So, procs...

[Luminara]

2 hours ago, oedipus_tex said:

IMO Control itself isn't bad, it's Control classes (at least some of iterations of them) that struggle.

 

That's because there are fifteen archetypes, all sharing the same basic role: deal damage.  Everything else we assign to archetypes is ephemeral.  "Support" doesn't really exist.  "Control" is a construct.  We're all damage dealers, and since that's all we really have, we're always fighting to be the best at it.  The Invention system has helped in ways, but the reality is, as long as we're using fifteen different tools to pound a nail, we're always going to have a measure of dissatisfaction within the community.

 

That problem doesn't stem from the Invention system, nor can it be resolved within the Invention system.  The game itself has to define functions beyond "make paste out of that spawn as quickly as possible".  Functions within a mission, something more comprehensive than "click these eight things simultaneously", but not as restrictive as "if you don't have X archetype on the team, you're screwed".  The role of bulwark holder, standing against the tide of incoming ambushes.  The role of hacker/magical tinkerer, slipping in past the safeguards to disable a force field.  The role of distractor, the person who keeps pulling stray critters away from the others.  Things for people to do, not necessarily restricted to individual archetypes, in order for everyone to feel useful and contributory.  The bulwark holder could be a controller or dominator just as easily as it could be a tank or brute.  The hacker/magical tinkerer could be a scrapper or stalker as well as it could be a defender or corruptor.  And so on.

 

Adding some tactical requirements to make players adopt strategies beyond "run around the room gathering aggro until at max, pop nuke/Judgement, gather more aggro, repeat" would solve a host of problems rather neatly.

[oedipus_tex]

24 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

That's because there are fifteen archetypes, all sharing the same basic role: deal damage.  Everything else we assign to archetypes is ephemeral.  "Support" doesn't really exist.  "Control" is a construct.  We're all damage dealers, and since that's all we really have, we're always fighting to be the best at it.  The Invention system has helped in ways, but the reality is, as long as we're using fifteen different tools to pound a nail, we're always going to have a measure of dissatisfaction within the community.

 

That problem doesn't stem from the Invention system, nor can it be resolved within the Invention system.  The game itself has to define functions beyond "make paste out of that spawn as quickly as possible".  Functions within a mission, something more comprehensive than "click these eight things simultaneously", but not as restrictive as "if you don't have X archetype on the team, you're screwed".  The role of bulwark holder, standing against the tide of incoming ambushes.  The role of hacker/magical tinkerer, slipping in past the safeguards to disable a force field.  The role of distractor, the person who keeps pulling stray critters away from the others.  Things for people to do, not necessarily restricted to individual archetypes, in order for everyone to feel useful and contributory.  The bulwark holder could be a controller or dominator just as easily as it could be a tank or brute.  The hacker/magical tinkerer could be a scrapper or stalker as well as it could be a defender or corruptor.  And so on.

 

Adding some tactical requirements to make players adopt strategies beyond "run around the room gathering aggro until at max, pop nuke/Judgement, gather more aggro, repeat" would solve a host of problems rather neatly.

 

 

I think part of it is just recognizing that we may not be talking about a "change" and more of a "understood and shared philosophy as we continue down the path of development." It may not be the case that someone needs to go in and nerf the existing state of things.

 

I do think it's the case though that there's a benefit to identifying which procs are problematic in order to avoid propogating them. For example, unless there was a change to how Control power work to accompany it, if I can ever get my hands on a +Chance for Mag 2 Stun slottable in a Stun power, I'd lose most reasons to roll a Gravity or Fire Dominator. There's a rogue's galleries of powers I'd replace Flashfire with right away on archetypes that have better damage or more utility, sometimes in powers that actually deliver damage. 

 

Also, laying all of my high art and scholarly approaches aside, the Gaussian's proc is ridiculous. Even if it doesn't get nerfed (despite reallllllly deserving it) for sure we don't need another proc like that in game. That's one proc that should not be on a PPM schedule.

Edited July 22, 2021 by oedipus_tex

[Naraka]

3 hours ago, oedipus_tex said:

IMO Control itself isn't bad, it's Control classes (at least some of iterations of them) that struggle.

 

I just a built a Plant/Trick Arrow that is A-Tier, almost S-Tier, so I don't disrespect what Control can bring.

 

However, directly related to the discussion about procs, it's hard to make myself play a midling average damage Dominator when I could throw a Hold proc on a Blaster and still get hold bosses.

