So, procs...

[Naraka]

5 hours ago, FreedomFarmFranchise said:

 

 

THIS POST DOES NO JUSTICE FOR WHAT I WAS MEANING TO SUGGEST SAY, SORRY!

 

 

 

Yeah, you probably should have just hit the back button again.

 

I'd also like to preface that I don't spam the devs at all.  Posting on their forums shouldn't equate to spamming them.  Lol no, I try to keep away from dev/mod attention.

 

No, if I spam anything, it's spamming other players who think that balance is imaginary pixie dust that doesn't matter except in ones own imagination. 

[Naraka]

1 hour ago, America's Angel said:

 

Also worth pointing out that there has been no agreement on what the problem with damage procs actually is. (Or if there even is one!)

 

 

I would argue that, just because you and a couple of people that decided to post in the thread have decided to label people's opinions as wrong doesn't suddenly create the contention to throw out their position part and parcel.  It'd be like me saying "If there was no problem then you wouldn't be posting in the thread so much".  I'm sure there is a logical fallacy in that type of reasoning but I'm not versed in philosophy and orational discourse.  

 

1 hour ago, America's Angel said:

All justification for global proc nerfs in this thread have been anecdotal/appealing to authority ("everyone knows that..." etc).

 

 

That's not appealing to authority.  That's appealing to consensus.  If anyone has been appealing to authority, it's you.  You decided what the problem was by appealing to the authority of a dev's statements.  I'm of the opinion that the devs are human too and can be swayed if you provide them enough reason to diverge from their personal opinion.  You've also appealed to the authority of studies that no one can see unless they join your discord.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong for doing any of that, but maybe explaining it to you will help you understand the perspective of others here.  Like I said in my OP, I'm not here to debate *IF* there is a problem because that can happen elsewhere.  I'd much rather pontificate on what would happen *IF* you changed it so you can only slot 1 proc in a power or if the damage scaled with the chance of proc'ing.  You said you did all that testing but you didn't bother telling anyone what the results were.  You just say it's less effective or unbalanced and you don't show or state why.

[Naraka]

1 hour ago, America's Angel said:

This suggests to me that those who believe procs should be nerfed don't actually understand (or at the very least, aren't prepared to demonstrate that they understand) the numbers behind game balance. So their claims that ALL PROCS are causing power creep/must be nerfed/etc should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Also, this is pure strawman.

 

Just saying...

[Naraka]

1 hour ago, America's Angel said:

 

Well this just isn't true. I've been quoted more than anyone else in the thread, and have received more emoji reactions (22) than anyone else.

 

Lol, you're counting?

 

You are the authority on the subject, apparently.  You should be expecting more interactions here.

[Bionic_Flea]

20 minutes ago, Naraka said:

Lol, you're counting?

*Gives Naraka 23 emojis!*

 

😀🤑😏🥶💀👾👻👽👌👀🧠🎅⛷️👣🐵

🐶🦄🐓🐙🐜🐝🐞🦗

[Apparition]

2 hours ago, America's Angel said:

It's important to bear this in mind. And it does reflect my own experiences when discussing rebalancing procs with others. High-level players I've spoken to about this (PvPers, Raid Leaders, Speed Runners, etc) do not believe procs should be nerfed. Now, I'm sure there might be some out there who do. But I have yet to meet any. Which isn't surprising. Because the more you know about how this game balances, the more you realise that the PPM system we have right now is mostly excellent. 

 

 

Hi.  I led both Hamidon and Rikti mothership raids for years prior to sunset, I've routinely led raids on Homecoming for the past two years, I was the Hamidon tank in a successful five person Hamidon raid without any temporary powers, and I think damage procs need to be nerfed to the ground.  Nice to meet you.

[skoryy]

A reminder that DPS nerfs don't make the game more 'challenging', they just make it more tedious.

[America's Angel]

18 minutes ago, Apparition said:

Hi.  I led both Hamidon and Rikti mothership raids for years prior to sunset, I've routinely led raids on Homecoming for the past two years, I was the Hamidon tank in a successful five person Hamidon raid without any temporary powers, and I think damage procs need to be nerfed to the ground.  Nice to meet you.

