So, procs...

[aethereal]

1 minute ago, Gobbledegook said:

Changing Procs would break so many builds and upset a fair few players, if not done well i reckon.  

 

Sentinels for example have some of their best attacks available to them in the epic pool fully procced out. 

 

Big change no, small tweaks ok imo, unless there is some grand plan we don't know about. Maybe just reduce the damage etc of the procs a little. But i've never seen the problem with them. To use them you are missing out on some set bonuses anyway.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting changes that will, like, turn damage procs into self-resistance-buffing powers.  Builds with procs in them will continue to "function," though they may be tuned up or down in various ways.

 

Personally, my problem with procs is not really the overall power they provide, it's the way they sharpen the meta.  So my preferred solutions would leave current proc builds just fine (perhaps shaved down a bit in overall power, but not much), but other builds more viable with procs.

[arcane]

1 hour ago, aethereal said:

So @Naraka I feel like what this thread is missing is a breakdown of what's wrong with the current PPM system.  Here's my list:

 

1.  It further emphasized the value of global recharge.  That was insane.  The idea that, at issue 22, you looked at CoH's meta and said, "What this game needs is more incentive for everyone to pick Hasten and gather recharge set bonuses" is just...  it beggars the imagination.

 

2.  It is incredibly illegible.  In order to figure out whether a power procs well, you have to understand not just the raw formula of the PPM math (which isn't hard, but isn't something you can do in your head, especially for AoE powers), but also the caps on proc rate, the whole global/local recharge difference (including the distinction that alpha recharge is "local"), the lockouts on sustained powers, the lockouts on certain procs (like the healing ones and the stalker ATO), and whether a power procs on its own activation or on a pseudopet (completely impossible to find out within game, you have to go to external sources).  As a result, if you aren't someone who obsessively reads the fora, you have no fucking idea whether a proc is good or bad in a power.

 

3.  PPM in its current form rewards 15-20 second recharge powers.  With perma-hasten levels of global recharge, those powers recharge in 5-10 seconds -- ie, about one attack rotation.  That makes them the highest-damage powers that you can likely fit into a reasonable attack rotation, which in turn means we've really focused the game on 15-20 second recharge powers.  Your best powers are also the best powers to proc.

 

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.

 

As a result of these problems, I think that there is no possible tweak to the PPM formula that will make this system work.  PPM is bad.  It needs to be replaced with a fundamentally different system.

 

PPM delenda est.

I would also add for consideration that (1) there should be a discussion about procs on primarily damage-focused powers versus others. It’s one thing to proc bomb your 15-20 second attack. It’s another to turn powers that do zero damage into nuke-size damage. Is the latter really what the HC devs want? I don’t know.

 

And then I would also specifically bring up (2) APP’s and PPP’s. These powers have longer recharge by default because they aren’t supposed to be as good as primaries/secondaries. But procs turn that dynamic on its head. Should there be something in place to keep these powers specifically from overperforming? What if, say, pools had their own PPM formulas vs primaries/secondaries?

 

Just thinking out loud and adding my $0.02.

 

Also, FWIW, I don’t think PPM is that confusing to interpret outside of pseudopet powers. Those ones tho, I have to comb through Myshkin’s threads.

Edited July 2, 2021 by arcane

[Coyotedancer]

6 hours ago, Naraka said:

(main culprit here would be Bonfire).

 

I have to disagree pretty strongly with that.

 

Honestly, having the KB-to-KD option available for it is what makes Bonfire worth taking. Back in the Live days, prior to the first of those showing up? It was basically a non-starter. Very few people used the power, and for good reason. It was just a bad pick. It made itself darn near useless by flinging things out right out of its own radius on a regular basis. Some of us still *tried* to find good uses for it... but most seemed to end up respeccing right back out of it, grumbling about "trash powers" and "Who actually thought patch-based knockback was a GOOD idea?!"

 

Granted, when the old devs introduced the first KB-to-KD special, it only came from the not-always-available, seasonal Summer Blockbuster event arc and it was an exclusive. You couldn't have more than one in a build, so dropping it into Bonfire came at the cost of using it anywhere else. We lost that cost when Sudden Acc was introduced, with its non-exclusive version. 

