulderone said:

I linked the post by CP in the first post.

Procs in long recharge powers are viewed by many, CP obviously included, as being too good.

 

I wanted us to discuss options, knowing that from CPs post things likely will be changed at some point, to see if we could come up with a good change.

 

This is a tricky subject, as on the flipside I think it is a refreshing meta-metagame diversion to want to build totally, radically different from the norm in order to utilize procs as well!

[Caulderone]

I feel like Alouu's and Nzer's ideas give us some good places to go that won't invalidate proc builds while bringing them back into an acceptable range.

 

Yes, it is a tricky thing.  Once again, that reinforces the idea that we should discuss this now and find an acceptable path to a fix that will work.  We aren't currently under any immediate time pressure, so we have our leisure to examine it thoroughly.

[Parabola]

3 hours ago, Frosticus said:

I know this is "common forum knowledge", but I can tell you it simply isn't true.

What is true?

- yes defenders are much easier to build due to higher defensive modifiers

- yes some (and this number is much smaller than people think) defenders can out-damage corruptors in a solo setting in some scenarios

-defenders can self buff better, but external buffs and even shared buffs, help corrs more

 

What is also true?

- corrs do way more damage on teams with a much higher damage cap at their disposal and scourge. Oodles more sometimes. Oodles

- In low buff teams, corrs do more damage than defenders as vigilance drops to 0

- corrs get access to attacks much earlier. I know nobody thinks sub 50 matters, but it does. Some of the lower level task forces see corrs eclipsing defender damage.

 

I'm down for improving corrs a bit and have advocated for it with clear examples in the past, but their issues have almost nothing to do with procs, or a handful of solo builds where defenders edge them out.

 

With regard to procs:

-I've build a lot of proc builds, imo the only issue I have with them is how they behave with some epic powers due to their longer base recharges. That I can turn epic dominate into as high a damage power as a t3 attack could be problematic at a glance. Again though, I can't touch the recharge on dominate, whereas I can fully enhance the t3and get it cycling 2- 3x as fast as dominate. I forgo all set bonuses in the epic hold, but not in my attack. Plus, as soon as buffs start flying around t3s greatly overshadow  epic holds as the hold has negligible base damage to enhance. So epic holds are a knee jerk reaction imo, that shine while solo, but fall behind quickly when buffs stack up.

Eh, you're probably right. I certainly don't have empirical evidence either way, it's just my feel of the situation. I've found myself not rolling corruptors on homecoming and either going defender or blaster. Corruptors feel a bit squeezed out but that might just be me getting carried away with what I think proc builds can achieve vs what they actually do.

 

My most successful proc build has actually been a rad/stone tank using ff+rech procs everywhere to fuel the long recharge aoes. He's not the best tank in the world but he does quite a bit of damage!

[macskull]

7 hours ago, parabola said:

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.

Set bonuses got a pretty significant overhaul in Issue 24 - resistance bonuses were increased across the board and coupled with mez resistance, defense bonuses were tweaked to provide both typed and positional defense, and debt protection was replaced with endurance discount. Prior to I24, sure, defense and recharge were probably the most important things to build for simply because of how those interact with the game as a whole and you'd have to significantly alter the game mechanics to make that not the case. These days, yes, I think recharge is more important than it used to be but it comes at a tradeoff - you build in lots of procs and build for global recharge to help your proc rates but then you're missing out on other bonuses because you're slotting procs or hunting for slots to fit more recharge in. The changes to resistance bonuses mean it's easy to help shore up weak areas in builds (especially S/L/F/C) with IOs, and you've always been able to focus builds around damage, regen, and HP if you choose to do so. For example, most PvP-oriented builds already focus on building for max HP and range instead of recharge and defense.

[Razor Cure]

Are these super proc exploiting builds actually that common? I mean, I will take peoples (who have done heaps of testing and have numbers to back it up) word that a TW/Bio scrapper is super awesome and clearly the best, but if I dont find it fun, I would never play it. Same as the build with a ton of procs and minimal rech in powers. Those aren't things I build for, so I am not going to use them. The only procs are usually from sets like Mako/ToD/Oblits etc.