 

It's that exact reason above that I do not want to see a +Mag Stun proc. The Hold and Confuse ones step hard into Dominator turf already. Of course maybe Dominators just need a buff. 

 

One of my initial proposals in the thread assumed at making new kinds of "procs" to form build around rather than focusing on just PPM. 

 

Like, for the stun IO that does KB, why not change it to an AoE KD around the stunned target if the attack it's slotted in stuns the target. If it has an ICD, slotting it in an AoE sun would still net you a good few stationary targets since it could spread, basically. As for more procs that can mez, you might be able to leverage some AoE low mag mez (probably not more hold out soon stacking but rather fear and immob) with different parameters to proc so it's not simply going to make a mez proc-cloud it of something.

 

The name of the game is, don't put all your eggs in one basket(PPM) because that makes it easier to fill up on egg salad for every meal.

[oedipus_tex]

25 minutes ago, Naraka said:

 

One of my initial proposals in the thread assumed at making new kinds of "procs" to form build around rather than focusing on just PPM. 

 

Like, for the stun IO that does KB, why not change it to an AoE KD around the stunned target if the attack it's slotted in stuns the target. If it has an ICD, slotting it in an AoE sun would still net you a good few stationary targets since it could spread, basically. As for more procs that can mez, you might be able to leverage some AoE low mag mez (probably not more hold out soon stacking but rather fear and immob) with different parameters to proc so it's not simply going to make a mez proc-cloud it of something.

 

The name of the game is, don't put all your eggs in one basket(PPM) because that makes it easier to fill up on egg salad for every meal.

 

 

Yeah, I'd be on board for the right proposal. I think the Chance to Knockdown in Overwhelming Force already behaves this way. It's just a straight chance to have that effect, no PPM involved.

 

IMO the following procs really should not be PPM based:

• Lockdown: Chance for Mag 2 Hold and related family of Hold procs
• Coercive Persuasion: Chance for Contagious Confusion
• Gaussian's: Chance for Build Up
• Force Feedback: Chance for +100% Recharge (arguable)

 

There's probably a few others I'm not thinking of right now. You could be more general and just say "Anything not an ATO that mezzes or casts an effect on the user." 

 

Probably some Controllers will yelp at Lockdown being removed from PPM but the reason for that is their AoE Hold is really weak and IMO needs addressing in a different way.

 

Note that self-healing procs were already nerfed in their own way and probably don't need to be reined in a second time.

Edited July 22, 2021 by oedipus_tex

[cfarevival]

I love procs.  Every one of my toons has a few and I am working on a “proc monster” build right now.  Thank you, COH, for making it so that I can experiment and have fun with this!  However, I hear the concerns many of you are voicing.  I have a solution that my be out of place in this particular thread, but may be worthy of your consideration.  It will allow those who want to make proc monsters able to do so, it will increase the desire for control toons to be actual control toons, and it will make some of the content more difficult without support toons.

 

Before I begin, you need to ask yourself:  are PROCS THEMSELVES (besides the few that need to be reviewed) the problem?  Or is the problem ATs being utilized in a way that does not operate in a way the AT was intended?  Some of these changes may not seem intuitive at first, but taken as a whole, I think they will give everyone a lot of what they want.

 

1) Increase the aggro cap, but shorten aggro times as the number of aggro’d baddies increases.  This is the first step in solidifying a need for controllers.  Or, without nerfing the tank, introduce an “overwhelmed” mechanic that causes tanks to lose hold of the extra Agro  beyond what they have already, causing the baddies to turn on the team.

 

2) Give enemy ranged toons a higher resistance to taunt.  There is no reason in the universe an enemy blaster, defender, etc should put themselves within melee range of any toon; giving them heavy resistance to taunt can do just that.  TP them into melee for sure, but they shouldn’t willfully run directly next to your tank.  Of course, a sufficient amount of taunting should do it, but they need the resistance.  Controllers and Doms will have to work to deal with the baddies that are on the fringes of the tank’s range.

 

3) Decrease the damage away from the epicenter of AoE or multi target attacks away from the epicenter, including proc bombs.  This will give greater cause for consideration on self-balancing holds away from extreme damage.  Make the average damage the same overall, but give players the need to be choosier about attack placement.