 

So... Would it make people feel better if Bonfire went back to only accepting the exclusive, Overwhelming version? They're much more expensive, and less easily obtained than just buying a recipe. If you couldn't just easily drop in a Sudden that you picked up for a million INF or so on the auction-house, you might see less people taking and using the power. Or it might increase the frequency of people running Summer Blockbuster. 

[arcane]

If Bonfire can stay as KD that’s fine, but it would have to have its tick rate / recharge etc rebalanced around comparables Ice Slick and Earthquake.

[aethereal]

40 minutes ago, arcane said:

Also, FWIW, I don’t think PPM is that confusing to interpret outside of pseudopet powers. Those ones tho, I have to comb through Myshkin’s threads.

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.

[Marbing]

42 minutes ago, arcane said:

If Bonfire can stay as KD that’s fine, but it would have to have its tick rate / recharge etc rebalanced around comparables Ice Slick and Earthquake.

I have a fire/psi dom and even I agree Bonfire is a bit OP in its current state. There is almost no reason for me to cast any other ability, just let them all burn and flop around in the bonfire, and it is up for every group. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by th0ughtGun

[arcane]

11 minutes ago, 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.

True true. I can’t run Mids (Macbook) so I basically live on hcwiki and city of data and manually calculate all my own proc rates, so perhaps I take some of that for granted.

[RageusQuitus2]

9 hours ago, VashNKnives said:

but a big buff to some draining IOs like tempest could be too exploitable because ranged damage powers are common

Being how hard it is to make a dedicated sapper (and arguably how usefull), i dont see it possible that io set could be buffed to turn a fire/fire blaster into a sapper w damage.  And even then there would be so many better choices.  Cause attacking the blue bars is like attacking windmills.

[Bill Z Bubba]

Guess it's time to procmonster my claws/bio scrapper. If history is any guide, by the time I jump on a bandwagon a nerf is soon to follow. So I'll get on that shortly.

[arcane]

Claws and Scrappers both have relatively little to gain from procs tho.

 

Things like my Rad/Rad defender, my DP/SR sentinel, most of my controllers? Those are gonna need total rebuilds.

[Yomo Kimyata]

I'm trying to figure out my position on procs, so most of this post is just me thinking aloud.

 

Originally, (I think), all procs worked off a chance to activate.  Call it 20%.  Fast activating powers had the same chance as slow activating powers, so you would get more bang for the buck by slotting "buzzsaw" attacks.  I see that the desire for balance between damage and activation time got thrown out of whack, so I understand what the problem was.

 

I'm less clear about what the problem is with PPM.  I see that it was an attempt to "normalize" activation, and I think it was a pretty good attempt.  I like the current system, in part because it is still probability based in large part, but it is more balanced.  Is the problem that some powers get maxxed out at 90% because of recharge time/activation time?  Is the problem that certain powers are not being used for their "purpose", e.g., holds used as damage attacks?  Is it that global recharge (often) doesn't affect proc chances?  Other?  I ask this question a lot in this forum:  what is the problem we are trying to solve?

 

I noticed that in recent patches, the devs have instituted "internal" times on powers that result in lowered proc chances on those powers when compared to their actual usage.  I'm not particularly pleased with that direction, because then it will be the devs' somewhat arbitrary opinion on which powers should proc and how often.

 

I also differentiate procs into three general categories:  damage, enemy debuff, and character buff.  For the last, there is a real discrepancy between single target and AoE, which is why, for example, I slot a Force Feedback into every single AoE KB power, but less frequently slot one into a single target power.  I'd hate to see that go away, but I'd understand if it did.

[aethereal]

2 minutes ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

I'm less clear about what the problem is with PPM.  I see that it was an attempt to "normalize" activation, and I think it was a pretty good attempt.  I like the current system, in part because it is still probability based in large part, but it is more balanced.  Is the problem that some powers get maxxed out at 90% because of recharge time/activation time?  Is the problem that certain powers are not being used for their "purpose", e.g., holds used as damage attacks?  Is it that global recharge (often) doesn't affect proc chances?  Other?  I ask this question a lot in this forum:  what is the problem we are trying to solve?

