So, procs...

[nihilii]

On 7/2/2021 at 3:44 PM, aethereal said:

4.  The fundamental conceit of PPM was that people would be roughly equally happy with a 20% chance to proc 70 damage 10 times per minute and an 80% chance to proc 70 damage 2.5 times per minute.  But they aren't.  People hate low proc rates, even if they are on fast-recharging powers.

That was one beast of a post, aethereal. I also liked this earlier point of yours. Intuitively, it's easy to see the problem if we compare 50% chance to proc 70 damage 2 times per minute to 100% chance to proc 70 damage 1 time per minute. Expected value is almost the same when we stretch time horizon to infinity, but the first having a chance to fail changes things in practice.

Paragon Devs likely sidestepped that concern by capping proc rate at 90%... but the closer you get to 100%, the more your failure rate drops anyway.

 

20% chance 4 times per minute = 40.96% chance to never proc in a minute

80% chance 1 times per minute = 20% chance to never proc in a minute

 

It's a pretty extreme difference, even before we consider the extra advantages of being able to reliably proc when it comes to overkill damage, planning next attack with server latency, and so on.

 

Tied to your Goal 7 it would perhaps make sense to cap proc rate at 50%... Passing that halfway point is where things start to go downhill with probabilities.

 

I would so not like a 50% cap. 🙂

 

I'd prefer we bump up the curve from linear to logarithmic instead, for a strong ramp up at first then a decrease. Target whatever levels of proc rate are deemed appropriate.

 

Naively, I'd assume we could base the curve on comparing the failure rate for the chance to proc on 1 try, rather than the success. i.e. 40% chance to proc = 60% chance to fail, 80% chance to proc = 20% chance to fail, making the 80% chance 3x as good as 40% - or put it another way, it should take 3x less recharge to get a 40% proc rate than a 80% proc rate.

Edited July 4, 2021 by nihilii

[America's Angel]

2 minutes ago, aethereal said:

 

I think this is on-point.  Let me throw out some things that I've seen people talk about.  These aren't all my own views, just trying to synthesize what I've seen in this and other threads.

 

Goal 1:  Reduce the dominance of "Proc Builds"

 

Some people feel that the most powerful builds in the games are ones in which many or most of the powers most commonly used are slotted very heavily for procs (4-6 slots devoted to procs, necessarily mainly-but-not-exclusively damage procs, but also heavily featuring -res procs and maybe Force Feedback).  This strikes people as undesirable.

 

Analysis:  I think people should be a little more crisp in their definition of why this is a problem.  If someone wants to slot heavily for damage at the expense of set bonuses, why is that a bad thing?  I think one element of the critique is simply that it's overtuned, that the differential between a proc build and a non-proc build is too much.  But I think another element of the critique is more aesthetic, like it's just not really "right" to have a build stuffed with damage procs at the expense of all else.  Like maybe it's a reversion to the pre-ED days of 1 acc, 5 damage slotting?  It's one-note and tired?  There may also be an element of feeling like it's exclusionary.

 

Solutions:  People should contemplate whether all they want is for the damage amount of damage procs to be reduced by about 10%.  That would certainly make proc builds considerably less attractive.

 

Goal 2:  Specifically avoid turning non-damage powers into damage powers

 

People like @arcane have been explicit about this.  They feel like they don't like the ability to turn for example DNA Siphon, or various low or non-damage holds, into powerful damage powers because they're on long recharge timers and can slot a ton of different damage procs.  Whether or not this is part and parcel of an overall "proc build," some people may feel this is a problem even if there's only one power in the build that's heavily procced.

 

Analysis:  Again, a bit more clarity into why this is a problem is in order.  Is there a sense that a power has a "purpose," and you shouldn't be able to change the power's "purpose" with slotting?  Or perhaps it's more that they feel like it puts the spotlight on powers that are intended to be situational, and don't like how central certain epic/ancillary/patron powers can end up being (though is that it?  Do people who hold this view not care if people slot out Suppressive Fire, a primary power pick, in the way they might slot out an epic hold?)

 

Solutions:  You could imagine point solutions here.  DNA Siphon doesn't really need to do damage, its damage is completely negligible.  If it couldn't take PBAoE Damage sets, it couldn't realistically be turned into a proc bomb.  But the holds, it kinda depends on how much we care about the absurd number of damage procs in hold sets.  Those seem to be explicitly created to allow Controllers/Doms to turn their hold powers into damage powers?  I think?

 

Goal 3:  Improve AT balance

 

Very specifically, I think a lot of people feel like the only advantage Corruptors have over Defenders is damage, and that Defenders can entirely close that gap with procs, leaving Corruptors without a role.  Similarly, I think, though perhaps somewhat less well-foundedly, people worry that Tankers have entirely overtaken Brutes.  And then more holistically, I think some people are concerned that a change to procs, if it does not change CoH's current "balance meta" might result in (further?) dominance of Scrappers/Blasters over lower-damage ATs.  That is, that the current system allows a role for non-damage ATs and that nerfs to procs may push everyone further to Scraps/Blasts.

 

Analysis:  I think it's true that Corruptors have a rough time of it right now.  The concerns about Brutes seem overblown.  This seems like a place where procs have a very marginal position in the overall problem and I doubt that this is a place where we can make big changes with any reasonable change to procs.  I think that people who are claiming that the current proc mechanics help AT balance need to make their case clearly: are they saying that without procs, most non-Blaster/Scrapper ATs are fundamentally bad?  Presumably the overwhelming majority of players aren't creating proc-heavy builds, and that will be true of any reasonable change to the proc system.  Procs are a bad patch to AT balance, I think, unless you can make the case that the AT balance problem is only an issue at like the tip-top of the game, people trying for Masters-of badges of hard TFs and such.