 

4) Increase all proc attack frequencies but make those numbers subject to diminishing returns.  The average damage might be the same across the board, but now proc order and theory crafting will become much more important.  Mitigation will also receive higher consideration.

Think some these suggestions through.  Maybe a good consideration.  Maybe trash, but it could be a good solution that won’t break everyone’s toons.

 

[SmalltalkJava]

Single target Ranged attacks need more proc options.   There arent enough to make a balanced proc attack.  Melee attacks have a nice selection. 

 

It gets a little frustrating trying to find a nice balance without enough choices

[tidge]

1 hour ago, SmalltalkJava said:

Single target Ranged attacks need more proc options.   There arent enough to make a balanced proc attack.  Melee attacks have a nice selection. 

 

It gets a little frustrating trying to find a nice balance without enough choices

 

Fear has got it far worse than single-target ranged attacks. A %Contagious Fear piece would be nice, as it would bring some extra utility to the single-target Fear powers.

 

[arcane]

1 hour ago, SmalltalkJava said:

Single target Ranged attacks need more proc options.   There arent enough to make a balanced proc attack.  Melee attacks have a nice selection. 

 

It gets a little frustrating trying to find a nice balance without enough choices

I don’t think it’s a bad thing that powers aren’t all equally capable of slotting 6 procs. A variety of good-for-procs and bad-for-procs powers makes the proc meta interesting. 
 

Oh and Fire Blast being weak for procs is a good thing. It needs something to tone it down a notch.

Edited July 22, 2021 by arcane

[Marbing]

2 hours ago, cfarevival said:

Server:  Indomitable

 

Sup, Nux! 😄

 

[Mezmera]

7 hours ago, arcane said:

I don’t totally understand the complaints about control so may be misstating them. 
 

I assume one of the gripes about the endgame is about AV’s/GM’s experiencing damage and debuffs (albeit resisting them) but being mostly immune to controls. I don’t know exactly how you solve that problem.

 

I totally agree that control is awesome outside of a few scenarios where it is severely limited. Plant control is kind of insane.

 

Yes control is quite good, verging on too great before the nuke changes and damage proc upgrade.  Some damage powers were due for a tuning up but the current aoe carnage far outpaces how good control was.

 

If aoe kill speeds are brought down just a smidge, not what it was before, but somewhere in between, by default control and support will see their value increased with no real change needing to take place.  

Edited July 23, 2021 by Mezmera

[cfarevival]

2 hours ago, th0ughtGun said:

Sup, Nux! 😄

 

What up, dude!  I couldn't stand it and finally entered the discussion.

 

<.<

 

>.>

 

 

[Naraka]

5 hours ago, oedipus_tex said:

 

There's probably a few others I'm not thinking of right now. You could be more general and just say "Anything not an ATO that mezzes or casts an effect on the user." 

 

Probably some Controllers will yelp at Lockdown being removed from PPM but the reason for that is their AoE Hold is really weak and IMO needs addressing in a different way.

 

Note that self-healing procs were already nerfed in their own way and probably don't need to be reined in a second time.

 

The -END proc in ranged I'd probably alter too.  Give it 2 components:

1. A base chance of -END (you could rebalance it so if it's a lower chance, like 15%, give it a hefty amount of -END so it's super obvious when it procs...or give it a moderate -END but with a high % chance so you could consistently slot it in several ranged attacks to potentially stack with other sapping powers)
2. An always proccing self +END.

This gives you a bit more options in how you could slot it, like for an electric blast getting a possible payoff by having more of these slotted in ST ranged attacks, it just grants more surgical sapping potential...then there's also the option of just putting it in a super cheap ranged attack that could give us non-min/max players an attack that nets more END than it spends for just a bit of extra END management.

 

Frankly, going in, case by case, and altering various procs to function differently is similar to how powersets have different mechanics that you utilize to maximize the set's performance.  Making procs function differently instead of almost all relying on very similar mechanics could open up a lot of fun and interesting interactions.

[Marbing]

10 hours ago, cfarevival said:

What up, dude!  I couldn't stand it and finally entered the discussion.

 

<.<

 

>.>

 

 

Glad to have you! And I really liked your ideas!

[Marbing]

9 hours ago, Naraka said:

 

The -END proc in ranged I'd probably alter too.  Give it 2 components:

1. A base chance of -END (you could rebalance it so if it's a lower chance, like 15%, give it a hefty amount of -END so it's super obvious when it procs...or give it a moderate -END but with a high % chance so you could consistently slot it in several ranged attacks to potentially stack with other sapping powers)
2. An always proccing self +END.

