Issue 27 Page 4 - The End of Procs

[oedipus_tex]

42 minutes ago, Black Zot said:

 

Pretty much sums up every thread that mentions balance, really.  Some people simply will not be satisfied until a 0x1 spawn becomes a life-or-death struggle.

 

 

I don't think that's a fair characterization of this thread or other players. It's fine if you think the current system works as is. It's a topic a lot of people are passionate about. But I think things will be more productive if we keep the conversation on the system and sets and not other players' implied motivations. Thanks.

[Marshal_General]

The problem with procs isn't procs themselves, its recharge. Recharge in a power penalizes you, while global recharge gives you the advantage of getting a 20 second high damaging power down to 5 seconds without affecting proc chance or damage.

[Ghost]

2 hours ago, Black Zot said:

 

Pretty much sums up every thread that mentions balance, really.  Some people simply will not be satisfied until a 0x1 spawn becomes a life-or-death struggle.

Is it any different than the people who want to go the other direction and make it a lot easier?

[lemming]

I'm not really a fan of loading multiple procs into a power, but it doesn't effect my play style.

[Riverdusk]

15 hours ago, Onlyasandwich said:

This creates a new counterintuitive nichification of procs. Now instead of just avoiding super fast recharge powers, you also avoid longer recharge, as the cycling potential is wasted, leaving only a small middle ground of moderate recharge powers that just barely hit that 75 cap as optimized for procs.

 

 

 

Fair enough, but I feel people already game things with the current cap at 90%.  I know more than once I've seen calculations done as to exactly how much recharge you can slot into aim or build up to have the gaussian proc at exactly 90%.  I don't know that things would change much by lowering it a bit. 

 

Overall I'm with you, I like procs generally the way they are and feel they help the game more than they hurt.  Most importantly I find them fun in adding new and varied build opportunities.

[Murcielago]

On 2/21/2022 at 9:14 AM, Troo said:

With the current popularity of procs, is the reining in of their effectiveness still in the works?

 

I believe this was mentioned a while back and folks would likely appreciate a heads up.

Nothing like putting time and effort into something that is taken away. Sure procs are currently a bit broken (is this debatable?).

 

Maybe a timeline? example: "To be addressed but not soon^tm"

 

 

If we survived ED, we can survive anything.

[Major_Decoy]

10 minutes ago, Murcielago said:

If we survived ED, we can survive anything.

Honestly, after the Global Defense Nerf, Enhancement Diversification just meant I no longer felt compelled to continue six slotting powers that had had their efficacy halved or worse.

[Crysis]

I would much rather that the devs nerf procs than go through another round of "Global X Nerf."  Honestly, I think only the Chance of X Damage procs are the problematic ones, as it allows AT's to punch outside of their damage class.  But for all the complaints about steamrolling teams, "Zerg" as the only relevant battle tactic, etc etc.....the real culprit isn't power creep but DPS creep, and Procs are the in the middle of this.  I'd hate to see Panacea + Miracle + Numina be nerfed down to only one per power or only one can activate per X minutes, etc.  I don't think those have a global impact on the game.  But global damage creep HAS had an impact on the challenge level of this game.

 

But take your pick because I'm betting one or the other is going to be on our horizon.  Global AT damage modifier nerfs or Global damage proc nerfs.  Nerfers gonna nerf.

[Riverdusk]

4 hours ago, Crysis said:

I would much rather that the devs nerf procs than go through another round of "Global X Nerf."  Honestly, I think only the Chance of X Damage procs are the problematic ones, as it allows AT's to punch outside of their damage class. 

 

Which is why another possibility that has been brought up is to have damage procs scale by AT damage modifiers.  Not a fan of that myself but I know it has been discussed before.

[aethereal]

It seems really backward to me to say that the problem with the current meta is that blasters and scrappers need help.

[SaintD]

6 hours ago, aethereal said:

It seems really backward to me to say that the problem with the current meta is that blasters and scrappers need help.

It would probably be more accurate to say that Scrappers shouldn't need a bullshit OP epic archetype I/O at level 50 to seal their position as the all round damage melee AT.

 

Honestly, I think Scrappers should crit like that naturally, and have more Sentinel-like lowered defense and hit points. More cannon, more glass.

[Clave Dark 5]

14 hours ago, Crysis said:

...the real culprit isn't power creep but DPS creep, and Procs are the in the middle of this.

 

Compared to Live, the creep's been the relative ease of chasing IO set bonus and purpling/ATOing out a character, not proc builds, I'd wager.  There's a reason they call the "free purple for everyone!" TF "Market Crash," after all, all ha ha.  I'm no marketeer, maybe even less than I was on Live, and I still manage to fill out my builds with ATOs and literally every set I want to use (I skip purples because I'm cheap, but I could manage those too).

[tidge]

6 hours ago, Clave Dark 5 said:

Compared to Live, the creep's been the relative ease of chasing IO set bonus and purpling/ATOing out a character, not proc builds, I'd wager. 

 

I agree: I think it's set bonuses and one-piece globals that make more of difference than %damage procs. I'm OK with this.

