Replace Damage Procs With ED-Ignoring Damage Enhancements

[aethereal]

Basic Proposal

 

Replace at least the damage procs in Melee, Targeted AoE, PBAoE, and Ranged sets with special damage enhancements that enhance damage by let's say 25% (subject to playtesting of course), but which ignores ED.

 

Justification

 

All damage procs really do is add damage.  They do so via PPM, which is a super complex, weird system that attempts to basically scale the damage that the procs do to the power they're put in, so that procs aren't a waste in high-damage big hitter powers while also not being overpowered in rapid-recharge buzzsaw powers.  This works to a point, but it does so at the cost of transparency (it's essentially impossible to figure out from just in-game sources whether a power procs "well" or "poorly"), it creates weird incentives to pick narrow ranges of powers, and the performance of procs in fast-recharge powers, even if it averages to the same as in slow-recharge powers, is avoided because you can't rely on it.  It also has created weird additional emphasis on global recharge.

 

Well, we already have a way to scale damage with the power of a power -- we can just, you know, enhance the damage.  Replacing damage procs with damage enhancements which ignore ED gives the same basic design tradeoff: you can sacrifice set bonuses for additional raw damage.  But it does so in a smoother, easier-to-understand way that allows more diversity in which powers people use for best effect.

 

Additional Commentary

 

1. You wouldn't get the damage type diversification with this proposal that you do with current damage procs.  But do we want that?  I've never seen anyone advance a build with, like, themed damage procs for particular damage types.  Nobody seems to be using damage procs to create Frostfire-style characters who use fire + ice.  Nobody even really seems to be picking and choosing procs for best utility with their damage type -- it's pretty much "every proc you can stuff in" or "whatever comes with your sets."  And do we want every melee character doing negative energy damage because Touch of Death is a pretty good set?  Why do we want that?
2. If you value the randomness of procs -- and I see little sign that anyone does -- there could still be a random factor in this.  Like, basically, "75% chance for +25% damage enhancement."  The randomness could be a fixed amount rather than scaling with recharge, since the damage bonus scales with the damage of the power.  That way, if we think that part of the intended effect of procs is that you can't fully rely on them, we can have that to whatever degree we think they should be unreliable.
3. Purple procs could grant a higher amount of damage enhancement than regular ones.
4. This would prevent us from using these procs with powers that do no damage, or from usefully using them with powers that have very low base damage.  That's why I proposed only replacing the damage procs that are in the damage sets, not the ones that are in, for example holds, taunts, or fears.  There are still a few powers that people turn into highly damaging attacks which have very low base damage, and this proposal would make that not work.  Is this something we want?  Should DP characters be able to proc suppressive fire or whatever it is into a high-damage attack?  If so, I have a suggestion to continue to enable it that I'll put as a linked post.
5. This would mean that you couldn't use procs as a way to partially get around damage debuffs such as a Rage crash.  This strikes me as fine.
6. This would also potentially somewhat reduce damage in cases where characters were at or near damage cap, since these "procs" would contribute towards damage cap instead of being separate from it.  Again, this strikes me as fine.
7. This would improve the performance of procs in classes with critical-like mechanics (stalkers, scrappers, and corruptors), since their crits would essentially magnify "proc" damage.  That may be a significant concern, since scrapers and stalkers are already in very good place.

 

 

Linked suggestion to allow continued enhancement of low-damage powers into good attacks via proccing (ie, additional commentary #4):

 

 

Edited November 8, 2020 by aethereal

[chi1701]

1 hour ago, aethereal said:

Basic Proposal

 

Replace at least the damage procs in Melee, Targeted AoE, PBAoE, and Ranged sets with special damage enhancements that enhance damage by let's say 25% (subject to playtesting of course), but which ignores ED.

 

Justification

 

All damage procs really do is add damage.  They do so via PPM, which is a super complex, weird system that attempts to basically scale the damage that the procs do to the power they're put in, so that procs aren't a waste in high-damage big hitter powers while also not being overpowered in rapid-recharge buzzsaw powers.  This works to a point, but it does so at the cost of transparency (it's essentially impossible to figure out from just in-game sources whether a power procs "well" or "poorly"), it creates weird incentives to pick narrow ranges of powers, and the performance of procs in high-recharge powers, even if it averages to the same as in high-recharge powers, is avoided because you can't rely on it.  It also has created weird additional emphasis on global recharge.