 

Solutions:  No idea, I don't really buy this as a problem.

 

Goal 4:  Blunt the Meta/Reward more Builds

 

(Note: this is my goal, so I may present it more sympathetically)

 

Procs currently have mechanics that are much less legible and much more complicated than almost any other mechanic in the game (maybe with the exception of some "strength to" relationships).  They are unfriendly to anyone who isn't heavily invested in reading about game mechanics and discussing builds offline.  This makes the game less newbie-friendly.  Current proc mechanics are also very attached to "building global recharge" and "concentrating on four or so powers that can be used once per 5-10 seconds with lots of global recharge," in a way that reinforces previously dominant character build strategies.

 

Analysis:  It is certainly true that procs are not the only reason to read about game mechanics, get invested in builds, build global recharge, or focus on 15-20 second recharge powers, and reasonable changes to the proc system will make at most marginal headway in improving these problems.  That said, I think it's also the case that procs are genuinely the worst offenders in this category. 

 

Solutions:  @nihilii's proposal to have proc rate not be affected by local recharge would make headway here.  Having in-game "real numbers" that calculated proc rates for you would help.  I think there are clearly some bigger changes that we could make that would make proc rate less dependent on knowing the minutia of internal details about powers (so for example we could establish power "schedules" or modifiers to proc rates that are explicit -- and yes, short-recharge and area effect powers could have ones that make procs less likely to fire, but it'd be like damage, where if you happen to know the design principles, you know that damage and recharge are related, but the game clearly tells you what the damage is, rather than expecting you to calculate it yourself based on recharge).

 

Goal 5:  Preserve Advanced Build Options

 

@nihilii has been forcefully pointing out that he likes making the tradeoff between additional damage and set bonuses.  In the past, we've definitely seen other people make similar comments: that the proc system creates productive tension between build goals, and this makes for more stimulating, interesting build options.

 

Analysis:  Note that to some extent this goal stands in tension with goal 4, as one way to make builds more complex is to make an ever-more-baroque chain of unique effects for any given power to proc.  But they aren't entirely incompatible -- you can certainly still have procs be valuable and stand in tension to set bonuses while also making them more legible.

 

Solutions:  Not adopting solutions of "only allow fewer procs per power/per build" is the main solution here.  Also not nerfing procs into the ground.

 

Goal 6:  Avoid randomness/Avoid Low Proc Rates

 

@America's Angel advocates for removing elements of randomness from the system in order to make PvP more deterministic.  I think there is also a broad sense that low proc rates in general aren't productive, even if they have on some level a high rate of return.

 

Analysis:  @America's Angel should be realistic about the possibility of removing randomness from the game, which I think is a very minority position.  But there's a difference between removing randomness altogether and avoiding very low/spiky rates of proc firing, where everything is just a crap-shoot of "nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, whee I got lucky and got a huge reward!"

 

Solutions:  Moving from a PPM doctrine of purely varying proc rate, and starting to vary scalar effects, would I think be pretty valuable.  Making a proc not have a 10% chance to activate for 70 damage, but have a 50% chance to activate for 14 damage, seems like it would be a win on fast-recharging powers.

 

Goal 7:  Avoid certainty/Avoid High Proc Rates

 

In direct contradiction to goal 6 is the sense that allowing a 90% proc rate removes in some sense the concept that these are procs, and that part of the trade off on accepting procs should be accepting randomness rather than near-certainty.  We have an assertion that @Captain Powerhouse thinks this is important.

 

Analysis: I think people should be clear that this stands in pretty direct opposition to the revealed preferences of pretty much everyone.  The entire build community has rallied around building for the highest proc rates possible.  I think we also deserve some clarity on whether this considered a problem only for damage procs, or whether it will have (much more significant) impacts on things like the Scrapper chance-for-+50%-crit rate ATO, the Stalker chance-to-hide ATO, the Gaussian's chance-for-build-up proc, etc.

 

Solutions:  Despite being the opposite of goal 6, you can use the same solution, varying the scalar of the proc effect rather than purely the rate.  Instead of a 90% chance for 70 damage, you can have a 75% chance for 84 damage.

 

 

Stated Goal #1 - "Removing dominance of (damage) proc builds"

Damage proc builds (aka "proc monsters") are only dominant if you factor in inspirations. (I.e. using purple insps instead of building for defense, or using red insps instead of slotting for damage.)

 

If you take out inspirations, IO set bonused builds out-perform proc builds.

 

Verdict: No.

Next steps: n/a

 

 

Stated Goal#2 - "Stop non/low damage attacks from being proc-bombs"

I agree that non-damaging attacks such as Infrigidate possibly shouldn't be proccable. But low damage attacks being able to do high damage is fine. It's a building option that costs slots and add diversity to builds. (And, as other experienced players have pointed out, it comes at a tradeoff.) 

 

The only issue with damage procs, is how they perform in high-damage AoE powers such as Burn. But as I mentioned before, that is a power-issue, not a proc issue.

 

Just to be clear - damage procs by themselves are not causing damage creep. They are only causing damage creep when paired with OP powers like burn, or OP things like T4 damage inspirations.

 

Nerfing procs, without first looking at these OP things, would be an over-correction in the worst possible way.

 

Verdict:

No (to low damage powers)

Tentative Yes (to non-damage powers)

Yes (to OP AOE powers)

 

Next steps:

Create a list of these OP AOE powers

 

 

Stated Goal #3 - "Stop Defenders doing more damage than Corruptors"

 

Procs buff each AT equally. So the differential in Defender and Corruptor damage does not change due to procs.

 

If anything it's actually the opposite - Corruptors do even more damage than defenders due to having access to an additional damage proc in their ATOs.