This gives you a bit more options in how you could slot it, like for an electric blast getting a possible payoff by having more of these slotted in ST ranged attacks, it just grants more surgical sapping potential...then there's also the option of just putting it in a super cheap ranged attack that could give us non-min/max players an attack that nets more END than it spends for just a bit of extra END management.

 

Frankly, going in, case by case, and altering various procs to function differently is similar to how powersets have different mechanics that you utilize to maximize the set's performance.  Making procs function differently instead of almost all relying on very similar mechanics could open up a lot of fun and interesting interactions.

See these are the kinds of things that need to be done. Look at ways to make the current procs better and just as viable as damage procs. If you have more options than you have slots, and all of those options are fairly equal in their own way, then you have reached true build diversity. When you have only 1 or 2 options that make any sense, that isn't really build diversity, that is the illusion of build diversity. 

I also like the idea of diminishing returns on damage procs. The first couple give you full effect but after that they drop off in effectiveness, you know, like a damage enhancement would. Same would go for any proc that does the same thing. 

 

14 hours ago, cfarevival said:

1) Increase the aggro cap, but shorten aggro times as the number of aggro’d baddies increases.  This is the first step in solidifying a need for controllers.  Or, without nerfing the tank, introduce an “overwhelmed” mechanic that causes tanks to lose hold of the extra Agro  beyond what they have already, causing the baddies to turn on the team.

 

2) Give enemy ranged toons a higher resistance to taunt.  There is no reason in the universe an enemy blaster, defender, etc should put themselves within melee range of any toon; giving them heavy resistance to taunt can do just that.  TP them into melee for sure, but they shouldn’t willfully run directly next to your tank.  Of course, a sufficient amount of taunting should do it, but they need the resistance.  Controllers and Doms will have to work to deal with the baddies that are on the fringes of the tank’s range.

 

3) Decrease the damage away from the epicenter of AoE or multi target attacks away from the epicenter, including proc bombs.  This will give greater cause for consideration on self-balancing holds away from extreme damage.  Make the average damage the same overall, but give players the need to be choosier about attack placement.

 

4) Increase all proc attack frequencies but make those numbers subject to diminishing returns.  The average damage might be the same across the board, but now proc order and theory crafting will become much more important.  Mitigation will also receive higher consideration.

All of these ideas also have merit, especially the changes to taunt mechanics with regards to ranged mobs. I never thought of that but in reality it simply doesn't make sense for them to just decide to run on in when they are taunted. When a player blaster/defender/corruptor etc gets taunted they dont automatically run on in, they just stay where they are, and blast away. Because they know closing to melee would be a stupid idea in many cases. Somehow implementing this in game would be a great way to highlight the need for other sources of control outside of Taunt. 

Now, I don't know if that is possible, we would need a dev to tell us how that works. Maybe you could make the -range debuff stacking? So they are forced to get closer and closer the more applications? But not just automatically close the distance.

 

 

 

 

 

[Player-1]

Something that would be helpful to such a discussion would be actually sorting through all the "procs" and categorizing them and what they do to shed light on what is actually going on. It could be something as simple as:

 

Category	Set	Proc / Bonus
Accurate Healing	Theft of Essence	Chance of +End
Accurate Healing	Touch of the Nictus	Chance of Negative energy damage
Def Debuff	Touch of Lady Grey	Chance of Negative energy damage
Def Debuff	Achilles' Heel	Chance of -Res
		And so on...

 

 

Getting a visual could allow better discourse on whatever "problems" there may be instead of dancing around "certain procs" are problematic 🙂

 

 

 

 

[America's Angel]

12 hours ago, Player-1 said:

Something that would be helpful to such a discussion would be actually sorting through all the "procs" and categorizing them and what they do to shed light on what is actually going on. It could be something as simple as:

 

Category	Set	Proc / Bonus
Accurate Healing	Theft of Essence	Chance of +End
Accurate Healing	Touch of the Nictus	Chance of Negative energy damage
Def Debuff	Touch of Lady Grey	Chance of Negative energy damage
Def Debuff	Achilles' Heel	Chance of -Res
		And so on...

