"The Game is not Balanced around IO's"..... should it be?

[Troo]

18 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I think ATO's may be a good starting point still for the general IO discussion

Point of order.. Archetype Origin Enhancements are not Invention Origin Enhancements

 

🙂

Edited February 4, 2021 by Troo

[Frosticus]

I dunno, they just gave energy melee to scrappers. Have you tried it? I have and it makes me confident they aren't worried about ANYONE doing too much damage. 

I don't think defenders jamming procs into dominate at the cost of set bonuses and any recharge in the power is a problem from a "damage perspective". Damage that can only be improved through debuffs inherently means it isn't going to scale well in teams.

 

Conversely, I don't think a defender deriving a good portion of their damage from procs infringes on blasters in the least. Have you ever seen what happens to blaster damage with team buffs+debuffs? A lot more than what happens to defender damage. 

 

The IO system still supports way more increases in survivability than it does in damage output. A blaster that softcaps def is a much bigger deviation from the base AT than a defender that jams in damage procs.

 

I know damage procs upset people, but I can only hope they nerf the -res procs at the same time. Blasters and scrappers putting out more -res than my defender...there's no real justification for that IMO. 

[tjknight]

I'm one of those weirdos who think level 50+ Council Mobs should get some kind of buff. They are laughably easy to defeat once incarnates + set bonuses are factored in.  They need some kind of update c'mon it's been 15 years.  Other mobs like Carnies for example seem to be challenging enough, and I'm not suggesting making the pre level 50 game harder. But after 50, some of the older game mobs are seriously outclassed. 

[Luminara]

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days.  It's odd that the focus is on low damage archetypes using procs to achieve near-blaster damage output.  Specifically, it's odd because tanks, brutes, stalkers, scrappers, Kheldians, Soldiers of Arachnos and sentinels all have comparable survivability, which allows them to slot in the same ways low damage archetypes can... and potentially exceed blaster damage output, not just almost match it, because they also have comparable proc slotting potential... but no-one's complained about that in this thread.  No, the complaints are about the archetypes which actually need the kind of help provided by damage procs.

 

I understand now that this isn't about procs, it's about blasters being upset because they're not special.  Because they're in the same rickety dingy with the rest of us.  Because they're experiencing what "support" players have gone through since the game was released, that realization that they're no more necessary than anyone else because the game was designed to marginalize everyone, every archetype, in teams.  And instead of asking for buffs and giving rational arguments for those buffs, they're kicking and screaming and demand nerfs to procs, and repeatedly pointing their fingers at the ones who suck the hind teat, insisting that they're the real problem while crossing their fingers and hoping no-one mentions that every high damage archetype is just as much of a threat to their pyrite- and paste-studded tin throne.

 

Reality check - procs didn't steal your job, blasters.  You're still blowing spawns to pieces while those low damage archetypes are staring at their power trays and gnashing their teeth in frustration because the rest of the team has run to the next spawn before they've even finished clicking/toggling on those debuffs, or chasing after others so they can do something with those buffs that they can't use on themselves.  Or they're giving up and following after your one-track mind example, just trying to hit something while there's still something to hit, and still not doing it as well as you do.  And they're wondering when you're going to notice that the dudes with status protection are pumping out as much pain as you are, and just as fast, and thinking that you're an idiot for shouting at them for trying to keep up.  "HOW DARE YOU, PUNY DEFENDER!  YOU DEFEATED THAT LIEUTENANT WITH A SINGLE USE OF THAT HOLD YOU SLOTTED WITH FIVE PROCS!  YOU HAVE STOLEN MY TRASH KILL!  I'LL HAVE THE DEVELOPERS NERF YOUR PROCS, YOU DIRTY CHEATING CHEATER WHO CHEATS!  Uh... carry on, mega damage dealing tank/brute/scrapper/stalker/sentinel/Kheldian/SoA.  Wonderful work you're doing, big fan.  All thumbs up."