 

Did you see my post on what the problem is with PPM?

[Bill Z Bubba]

22 minutes ago, arcane said:

Claws and Scrappers both have relatively little to gain from procs tho.

 

Things like my Rad/Rad defender, my DP/SR sentinel, most of my controllers? Those are gonna need total rebuilds.

 

I thought so as well until I saw someone's pylon time running a fully proced chain of followup, focus, slash, crosspunch vs my normal followup, focus, slash, repeat. The extra damage procs allow for is nothing short of ludicrous.

 

But what about endurance? Fixed with ageless.

What about accuracy? Fixed with tactics and set bonuses.

Recharge? Again, set bonuses and less is needed when adding another attack to the chain.

 

And if it's true for one of the fastest sets in the game, it's even more so for all the rest.

[arcane]

I like Vigor a lot on proc monsters personally. Sometimes it can be enough that you don’t need Ageless of Tactics. My DP/SR sentinel for instance has Vigor and either 3 or 4 attacks with 6 procs each. Fun to see those big stacks of numbers. My TA’s will often use it to put 6 procs in Ice Arrow and Acid Arrow.

 

If you don’t have any reason to think about another Destiny option though (like many tankers), the typical pools plus Ageless approach is ofc great too.

Edited July 2, 2021 by arcane

[Yomo Kimyata]

3 hours ago, aethereal said:

So @Naraka I feel like what this thread is missing is a breakdown of what's wrong with the current PPM system.  Here's my list:

 

1.  It further emphasized the value of global recharge.  That was insane.  The idea that, at issue 22, you looked at CoH's meta and said, "What this game needs is more incentive for everyone to pick Hasten and gather recharge set bonuses" is just...  it beggars the imagination.

 

2.  It is incredibly illegible.  In order to figure out whether a power procs well, you have to understand not just the raw formula of the PPM math (which isn't hard, but isn't something you can do in your head, especially for AoE powers), but also the caps on proc rate, the whole global/local recharge difference (including the distinction that alpha recharge is "local"), the lockouts on sustained powers, the lockouts on certain procs (like the healing ones and the stalker ATO), and whether a power procs on its own activation or on a pseudopet (completely impossible to find out within game, you have to go to external sources).  As a result, if you aren't someone who obsessively reads the fora, you have no fucking idea whether a proc is good or bad in a power.

 

3.  PPM in its current form rewards 15-20 second recharge powers.  With perma-hasten levels of global recharge, those powers recharge in 5-10 seconds -- ie, about one attack rotation.  That makes them the highest-damage powers that you can likely fit into a reasonable attack rotation, which in turn means we've really focused the game on 15-20 second recharge powers.  Your best powers are also the best powers to proc.

 

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.

 

As a result of these problems, I think that there is no possible tweak to the PPM formula that will make this system work.  PPM is bad.  It needs to be replaced with a fundamentally different system.

 

PPM delenda est.

 

I did read them, but I don't really see them as the real game breakers that you do.  And that's fine.

 

I do think that min-maxers are gonna min-max.  Point 1:  I think people are gonna take Hasten whether or not they use procs, so the problem (if there is one) is with Hasten, not procs; 2:  I may be smarter than the average bear (or I may not!), but I don't think it's all that complex.  When I'm looking at procs, I look at percentages as calculated by one of the spreadsheets that people have so kindly provided!; 3. Old procs benefitted quick recharge powers, new procs benefit a different set of powers, a new system would benefit another class of powers (presumably).  I don't really see that as a problem.  If people don't want to min-max, that's fine.  Their characters will still be fully playable at the highest of levels; 4.  This is a risk tolerance/behavioral issue.  It's interesting, but I don't see it as a problem.

 

It's certainly possible I'm undervaluing the problems here, but I'm not sure.  Again, just thinking aloud.

 

EDIT:  I'd understand if they worked global recharge into the formulas.  

 

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Yomo Kimyata
I like editing.

[Burk]

19 minutes ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

EDIT:  I'd understand if they worked global recharge into the formulas. 

