Replace Damage Procs With ED-Ignoring Damage Enhancements

[Saikochoro]

Honestly, I would give procs a 100% proc rate and adjust the damage done with recharge/AoE factors. A slow recharging single target power would get the full powered proc. A fast recharging AoE power would get the smallest proc damage.  Slow recharging AoE powers and fast recharging single target powers would be somewhere between those two in the spectrum.
 

So basically instead of adjusting how often the damage procs for the full value, I would instead adjust the value of the damage proc that would occur 100% of the time. Procs would still have the added benefit of damage type diversification and not being subject to damage cap. I would still make it ignore global recharge bonuses for simplicity. Then I’d adjust the proc numbers as necessary for balance.  

 

The reason I’d do it this way is because I don’t like RNG, which is odd considering I like scrappers.  Instead I value consistency.  Making procs consistent and simple would be a win in my book. However, I know it would cause a lot of balancing work and one people would hate the change. 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Saikochoro

[Leogunner]

Forgotten about mechanic:

 

Can we split proc rates for things like damage, mez, buffs and debuffs?  It sux that certain procs are practically miniscule because they are benched by the PPM system or been nerfed to ugly status because just using PPM made them too effective so they had to be "adjusted" (looking at them heal procs).

 

Funnily enough, no one seems to talk about procs like the +ToHit or the Recovery debuff when they should either have a completely other mechanic involved to make them not completely useless.

 

Also, the argument for simplicity/transparency I'm not for.  When you're talking about specialized gear, you're kind of allowed to be complex, IMO.  Especially with a pure roll-function system that doesn't rely on time-sensitive me mechanics like blocking, dodging, HP-critical, aiming at specific spots, etc.  

[Monos King]

1 hour ago, aethereal said:

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

That's right, it's above the damage cap of every AT except 5. That'll be a pretty noticeable difference, which definitely won't bode well. However, I actually think those need to be revisited so I don't think it's enough to immediately disqualify your ideas here. If anything, this could give a good reason to do exactly that. We'd have to see. The maximum damage bonus of each AT:

 

Blasters/Scrapps/Tanks/Stalks/Corrs: 400%

Brutes: 600% (reduced from NCSoft Days)

Everything else: 300%

 

390% bonus is what a brute would obtain from that combination you listed previously. Add max Fury and that's about 586% Damage bonus (which is essentially guaranteed now with Fury changes) . Still below the max, so a brute would not suffer as much from this (though it would still be inferior to just adding procs in majority of instances. 

 

A scrapper or blaster would instead get a 430% dmg bonus from that combination of effects. This is +30% dmg bonus the scrapper does not need, which procs glide past gracefully. This is not to mention that their weaker attacks are benefitted by procs more 100% of the time than DR ignoring enhancements. And you know a blaster needs this as much as a sore foot. This is also not to mention team play, which ordinarily brings both brutes and scrappers beyond their damage bonus maximums already, forget blasters. Forget set bonuses. Forget inspirations. I realize this is all intentional, for your proposal must be oriented more towards reducing proc efficiency rather than making them more intuitive, but these are depletions to performance that few would enjoy. This is on top of my previous gripes. 

 

While I do like the idea of the enhanceability changes on your other thread, I can't say I agree with these proposals myself. There are just too many sources of +dmg, which one would definitely have access to if they were going down the proc shopping route before, optimizing their build.

 

 

[aethereal]

3 hours ago, Monos King said:

I realize this is all intentional, for your proposal must be oriented more towards reducing proc efficiency rather than making them more intuitive,

Accusing people of bad faith in their discussion is spectacularly douchey.

[Monos King]

1 hour ago, aethereal said:

Accusing people of bad faith in their discussion is spectacularly douchey.

Oh. I think you should be able to tell from the tone of my entire responses that I'm not trying to do that. I know a lot of people discussing procs are concerned about the effect of them on the game, and I assumed that you were among that demographic as well. Otherwise I'm not sure why you want to make these changes to begin with. My apologies for the misunderstanding, but I also don't believe any of the people that think procs are too strong are acting in bad faith, though I disagree with them.

[aethereal]

1 hour ago, Monos King said:

Oh. I think you should be able to tell from the tone of my entire responses that I'm not trying to do that. I know a lot of people discussing procs are concerned about the effect of them on the game, and I assumed that you were among that demographic as well. Otherwise I'm not sure why you want to make these changes to begin with.

I expressed in the beginning of the thread, and have expanded a few times, on why I'm making this suggestion.  The PPM mechanic is extraordinarily opaque, rewards proccing a narrow subset of powers, overly rewards global recharge, and has to then have yet more terrible kludgey patches (like the global lockouts of various procs) on top of it.  I'm also not really a fan of having everyone do this weird smattering of damage types.

 

I don't think that damage procs are particularly too strong, and the sort of ur-mechanic of sacrificing set bonuses for more damage is a good tradeoff.