 

Verdict: No

Next Steps: n/a

 

 

Stated Goal #4 - "Stop Local Recharge from Reducing Proc Rate"

We considered this. But this would lead to a buff to procs, which would lead to procs needing to have their damage values lowered. Which in turn meant that everything stayed the same as it is now...except recharge would become even more important to slot/build for. (Which is the opposite intended result of this goal.)

 

Verdict: No

Next Steps: n/a

 

 

Stated Goal #5 - "Maintain the diversity that procs provide builds"

Agree with this one.

 

Verdict: Yes

Next Steps: Continue to push back on ideas worse than the current system.

 

 

Stated Goal #6 - "Remove randomness and remove low proc rates."

 

Lower proc rates and removing randomness are separate points. Low proc rates are fine. DPS calculators just divide the damage of the proc by the % chance to fire, anyway. (It averages out over long fights.)

 

Here's a list to show what I mean. All of these do the same damage in long fights:

 

10% to do 100 damage

20% to do 90 damage

30% to do 80 damage

40% to do 70 damage

50% to do 60 damage

60% to do 50 damage

70% to do 40 damage

80% to do 30 damage

90% to do 20 damage

100% chance to do 10 damage

 

So if they all do the same damage, and the 100% one is best for balance, then the obvious solution is to change the variable in procs from %chance to fire to %damage

 

Verdict: Possibly

Next Steps: Discuss Further

 

 

Stated Goal #7 - "If procs have a 90% chance to fire they're not really procs"

 

It's important to point out that Powerhouse only mentioned this in the context of self-buffing procs. Being able to put these in AoEs, or super-long recharging (~30s) self-buff powers (Buildup/Aim), or in certain toggles, means they have an insanely high uptime for a tiny slot investment. (The slot investment being so small makes it a no brainer, meaning that if you don't do it, you're building wrong. This is an example of bad balance, because it creates build homogeny.)

 

Now, while I agree with the solution of switching the variable in damage procs from %chance to fire to %dam, I'm not sure it would work as well for self-buffing procs. Take Gaussian, for example...

 

Gaussian In Buildup (Live): 90% chance of +100% dam and +40% ToHit

Gaussian in Buildup (Goal7): 100% chance of +90% dam and +36% tohit

 

Build Up doing 145% of its original +dam value and 190% of its original +ToHit value at the cost of one slot is unbalanced.

 

Gaussian in Invincibility (Live) vs aggro capped spawn = 90% chance to fire every 10s. Uptime, 45%. Effective damage buff 45% and Effective ToHit buff of 18%.

Gaussian in Invincibility (Goal7) vs aggro capped spawn = 100% chance to fire every 10s. Uptime, 100%. Actual damage buff of 45% and Actual ToHit buff of 18%.

 

Invincibility giving a 2.6% damage buff and (additional) 1% ToHit buff, per enemy in range, at the cost of a single slot, would be unbalanced.

 

You can also do something similar with it in Tactics.

 

Applying this idea to other procs - putting the FF proc into Cross Punch would give you a perma 27.07% +recharge boost.

 

Also, in the case of using AoEs for self-buffing procs (such as the scrapper 50% ATO), you'd be looking at a 100% chance to fire rate once you were over x enemies in range.

 

Verdict: No

Next Steps: Granular analysis of each self-buffing proc needed. Conversation currently too broad strokes to find an appropriate goal.

 

  

3 minutes ago, Clave Dark 5 said:

Thanks for that, but I was asking how often such abuse really happens or "creates a problem." 

 

A game as complex is going to have outliers on both extremes: Burn with procs, and I dunno, say Mastermind Mercenaries.  If the game can tolerate seriously under performance in one area, giving with the other hand some over performance is also tolerable.

 

And I still don't know how often this is happening anyway, and therefore somehow breaking the game.

 

There's about ~30 players who chain inspirations with damage procc'd out builds in PvE.

 

The impact on the playerbase is non-existent.

[Marbing]

33 minutes ago, America's Angel said:

 

Stated Goal #3 - "Stop Defenders doing more damage than Corruptors"

 

Procs buff each AT equally. So the differential in Defender and Corruptor damage does not change due to procs.

 

If anything it's actually the opposite - Corruptors do even more damage than defenders due to having access to an additional damage proc in their ATOs.

 

Verdict: No

Next Steps: n/a

In theory , maybe. In practice, no. I’ve tested this over and over. Defenders simply have much much better build  flexibility than Corruptors and as such don’t have to sacrifice much to load up the procs. If the Corruptor does this, they are giving up a lot. This leads to Defenders often outpacing Corruptors damage wise while maintaining better survival and buffs/de-buffs. There are many many people that have proven this with Pylon tests and such. This is similar to the issues between Brutes and Tanks. 

[arcane]

10 minutes ago, th0ughtGun said:

In theory , maybe. In practice, no. I’ve tested this over and over. Defenders simply have much much better build  flexibility than Corruptors and as such don’t have to sacrifice much to load up the procs. If the Corruptor does this, they are giving up a lot. This leads to Defenders often outpacing Corruptors damage wise while maintaining better survival and buffs/de-buffs. There are many many people that have proven this with Pylon tests and such. This is similar to the issues between Brutes and Tanks. 

Example of the kind of thing I think you mean. My Time/Water achieves all soft caps with only Combat Jumping and Farsight. My Fire/Time requires Combat Jumping, Farsight, and Weave. Although I still don’t think the /Water is really besting the Fire/ here, this is an example of how Defenders (and Tankers) can wind up with a greater number of resources leftover to allocate to offense than Corruptors (and Brutes). The Defender here absolutely has more flexibility to slot a high number of procs. In most cases I think this just results in closing the gap between the two, but it’s not too crazy to suggest there may be cases where a greater amount of freedom to slot for offense could allow a Defender to match Corruptor damage in specific situations.