 

From my understanding, they didn't do that because they didn't want outside (defender/etc) buffs like speed boost to be seen as a detriment. The problem is that IO recharge and buff recharge is treated the same by the game. So unless they could flag the IO buffs as being different, I don't see this happening.

[aethereal]

24 minutes ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

 

I did read them, but I don't really see them as the real game breakers that you do.  And that's fine.

 

I do think that min-maxers are gonna min-max.  Point 1:  I think people are gonna take Hasten whether or not they use procs, so the problem (if there is one) is with Hasten, not procs

 

Procs are certainly not the only thing that's wrong with the global recharge meta -- and the incentive to seek perma-hasten goes back to the very beginning of the game.  But it's hard to fix Hasten.  It's straightforward to make procs not pile more power onto the already-dominant meta.  On the margin, the PPM system disincents anyone from finding clever builds that don't rely as heavily on building 180% global recharge.  It sharpens the meta and reduces build diversity.  It makes people less likely to say, "Well, I can deal with a 10 second period where Hasten isn't up."

 

24 minutes ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

2:  I may be smarter than the average bear (or I may not!), but I don't think it's all that complex.  When I'm looking at procs, I look at percentages as calculated by one of the spreadsheets that people have so kindly provided!

 

See the exchange I had with arcane about this.  It's not about it being so difficult once you're clued into it (and have third-party tools).  It's that it's hostile to the people who aren't us, who don't get onto the boards and do deep dives on game mechanics.

 

And, look, there will always be some reward to doing deep dives on game mechanics, that's life.  But here the reward is completely out of whack.  I submit that if you don't go to third party sources, you'll have literally no idea whether a proc is doing a good job or a bad job in a power, why, or how to change anything.  Just...  NONE.  This isn't like knowing about arcana time, where you might squeeze out another 5% damage by being super efficient.  It's just straight up like "the game tells me essentially nothing about how this important mechanic works."

 

24 minutes ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

 3. Old procs benefitted quick recharge powers, new procs benefit a different set of powers, a new system would benefit another class of powers (presumably).  I don't really see that as a problem.  If people don't want to min-max, that's fine.  Their characters will still be fully playable at the highest of levels;

 

The problem, as with #1, is that you're piling more power on the things that were already high-power.  The old system benefitted T1/T2 powers, which are otherwise not-that-attractive powers.  The new system benefits the powers that are already the hardest-hitting powers in the game, and already often have secondary effects that are very attractive.  The result, as with #1, and in combination with #1, is yet-more-incentive to have a smaller and smaller number of viable builds within a given power range.

 

Now, I don't think the old system was great either -- just spamming buzzsaw powers isn't very exciting, and I'm not proposing a return to flat proc rates.  But we inflated the power level of the game in going to PPM.

 

24 minutes ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

4.  This is a risk tolerance/behavioral issue.  It's interesting, but I don't see it as a problem.

 

I think it's the least-problematic of the four problems I noted.

 

However, it's a real effect.  People want their 90% proc rates, and trying to fight against them with a system that says, "Hey, good news, you have a 40% proc rate," creates a big drag on the system.

 

For non-damage procs, I think it's potentially a bigger issue.  For damage procs, you can kinda say, "Well, dude, I dunno, we're looking at total DPS and it's just a scalar number."  But if we're talking like +2 mag on the hold or additional chance to build up, I think people reasonably say, "Having the ability to get this effect reliably when I need it is more than twice as valuable as getting it more often but unreliably."

[America's Angel]

For all this talk of "fixing" procs, I've yet to see anyone clearly outline what the problem with them is.

 

If the problem cannot be clearly outlined, a discussion cannot be had, and a solution cannot be found.

 

So what might be more useful right now is, rather than suggesting things, why don't y'all try identifying things?

 

Actually run the numbers. Demonstrate the performance difference for a procless build vs a proc-filled build. Show the performance difference. (If there is one). And make sure you show the difference in both DPS and HPS. A procless build should have higher HPS due to more set bonuses. What you should be looking to compare is the overall DPS:HPS efficacy ratio of both builds.