[Galaxy Brain]

Honestly, you do lose out a lot on raw enhancements + set bonuses chasing a ton of procs. Vice versa you lose out if you exclude them.

[Replacement]

Not being a proc expert by any stretch, I can say what I would like to see:

A simplified formula, more like the original flat % chance, but with a scaling bonus based on charge. Important differences:

• Still naturally skews towards lower recharges
• Bonus rate based on total recharge. Global recharge is already king. No reason to give it special treatment here.
• Each proc adds a status to your character (probably 10-15 seconds). While you have the status, proc chance for that enhancement is lowered.

Also, doesn't the game already have mechanisms where damage dealt is scaled to current recharge? Seems like that would be even easier.

No matter what, I think they still need to kill the global recharge darling.

 

12 hours 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.

And look where that got us.

(Sorry, I saw a chance to feel clever and I took it. I regret everything!)

[nzer]

Since a couple people have mentioned my "solution" I'll explain it in a bit more detail. The gist is to add a couple scale factors to the proc chance formula such that powers below a certain level of recharge proc more often than the listed PPM and powers above that level proc less often than the listed PPM.

 

Here's the current proc chance forumla for a click power: 

ProcChance = PPM * (ModifiedRechargeTime + CastTime) / (60 * AreaMod)

 

And here's the modified formula:

ProcChance = PPM * (L * ModifiedRechargeTime^E + CastTime) / (60 * AreaMod)

 

ModifiedRechargeTime is the power's recharge time after enhancements and alpha, but before global recharge, and the additions are obviously L and E, where L is a constant value greater than 1 and E is a constant value less than 1. What the values are set to controls at what recharge time the actual PPM is equal to the listed PPM and how strong the deviation is above and below that recharge time.

 

Here's a graph to illustrate. In this example L is 2.51, E is 0.6, CastTime is 1 second, and PPM is 2 procs per minute. The green line is the current formula, the red line is the modified formula.

Spoiler

 

As you can see, the modified formula boosts proc chance below a 10 second recharge time and lowers proc chance above a 10 second recharge time. The current formula hits the maximum proc chance around 26 seconds for this PPM, but the modified formula doesn't hit it until after 47.

 

Here's a graph with all the same values except PPM, which is at 3.5:

Spoiler

 

The primary thing to see here is that the curves still intersect at a 10 second recharge; this is the point at which the actual PPM and the listed PPM are equal. This consistent intersect makes the formula both easy to tune relative to the current formula and easy to explain to less mathy players; abilities with a ten second recharge get the listed PPM, abilities with a shorter recharge get more than the listed PPM, abilities with a longer recharge get less than the listed PPM.

 

Here's a link to an interactive version of the formula so people can fiddle with the values. I'm not suggesting the above values for L and E, or even these specific modifications to the formula, are what we would actually want to go forward with; this is just a proof of concept to demonstrate that if the goal is to lessen the effectiveness of procs on abilities with long recharges and increase their effectiveness on abilities with short recharges we probably don't need to do anything more involved than modifying the proc chance formula. I don't think there's a need for a fundamental redesign of the proc system like other posters have suggested.

Edited March 12, 2020 by nzer

[Tater Todd]

This entire thread makes me nervous and I'm having a difficult time reading it without feeling sick🤢.

[...]

I'd like to see a system where proc-builds are a viable alternative, but one that does not break fundamental game design, i.e. corruptors should do more damage than defenders in most scenarios. I mean, class balance is the reason that the tanker changes were made, no? That said, I have no personal experience with either defenders or corruptors, so I can't comment specifically on their current balance point.

 

I also think the current implementation is quirky and counter-intuitive. Maximize proc chance with high global recharge but no enhanced recharge (and without alpha slot giving recharge). This is weird, not obvious, and requires calculations to maximize (do keep in mind that in most games, there are huge amounts of players than never visit forums or discord, and huge amounts of people who simply lack reasonable skills with algebra). 

 

I'd go so far to say that the current implementation by the Paragon Devs is exactly the kind of poorly done rush job that @ScarySai is concerned about.