Edited July 4, 2021 by arcane

[Apparition]

1 minute ago, arcane said:

Example of the kind of thing I think you mean. My Time/Water achieves all soft caps with only Combat Jumping and Farsight. My Fire/Time requires Combat Jumping, Farsight, and Weave. Although I still don’t think the /Water is really besting the Fire/ here, this is an example of how Defenders (and Tankers) can wind up with a greater number of resources to allocate to offense than Corruptors (and Brutes). In most cases I think this just results in closing the gap between the two, but it’s not too crazy to suggest there may be cases where a greater amount of freedom to slot for offense could allow a Defender to match Corruptor damage in specific situations.

 

 

Even closing the gap so there's a marginal or non-existent difference in damage is a substantial issue, because Defenders provide better personal defense, buffs, and debuffs, while Tankers have substantially better mitigation.

[Jitsurei]

1 hour ago, America's Angel said:

 

 

Stated Goal #1 - "Removing dominance of (damage) proc builds"

Damage proc builds (aka "proc monsters") are only dominant if you factor in inspirations. (I.e. using purple insps instead of building for defense, or using red insps instead of slotting for damage.)

 

If you take out inspirations, IO set bonused builds out-perform proc builds.

 

Verdict: No.

Next steps: n/a

 

 

1 hour ago, America's Angel said:

There's about ~30 players who chain inspirations with damage procc'd out builds in PvE.

 

The impact on the playerbase is non-existent.

 This is generalizing a lot about how other people play, when in reality there’s just not a way for you to know who is making which builds and how they’re playing them. Not one proc build I’ve ever made has needed to rely on inspirations, and if there was no impact on the player base we probably wouldn’t be going over this every [insert increasingly frequent period of time here]. 

[Yomo Kimyata]

On 7/2/2021 at 4:03 PM, America's Angel said:

 

 

Calling it a "nerf" is a bit presumptuous. All we know so far is that:

1. Powerhouse doesn't believe procs can really be considered procs if their chance to fire is near-guaranteed (90%) every time.
2. Powerhouse doesn't like that AoE attacks essentially guarantee self-buff procs to fire.
3. Powerhouse doesn't like that some AoE powers are proc bombs.

As you can see, his concerns aren't balance concerns, they're more game design concerns. (I.e. "Procs aren't supposed to do this!" rather than "Procs are OP!") Because of this, most of the suggestions in this thread don't address Powerhouse's concerns. (Which is why I posted what I did, above. To encourage those who ARE looking to nerf procs for balance reasons to do some legwork to justify their suggestions.)

 

 

 

 

 

This is exactly what I'm looking for, thank you!  Could you point me to the source material if you know it offhand?

 

As far as I'm concerned, Powerhouse and his/her/its team are the only ones who have opinions that are particularly relevant to me, so I'd like to have a handle on what they figure the specific problems are in order to determine what my responses will be.  Thanks!

[America's Angel]

1 hour ago, th0ughtGun said:

In theory , maybe. In practice, no. I’ve tested this over and over. Defenders simply have much much better build  flexibility than Corruptors and as such don’t have to sacrifice much to load up the procs. If the Corruptor does this, they are giving up a lot. This leads to Defenders often outpacing Corruptors damage wise while maintaining better survival and buffs/de-buffs. There are many many people that have proven this with Pylon tests and such. This is similar to the issues between Brutes and Tanks. 

 

If you slot the damage loadouts for the Corruptor and Defender equally, the Corruptor is doing more damage.

 

Does the Defender have more defense? Yes. Because their pool powers have a higher baseline starting number. But remember, we're using inspirations in proc builds (see my response to Goal #1, above), so that doesn't matter.

 

I think it's possibly accurate to say Defenders outpace Corruptors damage-wise in environments where:

-Players don't use inspirations.

-Players are soloing for the Vigilance damage boost.

-Players have to build for the defense softcap.

-Players aren't building for +HP.

 

But this feels like quite a niche testing environment, and not reflective of how procs are used in the game.

 

Another way to look at it - if Defenders did more damage than Corruptors, then the people who speedrun taskforces would do so with Defenders. They don't. They use fire/fire Blasters and fire/cold and fire/sonic Corruptors. It's because Corruptors do more damage in high-end play than Defenders.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Jitsurei said:

 This is generalizing a lot about how other people play, when in reality there’s just not a way for you to know who is making which builds and how they’re playing them. Not one proc build I’ve ever made has needed to rely on inspirations, and if there was no impact on the player base we probably wouldn’t be going over this every [insert increasingly frequent period of time here]. 

 

Actually, this is based on my being active in the min/maxing discords, and having a strong grasp of the general population of players who play with procc'd out characters at the high end whilst chaining inspirations.

 

30 is being generous. It's barely that.

 

Here's an example of what a proc-build actually looks like. It's the fire/fire blaster I use to solo task forces with on +4/8/murder GMs/etc.