 

Getting a visual could allow better discourse on whatever "problems" there may be instead of dancing around "certain procs" are problematic 🙂

 

Already exists:
https://archive.paragonwiki.com/wiki/Set_Enhancements_with_Special_Effects

More up to date version, here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vd4ZZd1jfhOzdZZkGxC9O0NN5G0T1EdWPu_XRrV6s0U/edit

 

Does your asking this mean the dev team doesn't have any hard data that proves procs are overperforming?

Edited July 24, 2021 by America's Angel

[Hew]

1 hour ago, America&#x27;s Angel said:

Does your asking this mean the dev team doesn't have any hard data that proves procs are overperforming?

 

No. It was a request for the players to state their opinion on what is bad, and what is good. You would have to be a blindfolded horse living in the marianas trench to not notice procs are far in excess of expected performance.

[Marbing]

1 hour ago, America&#x27;s Angel said:

 

Already exists:
https://archive.paragonwiki.com/wiki/Set_Enhancements_with_Special_Effects

More up to date version, here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vd4ZZd1jfhOzdZZkGxC9O0NN5G0T1EdWPu_XRrV6s0U/edit

 

Does your asking this mean the dev team doesn't have any hard data that proves procs are overperforming?

You must be a lawyer, IRL. Lol

[KaizenSoze]

To be clear, I do *not* have a problem with procs.

 

Most of the complaints I have heard are about multiple damage procs in low or no damage attacks.

 

An example would be Trick Arrow: Ice Arrow, it does no damage, but you can place into it two psi damage, one smash, and one lethal proc.

 

This turns a no damage attack into something that could potentially do, 71+71+71+100 =321, points of damage. In reality it's probably going to be more like 140-210 damage.

[Ukase]

On 7/2/2021 at 10:41 AM, aethereal said:

It's not exactly confusing -- none of this is rocket science -- it's just illegible.  You would have no way within the game itself to figure out that local recharge reduces the rate of proccing, but global recharge doesn't.  Or that the recharge you get from Alpha incarnate slots, despite applying globally, is "local."  Or that a power would proc once every ten seconds in a rain power or a damage aura.  Or that some procs have their own global lockout.  Or that there's a min and max chance to proc.

 

I mean, honestly, I don't think most people who just see the verbage in game would even intuit that what that means is that the chance to fire is based on the recharge of the power.  Certainly not how the area factor works.

 

Once you know those things, none of them are individually that complicated.  But I think the idea was that players wouldn't have to worry their pretty little heads about any of that stuff, because the PPM system was gonna make procs roughly equally good in every power.  So the details don't matter, when you slot a proc, you get a stable power boost.  That's not at all the way it turned out, and now we've got a system with a bunch of weird little details that just rewards trivia knowledge.

This is so very well stated! 

[Ukase]

The only issue I have with procs are the inconsistency..or is it lack of clarity in how they work. They're an option. Choices are sometimes a good thing. 

The Preventative Medicine Absorb Proc - it works. It works no matter where it's slotted, at least, it seems to me it does. I can't say the same for all the other procs. I have to resort to math to determine if it WILL fire, or will it simply have a chance to fire. How much of a chance? I have to do the math. I don't ordinarily mind it. 

I look at builds that are posted in these forums when people ask for help with a build and see a number of procs in the suggested build. I then do that math, per Bopper's formulas on his spread sheet and see that either I'm missing something, or the builder is missing something, or both of us have missed something. I see people slotting the Chance for Recharge KB IO in Kick from the fight pool. 16.1% chance of firing an attack that most wouldn't ordinarily use in their attack chain. 
And I'm not saying it's completely useless. I'm sure the argument can be made for making it useful. My point is - if players are told there's only a 16% chance of the thing giving you what you want, are they going to use it? (assuming no other recharges in the power, and no recharge boost from Alpha slot) I suppose that all depends on the player and what they're after. 

I think the biggest issue is the lack of clarity in how these things work. There's a number of different kinds, and a number of different rules in which to determine their efficacy. And to have to break out Bopper's spreadsheet  (If credit should go to someone else (Macskull?) then my apologies.) for each one...that's just tedious. 

I think the rules need to be more understood by more players before we can really ask opinions. Some folks may give their thoughts but despite the best of intentions may not fully understand how they work, (And how they could be applied by people smarter than me for maximum carnage). My solution would be very unpopular, and probably make proc-monster builds untenable. Only allow the proc to work when slotted with at least one of the others within it's set. And then remove this "Chance" to fire nonsense, but have it fire. Takes away the need for all this bloody math. 