 

Paragon had five years to do something about set bonuses and procs.  Five years.  What did they do?  Buffed set bonuses.  Buffed procs.  Add more and stronger set bonuses and procs.  And we know they weren't shy about nerfing things, sometimes to the point of outright gutting them.  Strange, isn't it, that they didn't consider set bonuses or procs to be so detrimental to the game that they were in need of nerfs, when they were so quick to nerf anything else to oblivion when it threatened any aspect of the game.  And still, we have some players who think the game needs to be redesigned around the "holy trinity" model, shoving low damage, low hit point archetypes into the back of the bus (while ignoring seven other archetypes who do the same thing (faster, as fast as blasters)).  And people wonder why I seem a bit cranky from time to time.  Hm...

 

Yeah, procs do make blasters less exciting as an archetype, in that they reinforce the game's expectation that everyone, every player and every character, deals damage, by allowing everyone to deal damage better.  And IO set bonuses make support less exciting by reinforcing the expectation that everyone be capable of bringing their own support (what, you thought the Medicine pool was only accessible to Empathy/* defenders?  that the Concealment pool was planned out to be used as LotG unique IO mules four years before IOs entered the game?  that the Leadership pool was only available if you lead X number of *Fs?  that all of those "sustain" powers and controls liberally offered to every archetype were just there to fill space in the character creation screen?).  But that's not the fault of IOs, it's the fault of the game.  This is how it was designed.  Teaming will always marginalize every archetype in the game.  IOs, set bonuses and procs just made that a little clearer to some people... a decade plus after IOs were released, in some cases, but hey, better late than never, right?

[Coyote]

8 minutes ago, Luminara said:

I understand now that this isn't about procs, it's about blasters being upset because they're not special.

 

Really? 🥺

 

I'd rather look at Defense set bonuses, but I don't mind a consideration of damage procs... and my Blasters proc out multiple attacks, usually at least a ST Hold.

There are lot of reasons to consider the issue that aren't based on Blaster Insecurity Syndrome.

[Apparition]

18 minutes ago, Luminara said:

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days.  It's odd that the focus is on low damage archetypes using procs to achieve near-blaster damage output.  Specifically, it's odd because tanks, brutes, stalkers, scrappers, Kheldians, Soldiers of Arachnos and sentinels all have comparable survivability, which allows them to slot in the same ways low damage archetypes can... and potentially exceed blaster damage output, not just almost match it, because they also have comparable proc slotting potential... but no-one's complained about that in this thread.  No, the complaints are about the archetypes which actually need the kind of help provided by damage procs.

 

I understand now that this isn't about procs, it's about blasters being upset because they're not special. 

 

Paragon had five years to do something about set bonuses and procs.  Five years.  What did they do?  Buffed set bonuses.  Buffed procs.  Add more and stronger set bonuses and procs.  And we know they weren't shy about nerfing things, sometimes to the point of outright gutting them.  Strange, isn't it, that they didn't consider set bonuses or procs to be so detrimental to the game that they were in need of nerfs, when they were so quick to nerf anything else to oblivion when it threatened any aspect of the game.  And still, we have some players who think the game needs to be redesigned around the "holy trinity" model, shoving low damage, low hit point archetypes into the back of the bus (while ignoring seven other archetypes who do the same thing (faster, as fast as blasters)).  And people wonder why I seem a bit cranky from time to time.  Hm...

 

Uhh... I've complained about damage procs on Tankers on the forums as well, plenty.  I'm not sure if I have in this thread specifically, but I definitely have in others.  Damage procs have the same issues on Tankers as they do Defenders for the same reasons.  Sentinels as well to some extent, but not as much as Defenders nor Tankers.  Nor are Sentinels as prevalent as Tankers nor Defenders.

 

Damage procs weren't considered detrimental prior to sunset because they weren't using PPM back then.  PPM was introduced in the Issue 24 beta and was being tweaked even up until the very last day of Paragon Studios and was never finished.  It's PPM that allows damage procs to be much more devastating and useful than they were back then.  It's hard for Paragon Studios to nerf something that never went live.

 

Please, I extremely dislike the Holy Trinity model.  It's one of the main reasons why I don't play WoW nor WoW-clones.  But archetypes were designed for specific purposes.  When damage procs allow them to encroach on territory of others (Blasters and Brutes), and completely invalidate others (Corruptors), there's a significant issue.