 

Hopefully this will give some context about why proc builds require inspirations to perform optimally:

 

This Hero build was built using Mids Reborn 3.0.4.7
https://github.com/Reborn-Team/MidsReborn

Click this DataLink to open the build!

speedfirefiremu: Level 50 Mutation Blaster
Primary Power Set: Fire Blast
Secondary Power Set: Fire Manipulation
Power Pool: Fighting
Power Pool: Leaping
Power Pool: Speed
Power Pool: Leadership
Ancillary Pool: Flame Mastery

Hero Profile:
Level 1: Flares -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Ring of Fire -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Fire Ball -- Rgn-Dmg/EndRdx(A), Rgn-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(5), Rgn-Acc/Rchg(7), Rgn-Dmg(9), Rgn-Knock%(17), Bmbdmt-+FireDmg(29)
Level 4: Boxing -- AbsAmz-Stun(A), AbsAmz-Stun/Rchg(5), AbsAmz-Acc/Stun/Rchg(9), AbsAmz-Acc/Rchg(15), AbsAmz-EndRdx/Stun(23)
Level 6: Combat Jumping -- LucoftheG-Def/Rchg+(A), DefBuff-I(39)
Level 8: Super Speed -- BlsoftheZ-ResKB(A)
Level 10: Fire Sword Circle -- SprDfnBrr-Acc/Dmg(A), SprDfnBrr-Dmg/Rchg(11), SprDfnBrr-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(15), SprDfnBrr-Rchg/+Status Protect(43), SprDfnBrr-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(45)
Level 12: Maneuvers -- LucoftheG-Def/Rchg+(A)
Level 14: Hasten -- RechRdx-I(A), RechRdx-I(17)
Level 16: Build Up -- RechRdx-I(A), GssSynFr--Build%(29)
Level 18: Blaze -- Apc-Acc/Rchg(A), Apc-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(19), Apc-Dmg(19), Apc-Dmg/EndRdx(45), Apc-Dam%(46), GldJvl-Dam%(50)
Level 20: Cauterizing Aura -- PrfShf-EndMod(A), Erd-%Dam(21), TchoftheN-%Dam(21), Obl-%Dam(43), PrfShf-End%(46), ScrDrv-Dam%(48)
Level 22: Tough -- UnbGrd-ResDam(A), UnbGrd-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(23), UnbGrd-Max HP%(25), StdPrt-ResDam/Def+(27), GldArm-3defTpProc(27)
Level 24: Tactics -- HO:Cyto(A)
Level 26: Blazing Bolt -- StnoftheM-Dam%(A), SprBlsWrt-Rchg/Dmg%(31), HO:Nucle(31), SprBlsWrt-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(33), HO:Nucle(33), GldJvl-Dam%(33)
Level 28: Weave -- ShlWal-ResDam/Re TP(A), LucoftheG-Def/Rchg+(34)
Level 30: Burnout -- RechRdx-I(A)
Level 32: Inferno -- Arm-Dmg(A), Arm-Dmg/EndRdx(36), Arm-Dmg/Rchg(36), Arm-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(36), Arm-Acc/Rchg(37), Erd-%Dam(45)
Level 35: Char -- HO:Nucle(A), GldNet-Dam%(3), UnbCns-Dam%(3), GhsWdwEmb-Dam%(31), NrnSht-Dam%(34), GldJvl-Dam%(34)
Level 38: Burn -- ScrDrv-Dam%(A), Obl-%Dam(39), FuroftheG-ResDeb%(39), Erd-%Dam(40), HO:Nucle(40), Arm-Dam%(40)
Level 41: Fire Sword -- HO:Nucle(A), Hct-Dam%(42), Mk'Bit-Dam%(42), GldStr-%Dam(42), TchofDth-Dam%(46), SprBlsCol-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(48)
Level 44: Hot Feet -- Obl-%Dam(A), SprDfnBrr-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(25), ImpSwf-Dam%(43), ScrDrv-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(48), ScrDrv-Dam%(50), Erd-%Dam(50)
Level 47: Vengeance -- LucoftheG-Def/Rchg+(A)
Level 49: Fire Shield -- UnbGrd-ResDam(A), UnbGrd-ResDam/EndRdx(37), UnbGrd-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(37)
Level 1: Defiance 
Level 1: Brawl -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Sprint -- UnbLea-Stlth(A)
Level 2: Rest -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Swift -- Run-I(A)
Level 2: Hurdle -- Jump-I(A)
Level 2: Health -- Pnc-Heal/+End(A), Prv-Absorb%(7), Mrc-Rcvry+(13)
Level 2: Stamina -- PrfShf-EndMod(A), EndMod-I(11), PrfShf-End%(13)
Level 49: Quick Form 
Level 1: Prestige Power Dash -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Slide -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Quick -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Rush -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Surge -- Empty(A)
Level 4: Ninja Run 
Level 50: Musculature Radial Paragon 
Level 50: Portal Jockey 
Level 50: Task Force Commander 
Level 50: The Atlas Medallion 
Level 50: Freedom Phalanx Reserve 
------------

 

  

1 minute ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

This is exactly what I'm looking for, thank you!  Could you point me to the source material if you know it offhand?

 

As far as I'm concerned, Powerhouse and his/her/its team are the only ones who have opinions that are particularly relevant to me, so I'd like to have a handle on what they figure the specific problems are in order to determine what my responses will be.  Thanks!

 

Powerhouse mentioned it offhand in the Golden Standard Testers beta-testing discord. I'm not going to screencap his messages here, because it's a gated discord that you have to agree to the rules to before joining. But anyone is free to join up and search through the devs' post history. :)

 

Here's the link:

https://discord.gg/DptUBzh

 

Just to repeat - it was mentioned off hand. He was not committing to it.

[Jitsurei]

“Min/maxing discords” and players “at the highest end” are not an accurate representation of the general player base. Sure, maybe 30 is true for the exact niche you refer to. 

Edited July 4, 2021 by Jitsurei

[Marbing]

1 hour ago, America's Angel said:

 

If you slot the damage loadouts for the Corruptor and Defender equally, the Corruptor is doing more damage.

 

Does the Defender have more defense? Yes. Because their pool powers have a higher baseline starting number. But remember, we're using inspirations in proc builds (see my response to Goal #1, above), so that doesn't matter.

 

I think it's possibly accurate to say Defenders outpace Corruptors damage-wise in environments where:

-Players don't use inspirations.

-Players are soloing for the Vigilance damage boost.

-Players have to build for the defense softcap.

-Players aren't building for +HP.