[America's Angel]

1 hour ago, Hew said:

 

No. It was a request for the players to state their opinion on what is bad, and what is good. You would have to be a blindfolded horse living in the marianas trench to not notice procs are far in excess of expected performance.

 

I was asking the Player-1.

 

While I appreciate you are probably trying to be helpful, I don't think you are in a position to provide the information I asked for. 

[KaizenSoze]

I agree it's confusing how procs work, but some people have figured it out. There are some very inquisitive and determined people in this game and they have figured out all the mechanics out.  I am a bit lazy and don't crunch the data past a certain performance level.

 

As for procs, there are spreadsheets out there to explain the math.

 

At this point, people have copied the slotting that works from other builds. There is a lot parroting in this game.

 

 I certain have parroted other people's builds.

 

I see the complaints about procs as complaint about over game difficulty. Otherwise, why would someone care if defenders can solo more than they could before.

[Replacement]

1 hour ago, America&#x27;s Angel said:

 

I was asking the Player-1.

 

While I appreciate you are probably trying to be helpful, I don't think you are in a position to provide the information I asked for. 

 

And you're not in the position to make the assumption you did.

 

4 hours ago, America&#x27;s Angel said:

Does your asking this mean the dev team doesn't have any hard data that proves procs are overperforming?

 

Every time anyone asks for more transparency with the dev team, they only need remember sentences like these to understand why it's always short-lived.

 

But in the meantime, you have been the advocate of "fix the abusive procs; not the proc system" and Player-1 has directly asked for clarification on that point.  It seems you could be doing more with the spotlight than shooting the messenger.

[America's Angel]

Spent this afternoon running a few more tests with this:

  

On 7/10/2021 at 4:29 PM, America&#x27;s Angel said:

Have been playing around with a  rad/dev blaster on beta.

 

Have been throwing it up against +4/8 Rikti in a custom AE mission (Tyrant throne-room map) with the following builds:

• Softcapped with no procs
• Softcapped with 3xST attacks filled with -res and dam procs
• Softcapped with 3xAoE attacks filled with -res and dam procs

No insps. No incarnates.

 

So far, there's no significant clearspeed between the first two. The last one (AoE procs) was faster.

 

I did an extra run with the AoE proc build with T4 incarnates slotted just for fun, and everything just melted. I didn't even need to use WASD and spacebar. I just spammed my powers and everything died. Incarnates made such a huge difference. I was genuinely shocked.

 

The DPS jump from the level shift, Judgement (ion), Hybrid (assault doublehit), Interface (degen 25 -heal) , and alpha (musculature 45) is insane. The survivability jump from the level shift and Destiny (Clarion 2m) was insane. When I used Lore (Banished Pantheon untouchable), the spawns pretty much just instantly died.

 

Haven't tested the first two builds with incarnates yet. Be interesting to see how they compare.

 

Next stuff I'm going to test:

• Softcapped with no procs + incarnates
• Softcapped with 3xST attacks filled with -res and dam procs + incarnates
• All attacks procc'd out. As much +def as possible, but likely not softcapped.
• All attacks procc'd out. As much +def as possible, but likely not softcapped.+ incarnates
• All attacks procc'd out. As much +def as possible, but likely not softcapped. + incarnates + Inspirations

I should probably switch to charged armour for the last three, but I'll keep Scorpion Shield just for consistency in testing.

 

Hopefully this will help give some perspective of how procs intersect with the various OP elements in the game. And allow us to determine whether procs are overtuned, whether procs are undertuned, or whether procs seem overtuned only when paired specific things. (Incarnates/Inspirations being the two I want to test the most.)

Once I've played around a bit more & fine-tuned, I'll post up the mids files for the builds, the # of the AE map, and videos of each of the runs.

 

My hope with this is to create a framework that others can use to test different powersets. Rad/dev should overperform with procs. (This is why I picked it- the primary can slot all the -res procs, a multitude of damage procs, and the secondary has targeting drone it it so with that + tactics I don't have to slot for acc.)

 

It's not a perfect test by any stretch of the imagination. And it cannot be applied outside of fighting Rikti, with a rad/dev blaster, with a specific build. But hopefully it will show us a pattern that we can then try and replicate elsewhere, with different sets, with different builds, versus different enemies.

 

Had some interesting findings. Will share once the videos are uploaded.