 

For my inf, folks are a little too casual about calling things like the Luck of the Gambler Def/+Recharge a "proc". I can accept pieces like Performance Shifter %+End as a "proc" but somehow I don't think even the most strident advocates of damage-dealing ATs want to see their characters want the Nerf bats to hit such pieces.

[VashNKnives]

I am in the more challenging content that encourages better support/controls camp. Support needs to be more in demand before losing support AT cruches. Something has got to make you feel super afterall.

 

Staring for long times at the same locked-down spawn gets old without help to arrest them. Teaming with support is a must or the associated ATs won't be played as much. Which to me is a bigger problem than controllers and defenders having some weird damage powers.

 

You want me to switch to a controller so we can more easily handle this difficult mission? Happy to! Afterall, we'll both get the rewards. You want me to solo at 1/10th the speed without that opportunity? Nah, been there done that, burned-out.

Edited March 20, 2022 by VashNKnives

[Marbing]

On 2/23/2022 at 11:28 AM, Luminara said:

Yes, fixing real balance problems would mean some sets, like Rad, which has hybrid mitigation/combat efficiency toggles, might overperform. 

My main is /rad... please don't hurt him... please? 😞 I promise he will behave!!

 

On 2/23/2022 at 11:28 AM, Luminara said:

But it couldn't be addressed as long as some support sets are sadly lacking due to arbitrary, nonsensical rules, while other sets are comparatively overpowered due to not sharing the same rules. 

I have said this before, and agree.

 

On 2/23/2022 at 11:28 AM, Luminara said:

Toggles on support characters do not suppress, they shut off.  And they have maximum target caps.

For the love of all that is holy, a-fucking-men! TESTIFY! Its over 4 seconds of cast time to place my /rad debuffs on a target + their few seconds of recharge when they de-toggle every single time I get hit with an errant hold/sleep/stun. It's insane. This makes Clarion pretty much essential instead of optional. Toggle suppression is a happy medium here, not power creep, not too much to ask. 

So yes, PLEASE: toggle suppression and no more ally only buffs. I agree with @Luminara that this may introduce a need to change the way some of these ally buffs work as too not push the pendulum to far, but it CAN and SHOULD be done. IMO.

Edit for spelling...

Edited March 20, 2022 by Marbing

[Riverdusk]

14 hours ago, SaintD said:

It would probably be more accurate to say that Scrappers shouldn't need a bullshit OP epic archetype I/O at level 50 to seal their position as the all round damage melee AT.

 

Honestly, I think Scrappers should crit like that naturally, and have more Sentinel-like lowered defense and hit points. More cannon, more glass.

 

A melee that is more cannon and more glass and crits more?  I think of stalker, so to me that already exists.  

 

[aethereal]

4 hours ago, Riverdusk said:

 

A melee that is more cannon and more glass and crits more?  I think of stalker, so to me that already exists.  

 

Stalkers are barely less durable than scrappers.  But on the other hand Scrappers who are built to take advantage of PPM and the ATO proc crit more than stalkers.

[Riverdusk]

2 hours ago, aethereal said:

Stalkers are barely less durable than scrappers.  But on the other hand Scrappers who are built to take advantage of PPM and the ATO proc crit more than stalkers.

 

Even when stalkers are using their ATO procs as well?  Not in my experience although I suppose there are some outside cases I'm not aware of or I'm just not min/maxing things well enough.

 

And I never said stalkers are hugely less durable than scrappers.  The other person wanted to make scrappers less durable and more damage, which means making scrappers less durable and more damage than stalkers.  That seems like it'd overlap the purpose of stalkers imo.

[SaintD]

4 hours ago, Riverdusk said:

 

Even when stalkers are using their ATO procs as well?  Not in my experience although I suppose there are some outside cases I'm not aware of or I'm just not min/maxing things well enough.

 

And I never said stalkers are hugely less durable than scrappers.  The other person wanted to make scrappers less durable and more damage, which means making scrappers less durable and more damage than stalkers.  That seems like it'd overlap the purpose of stalkers imo.

 

Stalkers are specialized for single target work, and use a stealth mechanic. They are not intended to be, or mechanically, the all purpose no-bullshit straight damage cannon Blasters and Scrappers are.

 

Stalkers are supposed to be huge damage single target alpha strikers. Scrappers are supposed to be the melee equivalent of Blasters....which is just direct no-nonsense raw DPS. That's why their (and Blasters) inherent is a completely hands off damage bonus to everything.

 

The fact that you're able to in any way seriously think of a Stalker as 'glassier, cannonier Scrapper' is a major problem.

Edited March 21, 2022 by SaintD

[Marbing]

6 hours ago, SaintD said:

 

Stalkers are specialized for single target work, and use a stealth mechanic. They are not intended to be, or mechanically, the all purpose no-bullshit straight damage cannon Blasters and Scrappers are.

 

Stalkers are supposed to be huge damage single target alpha strikers. Scrappers are supposed to be the melee equivalent of Blasters....which is just direct no-nonsense raw DPS. That's why their (and Blasters) inherent is a completely hands off damage bonus to everything.