[Luminara]

38 minutes ago, Coyote said:

Really? 🥺

 

I'd rather look at Defense set bonuses

 

49 minutes ago, Luminara said:

It's odd that the focus is on low damage archetypes using procs

 

[Frosticus]

34 minutes ago, Apparition said:

Please, I extremely dislike the Holy Trinity model.  It's one of the main reasons why I don't play WoW nor WoW-clones.  But archetypes were designed for specific purposes.  When damage procs allow them to encroach on territory of others (Blasters and Brutes), and completely invalidate others (Corruptors), there's a significant issue.

But you could, if you were so inclined, make the exact same statement about the excessive ease of acquiring survivability bonuses.

 

I like procs.  I think they add a lot more to build dynamics than the standard +rech and + def approach, but I know it isn't for everyone.

 

I guess for me I'd want any serious reduction in procs to be mirrored in most of the other bonuses that the IO system promotes.

 

I use procs on my scrapper too and it does a LOT more damage than my defender before procs. With procs it is not even a comparison.

  In fact, one proc in particular eclipses all the additional damage that 15+ damage procs give my defender. I can even forcemultiply better than some defenders thanks to the -res procs. 

 

I dont get upset when a defender fires off a proc bomb poison trap. I say "sweet". It isn't vaporizing +4s. I do get frustrated with blasters that require little support nuking spawn after spawn . (Hint 3 dam/rech, 3 procs). I think that has hurt the game maybe more than ios or procs.

[Luminara]

20 minutes ago, Apparition said:

When damage procs allow them to encroach on territory of others (Blasters and Brutes), and completely invalidate others (Corruptors),

 

In a team, everyone's responsible for dealing damage.  It's everyone's job.  You don't have an exclusive license to deal damage simply because you're playing a certain archetype.  And in a team, your damage output is just one part of the whole.  You don't matter, what your team does as a cohesive unit is what matters.  Making it about you, about how much damage you do, about whether or not "your" territory is being invaded, is your problem, not the game's, not the developers'.  If the team is functioning and everyone is participating, then why should you care whether or not a defender dealt 10% of your damage output, or 59.24%, or 90%?  As long as everyone's doing something and it's all working, why does anyone else's damage output concern you to any degree?

 

Solo, it's not your business.  Low damage archetypes using procs aren't going to skew the reward metrics, ESPECIALLY not with fire farming being such a major enterprise.  Other people using procs in solo content doesn't affect you, so don't go out of your way to affect them.

[Frosticus]

Additionally, the fallacy that defenders are doing corruptor level damage needs to stop. 

 

Yes you can make a solo defender that is right in there with corruptor damage if we ignore scourge. Big deal. Neither AT solos in the same realm as scrappers, brutes, controllers, mms, and more. 

 

The second you get on a team the defenders damage drops (vigilance) and the corrs superior ability to respond to buffs takes over. 

 

Corrs have higher base damage, a higher cap and scourge. It isn't even close.

[Grouchybeast]

4 hours ago, Luminara said:

Paragon had five years to do something about set bonuses and procs.  Five years.  What did they do?  Buffed set bonuses.  Buffed procs.  Add more and stronger set bonuses and procs.  And we know they weren't shy about nerfing things, sometimes to the point of outright gutting them.  Strange, isn't it, that they didn't consider set bonuses or procs to be so detrimental to the game that they were in need of nerfs, when they were so quick to nerf anything else to oblivion when it threatened any aspect of the game. 

They were literally in the middle of overhauling the proc system when the game was sunsetted.  The PPM system was still being reworked on I24 beta when the announcement was made.

 

What we have at the moment is the broken result of a part-completed attempt to carry out the very rebalancing that you claim they didn't want to do, which was meant to address procs being brokenly overpowered in a completely different way.  It's a snap-shot in the middle of an incomplete process, not the fully realized end product of the process.  I'll be very surprised if HC don't eventually take a stab at finding a better proc balance than we currently have.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Grouchybeast

[Luminara]

8 minutes ago, Grouchybeast said:

They were literally in the middle of overhauling the proc system when the game was sunsetted.  The PPM system was still being reworked on I24 beta when the announcement was made.