 

Well, we already have a way to scale damage with the power of a power -- we can just, you know, enhance the damage.  Replacing damage procs with damage enhancements which ignore ED gives the same basic design tradeoff: you can sacrifice set bonuses for additional raw damage.  But it does so in a smoother, easier-to-understand way that allows more diversity in which powers people use for best effect.

 

Additional Commentary

 

1. You wouldn't get the damage type diversification with this proposal that you do with current damage procs.  But do we want that?  I've never seen anyone advance a build with, like, themed damage procs for particular damage types.  Nobody seems to be using damage procs to create Frostfire-style characters who use fire + ice.  Nobody even really seems to be picking and choosing procs for best utility with their damage type -- it's pretty much "every proc you can stuff in" or "whatever comes with your sets."  And do we want every melee character doing negative energy damage because Touch of Death is a pretty good set?  Why do we want that?
2. If you value the randomness of procs -- and I see little sign that anyone does -- there could still be a random factor in this.  Like, basically, "75% chance for +25% damage enhancement."  The randomness could be a fixed amount rather than scaling with recharge, since the damage bonus scales with the damage of the power.  That way, if we think that part of the intended effect of procs is that you can't fully rely on them, we can have that to whatever degree we think they should be unreliable.
3. Purple procs could grant a higher amount of damage enhancement than regular ones.
4. This would prevent us from using these procs with powers that do no damage, or from usefully using them with powers that have very low base damage.  That's why I proposed only replacing the damage procs that are in the damage sets, not the ones that are in, for example holds, taunts, or fears.  There are still a few powers that people turn into highly damaging attacks which have very low base damage, and this proposal would make that not work.  Is this something we want?  Should DP characters be able to proc suppressive fire or whatever it is into a high-damage attack?  If so, I have a suggestion to continue to enable it that I'll put as a linked post.
5. This would mean that you couldn't use procs as a way to partially get around damage debuffs such as a Rage crash.  This strikes me as fine.
6. This would also potentially somewhat reduce damage in cases where characters were at or near damage cap, since these "procs" would contribute towards damage cap instead of being separate from it.  Again, this strikes me as fine.
7. This would improve the performance of procs in classes with critical-like mechanics (stalkers, scrappers, and corruptors), since their crits would essentially magnify "proc" damage.  That may be a significant concern, since scrapers and stalkers are already in very good place.

 

 

Linked suggestion to allow continued enhancement of low-damage powers into good attacks via proccing (ie, additional commentary #4):

 

 

Due to every attack and the enhancement effecting base damage, this will only benefit those archytypes with higher base damage than those with lower, the damage proc does same damage regardless of class and therefore is balanced.

[Outrider_01]

2 hours ago, aethereal said:

Ranged sets

Which ranged sets have damage procs exactly?

Tempest - Endurance drain

Entropic Chaos - Self Heal

Decimation - Build Up

Devastation - Hold

Apocalypse - Negative Damage

Winter's Bite - -slow and -recharge

 

All of 1

 

Melee on the other hand

Pounding Slugfest - Disorient bonus (which means what?  +stun duration or chance to stun?)

Kinetic Combat - Knockdown bonus (which means what? +KB/KU/KD mag or chance to KB?)

Touch of Death - Negative Damage

Mako's Bite - Lethal Damage

Hecatomb - - Negative Damage

Gladiator Strike - Smashing Damage

 

All of 4

 

Its the ability to shoe in procs by the effects of the power has that stacks the procs, Holds are considered range and they have -tohit that applies as well.

 

2 hours ago, aethereal said:

Replacing damage procs with damage enhancements which ignore ED gives the same basic design tradeoff

Plain -Tohit powers, Fear powers, Confuse ect do not have inherent damage.  So the powers Fear, Darkness Night and Possess do not benefit from a proc that adds damage since they have no damage to begin with.

 

On the other hand, could always just make them exclusive.  Dark Melee only gets access to melee types so no -tohit damage proc, Dark armor gets access to stun/fear procs, Taunt click powers can only fit the psi proc which can't go into into any toggle except a damage aura.  The entire suggestion would be moot, you neuter the ability of the proc that has no damage in the power; unless it applied a damage type like current procs.

 

Ugg, I make points you already cover.  Need to wake up

Edited November 8, 2020 by Outrider_01

[Leogunner]

Personal opinion:

 

I don't think a blanket replacement would be a good thing because the main problem comes in with stacking effects.  Unless you create a diminishing returns function to curtail stacking efforts to the desired level, it's only going to shift the meta to another build direction (likely having to do with maximizing recharge).