 

To your actual substantive criticisms, rather than speculating as to my motives when I've described them:

 

1. I think you're incredibly overstating the case for damage caps being a problem.  No, teams do not "ordinarily brings both brutes and scrappers beyond their damage bonus maximums already."
2. If this proposal were accepted, what scrappers and stalkers lose in occasionally going above their damage cap, they'd more than get back in having their crit damage be improved by "procs."  Blasters would get additional performance in their nukes, which under PPM mechanics "waste" a ton of their recharge at the 90% ceiling for procs.  All ATs would perhaps find that six-slotting an attack with damage procs was a little less rewarded, but that there were a large number of attacks that currently don't proc well that would be more rewarding to proc.  Would it change balance?  Certainly.  I imagine some powersets would be winners and some would be losers.  Would it be an overall nerf?  I think it would be relatively straightforward to tune the numbers so that it wasn't.

[Monos King]

20 minutes ago, aethereal said:

To your actual substantive criticisms, rather than speculating as to my motives when I've described them:

My only intention is to bring to light the weaknesses or controversial elements of a proposal so we can all discuss them. If there is an idea I dislike, then I would like to gain an understanding of it so I do or transform it into something I would. I have no reason to stay in a thread where someone's first instinct is to be defensively hostile to someone simply asking questions and contributing. It is unwise to assume anyone has gone back and read your edits or has the time to view every post. What you should be doing is what you did the first time, and simply directing to the posts in question when it is relevant. Rather than hold a faintly veiled grudge.

 

I'm willing to continue the conversation if you can drop it. Otherwise I wish you the best with your proposal.

[aethereal]

51 minutes ago, Monos King said:

My only intention is to bring to light the weaknesses or controversial elements of a proposal so we can all discuss them. If there is an idea I dislike, then I would like to gain an understanding of it so I do or transform it into something I would. I have no reason to stay in a thread where someone's first instinct is to be defensively hostile to someone simply asking questions and contributing. It is unwise to assume anyone has gone back and read your edits or has the time to view every post. What you should be doing is what you did the first time, and simply directing to the posts in question when it is relevant. Rather than hold a faintly veiled grudge.

 

I'm willing to continue the conversation if you can drop it. Otherwise I wish you the best with your proposal.

You've also got some weird thing where you tried to blame your failure to read the first post on my editing.  I edited the first post twice: the first time very shortly after I created it in order to add the link to the other thread (which I created after this one, so I couldn't link it in the original post).  The second time, later, on rereading, to correct a typo where I described both fast-recharge and slow-recharge powers as "high-recharge."  The whole substantive first post was there from the start.

 

Nobody is being "defensively hostile" to you "asking questions."  Where you provoke hostility is when you make claims about other people -- not their arguments -- that are not true.

[Monos King]

My goodness. I will clarify before I depart.

17 minutes ago, aethereal said:

The whole substantive first post was there from the start.

No it was not. The linked thread was created 10 whole minutes after this one, it is easy to imagine I would have read this thread before you added it in. 

19 minutes ago, aethereal said:

is when you make claims about other people

I have not made a claim about you. You are peddling your misunderstanding as truth, despite the fact I even apologised for whatever insult you might have taken. You then went on to mention the speculation as though it were one of my critiques, when it was just a comment justifying why I made note of these things when they would be net positives if you were apart of the nerf procs crowd. It turns out you are not, fantastic, it changes little because it was nothing more than a misguided note. This attitude is why I asked you drop it.

28 minutes ago, aethereal said:

You've also got some weird thing where you tried to blame your failure to read the first post on my editing. 

I failed to read nothing. When I said "otherwise I don't see why you would want to make these changes" it is because I don't see them as an improvement. I do not see these changes improving overall damage potential, they wouldn't much alter dependence on global recharge, damage procs don't force anyone to pick from narrow ranges of powers and instead give more powers relevance (arguably good or bad), and the only matter I agree with you on as it stands now is in the matter of transparency issues and how it wouldn't make recharge benefits harmful - which still would not be enough to alleviate the desire for global rech because it is simply a very relevant buff. You are the one making assumptions, and guessing at my motives when I had been very clear, and I am no longer interested in pursuing discussion with you. I believe you have some interesting ideas nonetheless, and I'll let this thread go back on track. Best of luck.

[tidge]

Is it ok that I don't like the idea even if I haven't dedicated any thought about what the possible (stated or unstated) attitude of the OP is?

 

For full transparancy, I have only two (internalized, self-aware) opinions about %damage procs

 

1) I think that folks are generally too quick to recommend procs in builds.

2) I think that too many folks believe that procs will sell on the market at a better return than other pieces.

 

For (1) that falls into the category of 'you should play your character the way you want'. There are too many variables outside of the raw numbers to make an honest assessment about how an alternate slotting choice will make a character more fun for its creator. My opinion on any given choice is simply somewhere else in the head space.

 

For (2), if there are 1K+ items on the market but only 200-ish open bids... well, it's not my INF being tied up there.