 

I've not seem a single other min/maxer advocate for a global nerf to damage procs, so this development is actually quite interesting.

 

I looked through the thread but couldn't find a post from you. Why do you think damage procs should be nerfed?

[Luminara]

4 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Heya folks! Not able to read all of this but, if you want results here you go:

 

 

 

That whole thread dives more into it than just procs, but I can sum up what I think the problem is.

 

Nobody thinks that 1-2 procs in a given power is bad. The issue is where certain powers can LOAD up with procs while others cannot (lightning rod vs savage leap) as well as the relative impact procs have on certain ATs over others (defender vs Corruptor). Proc *bombs* can be a big problem where there are a bunch at once + they are relatively reliable beyond what they are intended to be.

 

Is that the thread in which I examined one of those proc bombs, compared it to traditional IO set slotting with one additional proc and found that the damage output was not, in fact, better when the power had six procs, but also that the hit chance, endurance usage and cycle time were all significantly worse when used as a proc bomb, and that the proc bomb's recharge time (which was already worse than the traditionally slotting) was dependent on the Force Feedback proc in another power, which could miss and drop the proc bomb's performance over time even further?

 

And this is evidence that procs need to be nerfed?  Hm...

[America's Angel]

6 hours ago, Luminara said:

 

Is that the thread in which I examined one of those proc bombs, compared it to traditional IO set slotting with one additional proc and found that the damage output was not, in fact, better when the power had six procs, but also that the hit chance, endurance usage and cycle time were all significantly worse when used as a proc bomb, and that the proc bomb's recharge time (which was already worse than the traditionally slotting) was dependent on the Force Feedback proc in another power, which could miss and drop the proc bomb's performance over time even further?

 

And this is evidence that procs need to be nerfed?  Hm...

 

Thanks for the ref:

 

Just read through it. Very thorough analysis of how a single power performs both with/without procs. Fantastic analysis! Exactly the sort of thing this thread needs IMO. (I.e. less debate, more number crunching.)

Also liked this from one of your earlier posts:
 

On 2/20/2021 at 4:06 AM, Luminara said:

[...]
Here's a question: where's the evidence that there is a problem?

 

Where are the performance metrics for what different procs do in regard to survivability and speed of progression?  Where are the analyses showing how use of procs creates any kind of problem?  If, as was previously posited by someone else, defenders using procs is a problem, why hasn't anyone posted run times and survivability comparisons for defenders with procs versus blasters?  If players can take unenhanced characters, team up and use their powers to rampage through the game at max difficulty, then how do procs cause problems for teams?  If a solo player's performance in missions is isolated and has no effect on other players, how does proc usage in that situation cause a problem?  If procs skew progression and/or survivability so notably and obviously, why hasn't anyone posted any proof?

 

If there's a performance gulf so vast, it should be incredibly easy to provide multiple examples.  The lack thereof is noteworthy.

 

Post the builds, run time comparisons, survivability breakdowns and other performance statistics.  If you have evidence supporting your assertion, I'd love to see it.  That's not a facetious remark, I'd actually love to see them.  Not pylon tests, though.  Pylons don't wander out of AoE radius at just the wrong moment.  Pylons don't spread out and have to be aggroed or snuck around to find an optimal clump for cone usage.  Pylons don't move, so they don't show the benefit of using a Slow or Immob.  Pylons aren't good test subjects for a lot of powers.  I'd like to see the results from your test map, not pylons.

 

Identify whether there is a problem, what and where it is if one exists, and why and how it's a problem.  Post comparisons in actual use to quantify and qualify any existing issue.

 

[...]

