So, procs...

[BlackHearted]

I was simply giveing maneuvers as an example of a common way in which ppl get +def from team mates.. lets not forget the other 94 powers in game that grant +def.

And what i said was that unless you want to solo w/o insp it's objectively bad, if that's what you're into then the idea for soft capping would hold merit but i don't know why ppl would solo on a defender intentionally.

[Jitsurei]

The same reason people do anything in a game- fun! Further, when I play a defender I am often doing so to help other players, and I don’t expect them to be the ones keeping me alive. Difference of playstyle.

[Apparition]

10 minutes ago, BlackHearted said:

I was simply giveing maneuvers as an example of a common way in which ppl get +def from team mates.. lets not forget the other 94 powers in game that grant +def.

And what i said was that unless you want to solo w/o insp it's objectively bad, if that's what you're into then the idea for soft capping would hold merit but i don't know why ppl would solo on a defender intentionally.

 

 

I intentionally soloed two Force Field Defenders from levels one through 50 back on live, doing every single blue side story arc while leveling up, and turning XP off every five levels to make sure I wouldn't ding and outlevel anything.  It took me about three months each time. :P

 

Now on Homecoming, thankfully I don't have to play Defenders, but I do solo on most of my Corruptors.  Not all the time, but I'd say at least half the time and probably the majority of the time.

[BlackHearted]

So.. do i even need to say that balancing procs around solo defender play is prolly not a great idea or is that obvious now?

cus this all seems like a very niche situation... like yes if you do x y z and F a defender will do more dmg than a corr... but that's really b/c of xyz&f.. not cus of procs...

Edited July 5, 2021 by BlackHearted

[Jitsurei]

No one said procs should be balanced around just defenders or solo defenders. It’s one example out of the concerns that others brought up. 

 

The situation you’re talking about isn’t particularly niche, though. Building for def isn’t optimal damage, sure, but it does contribute to team flexibility, one of the strong points of CoH. I’d be surprised if every random team just happens to have the correct composition to give the entire team a suitable level of survivability. Doesn’t seem realistic. 

[BlackHearted]

5 minutes ago, Jitsurei said:

No one said procs should be balanced around just defenders or solo defenders. It’s one example out of the concerns that others brought up. 

 

The situation you’re talking about isn’t particularly niche, though. Building for def isn’t optimal damage, sure, but it does contribute to team flexibility, one of the strong points of CoH. I’d be surprised if every random team just happens to have the correct composition to give the entire team a suitable level of survivability. Doesn’t seem realistic. 

 Doesn't seem realistic to have a troller or a defender or a corr or an MM on a team?? i mean.. i guess if you intentionally don't invite ATs with support sets...

[Jitsurei]

Most of the time one of those on their own isn’t enough. Further, not all of the support sets grant survivability. But really, who hasn’t joined a team to see 4 brutes and a bunch of scrappers and blasters? They’re everywhere 😀

[Apparition]

14 minutes ago, Jitsurei said:

Most of the time one of those on their own isn’t enough. Further, not all of the support sets grant survivability. But really, who hasn’t joined a team to see 4 brutes and a bunch of scrappers and blasters? They’re everywhere 😀

 

 

Yep.  If I'm forming a PUG TF or SF, I'd say odds are good that I'll get something like two Tankers, two Scrappers, three Blasters, and I'll be the sole support.  To rely on having other support with you on the team, you'll eventually get caught with your pants down around your ankles.  If you PUG, I'd say more often than not.

Edited July 5, 2021 by Apparition

[skoryy]

33 minutes ago, Apparition said:

 

 

Yep.  If I'm forming a PUG TF or SF, I'd say odds are good that I'll get something like two Tankers, two Scrappers, three Blasters, and I'll be the sole support.  To rely on having other support with you on the team, you'll eventually get caught with your pants down around your ankles.  If you PUG, I'd say more often than not.

I'm back to maining my controller, and even then she's Ill/Sonic.   What defense and heals?

[golstat2003]

6 hours ago, Parabola said:

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!

 

Well . . . they (the devs) don't have to guess. They have Cryptic and Brainstorm for a reason. 😛 

Edited July 5, 2021 by golstat2003

[golstat2003]

1 hour ago, Apparition said:

 

 

Yep.  If I'm forming a PUG TF or SF, I'd say odds are good that I'll get something like two Tankers, two Scrappers, three Blasters, and I'll be the sole support.  To rely on having other support with you on the team, you'll eventually get caught with your pants down around your ankles.  If you PUG, I'd say more often than not.

 

Agreed.

 

More usual than not lately when I PUG, I'm barely seeing any real support sets. Only time I see them is if I bring one or I actively form a team and look for some.