 

PPMs were being increased for every proc.  Increased, not lowered.  For every proc, not only ATO procs, or only Winter procs, or only purple procs.  This would've permitted procs to be slotted into powers with faster recharge times and/or shorter animations, without sacrificing PPM rate, due to how the PPM formula is calculated, allowing for more frequent use of powers with procs across the board, in addition to the increased likelihood of procs triggering.  That's a net increase in damage potential.

 

The PPM formula was being adjusted to account for Recharge Reduction slotted in powers, which would've been a net improvement for the overwhelming majority of players.  Even the outliers, the people who relied entirely on global +Recharge buffs and eschewed Recharge Reduction in proc-heavy powers, would've been able to adapt to this system and still see beneficial results, not the least of which was far less work (no need to juggle Hasten and Ageless and Lore pets with +Recharge buffs and second account pocket Emps casting Fortitude and whatever else they did to keep their recharge times manageable without slotting Recharge Reduction) and far less variability to their damage output.  That looks suspiciously buffy to me.

 

Proc chances were being capped at 90% chance to trigger, rather than guaranteed X/minute.  Small nerf, but in conjunction with the adjustment to the recharge time part of the formula, unlikely to matter to anyone who didn't have a proc monster build.  This would've evened out the curve a bit, bringing the most extreme proc monster examples slightly lower, but not really affecting most players.

 

Lastly, all procs which had a % chance to trigger, rather than a PPM number, were being switched to the PPM mechanic (and as noted above, PPMs were being increased).  IO set damage procs were especially well positioned to benefit from that, with their fixed 20% chance to trigger.  That buff might actually have been over-powered, but I would've had to have my hands on it to say for certain.

 

As I said, they had plenty of opportunities to nerf set bonuses and procs into the ground.  Not seeing that in their last look at IOs.

[Grouchybeast]

13 hours ago, Luminara said:

 

PPMs were being increased for every proc.  Increased, not lowered.  For every proc, not only ATO procs, or only Winter procs, or only purple procs.  This would've permitted procs to be slotted into powers with faster recharge times and/or shorter animations, without sacrificing PPM rate, due to how the PPM formula is calculated, allowing for more frequent use of powers with procs across the board, in addition to the increased likelihood of procs triggering.  That's a net increase in damage potential.

I didn't read much about what the devs said about their ongoing plans for the game after the shutdown, so I'm afraid didn't see where they posted their ideas for how the proc system would have ended up.  I only know that it was still being reworked and tweaked as the shurdown announcement was made.  I'd love a link, though, because it would be really interesting to see what Paragon were planning.

[Galaxy Brain]

Talking about what they "could have done / had the chance to do" goes nowhere since we could as easily say they had the chance to buff procs to absurd levels, but didn't.

 

Anyways, the issue isn't *exactly* PPM, so much as it is what can slot procs. Like, look at this:

 

 

This power can literally slot 6 procs and then through outside bonuses still have decent stats:

 

If we slotted it "normal", well...

 

 

Of course a mix of Damage AND procs by itself gets you more output on average, but not much better

 

Like +8 damage vs +120 damage with all procs vs "normal". 

 

Going one more with 4 procs / 2 dam:

 

Even better output!

 

 

This is on Seismic Smash, one of the hardest hitting Melee Attacks out there on a Dominator, which has the 2nd highest Melee Damage mod of any AT.... and it is strictly better when you proc it out on average. This is not an issue of Low damage AT's vs High Damage.... I think it's just an issue with the ability to "Proc Bomb".

 

Lets take a look at another attack, or rather pair of them.

 

 

 

These two Scrapper attacks are roughly identical, but one has far more slotting (and Proccing) options than the other. In a much more meta sense, you can slot these roughly the same with 4 procs + 2 Normals, but Disembowel has access to far more exotic options (-Res, another Neg Damage proc over S/L, etc) which can add far more oomph. 

 

And of course the odd powers which can become actual attacks despite not dealing damage (on top of all the other bonuses they have):

 

 

When you compare this to other support sets... well, they don't usually come with a decent ST attack + Debuff rolled in one.

 

Most powers are not able to do this, but there are a portion that can slot many exotic and powerful procs all at once, and I think *that* is the key difference in balance. 

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by Galaxy Brain

[tidge]

Where did all the accuracy on Seismic Smash come from?