 

That out of the way: one potential pitfall of lockout timers as suggested by @Alouu is that a lockout timer does nothing if your attack rotation is sufficiently long; I can imagine a scenario wherein players manage to avoid the lockout timer by cycling through a lot of attacks in sequence (maybe some pool powers thrown in). Or to put it another way: a lockout timer may simply encourage players to push their "proc powers" less often if you know that a given power won't proc for 5-10 seconds. This adds complexity (I'd like to see a system wherein your power behaves more-or-less similarly regardless of how long it's been since the last time you pushed them).

 

The suggestion by @nzer seems relatively elegant and simple. Easy to code, too. But it leaves us with the strange scenario of maximizing global recharge and minimizing enhanced recharge.

[Alouu]

@Vooded I was waiting for someone to bring this up ^^

 

Here is my defense! My lockout times are actually really short, if you have +150% or less recharge bonus it wont even be possible for them to effect you! So if you do a similar build plan to right now, if you want to allocate say 80% recharge to set bonuses and 70% from hasten to max up to your +150%, then dont put any recharge in the powers you want to proc out and they will be lockout-immune so to speak. The reason it's designed like this is so that the majority of the time while playing people wont even notice the difference between this system and the lockout system (when it comes to single target powers anyway), but in those situations where there is ageless destinys and speed boosts and whatnot being thrown around then it kicks in as a kind of abuse protection. So you mention being able to circumvent the system through a rotation of powers, but that is actually totally intended! The only thing this abuse-protection is for really is to stop you from spamming the "best" procced out power or two out of your rotation over and over.

 

However, in those aforementioned situations where your recharge gets boosted a lot - if you happen to reach the cap of 400% then a nice situation will happen! That situation is, if you fire your power on cooldown then it will alternate cleanly between proc-lockedout and free to proc. That's because the lockout kicks in when you're at 2/5 base recharge and a capped recharge bonus puts you at 1/5 base recharge.

 

@nzer Do you have a suggested pair of values for L and E? I tried basing my comparison table around the ones you had set to default, but since proc rate caps at 90% they barely do anything, just increasing the base recharge needed to cap rate from 14.5 seconds to 17.

 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Alouu

[...]

@Alouu, you may have won me over.

 

Would you be willing to provide a few concrete, worked examples of how your proposal would compare and contrast with the current ppm mechanics under various base recharge, enhanced recharge and global recharge values? (I acknowledge that your solution is independent of enhanced and global recharge, but the current mechanics are not). 

 

I think doing so would help to explain your ideas. 

[Galaxy Brain]

I want to stress this: building for procs currently does have downsides in how to sacrifice bonuses and traditional boosts depending on the power. Going against the grain in how certain powers that are traditionally situational are now great due to procs and slow recharge is also fresh for the meta.

 

Preserving some aspect of that would be great

[Bopper]

1 hour ago, Vooded said:

@Alouu, you may have won me over.

 

Would you be willing to provide a few concrete, worked examples of how your proposal would compare and contrast with the current ppm mechanics under various base recharge, enhanced recharge and global recharge values? (I acknowledge that your solution is independent of enhanced and global recharge, but the current mechanics are not). 

 

I think doing so would help to explain your ideas. 

He actually has that data for ST attacks, using a build that has up to 180% global recharge (perma Hasten). Analysis was capped to looking at +300% total enhancement (120% enhanced with alpha). If Alouu wants those plots shared, I can provide them (or he can).

[Bopper]

43 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I want to stress this: building for procs currently does have downsides in how to sacrifice bonuses and traditional boosts depending on the power. Going against the grain in how certain powers that are traditionally situational are now great due to procs and slow recharge is also fresh for the meta.

 

Preserving some aspect of that would be great

Fully agreed. When designing around proc heavy builds, it always felt like an even tradeoff. Sacrificing so many set bonuses for procs is close to a zero sum game.

[ScarySai]

@VoodedYou won't catch me defending the current system, so you're on point as far as I'm concerned. Things getting worse due to meddling would be less than ideal.

 

I'm for the pre-i24 rules simply because it was proven to work. Was it still kinda OP? Sure, so what? Nothing compared to right now.