 

Facts.  Information.  Tests.  Verifiable and repeatable results.  I want numbers, not rumors and guesses.  Facts, not fantasy.  Math, not maybes.  If something is over-performing, or under-performing, show that it is, and how it is, so the problem is clear and actionable.  I'm objective, I can adapt to anything and I'll support any change for the good of the game, but I want hard data that proves that something is necessary before I add my voice to the choir.  This is Co*.  That's how we do things.  That's how we've always done things.  A different forum address and development team doesn't change that.

 

That's my take.

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by America's Angel

[Naraka]

34 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

Is that the thread in which I examined one of those proc bombs, compared it to traditional IO set slotting with one additional proc and found that the damage output was not, in fact, better when the power had six procs, but also that the hit chance, endurance usage and cycle time were all significantly worse when used as a proc bomb, and that the proc bomb's recharge time (which was already worse than the traditionally slotting) was dependent on the Force Feedback proc in another power, which could miss and drop the proc bomb's performance over time even further?

 

And this is evidence that procs need to be nerfed?  Hm...

 

I think it was more a statement of consensus of what people think the problem stems from (context: the statement that "Nobody thinks that 1-2 procs in a given power is bad.").

 

And you're not going to isolate procs as the specific problem because it's not procs but rather the culmination of stats you can garner (context: the statement "That whole thread dives more into it than just procs...")  I think it can be obvious that a traditionally slotted power will start to outperform a proc-bomb power over time, but "over time" is only one relativistic parameter here as battles vary from moderately long to extremely short.  Performance, thus, can't be only determined in one over all else AND in a vacuum of stats that will quickly favor the more valuable (i.e. rare) effects like add-on damage compared to the less valuable (i.e. not-as-rare) effects like +ToHit, +dmg and +rech.

 

I'm just glad there is some kind of cap to proc damage being you can only, at max, have 6 extra over-damage-cap damage effects per applicable power...but then the imbalance creep of IO set favoritism would then have a foundation in the discussion of effectiveness of procs and them needing to be looked at.

[BlackHearted]

7 hours ago, Jitsurei said:

People have lives, jobs, and responsibilities. Not everyone can expect to always be on a team with the same people.

 

Basically what you’re saying is “if everyone plays how I play, this doesn’t matter in the slightest”. Great! It’s wonderful that it doesn’t affect you! However, other people are allowed to think and say things too. And it isn’t always about flat math, but community perception as well. Many people don’t play corrs because they’re villains, or because they have defender nostalgia, or because the buff/debuff numbers are higher on defenders. If the damage numbers are even anywhere close, defenders can quickly become more appealing.
 

You’re right that it’s not enough to call for a proc rebalance on its own. But PPM was an unfinished system that would almost certainly not have made it to the live servers in this state for many reasons stated elsewhere in the thread. Anyway, this has really diverged from the stated point here, so I’m out and sorry to the OP.

So you've got time to build multiple soft capped def builds ....... But can't be bothered to make one toon for teaming with others that's not a solo build?  The solution to your issues is to stop trying to team with builds that are set up to solo and then being surprised the solo build doesn't do great on teams... this is all sounding like bad building as the issue.

And... Please do not misrepresent what I said.  I said the option is there for people to build either way.. If people are choosing to build for def cap instead of proper balanced team builds, then it's quite obvious that's the problem. .. People are quite free to do what they please.. but that doesn't mean they should expect Solo builds to be better on teams than solo..... these softcap solo builds just aren't good for teaming... That's not gonna change with alterations to the proc system.

[Bionic_Flea]

3 minutes ago, BlackHearted said:

If people are choosing to build for def cap instead of proper balanced team builds, then it's quite obvious that's the problem. .. People are quite free to do what they please.. but that doesn't mean they should expect Solo builds to be better on teams than solo..... these softcap solo builds just aren't good for teaming...

If a character can solo at +4/x8 how can it be bad on a team?  If all 8 can solo at +4/x8 how could that possibly be a "problem"?

[BlackHearted]

3 minutes ago, Bionic_Flea said:

If a character can solo at +4/x8 how can it be bad on a team?  If all 8 can solo at +4/x8 how could that possibly be a "problem"?