[Frosticus]

If I was looking at seismic smash with:

6 procs

vs

6 maximized slots

 

I'd also be sure to look at total cycle times of the power, how it is going to hit enemies, endurance cost, how it fits into an attack chain for my build and what set bonuses I'm gaining/losing and how that impacts my overall build.  I don't play in a vacuum, so I rarely look at powers that way. 

 

I do that for every attack because you can't get many set bonuses if you are procing each attack and as far as playing this game goes set bonuses > procs when it comes to making it easy. 

 

Some powers are easy proc choices. As above, the example of infrigidate is shown. It turns into one of the best t1 powers with procs. I'm sure infrig has some downsides though? like recharging ~4x slower than other single target t1 debuffs? Or costing a nice chunk of endurance? What about slots to make it hit the target? If you are going to proc out infrig you end up with 5-6 slots in it unless you bend your build considerably. Where do those come from and what does that cost your build? Doesn't everyone also say you need a ton of +rech to make cold domination shine?

 

I get why people kneejerk when they see procs. And yet most peoples' attempts at proc builds end up pretty bad because of the various other factors that you have to juggle. 

 

Believe it or not, adding fury of the glad -res to burn results in a comparable dps increase on my scrapper than 15 damage procs contribute to my poison/fire. And then there is the critical strikes proc eclipsing  that.

 

A major damage proc nerf will just cause proc builds to go back to softcapped def+perma hasten (trivial to build on most combos) and need/benefit from teams even less. At least all mine will. 

[Parabola]

What the original devs were in the middle of doing with ppm is irrelevant. The entire game was in the ongoing process of development, that is the nature of an mmo. Any changes they made to ppm would have been monitored and further refined/reworked down the line as the impact of changes in the complex game ecosystem became apparent.

 

The homecoming devs have stated they want to run it 'as live'. That is going to mean continuing the process of making changes to game mechanisms based on the way things are working now not what they were before. I'm sure there are other servers taking the shutdown state of the game as some kind of gospel, but this is an inherently flawed premise as it only entered a steady state when the plug was pulled and changes made just prior to this hadn't had time to bed in.

 

Even changes made a huge length of time before shutdown can't be regarded as 'the way things are supposed to be'. I'm sure the original devs weren't content with how energy melee was functioning, or regeneration (nerf regen), and the last changes to those sets were back in the stone age. I imagine they would have come to the same conclusions that the homecoming team did about titan weapons too given more time to see how it was performing.

 

And even if the current ppm state of play is everything that the original devs had hoped it would turn out to be, it still wouldn't make the slightest difference now. The homecoming devs are running the game and are having to make their own judgements about all this. They might not feel there is an issue to be adressed here, or possibly that any issue is too difficult or too disruptive to fix. Until we have word either way I will continue to abuse the current ppm system with a certain amount of guilty pleasure. It's fun but it doesn't seem quite right to me.

[Troo]

awww you had me until

7 minutes ago, parabola said:

I will continue to abuse the current ppm system

 

any form of exploitation must be eradicated. this is the way.

 

 

[Parabola]

1 minute ago, Troo said:

any form of exploitation must be eradicated. this is the way.

Well according to many here there isn't a problem so I'm not exploiting anything. I'm less sure, hence the guilt!

[Troo]

4 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

 

 

please refrain from using Stone Melee in examples or thoughts for 'improvement'.

 

this request is only half joking.

[Galaxy Brain]

3 hours ago, tidge said:

Where did all the accuracy on Seismic Smash come from?

Set bonuses! Tons of sets have a 4 slot Acc bonus, adds up fast. Oh, also Tactics was toggled on lol

 

2 hours ago, Frosticus said:

If I was looking at seismic smash with:

6 procs

vs

6 maximized slots

 

I'd also be sure to look at total cycle times of the power, how it is going to hit enemies, endurance cost, how it fits into an attack chain for my build and what set bonuses I'm gaining/losing and how that impacts my overall build.  I don't play in a vacuum, so I rarely look at powers that way. 

 

I do that for every attack because you can't get many set bonuses if you are procing each attack and as far as playing this game goes set bonuses > procs when it comes to making it easy. 