 

Also I don't assume that I'm going to get a lot of support sets as team mates, when I team nowadays, I assume the exact opposite, especially with how complicated some of them are to play.

 

Also there are a lot of support sets I've run into that DO NOT have maneuvers lately. I'm not sure what that's about. More likely than not they have Tactics instead.

 

I'd be interested to see the devs data mine how often specific powers in the Leadership pool are taken nowadays.

Edited July 5, 2021 by golstat2003

[aethereal]

If people are taking tactics more than maneuvers, that seems like it's very likely due to procs.

[Apparition]

3 hours ago, golstat2003 said:

 

Agreed.

 

More usual than not lately when I PUG, I'm barely seeing any real support sets. Only time I see them is if I bring one or I actively form a team and look for some.

 

Also I don't assume that I'm going to get a lot of support sets as team mates, when I team nowadays, I assume the exact opposite, especially with how complicated some of them are to play.

 

Also there are a lot of support sets I've run into that DO NOT have maneuvers lately. I'm not sure what that's about. More likely than not they have Tactics instead.

 

I'd be interested to see the devs data mine how often specific powers in the Leadership pool are taken nowadays.

 

Yep.  I would love it if I had reliable support like a Fire/Cold Corruptor or a Time/DP Defender while I team, but I just don’t.  I very, very rarely play melee characters on teams these days because, more than half the time if PUGing, the only way I know my team will have a support character is if I play one.

 

The interconnected style of play America’s Angel and BlackHearted are talking about where you can build characters assuming that you will have defense and resistance buffs from other PCs is great, but is niche and far from the norm.  I can’t assume buffs from anyone while teaming, so I have to build all of my characters to be as self-sufficient as possible, including Corruptors.  All of my friends build likewise.  So yes, Defenders and Corruptors are built for soloing, as it’s the only way to guarantee soft cap defenses, even on a team.  And, as BlackHearted stated, damage procs are an issue with Defender builds built for soloing with softcapped defenses.

[BlackHearted]

3 hours ago, Apparition said:

I can’t assume buffs from anyone while teaming, so I have to build all of my characters to be as self-sufficient as possible, including Corruptors.  All of my friends build likewise.  So yes, Defenders and Corruptors are built for soloing, as it’s the only way to guarantee soft cap defenses, even on a team.  And, as BlackHearted stated, damage procs are an issue with Defender builds built for soloing with softcapped defenses.

So... The idea of building team friendly builds is not something you considered suggesting to your friends? B/c it seems like the solution is right there infront of you........ And please don't misrepresent what I said.  I said those builds have other issues that make them bad ideas objectively, and that specifically the procs where not the issue, the building decisions are. Also this fuzzy math ppl are pointing at saying defenders do more dmg than Corrs with x y z f conditions on a tuesday when they solo without inspirations..... is really a dull point to keep bringing up... it's so niche i dont' see how it's being seriously presented as a realistic concern.... defender dmg is not anywhere near causing balance issues.. the idea that it is just sounds silly...

Edited July 5, 2021 by BlackHearted

[Haijinx]

On 7/1/2021 at 10:22 PM, Vooded said:

My solution: only 1 proc per power. 

While this one is likely highly unpopular, it has some merit. 

 

It would be the best way to control power creep. 

 

It would eliminate the need for complicated ppm changes. 

 

Its very simple to both use and convey to players. 

[Jitsurei]

2 hours ago, BlackHearted said:

So... The idea of building team friendly builds is not something you considered suggesting to your friends? B/c it seems like the solution is right there infront of you........ And please don't misrepresent what I said.  I said those builds have other issues that make them bad ideas objectively, and that specifically the procs where not the issue, the building decisions are. Also this fuzzy math ppl are pointing at saying defenders do more dmg than Corrs with x y z f conditions on a tuesday when they solo without inspirations..... is really a dull point to keep bringing up... it's so niche i dont' see how it's being seriously presented as a realistic concern.... defender dmg is not anywhere near causing balance issues.. the idea that it is just sounds silly...

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.

Edited July 5, 2021 by Jitsurei
Wrong word

[Parabola]

2 hours ago, Haijinx said:

On 7/2/2021 at 3:22 AM, Vooded said:

My solution: only 1 proc per power. 

While this one is likely highly unpopular, it has some merit. 

 

It would be the best way to control power creep. 

 

It would eliminate the need for complicated ppm changes. 

 

Its very simple to both use and convey to players. 

I would personally hate this change but it would almost be worth it to see the absolute meltdown it would cause. No, in fact it would totally be worth it. Where do I sign?!