 

Ultimately, I think stack-buster tactics need to be implemented for the current system, leaving some IO procs as PPM while changing others to straight % and further still others applying some other aspect like the one presented in the OP of this thread.

 

Think about it, if 2 of the 4 procs for a power in the current min/max PPM meta were changed to the OP's suggestion, a % chance or a combination, how easily would it be to maximize the system to get the max damage?  Slower rech powers won't benefit as much from % procs and lower damage powers won't benefit from ED-bypassing dmg buffs.  But if you changed all dmg procs into any of these, you get either buzzsaw, ED-cap+ or current meta (if the current meta does indeed have present problems to be presented).

[aethereal]

5 hours ago, chi1701 said:

Due to every attack and the enhancement effecting base damage, this will only benefit those archytypes with higher base damage than those with lower, the damage proc does same damage regardless of class and therefore is balanced.

That's a debatable definition of "balanced," but yes, this would mean that procs are no longer best for defenders and brutes and worst for blasters and scrappers.

[Razor Cure]

8 hours ago, aethereal said:

it's essentially impossible to figure out from just in-game sources whether a power procs "well" or "poorly"

Is it though? Pretty sure it was Macskull, had a BIG thread about damage procs, laying out how they more in a ton of different powers, according to said powers rech/aoe status. There was something in there about the added factor of incarnate +rech too.

Granted, that DOES prove your point about 'in-game source,' (and honestly, the in game info on the invention system is pretty poor) but its not like there is no information out there. Also given how many build posts are on the forums, so people can get at least some idea on a procs performance in a given power. We can also just log onto TEST (yes, not a perfect solution, but its something) and just build a full toon to try it out.

Also, an ED ignoring damage boost may be far less useful on some powers. Take say..an MA scrapper with alll that smashing damage. WHich is gonna help more, a bit of a boost to smashing damage, or a hit of negative?

 

[aethereal]

4 minutes ago, Razor Cure said:

Is it though? Pretty sure it was Macskull, had a BIG thread about damage procs, laying out how they more in a ton of different powers, according to said powers rech/aoe status. There was something in there about the added factor of incarnate +rech too.

 

It is possible to figure it out using all the knowledge in the world.  It's definitely not possible just with in-game sources.  I mean, I don't think that even the 5% floor/90% ceiling of proc chances is noted in the game.  Much less the area factor, the global recharge/local recharge distincton, and lest we forget, if the power happens to be implemented with a pseudo-pet, then it has profound effects on procability.  EDIT:  Oh, and lest we forget, the patches applied on top of PPM, like the 10 second lockout on the chance-to-hide proc for the Stalker ATOs, or the however-long lockout on the power transfer heal.

 

If you're designing for whatever percent of the players obsessively follow mechanical threads on the forums, this isn't a particularly valid complaint.  If you're designing for what I presume are the large majority of players, whether a proc will work well in a power is basically just raw luck.

Edited November 9, 2020 by aethereal

[Razor Cure]

 

1 hour ago, aethereal said:

If you're designing for whatever percent of the players obsessively follow mechanical threads on the forums, this isn't a particularly valid complaint.  If you're designing for what I presume are the large majority of players, whether a proc will work well in a power is basically just raw luck.

Oh I agree. You totally can not figure that all out with in game info. BUT given teh fact than a huge percentage of people playing are gonna be Vets, or friends of Vets, it is not totally unreasonable too assume a person may do a basic google/forum search, to investigate proc behaviour. Sure, other groups of people just will never look for info, mostly because..they dont care, and IOs/procs/number crunching is not why they play the game anyway.

To those people, the way procs behave, means jack shit, and any changes would also be meaningless.

The info IS out there (sorta? lol) and I reckon it is far better to let our Devs focus on changes and improvements, than adding huge amounts of info regarding teh mechanics of enhancements you either use a ton of, or barely touch. That said..some very basic info would not go astray,

[aethereal]

1 hour ago, Razor Cure said:

 

Oh I agree. You totally can not figure that all out with in game info. BUT given teh fact than a huge percentage of people playing are gonna be Vets, or friends of Vets, it is not totally unreasonable too assume a person may do a basic google/forum search, to investigate proc behaviour. Sure, other groups of people just will never look for info, mostly because..they dont care, and IOs/procs/number crunching is not why they play the game anyway.