 

Of course, I have very few characters that rely on proc slotting for damage, much less dependance, so I don't exactly have as much of a horse in this race as others do.

[Alouu]

In terms of single target powers, I do have these:

 

 

 

Graphs showing the ratio and difference between the two, including at various PPM levels can be found in here:

Spoiler

 

 

 

This one is for 1PPM procs, and is kinda totally out of whack because of my outdated minimums being in it >.<

 

For 2.0 PPM procs:

 

For 3.5:

 

For 4.5

 

Another 3.5 one but only looking between 2 and 25 seconds base recharges:

 

Thanks to Bopper for making these for me! They are a little outdated now since I have changed how my formula generates minimum proc rates (that yellow vertical line on the left is showing that if you have a power which has a base recharge of 1 second then your "effective PPM" would go crazy, even though 1 base recharge powers dont exist to my knowledge I toned the minimums down anyway).

 

To interpret these graphs you read off the color of the co-ordinates that you are interested in. That said there isnt much difference in single target effective rates as you can see, mostly all that happens is there is a small "sweetspot" in the 12s to 14s base recharge range which gets put back in line under my system, and then there is a triangular "sourspot" cutting into the yellow area in the 16s to 30s base recharge range which also gets put back into line. Note that most of this graph shows data which is largely irrelevant, since almost all single target powers have base recharges in the 1s to 15s range. I couldnt even think of a single target power with a recharge over 32s until Bopper mentioned spirit ward!

 

Sorry to say that im still waiting for Bopper to get back to me with the AOE graphs, they are a bit more complicated because of the varying radiuses and target caps that they have. However I can run you through some scenarios with fireball, ill do that here:

 

Current System - Fireball:

 

0% Enhancement, 0% Global: Proc chance with a 3.5 PPM proc is 36.9%. Power can be used every 17 seconds. An effective proc rate of 20.83 PPM, this is 5.95x the listed value.

100% Enhancement, 0% Global: Proc chance with a 3.5 PPM proc is 19.5%. Power can be used every 9 seconds. An effective proc rate of 20.83 PPM, this is 5.95x the listed value.

0% Enhancement, 200% Global:  Proc chance with a 3.5 PPM proc is 36.9%. Power can be used every 6.33 seconds. An effective proc rate of 55.93 PPM, this is 15.98x the listed value.

100% Enhancement, 200% Global: Proc chance with a 3.5 PPM proc is 19.5%. Power can be used every 5 seconds. An effective proc rate of 37.51 PPM, this is 10.72x the listed value.

 

Proposed System - Fireball:

 

0% Global, 16 Targets Hit: Proc chance with a 3.5 PPM proc is 20.5% Power can be used every 17 seconds. An effective proc rate of 11.59 PPM, this is 3.31x the listed value.

0% Global, 8 Targets Hit: Proc chance with a 3.5 PPM proc is 28.2% Power can be used every 17 seconds. An effective proc rate of 7.95 PPM this is 2.27x the listed value.

0% Global, 2 Targets Hit: Proc chance with a 3.5 PPM proc is 59.9% Power can be used every 17 seconds. An effective proc rate of 4.23 PPM this is 1.2x the listed value.

150% Global, 16 Targets Hit: Proc chance with a 3.5 PPM proc is 20.5% Power can be used every 7.4 seconds. An effective proc rate of 26.64 PPM, this is 7.6x the listed value.

150% Global, 8 Targets Hit: Proc chance with a 3.5 PPM proc is 28.2% Power can be used every 7.4 seconds. An effective proc rate of 18.27 PPM, this is 5.22 the listed value.

150% Global, 2 Targets Hit: Proc chance with a 3.5 PPM proc is 59.9% Power can be used every 7.4 seconds. An effective proc rate of 9.72 PPM this is 2.78x the listed value.

 

Note when I say 100% enhancement, 200% global that would mean 300% in total. I also only go to 150% global under my proposed system because after that the lockout would kick in. As you see the ratios of the effective proc rates and the listed proc rates are much less egregious under the L.D.A.F system. You can also see how the proc chances increase the less targets you hit, but that this still results in less overall value than if you had hit more targets.

 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Alouu