 

This is what I do when putting together my super-min/max PvP builds. I look at my DPS and HPS. And I consider whether sacrificing DPS in some areas nets a higher HPS in other areas, making the overall "strength" of the build greater. This is the sort of analysis that has to happen. Also, you need to consider thresholds. What is the HPS you need to survive vs most content?  How easy is it to get there? Do you need more set bonuses to do this than a proc-build would allow? Can the survival gap be filled with inspirations? If so, how does a proc-filled build without inspirations compare to a procless build without inspirations, numerically?

 

And this goes beyond a simple build-to-build comparison. You'd also have to look at how procs function on the powerset-level. By this I mean analyzing how much procs help/do not help balance the different sets relative to each other on a given AT. Fire Blast and Ice Blast, for example; Fire does more damage, but Ice has better proccing options. Take procs away, and does the performance gap between fire and ice widen? Do procs bring up middling sets greater than they boost the top sets? (You can only answer this by running the numbers.)

 

And this also extends to the AT level, too. Do some ATs benefit more from procs than others? For example - brutes are swimming in +dam, so are procs better for them than Scrappers? Procs don't use AT damage modifiers, so do they boost up the DPS of low-damage ATs more than they boost up the DPS of high-damage ATS? (This is not rhetorical. This is something you will need to sit down and calculate in Excel.)

 

These are the sort of questions you will need to ask when running your analysis.

 

Until this is done. Suggesting a "fix" is premature. Because you don't even know what you're trying to fix. 

 

And this is worth stressing: numbers are reliable, humans aren't. The benefit of using quantitative analysis for balance is that it will lessen the impact of anecdotal observations in the discussion.

[BZRKR]

30 minutes ago, America's Angel said:

I look at my DPS and HPS

What does HPS mean? Health Per Second? Or is it just Hit PointS?

[Bionic_Flea]

44 minutes ago, America's Angel said:

Until this is done. Suggesting a "fix" is premature. Because you don't even know what you're trying to fix. 

 

While I understand and appreciate what you are saying, I think that a change to procs is going to come, whether you define the problem or not.  Any imbalances that occur after that change can and should be addressed on a Power by Power, AT by AT basis. 

 

I have 2 suggestions for changes to procs:

 

1) Make the Force Feedback Proc unique.  Sorry, Sir Myshkin.

2) Give damage procs a diminishing return - first one that hits gets full damage, second one half . . . third one . . . I'm not sure if additional procs should be at half or at progressively reduced damage.  As I am proposing it (standard code rant) it's not the first proc that you slot that gets full damage, its the first proc that GOES OFF.  So if only one proc goes off you get full damage for that one and if multiple ones go off you get full damage from first and reduced damage for any additional ones, regardless of which other procs go off and where they are slotted.

 

What would that do: 

 

It would limit global recharge dependent on slotting multiple FF +recharge procs.  That over favors certain build and sets, but everyone can slot at least one if they want to, even if they had to go to a pool power to get it.

 

The change would also have ZERO effect on builds that six slot a set with a damage proc, and a slight reduction in builds that slot five from one set then and extra damage proc.   It would greatly reduce, but not eliminate proc bombs.  You could still keep your current slotting and all your procs could still do additional damage, just less damage.  And that reduced damage can be debated and tweaked to a reasonable (hopefully) place.  But if, as @America's Angel says, this would create too great a discrepancy between say ice blast and fire blast that can be addressed in other ways, either just in PVP or both PVP and PvE.  It should also draw out PvP fights a bit more.  I've heard people argue both sides of that -- it's too easy to spike with procs and it's to easy to avoid death without them.  But again, any change would need to be thoroughly tested in both PvP and PvE and adjusted as required.

 

Full disclosure:  Most of my builds only slot one or two procs per power, except for some of the most recent ones that I've made to take advantage of FF+rech and powers that can reliably proc multiple damage procs.  So my proposal will probably affect me less than it will others.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Bionic_Flea

[Naraka]

39 minutes ago, America's Angel said:

For all this talk of "fixing" procs, I've yet to see anyone clearly outline what the problem with them is.