 

The fact that you're able to in any way seriously think of a Stalker as 'glassier, cannonier Scrapper' is a major problem.

Stalkers > Scrappers in ST DPS

Scrappers > Stalkers in AoE

 

Survival for both is about equal.

 

I see no issue with this dynamic in any way.

[Riverdusk]

12 hours ago, SaintD said:

 

 

The fact that you're able to in any way seriously think of a Stalker as 'glassier, cannonier Scrapper' is a major problem.

 

Well, despite your stern disapproval and that you think my opinion is such a major problem, I'll continue to have my own opinion about the AT's in a make believe superhero game. 

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion though.

 

Edit: Oh and I think we've gotten off topic anyway really.

 

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Riverdusk

[Troo]

I'm surprised this thread is chugging along.

 

The OP question was: Is the reining in of their effectiveness still in the works?

 

The reason for asking was simply for clarity as folks are sinking time and resources into proc builds that might be changing or going away.

[Carnifax]

On 3/20/2022 at 5:41 AM, Clave Dark 5 said:

Compared to Live, the creep's been the relative ease of chasing IO set bonus and purpling/ATOing out a character, not proc builds, I'd wager.  There's a reason they call the "free purple for everyone!" TF "Market Crash," after all, all ha ha.  I'm no marketeer, maybe even less than I was on Live, and I still manage to fill out my builds with ATOs and literally every set I want to use (I skip purples because I'm cheap, but I could manage those too).

^ This. The ease you can outfit a character now compared to Live is night and day. There was a reason Purpled Out Warshade became a bit of a meme on Live. 

 

Nowadays everyone has a Purpled Out Whatever, pretty much (I'm like Clave and tend to avoid purple sets and just go for cheaper sets). There are some proc outliers but the big thing which is making Procs very effective nowadays is simply how easy it is to "fix" a heavily procced powers recharge with easily available recharge set bonuses. 

 

The decision initially to ignore global recharge in the newer Proc formula has crossbred with how common / easy Global Recharge is to build for now and created edge cases like Epic holds becoming proc bombs. Set bonuses give you wriggle room to proc-bomb things without much penalty.  

 

And in general set bonuses are the cause of WAAAAY more Power Creep than the actual procs. 

 

Plus of course some of the other decisions / buffs Homecoming have done. Incarnate Powers basically rain on you from just playing the game and aren't balanced in any way. Blasters and Tanks have been overbuffed a bit / a lot (a bit for Blasters, a lot for Tanks).

 

I use procs a lot. I also feed them to my parser a lot. There are some powers which overleverage them. And yet they don't overall jump out as making that character overpowered particularly, say compared to just playing my Fire/Claws Tank where Spin and Blazing Aura still compete happily with a procced up Burn patch (Burn is Burn + Flames in logs) on a paper Council +4x8, as do Incarnate powers). The Oblit here is split between the Burn power listing and Blazing Aura. Armageddon here is from Burn. Eradication is split between Spin & Burn, Flames is a pseudopet so that Flames row contains its 3 procs in the listed damage too). 

 

So I'd say to anyone considering that procs need to be nerfed prove it, throw your combat logs through the parser and see how they are coming out. At least then there's data to show which powers have overperforming proc issues and can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (which I think needs to be the basis of any fixes, sorta along the lines of some of the Enflame / Rad Patch changes). 

 

As an aside if any Devs / DMs are reading this PLEASE change how procs log so ones in direct powers print out like ones belonging to pseudopets do. It'd make parsing a lot easier. 

 

These are annoying : 

2022-03-01 16:38:28 You hit Warhulk with your Explosive Strike: Chance for Smashing Damage for 91.58 points of Smashing damage.
2022-03-01 16:38:28 You hit Warhulk with your Gladiator's Javelin: Chance for Toxic Damage for 79.63 points of Toxic damage.

 

These are nice

2022-03-01 16:38:29 Chain Jolt Jump 1:  You hit Gewehr Jaeger with your Explosive Strike: Chance for Smashing Damage for 110.64 points of Smashing damage.
 

So if the top two changed to

2022-03-01 16:38:28 Jolting Chain:  You hit Warhulk with your Explosive Strike: Chance for Smashing Damage for 91.58 points of Smashing damage.
2022-03-01 16:38:28 Jolting Chain:  You hit Warhulk with your Gladiator's Javelin: Chance for Toxic Damage for 79.63 points of Toxic damage.

 

it'd be lovely for being able to match the proc to the source. 

[golstat2003]

15 hours ago, Troo said:

I'm surprised this thread is chugging along.

 

The OP question was: Is the reining in of their effectiveness still in the works?

 

The reason for asking was simply for clarity as folks are sinking time and resources into proc builds that might be changing or going away.

 

The OP will be waiting a long time for an answer. The devs won't respond until they are ready to.

[Troo]

"If you don't ask, you don't get it" - Mahatma Ghandhi

 

..and all I need is some gawd damn clarification. Besides the Beta forum is silent and my Peter tingle is going crazy.