To those people, the way procs behave, means jack shit, and any changes would also be meaningless.

The info IS out there (sorta? lol) and I reckon it is far better to let our Devs focus on changes and improvements, than adding huge amounts of info regarding teh mechanics of enhancements you either use a ton of, or barely touch. That said..some very basic info would not go astray,

Well, one of the reasons i bring this up now is that Powerhouse had intimated that a change to procs is coming down the line at some point.

[Razor Cure]

Yeah I read about teh change too. Which was mentioned as being a change to proc chances and rates (I think).

Making damage procs just..more damage on a particular power just seems super boring, and not great in a lot of cases (see my example about MA)...especially since we already have an entire alpha slot that ignores ED to some degrees.

[aethereal]

8 hours ago, Razor Cure said:

Yeah I read about teh change too. Which was mentioned as being a change to proc chances and rates (I think).

 

As far as I know, they haven't really said what they're going to change, though it's possible I missed something.

 

Changing the rates is doomed to failure.  PPM is a bad system.  It's a bad system on a number of axes.

 

1. As you and I have discussed, it's way overly complex, way overly obscure.
2. It has failed in its primary goal.  PPM was supposed to make it so that proc were roughly equally good in a much larger array of powers (the previous status quo having been that procs were really good in extremely fast-recharging, and bad otherwise).  But while it's shifted which powers they're good in, it hasn't made them good in a large array.
3. It's super exploitable with global recharge -- and god, this game did not need more incentives to make people invest in global recharge.

You can't numbers-tweak your way out of that.  It's baked into the system.  Now, this is a hard problem and I'm not sure I know what to suggest to replace PPM in its entirety, but for damage procs there are better ways.

 

8 hours ago, Razor Cure said:

Making damage procs just..more damage on a particular power just seems super boring, and not great in a lot of cases (see my example about MA)...especially since we already have an entire alpha slot that ignores ED to some degrees.

 

Damage procs are just "more damage on a particular power."  Yes, right now they're more damage of an arbitrary damage type that is largely disconnected from the entire rest of the system, but it's not like that cashes out in any particularly useful way.  If people were doing very specific stuff with damage procs where they were like, "Oh, I need a ton of fire damage here because of X, Y, and Z, so I'm looking for opportunities for a fire damage proc," that'd be one thing, but nobody is.  Everyone gets negative energy damage on their melee attacks -- everyone.

 

Damage types ought to matter.  If everyone is doing "all the damage types" because procs are prevalent and give your damage in a smattering of different damage types, then we might as well just collapse damage into damage and make resistance universal and be done with it.  If you're a martial arts character, you ought to feel like your smashing damage is an advantage sometimes and a disadvantage other times.  Why else do we even have the system?

[tidge]

I feel like the the OP may have a fundamentally different opinion about %damage procs. Some snipping follows.

23 hours ago, aethereal said:

Basic Proposal

 

Replace at least the damage procs in Melee, Targeted AoE, PBAoE, and Ranged sets with special damage enhancements that enhance damage by let's say 25% (subject to playtesting of course), but which ignores ED.

 

Justification

 

All damage procs really do is add damage.  They do so via PPM, which is a super complex, weird system that attempts to basically scale the damage that the procs do to the power they're put in, so that procs aren't a waste in high-damage big hitter powers while also not being overpowered in rapid-recharge buzzsaw powers.  This works to a point, but it does so at the cost of transparency (it's essentially impossible to figure out from just in-game sources whether a power procs "well" or "poorly"), it creates weird incentives to pick narrow ranges of powers, and the performance of procs in fast-recharge powers, even if it averages to the same as in slow-recharge powers, is avoided because you can't rely on it.  It also has created weird additional emphasis on global recharge.

My sense is that all that has been discovered is that %damage procs aren't benefiting single-target DPS-dealing AT as much as they benefit ATs with less DPS and/or more AoE.

 

My own bias is that I don't expect %damage from procs to contribute to DPS-dealing characters, except for

 

1) Fast recharge AoE (e.g. cones), which generally do less damage and require some positioning, so a %damage proc 'helps' on average.

2) Long recharge AoE (e.g. 'nukes') which have an inherently long recharge time, so a %damage proc 'helps' on average.

 

Generally: I don't expect single-target attacks to rely on %damage from procs.