Just b/c a build can solo Council radios on +4/8 doesn't mean it'll have that same performance in all content. The problem here is ppl saying "well sense i have to build for softcap it throws this that and this out of balance."     B/c it's working under the assumption that building soft cap is mandatory.

[Bionic_Flea]

I reject your general premise that a strong solo character MUST be a weak teaming character.  Sure, it can be, like a defender that skips all team buffs.  But a strong, well built character in a capable player's hands doesn't become weaker on a team.

[BlackHearted]

Not saying /all/ builds that solo well are bad in teams... just specifically things like when a defender skips buffs to self soft cap etc. B/c apparetely that's not obvious to some ppl and needs to be pointed out..

[Jitsurei]

52 minutes ago, BlackHearted said:

So you've got time to build multiple soft capped def builds ....... But can't be bothered to make one toon for teaming with others that's not a solo build?  The solution to your issues is to stop trying to team with builds that are set up to solo and then being surprised the solo build doesn't do great on teams...

Whew, that’s a lot of assumptions! Since this is directed at me specifically, I should clarify that time to build is not the issue. Time for all the people I like to play with to line up and play together is.

 

As a matter of fact, I don’t play CoH solo any more. Kind of over it. But you ignored the previous point, that it’s not realistic to expect my team to always be balanced the way you suggest. It turns out, you can’t control who is on every team or what their build is. However, the idea that my builds are struggling to survive, help my teammates, or deal damage on a team is an assumption. None of those are an issue. 

[ScarySai]

Proc slotting provides build diversity and allows otherwise underperforming sets to perform at a decent level, like DP or rad blast.

 

I don't really have a problem with proc bombs either. The only part I really take issue with is how harshly recharge punishes procs in general.

[Marbing]

1 hour ago, BlackHearted said:

Just b/c a build can solo Council radios on +4/8 doesn't mean it'll have that same performance in all content. The problem here is ppl saying "well sense i have to build for softcap it throws this that and this out of balance."     B/c it's working under the assumption that building soft cap is mandatory.

No, building for softcap isn’t the ONLY way you can build your toon. But it is widely accepted as the gold standard. Pretty much every PvE build out there when you search online, or in Discord, highlights how close to permanent hasten or softcap they are. Sure, you could go against the grain but let’s be real here, most people who get serious about their PvE builds are aiming for perma hasten and softcap (either range or S/L). Now this is for squishy toons, non-squishy toons it’s a little different, but perma hasten is desirable regardless of AT usually.

 

The idea that building around softcap is bad for teams is simply objectively false. Now, for PvP it’s a different story, because of DR. But for PvE, this is what most people are reaching for and it is for very good reason. Because it works.

 

@America's Angel No one has debunked anything. This discussion is still wide open. I do appreciate your positive tone throughout, though!

 

Most of the arguments I have seen for keeping things the way they are seem fall short of the main issue, IMO. Yes you don’t have to build for procs, but some powersets benefit far more than others and some AT’s benefit more than others due to their inherent build flexibility. This causes some AT’s to be mathematically irrelevant to other AT’s in all but only a few niche situations (like Corruptors chewing reds to out damage Defenders). No counter argument made has debunked this fact in any way.

 

Now, back to work! 😁

[BlackHearted]

9 minutes ago, th0ughtGun said:

 

The idea that building around softcap is bad for teams is simply objectively false. Now, for PvP it’s a different story, because of DR. But for PvE, this is what most people are reaching for and it is for very good reason. Because it works.

 

This is incorrect, as should be quite obvious, building to self soft cap on a build that is intended for team play is counterintuitive to the idea of team play and ignores all the other potential sources of defense and other buffs for the sake of this misguided notion that having a softcap build is a must.
 

[Marbing]

8 minutes ago, BlackHearted said:

This is incorrect, as should be quite obvious, building to self soft cap on a build that is intended for team play is counterintuitive to the idea of team play and ignores all the other potential sources of defense and other buffs for the sake of this misguided notion that having a softcap build is a must.
 