[skoryy]

25 minutes ago, Parabola said:

I would personally hate this change but it would almost be worth it to see the absolute meltdown it would cause. No, in fact it would totally be worth it. Where do I sign?!

 

Another piece of evidence that this should be renamed the 'Some Men Just Want To Watch The World Burn' forum.

[Galaxy Brain]

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.

[Parabola]

29 minutes ago, skoryy said:

 

Another piece of evidence that this should be renamed the 'Some Men Just Want To Watch The World Burn' forum.

If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH,' the paint wouldn't even have time to dry. - Terry Pratchett

[Haijinx]

7 minutes ago, Parabola said:

If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH,' the paint wouldn't even have time to dry. - Terry Pratchett

 

 

[America's Angel]

7 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

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.

 

Hey GB! Have a read through this thread. We already debunked most of these concerns. 

 

Let me give you a brief rundown...

 

Defenders benefitting from damage procs more than Corruptors was debunked here. (And in the follow-up posts by Blackhearted.)

 

Aethereal's post here and my follow-up post here started to narrow down the viability of different reasons for/approaches to changing procs in general. (Not just damage procs) The intention was to move away from the broad-strokes, unspecific suggestions/claims that were plaguing the thread, into a more granular discussion that could then be quantified with data analysis.

 

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!) Because of this, most of the posts in this thread have been solutions in search of problems. To remedy this, I made a post at the start of the thread, here, where I outlined some number-crunching steps that players who want to see damage procs nerfed can undertake to prove their claims that procs are overperforming/bad for game balance. (Having been through two beta cycles with the devs, I know firsthand that they respond best to data/numbers that PROVE a balance issue. Which is why I have been encouraging posters here to provide numbers.)

 

So far, no-one has provided any numbers. All justification for global proc nerfs in this thread have been anecdotal/appealing to authority ("everyone knows that..." etc). Obviously none of this is actionable data. But it does demonstrate a reticence that those calling for a global proc nerf have towards number crunching. 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.

This is to be expected, though. Most posters on internet forums tend to be casual-intermediate players, as we can see from this recent polling of the forum posters' level of wealth:

 

 

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. 

 

Key word there is "mostly". There are, of course, exceptions. But a few problem powers (Burn, Ground Zero, etc) and a few problem procs (Gaussian) and a few problem dynamics (AoE attacks triggering self-buffs) does not a global proc nerf justify. For example, I've yet to see any quantifiable evidence that Char with 6 procs is causing power creep, impacting other players, or making the user of Char significantly more powerful than before. (Without the use of inspiration chaining via email to plug the hole caused by the lack of set bonuses that 6-slotting char, and other powers, will cause.)

 

Honestly, nothing in this thread has changed since I posted this back on Page 2...

 

On 7/2/2021 at 6:56 PM, 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?

 

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.

[aethereal]

2 minutes ago, America's Angel said:

 

Hey GB! Have a read through this thread. We already debunked most of these concerns. 

 

You really haven't.  You made a bunch of dubious assertions with no sourcing and people mostly ignored you.

[America's Angel]

13 minutes ago, aethereal said:

You really haven't.  You made a bunch of dubious assertions with no sourcing and people mostly ignored you.

 

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. That said, I have noticed a few posters haven't responded when I explained that their ideas weren't viable. (Such as your idea about local recharge not affecting proc rate.) But I just assumed that was them accepting the correction. Although my posts are pretty long, so maybe it was just wearying them out?  Who can say.

Also, with regards to your other post about Tactics, above. It's extremely unlikely that more players are taking tactics than Manuevers. In order to take Tactics, you have to first select Assault or Manuevers. As Manuevers is a good slot for the LOTG global, most players tend to take that over Assault.

Edited July 5, 2021 by America's Angel

[aethereal]

9 minutes 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. I noticed a few posters haven't responded when I explained that their ideas weren't viable. (Such as your idea about local recharge not affecting proc rate.)

 

Just as a point of order, that's @nihilii's idea.

 

Quote

But I just assumed that was them accepting the correction.

 

That's a bad assumption.  Hope this helps!

 

Look, it's everyone's God-given right to make unsourced, dubious assertions.  It's hard or impossible to back up every point with rigorous data, and we all have limited time to talk about imaginary superheroes on the internet.  But trying to take victory laps and declare the conversation over after you decide to make one-sentence dismissals is just dumb.

 

EDIT:  About tactics, I agree.  I was just trying to take seriously the previous poster's claim that tactics was more prevalent than maneuvers, not commenting on my assessment of the likelihood that they were correct that tactics was more prevalent than maneuvers.

Edited July 5, 2021 by aethereal