 

If the problem cannot be clearly outlined, a discussion cannot be had, and a solution cannot be found.

 

So what might be more useful right now is, rather than suggesting things, why don't y'all try identifying things?

 

 

Well I didn't particularly outline in my OP what issue requires nerfing procs, I did point to other issues of procs that aren't damage that are being held back by the current formula and implementation.

 

As for the other proc stuff, I did go by the consensus that the devs were looking to alter procs was a given.  It's no secret that damage procs can be bonkers in specific powers.  Overall, it creates a haves/have-nots for powers that don't have the ability to load up on procs.  That is an underlying issue no one has talked about and I don't think the solution should be just give everything the ability to proc-bomb by adding more procs to the system.  It would be better to make the procs more in-line with standard slotting.

 

But I didn't really want to get into the hoopla of debating about whether there is or isn't a problem because that's boring and probably more for a discussion in the General forum.  This was more supposed to be talking about how solutions would affect the current slotting game.

 

47 minutes ago, America's Angel said:

Actually run the numbers. Demonstrate the performance difference for a procless build vs a proc-filled build. Show the performance difference. (If there is one). And make sure you show the difference in both DPS and HPS. A procless build should have higher HPS due to more set bonuses. What you should be looking to compare is the overall DPS:HPS efficacy ratio of both builds.

 

This is what I do when putting together my super-min/max PvP builds. I look at my DPS and HPS. And I consider whether sacrificing DPS in some areas nets a higher HPS in other areas, making the overall "strength" of the build greater. This is the sort of analysis that has to happen.

 

Only to prove if proc should be looked at?  That's a lot of work but I think plenty of players have already demonstrated the strength of proc-monster builds.  I don't think it's necessary to need to provide spreadsheets and meta-calculations just to have a license to talk about procs when there are dozens of threads that exist here on the forums.

 

51 minutes ago, America's Angel said:

Fire Blast and Ice Blast, for example; Fire does more damage, but Ice has better proccing options. Take procs away, and does the performance gap between fire and ice widen? Do procs bring up middling sets greater than they boost the top sets? (You can only answer this by running the numbers.)

 

 

Ice Blast should perform better for self-preservation.  Why should it also have similar damage?  Are the procs for debuffs/controls on par with the procs for damage?  You're probably not going to ever get to talk about those kind of subjects if you only fixate on hammering down the question of "are we allowed to change procs?" with a drawn out debate.  There's no reason to be coy here, we know procs are strong in many circumstances and we don't need to prove that here.  

 

 

[wjrasmussen]

16 hours ago, Vooded said:

 

Yes. 

 

That's the point. Procs are too powerful and need a drastic nerf. 

I have a character with icicles and a frankenslot of procs.  I love it.  Hate to lose it.

[Pzn]

All the old dogs in this thread screaming that we should nerf new tricks.  It's ok to be outperformed in a single metric by people who min/max for it.  Giving up set bonuses to increase the damage output of a power is a tradeoff that increase build diversity.  Not something you are required to do.

 

[arcane]

3 minutes ago, Pzn said:

All the old dogs in this thread screaming that we should nerf new tricks.  It's ok to be outperformed in a single metric by people who min/max for it.  Giving up set bonuses to increase the damage output of a power is a tradeoff that increase build diversity.  Not something you are required to do.

 

We already know the HC devs are looking at procs. This thread is not a call to nerf. It is a discussion hoping to influence the nature of an already inevitable nerf.

[Yomo Kimyata]

6 minutes ago, arcane said:

We already know the HC devs are looking at procs. This thread is not a call to nerf. It is a discussion hoping to influence the nature of an already inevitable nerf.

 

I know this is true, but my search fu is weak.  Is there any "official" dev statement that identifies *what* they think the problem with procs is?  Even if that problem is as simple as "we don't like 'em!"?  I think that would help people brainstorm possible solutions that directly address the stated problem.

 

1 hour ago, Bionic_Flea said:

 

 

1) Make the Force Feedback Proc unique.  Sorry, Sir Myshkin.

 

 

My initial response was, "You're a monster!"  But on further review, why not make *every* proc unique?