 

But this feels like quite a niche testing environment, and not reflective of how procs are used in the game.

 

Another way to look at it - if Defenders did more damage than Corruptors, then the people who speedrun taskforces would do so with Defenders. They don't. They use fire/fire Blasters and fire/cold and fire/sonic Corruptors. It's because Corruptors do more damage in high-end play than Defenders.

 

Again, yes if you load them equally a Corruptor is going to do more damage, but at the cost of MUCH (not marginal) LESS DEFENSE AND MUCH LESS BUFF/DEBUFF capability. However, in this one scenario you described the Corruptor isn’t actually doing significantly more damage to justify its lack of everything else (unless your chewing red inspirations constantly).
 

The reason people speed run in those situations that you described is because they are using FIRE primary (and also chewing red inspirations). Which was never up for debate. Fire on a Corruptor is simply better than on a defender because of the way scourge works with the set. If you don’t believe me then take a look at the statistics for Corruptors. The vast majority of lvl 50 Corruptors are FIRE/, that’s not by accident. We have to stop using Fire Corruptors as THE EXAMPLE of Corruptors doing more damage, because it’s nearly the only situation that they do. 
 

Also, as others have said, the ability to do marginally more damage than a Defender is still a problem. It shouldn’t be marginal, it should be significant. Otherwise there is no real point is there? They only serve a niche purpose at that point. 
 

A change needs to be made to address this and in my forum topic about Corruptors vs Defenders a whole lot of people seemed to point to damage procs being a large portion of the issue (if not the main problem) due to the Defender having much better build flexibility to shove more procs in without much, if any, sacrifice. In that same forum topic I said I was open to any changes and even at one point was against changing procs and instead approaching this from a different angle, an opinion that was in the minority.

Look, I get it, I HATE nerfs. I am open to other suggestions but the math keeps pointing to procs on my end. I don’t want to nerf them, I don’t because I have a lot of toons that it would affect. But, something needs to be done to find that happy medium. “Do nothing” simply isn’t an option.

Edited July 4, 2021 by th0ughtGun

[Naraka]

8 hours ago, America's Angel said:

After a lot of number crunching and analysis, we found that most of the alternatives offered to the current system (including the options in your original post) were inferior to the current system, in terms of game balance.

 

The only option that was an improvement, was what I mentioned in an earlier post:

  

 

This would balance better because you would be doing the same amount of damage every time. (Rather than 71.75 damage 90% of the time, and 0 damage 10% of the time.) The more we reduce luck, the better the game balances.

 

(Tangent - this is also why PvPers want the chance to hit cap raising from 95% to 100%.)

 

Which options?  I'd like to see what and how those changes would have panned out.

 

I trust you understand I don't just take people's words at face value.

 

Also, I don't think removing chance is even a consideration for this game.  Unless you just remove the whole ToHit/def formula completely, that just can't happen.

 

1 hour ago, America's Angel said:

 

If you slot the damage loadouts for the Corruptor and Defender equally, the Corruptor is doing more damage.

 

Does the Defender have more defense? Yes. Because their pool powers have a higher baseline starting number. But remember, we're using inspirations in proc builds (see my response to Goal #1, above), so that doesn't matter.

 

I think it's possibly accurate to say Defenders outpace Corruptors damage-wise in environments where:

-Players don't use inspirations.

-Players are soloing for the Vigilance damage boost.

-Players have to build for the defense softcap.

-Players aren't building for +HP.

 

 

....r-resistance?  I'm hesitant to point to that since it's such an obvious point but resistance debuffs are the only other method of increasing the overall damage a proc does and Defenders typically have higher values in them.

 

1 hour ago, America's Angel said:

 

This Hero build was built using Mids Reborn 3.0.4.7
https://github.com/Reborn-Team/MidsReborn

Click this DataLink to open the build!

speedfirefiremu: Level 50 Mutation Blaster
Primary Power Set: Fire Blast
Secondary Power Set: Fire Manipulation
Power Pool: Fighting
Power Pool: Leaping
Power Pool: Speed
Power Pool: Leadership
Ancillary Pool: Flame Mastery