This just isn’t how those builds work. No one suggested sacrifices to your powerset MUST be made to do this, you did. Building for softcap is never recommended at the detriment of your toons ability to actually perform. Not every build actually achieves this, the idea is to get as close as you can. I am beginning to understand the real problem here…

Edited July 5, 2021 by th0ughtGun

[Naraka]

1 hour ago, ScarySai said:

Proc slotting provides build diversity and allows otherwise underperforming sets to perform at a decent level, like DP or rad blast.

 

I don't really have a problem with proc bombs either. The only part I really take issue with is how harshly recharge punishes procs in general.

 

I enjoy procs as well and having some proc-bombs is fun but it can favor some powers and sets over others.  Like, imagine if they went in and made every proc "generic", still apart of a set but that one enhancement could simply be slotted into any power you wish (I bet no one else considered that idea).  At least that would be *fair* and it might put +ToHit team buffs on even more of a premium, but even then, the way some powers propagate (i.e. things like pseudo-pets or special mechanics) would still cause an uneven playing field.

 

As is, procs are closer to a coin-flip: hopefully the set's powers have slottable effects with recharges and AoE that can best take advantage of some procs or they're just unlucky and barely have beneficial procs or procs that are unwieldly.  It also has the side-effect of trying to future-proof powers to have specific propagation methods to best take advantage of IOs/procs rather than being something experimental/unique.  

[VashNKnives]

I haven't looked at every post in the thread, but a thought I just had would be for the devs to simply add a proc cool-down timer or stacking-limiter mechanism per character. I think that this would be a potentially annoying way for the devs to tweak proc monster builds. So... if they datamine that builds just shouldn't be able to have 15 procs per 10 seconds firing then they could break the PPM formula with the added stipulation of something like 3.5 PPM unless a stack of any 10 damage procs for that character have fired in the last 10 seconds at which point damage from procs is halved until or whatever until the stacks fall-off....with stack timer or condition to allow further tweaking... blah...

 

I don't like this approach simply because it is even more complicated, but I am just trying to add more ideas that would still allow proc bombs and build choices.

Edited July 6, 2021 by VashNKnives

[ScarySai]

1 hour ago, BlackHearted said:

This is incorrect, as should be quite obvious, building to self soft cap on a build that is intended for team play is counterintuitive to the idea of team play and ignores all the other potential sources of defense and other buffs for the sake of this misguided notion that having a softcap build is a must.

 

[Arli]

So...

 

I have a rad/ice tanker that can clear +2 x8 groups in under ten seconds (without using ground zero or my judgment). This is because of procs. This is also why I feel it's pointless to use a brute for anything other than farming - with procs, tankers can easily out-perform brutes in regards to survivability and damage output. Meanwhile, brutes have to compensate for lesser resistances/defenses and may not be able to proc out builds as easily as a tanker.

 

I'd love to see procs diminish in effectiveness. It almost feels like I'm not building effectively if I don't use or rely on certain procs at all. Please tweak the PPM formula.

 

Also.

 

  

2 hours ago, BlackHearted said:

This is incorrect, as should be quite obvious, building to self soft cap on a build that is intended for team play is counterintuitive to the idea of team play and ignores all the other potential sources of defense and other buffs for the sake of this misguided notion that having a softcap build is a must.
 

 

What @th0ughtGun said is not incorrect. They do make a valid point. Building soft capped on a character will not always diminish team performance; suggesting that it does is a fallacy, as it is not true in every circumstance. Some teams value team members that have soft capped defenses if going for specific objectives that might warrant such a build. Some speed teams will value this in specific instances (think ITFs when hunting crystals and you have poor RNG with the map, and it splits - et cetera). Just because a player may build a soft capped build for their character doesn't mean their team buffs will be missing or less effective. I've seen players straight up skip team buffs (and they didn't have soft capped builds). Relying on teammates to bring necessary buffs is only reliable when you have teams built specifically for that. Otherwise, it's a game of chance if you ever do team compositions through looking for group - unless you specify specific builds and/or ATs.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Arli