 

On non-DPS characters, I will hope for some extra proc damage but that's because those AT will typically not have the DPS that will otherwise allow them to complete missions/earn XP by defeating enemies.

 

The current implementation of %damage procs appears (to me) to be a great help for a majority of non-DPS builds, while adding to the offensive potential of certain DPS builds. I don't know that the suggestion to bypass ED benefits anything but DPS builds and would hurt non-DPS builds. 

[aethereal]

1 hour ago, tidge said:

My own bias is that I don't expect %damage from procs to contribute to DPS-dealing characters, except for

 

1) Fast recharge AoE (e.g. cones), which generally do less damage and require some positioning, so a %damage proc 'helps' on average.

2) Long recharge AoE (e.g. 'nukes') which have an inherently long recharge time, so a %damage proc 'helps' on average.

 

I mean, I think this is Just Wrong.  Damage procs are a major performance boost to highly performant single-target DPS chains from scrappers and stalkers, and the only reason they aren't leveraged more for blasters is that there's a woeful lack of ranged damage procs.  You have to read the tea leaves and put the procs in long-recharge attacks (long-recharge meaning 10-20s), and not do local recharge boosting, and you do it alongside normal damage slotting, not completely replacing it.

 

My proposal is to replace the damage procs that are in melee/ranged/taoe/pbaoe sets exactly so that Controllers etc can still use their traditional damage procs in holds and so forth.  I don't see this change hurting many low-damage-scalar ATs.  The only "low damage scalar" AT that can slot melee procs is Brute, they'll be fine (and they can continue to slot a taunt %damage proc in literally everything).  Ranged damage is only one non-unique proc, anyone who's building a proc-heavy build on a blast set is using holds/fears/confuses/immobilizes/slows etc.  PBAoE and TAoE might hurt the low-damage-scalar ATs a little, though I also think that having more consistent damage from those powers is a big advantage of this proposal -- as it stands, proc damage tends to be nothing or overkill in minion-clearing AoEs.

 

We would attempt to tune the numbers of the ED-ignoring damage boost such that it wasn't as good as current 90% proccing damage procs in the minority of powers that can really usefully leverage %damage procs, and is better than the current %damage procs in other powers.

[tidge]

Can you give specific examples of power with current slotting that is both already deep into the damage cap (for ED) and is using %damage procs?

 

I have builds that do both, but I want to know where you think more (beyond what we have now) is required.

Edited November 9, 2020 by tidge

[aethereal]

5 minutes ago, tidge said:

Can you give specific examples of power with current slotting that is both already deep into the damage cap (for ED) and is using %damage procs?

 

I have builds that do both, but I want to know where you think more (beyond what we have now) is required.

I mean, sure.  My ice/bio stalker has Frozen Touch slotted with 5xHecatomb (not the pure damage one), with +5s as necessary to get 100%+ damage enhancement, plus the Unbreakable Constraint proc, so two purple procs and 100%+ damage slotting before Alpha.

 

But I feel like we're talking at cross purposes.  This proposal is not to facilitate the ability to usefully slot Frozen Touch, it's to make procs less quirky and weird and hard to reason about (especially for people who aren't willing to build spreadsheets to check out proc rates), useful in a broader range of powers, and have fewer strange corner cases.

[Pzn]

1 hour ago, tidge said:

Can you give specific examples of power with current slotting that is both already deep into the damage cap (for ED) and is using %damage procs?

 

I have builds that do both, but I want to know where you think more (beyond what we have now) is required.

on my proc focused builds I often slot 5 procs and 1 50+5 purple damage IO (for +66% damage).  If you run musculature as well then that puts you at 110% +damage enhancement.  That requires getting enough tohit and accuracy bonuses elsewhere to ignore accuracy slotting though.

[MTeague]

My concern would be, if the procs are changed to +Dmg that ignores Enhancement Diversification, then for those powers where you can slot 5 or so procs, are you basically tossing enhancement diversification out the window entirely?  Is that a road the devs really want to go down? 

 

And what would the proposed new IO's do for powers that HAVE no base damage at all?  (like Cold Domination / Infrigidate ?)

[aethereal]

32 minutes ago, MTeague said:

My concern would be, if the procs are changed to +Dmg that ignores Enhancement Diversification, then for those powers where you can slot 5 or so procs, are you basically tossing enhancement diversification out the window entirely?  Is that a road the devs really want to go down? 