Hero Profile:
Level 1: Flares -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Ring of Fire -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Fire Ball -- Rgn-Dmg/EndRdx(A), Rgn-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(5), Rgn-Acc/Rchg(7), Rgn-Dmg(9), Rgn-Knock%(17), Bmbdmt-+FireDmg(29)
Level 4: Boxing -- AbsAmz-Stun(A), AbsAmz-Stun/Rchg(5), AbsAmz-Acc/Stun/Rchg(9), AbsAmz-Acc/Rchg(15), AbsAmz-EndRdx/Stun(23)
Level 6: Combat Jumping -- LucoftheG-Def/Rchg+(A), DefBuff-I(39)
Level 8: Super Speed -- BlsoftheZ-ResKB(A)
Level 10: Fire Sword Circle -- SprDfnBrr-Acc/Dmg(A), SprDfnBrr-Dmg/Rchg(11), SprDfnBrr-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(15), SprDfnBrr-Rchg/+Status Protect(43), SprDfnBrr-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(45)
Level 12: Maneuvers -- LucoftheG-Def/Rchg+(A)
Level 14: Hasten -- RechRdx-I(A), RechRdx-I(17)
Level 16: Build Up -- RechRdx-I(A), GssSynFr--Build%(29)
Level 18: Blaze -- Apc-Acc/Rchg(A), Apc-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(19), Apc-Dmg(19), Apc-Dmg/EndRdx(45), Apc-Dam%(46), GldJvl-Dam%(50)
Level 20: Cauterizing Aura -- PrfShf-EndMod(A), Erd-%Dam(21), TchoftheN-%Dam(21), Obl-%Dam(43), PrfShf-End%(46), ScrDrv-Dam%(48)
Level 22: Tough -- UnbGrd-ResDam(A), UnbGrd-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(23), UnbGrd-Max HP%(25), StdPrt-ResDam/Def+(27), GldArm-3defTpProc(27)
Level 24: Tactics -- HO:Cyto(A)
Level 26: Blazing Bolt -- StnoftheM-Dam%(A), SprBlsWrt-Rchg/Dmg%(31), HO:Nucle(31), SprBlsWrt-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(33), HO:Nucle(33), GldJvl-Dam%(33)
Level 28: Weave -- ShlWal-ResDam/Re TP(A), LucoftheG-Def/Rchg+(34)
Level 30: Burnout -- RechRdx-I(A)
Level 32: Inferno -- Arm-Dmg(A), Arm-Dmg/EndRdx(36), Arm-Dmg/Rchg(36), Arm-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(36), Arm-Acc/Rchg(37), Erd-%Dam(45)
Level 35: Char -- HO:Nucle(A), GldNet-Dam%(3), UnbCns-Dam%(3), GhsWdwEmb-Dam%(31), NrnSht-Dam%(34), GldJvl-Dam%(34)
Level 38: Burn -- ScrDrv-Dam%(A), Obl-%Dam(39), FuroftheG-ResDeb%(39), Erd-%Dam(40), HO:Nucle(40), Arm-Dam%(40)
Level 41: Fire Sword -- HO:Nucle(A), Hct-Dam%(42), Mk'Bit-Dam%(42), GldStr-%Dam(42), TchofDth-Dam%(46), SprBlsCol-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(48)
Level 44: Hot Feet -- Obl-%Dam(A), SprDfnBrr-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(25), ImpSwf-Dam%(43), ScrDrv-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(48), ScrDrv-Dam%(50), Erd-%Dam(50)
Level 47: Vengeance -- LucoftheG-Def/Rchg+(A)
Level 49: Fire Shield -- UnbGrd-ResDam(A), UnbGrd-ResDam/EndRdx(37), UnbGrd-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(37)
Level 1: Defiance 
Level 1: Brawl -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Sprint -- UnbLea-Stlth(A)
Level 2: Rest -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Swift -- Run-I(A)
Level 2: Hurdle -- Jump-I(A)
Level 2: Health -- Pnc-Heal/+End(A), Prv-Absorb%(7), Mrc-Rcvry+(13)
Level 2: Stamina -- PrfShf-EndMod(A), EndMod-I(11), PrfShf-End%(13)
Level 49: Quick Form 
Level 1: Prestige Power Dash -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Slide -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Quick -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Rush -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Surge -- Empty(A)
Level 4: Ninja Run 
Level 50: Musculature Radial Paragon 
Level 50: Portal Jockey 
Level 50: Task Force Commander 
Level 50: The Atlas Medallion 
Level 50: Freedom Phalanx Reserve 
------------

 

 

 

So the example of a proc build you present is the one that contains the prime-exploitative power that cheats the nature of procs?  Do you have any others that don't exploit the game?

 

 

[Marbing]

So, I just thought of this, but has anyone mentioned the idea to have a damage proc’s actual damage scale with the AT’s base damage mod? So the same proc would do different damage dependent on the AT that uses it.

 

That would be a fair change across the board, would it not?

Edited July 4, 2021 by th0ughtGun

[arcane]

4 minutes ago, th0ughtGun said:

So, I just thought of this, but has anyone mentioned the idea to have a damage proc’s actual damage scale with the AT’s base damage mod? So the same proc would do different damage dependent on the AT.

I’ve definitely wondered about this on multiple occasions and at a brief glance it seems like a logical thing to do.

[Parabola]

9 minutes ago, th0ughtGun said:

So, I just thought of this, but has anyone mentioned the idea to have a damage proc’s actual damage scale with the AT’s base damage mod? So the same proc would do different damage dependent on the AT that uses it.

 

That would be a fair change across the board, would it not?

Yeah it's something I've suggested before. The AT's that generally benefit the most from procs tend to have low damage scalars and those that need to slot full sets for survivability tend to have high ones so there is an appeal to the idea it would balance things out a bit. Whether it would work in practice or not is anyone's guess though!

[skoryy]

16 minutes ago, th0ughtGun said:

So, I just thought of this, but has anyone mentioned the idea to have a damage proc’s actual damage scale with the AT’s base damage mod? So the same proc would do different damage dependent on the AT that uses it.

 

That would be a fair change across the board, would it not?

What problem is this solving?

[JayboH]

Acid Mortar with 5 procs and an acc - fires 10 times, hits with an 8 ft AOE, 16 targets each shot.  How does that work and is it OP?

 

[BlackHearted]

I've done rather extensive testing between corr's and defenders, if anyone actually thinks their defender does more dmg than a corr please post a link to a video of pylon test. Corr's  do notably more damage than defenders... it's not even close and i don't see why ppl would think that adding procs (which are gonna do the same dmg on each AT) would in some way pull the defenders ahead.... corrs have the same slotting options as defenders but with an extra proc from the ATOs... it's not mathematically possible afaik.

Edited July 4, 2021 by BlackHearted

[Jitsurei]

The access to one single proc of a different set simply does not add up to the buff/debuff values between defenders and corruptors nor does it change the fact that the disparity of values means defenders have more slots to use on procs in total. The blast sets that truly excel with procs have a lot available anyway and many damage procs are not uniques, unlike AT procs. 
 

I do like the idea of AT scaled damage procs, I’ve seen it thrown around a few times. You’d probably still end up with more damage than regular enhancements if that were implemented, but it wouldn’t be as drastic of a damage boost so variability in builds would increase as it became a more interesting and nuanced trade off for set bonuses again.