This particular one has a ~5s recharge without slotting for it in the power, doubles as huge damage + a hold that can Dominate, but it does cost a chunk of end to throw out. Luckily, other powers help with that such as Domination reliably filling endurance, recovery procs, and general set bonuses making up for the non-slotted stats.

 

Set bonuses come first, but they don't exist in a vacuum either. Set bonuses feed into the ability to proc.

 

Quote

Some powers are easy proc choices. As above, the example of infrigidate is shown. It turns into one of the best t1 powers with procs. I'm sure infrig has some downsides though? like recharging ~4x slower than other single target t1 debuffs? Or costing a nice chunk of endurance? What about slots to make it hit the target? If you are going to proc out infrig you end up with 5-6 slots in it unless you bend your build considerably. Where do those come from and what does that cost your build? Doesn't everyone also say you need a ton of +rech to make cold domination shine?

 

I get why people kneejerk when they see procs. And yet most peoples' attempts at proc builds end up pretty bad because of the various other factors that you have to juggle. 

 

Believe it or not, adding fury of the glad -res to burn results in a comparable dps increase on my scrapper than 15 damage procs contribute to my poison/fire. And then there is the critical strikes proc eclipsing  that.

All procs are not equal TBF, a -Res in an AoE that also benefits from the -Res (due to DoT, etc) or a +Crit proc are usually much better because  they impact multiple powers and not just the one it's slotted in.

 

To the first point though, its also not in a vacuum that the proc bombs exist. In my Earth Assault example I pair that with Elec Control in order to mitigate endurance woes and even safety to a degree, for Cold Domination the rest of the set is stellar, has spots to place LotG and Infrigidate benefits as a proc bomb from recharge much like the bigger AoE debuffs the set has, making it even more valuable as part of the package.

 

Quote

 

A major damage proc nerf will just cause proc builds to go back to softcapped def+perma hasten (trivial to build on most combos) and need/benefit from teams even less. At least all mine will. 

 

Perhaps, but tbh I would prefer if Procs actually got buffed sideways. What I mean by that is like, say procs got way gnarlier in power much like how -Res or +Rech procs and the like can totally change your build, but you then had a limit of 2~3 per a single power.

 

45 minutes ago, Troo said:

please refrain from using Stone Melee in examples or thoughts for 'improvement'.

 

this request is only half joking.

That's Assault brotha!

Edited February 6, 2021 by Galaxy Brain

[Troo]

1 minute ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Perhaps, but tbh I would prefer if Procs actually got buffed sideways. What I mean by that is like, say procs got way gnarlier in power much like how -Res or +Rech procs and the like can totally change your build, but you then had a limit of ~3 per a single power.

I for one would be agreeable with this. (more variety in possible build goals with a cap on abuse potential)

[oedipus_tex]

Lots to absorb here and a lot of thoughts from players whose opinions I respect. 

 

To throw my two cents in, one thing I think urgently needs to happen is powers in Tertiary pools need a nerfed chance to proc PPM. The same power in an APP pool shouldn't get better on another archetype just because its Recharge is increased. Increased Recharge is supposed to be a penalty. Instead the PPM should be sliced down by however much the increase in Recharge was. 

 

Any archetype with a Hold in their APPs can make it a 90% Chance for Mag 5 Hold by slotting a Lockdown proc. An actual Dominator cannot do this. The fact that Lockdown isn't even the ideal slotting for these Holds speaks to how overpowered Holds in APP powers currently are.  

Edited February 6, 2021 by oedipus_tex

[Galaxy Brain]

Something I saw mentioned by @Greycatin @Troos thread again, that was brought up here is the notion of "IOs are optional".

 

What exactly makes them optional? By that token, is it a stretch to call enhancements optional in general since the game doesn't force you to slot them?

[Haijinx]

On 2/3/2021 at 4:01 PM, Bill Z Bubba said:

So the hell what? Its single target damage is still greater. Awesome. That means something ONLY against AVs, Pylons and GMs. For the rest of the time, read vastly more of the time, the tank is dishing out more. And that should NEVER be the case since the tank is running with vastly more damage mitigation 100% of the time.

Sort of?

 

Most the time Brutes/Scrappers/Stalkers have more than enough mitigation to handle anything they fight.  So some of that Tank Mitigation is wasted a lot of the time.