 

Attacks that have 5 %damage procs do more damage than ED allows.  We are down that road.

 

But what you can't do -- in the game as it exists today or in my proposal -- is both exceed ED massively and get set bonuses from that power, nor get the kind of efficient enhancement bonuses that you get from multi-stat-enhancing set IOs.

 

Quote

 

And what would the proposed new IO's do for powers that HAVE no base damage at all?  (like Cold Domination / Infrigidate ?)

 

Are there any powers that take melee/ranged/pbaoe/taoe sets that do no damage at all?

Edited November 9, 2020 by aethereal
Added second paragraph.

[Monos King]

24 minutes ago, aethereal said:

Are there any powers that take melee/ranged/pbaoe/taoe sets that do no damage at all?

It is worth noting there are attacks that do trivial damage to the extent even a 625% dmg increase is meaningless. Gale, sleet and various patch powers, the original Stun, scramble thoughts, screech, and most ranged mez focused moves...brawl. There are a lot of powers in which people allocate one or so melee/ranged/TAoE procs into make do damage. 

[aethereal]

Just now, Monos King said:

It is worth noting there are attacks that do trivial damage to the extent even a 625% dmg increase is meaningless. Gale, sleet and various patch powers, the original Stun, scramble thoughts, screech, and most ranged mez focused moves...brawl. There are a lot of powers in which people allocate one or so melee/ranged/TAoE procs into make do damage. 

Yes, I know.  See item 4 in the original post, and the linked thread.

[Monos King]

7 minutes ago, aethereal said:

Yes, I know.  See item 4 in the original post, and the linked thread.

Oh I see you have since added that. 

 

That is a very interesting idea. Thoughtful too. It would in fact be more reliable than a %proc rate, although likely less damage. I'll have more to say on that as an isolated concept later on.

 

As for the one of this thread alone though. Couple things.

1. Would have to be immune to PvP DR as well to be of any use there.
2. I actually do very much value damage variety procs create for theme and performance, and since discovering procs made several characters with this in mind. If the idea is overall better for game health this concern would be dismissable for me, but it is a genuine factor.
3. Lower damage ATs would be negatively affected. I believe I saw this mentioned before but I'll note it again, their base damage isn't high enough for this to mean anything good for them along with the fact the high dmg ATs will already be near dmg caps and thus won't be helped much either, as you noted.
4. Proc imbalance. This would worst case create greater dmg gap between sets that will retain dmg procs and those that wouldn't and best case keep it the same. Broadswords advantage over say fire melee would ascend. Scrappers could still be left at the damage cap here, with useless DR ignoring enhancements and no procs at all. BS would still have quite a few.

[aethereal]

24 minutes ago, Monos King said:

 

1. Proc imbalance. This would worst case create greater dmg gap between sets that will retain dmg procs and those that wouldn't and best case keep it the same. Broadswords advantage over say fire melee would ascend. Scrappers could still be left at the damage cap here, with useless DR ignoring enhancements and no procs at all. BS would still have quite a few.

Damage cap is quite high.  You could conceivably get to 200% enhancement from this (two 50+5 damage enhancement and four ED-ignoring 25% enhancement things would be around 200%).  Another 30% from T4 Musculature.  160% for 5 seconds from Gaussian's build up.  That's still only 390%.

[Talen Lee]

On 11/9/2020 at 2:38 AM, aethereal said:

?  I've never seen anyone advance a build with, like, themed damage procs for particular damage types. 

Hi, I do that for some characters as ways of conveying how their powers 'should' work. So, it's not a zero-effect proposition here.

[Monos King]

7 minutes ago, aethereal said:

Damage cap is quite high.  You could conceivably get to 200% enhancement from this (two 50+5 damage enhancement and four ED-ignoring 25% enhancement things would be around 200%).  Another 30% from T4 Musculature.  160% for 5 seconds from Gaussian's build up.  That's still only 390%.

All powers start at 100% damage.

[aethereal]

5 minutes ago, Monos King said:

All powers start at 100% damage.

Yep.  So all told 490%.  Below damage cap for I believe every AT, and that's for the 5 seconds that you have double-build-up, and assuming you devote 6 slots to pure damage, no accuracy, no recharge, no endurance.

 

EDIT:  It's actually above damage cap for many of the non-damage classes, though most of those don't get build-up.

Edited November 9, 2020 by aethereal