[KelvinKole]

I’ll latch on to one thing I agree with and comment. I do think creating proc bombs out of powers like radiation therapy, dna siphon, etc. is a bit of an exploit on a power that does minuscule damage and simply accepts damage enhancements.  These powers probably just shouldn’t accept damage enhancements and/or sets, which reduces the amount of procs you can cram into them. Not a proc mechanic issue, just an issue with which elements of these powers are enhanceable or the sets it’s allowed to take. 

Edited July 4, 2021 by KelvinKole

[BlackHearted]

21 minutes ago, Jitsurei said:

The access to one single proc of a different set simply does not add up to the buff/debuff values between defenders and corruptors nor does it change the fact that the disparity of values means defenders have more slots to use on procs in total. The blast sets that truly excel with procs have a lot available anyway and many damage procs are not uniques, unlike AT procs. 
 

I do like the idea of AT scaled damage procs, I’ve seen it thrown around a few times. You’d probably still end up with more damage than regular enhancements if that were implemented, but it wouldn’t be as drastic of a damage boost so variability in builds would increase as it became a more interesting and nuanced trade off for set bonuses again.

Care to put that to the test? b/c an extra 5% on your -res is /not/ doing to make a defender do more dmg than what scourge offers in terms of dmg boost.  I'm happy to compare pylon times if you wanna prove this.

[America's Angel]

3 hours ago, th0ughtGun said:

So, I just thought of this, but has anyone mentioned the idea to have a damage proc’s actual damage scale with the AT’s base damage mod? So the same proc would do different damage dependent on the AT that uses it.

 

That would be a fair change across the board, would it not?

 

@BlackHearted already covered the defenders vs corruptors part more succinctly than I could. (I'm trying to ramble on forums less. You'll notice I've not had much luck, haha.) But I just wanted to comment on this idea.

 

This was one of the ideas we considered. But after looking at how it played in practice, we realised it would lead to severe game disbalance. The high damage ATs would have their damage buffed by procs further than the low damage ATs would. Which would widen the gap in AT performance.

 

Super over-simplified example:

 

Archetype X does 100 damage from powers + 10 damage from procs procs = 110 total damage

Archetype Y does 80 damage from powers + 10 damage from from procs = 90 total damage

Difference = 20

 

Now, if procs were changed to do 10% of an ATs "damage value" (made up term, but bear with me).

 

Archetype X does 100 damage from powers + 10 damage procs = 110 total damage

Archetype Y does 80 damage from powers + 8 damage from procs = 88 total damage

Difference = 22

 

So the gap widens.

 

Obviously those numbers are just made up, as is the term "damage value". But this is how it would play out if Procs were linked to AT damage scales. 

 

It would actually be much worse than the example above shows, considering Blasters have almost double the damage scale of some other ranged ATs:

 

 

Edited July 5, 2021 by America's Angel
typos

[Jitsurei]

1 minute ago, BlackHearted said:

Care to put that to the test? b/c an extra 5% on your -res is /not/ doing to make a defender do more dmg than what scourge offers in terms of dmg boost.  I'm happy to compare pylon times if you wanna prove this.

No, I have no interest in doing pylon tests and I never said a word about 5% resistance. The difference I am referring to is when a defender and a corruptor build for similar survival stats and the defender reaches their goals many slots earlier than the corruptor. It creates a ton of free slots for procs that a corruptor might want for set bonuses.

 

Since this is apparently a misunderstanding, no one is claiming defenders do higher damage than a corruptor with the exact same build, slot for slot! They do not have the same stats and shouldn’t be built the same.

[skoryy]

2 hours ago, JayboH said:

Acid Mortar with 5 procs and an acc - fires 10 times, hits with an 8 ft AOE, 16 targets each shot.  How does that work and is it OP?

 

I checked Mids Reborn.  Five slotting a corruptor's Acid Mortar for proc damage gets me 395 damage every six seconds.  (Are we sure its per fire and not just on the summon?)  My tank gets 361 per combo 3 Spinning Strike every ~6 seconds.   Also the Acid Mortar actually has to hit with a base 75% unenhanced for accuracy, on top of surviving aggro.

 

So, yeah, I don't really see it as exceptionally OP.  Its certainly stronger than it was, but you're making some tradeoffs for that.  

[BlackHearted]

2 minutes ago, Jitsurei said:

Since this is apparently a misunderstanding, no one is claiming defenders do higher damage than a corruptor with the exact same build, slot for slot! They do not have the same stats and shouldn’t be built the same.

This is kind of working off the assumption that the only way to build is for soft cap'd defenses then isn't it?  

objectively that's not really a good way to build unless one plans to solo and not use insperations... which seems like a silly plan for a defender....the instant you're on a team being soft cap'd becomes waistful in a build.. team with 7 ppl that take maneuvers  that's an extra 20%+ def to all....    So if the claim is that soft capped defender builds do more dmg than soft capped corr builds.. i don't really see where there's an issue that needs resolving.... People are free to build better and then corrs are very clearly out infront of defenders.

[Jitsurei]

7 minutes ago, BlackHearted said:

This is kind of working off the assumption that the only way to build is for soft cap'd defenses then isn't it?  

objectively that's not really a good way to build unless one plans to solo and not use insperations... which seems like a silly plan for a defender....the instant you're on a team being soft cap'd becomes waistful in a build.. team with 7 ppl that take maneuvers  that's an extra 20%+ def to all....    So if the claim is that soft capped defender builds do more dmg than soft capped corr builds.. i don't really see where there's an issue that needs resolving.... People are free to build better and then corrs are very clearly out infront of defenders.

I never claimed it was the only way. You’re suggesting that every member of every team takes maneuvers? And that everyone that solos, runs inspirations. Don’t think I’ll take my chances with those odds, nor would I presume to change how people play.