Grammar question

[Toenailgun]

To whom do I ascribe game changes? Is the passive voice better because the subject of the sentence doesn't actually matter? Do you do grammar?

[Clave Dark 5]

None of these options are correct, obviously.

[Six-Six]

Judging from a purely grammatical and objective view, I would say the first one is the best. You know what the subject is (Procs) and what about the subject you are trying to communicate [(that they) should be nerfed]. It is a declarative sentence that necessitates no recipient and could be understood by all regardless if they have the power or not to comply.

No. 2 has a pronoun that has no precedent nor antecedent, hence it is unclear to whom or what "They" is referring. This makes it a far weaker statement than the first.
No. 3 and 4 simply replace the pronoun of the 2nd statement with a more specific group of individuals. While 3 is much clearer than 2, and 4 more so, all three statements are still inferior to the first.

However, there is still room for improvement for the first statement. As it is now, it is a passive declarative sentence: You can opt to make it an imperative sentence which makes it an assertive command instead of just a mere stating of opinion. An example is "Procs MUST be nerfed" or "Nerf procs now".

Again, this is from an objective and grammar-centric reply regardless of the statements' subject matter. You could easily substitute "Regen" for "Procs" and my reply will not change. Subjectively however, YOU LEAVE MY DAMN PROCS ALONE... and get off my lawn while you're at it.

=)

[Herotu]

It's number..  hey, haaaang on a minute ...

[Ukase]

Shall we get into semantics? If so, the list of procs is probably not as long as you'd think. 

Most of us probably think of procs as any IO that doesn't automatically boost a given attribute or more. 

Like the Perf Shifter: Chance for + endurance. Proc or not? 
The Preventative Medicine: Absorb Proc...well, duh, obviously, that's a proc. 

The various "Chance for X type of damage" IOs, procs, or not procs? 

In my head,  I call of those chance for this or that, the glad armor 3% def (all)...all of those uniques, I label them all procs in my head. 

Which proc or procs are you specifically referring to, and why should they be nerfed? They seem to be working as intended. 

[Shred Monkey]

I'm usually pretty open minded to calls for nerfs.   But this one... I don't see it.  What's wrong with procs?  (Seriously)

[Sanguinesun]

1 hour ago, Shred Monkey said:

I'm usually pretty open minded to calls for nerfs.   But this one... I don't see it.  What's wrong with procs?  (Seriously)

 

 

Sadly, its related to yet another phase in the agenda of the anti-farming folks.  

[srmalloy]

All four beg the question of whether procs should be nerfed, which makes all of them invalid.

[The_Warpact]

BY THE POWER OF PEREGRINEFALCON and BY THE POWER OF ME!!!

[Erratic1]

2 hours ago, Shred Monkey said:

I'm usually pretty open minded to calls for nerfs.   But this one... I don't see it.  What's wrong with procs?  (Seriously)

 

I am not calling for a proc nerf, but conceptually if slotting a power for damage is less effective than filling it with procs....

[Black Talon]

I so damn rarely get the opportunity to make a commentary on something like this, outside of class: I teach high school English and Social Sciences as a career, and the desire of a significant demographic (student and teacher, for the record) to simply, "Let the machine make the decision," and then call it correct because, hey, computers don't make mistakes causes a grating that scores me down to the split infinitive.

 

I appreciate Six-Six's logic on the matter your big one-ten: the only reason I would, personally, choose Number 4 is because of the specification of exactly who is instituting said nerfing.  Otherwise, I as well would be perfectly happy with choice Number 1, and have the exact same, "Yeah!" (think the guy in the jail cell with Eddie Murphy during the "chain belt" scene in Trading Places) reaction to his points on Numbers 2 and 3.

 

Similar questions are equally welcome, and ones that I don't have any clue about...?  Bring 'em on.  Nothing I'd like better than to have my head twisted around in the correct direction and given an insight I've been ignorant about previously.

[TheZag]

2 hours ago, Erratic1 said:

 

I am not calling for a proc nerf, but conceptually if slotting a power for damage is less effective than filling it with procs....

 

Its so true that damage procs are stronger than slotting for damage.  And then throw in the damage cap that is easily reached on leagues and often reached on a team and slotting for damage becomes even less valuable.  Why slot 130% damage with a 400% damage cap when the team buffs you 400% on its own?  Slot all procs and no damage and have both at maximum on a team.

 

You would miss out on set bonuses by slotting all procs but most characters can slot 2 attacks full of procs without losing too much.  There are also several power combinations that can have a full attack chain of procs and still soft cap defense and get respectable resistances.

 

I dont think nerfing procs is the best route though.  Looking into how procs interact differently +recharge and +global recharge and become worse and better respectively would be a start.  Increasing a powers damage cap to be the archtype cap added to the +damage slotted into the power could increase the value of +damage in buffed to the cap situations where procs are clearly better.  It would increase effectiveness of players slotted for damage in those situations but maybe having +damage perform closer to procs is ok.

  

[Major_Decoy]

I think the proper phrasing is "Nerfs should be procced"

 

I recommend proccing nerfs for control, because proccing nerfs for damage seems counter to the spirit of nerf.

[Lines]

I'm always in favour of a vague and ominous "they".

[Major_Decoy]

Other options:

 

Accept presponsiblity:

One should proc nerfs.

We should proc nerfs.

I should proc nerfs.

 

Shirk responsibility:

Luminara should proc nerfs.

That guy there should proc nerfs.

Everyone else should proc nerfs.

 

Confuse people:

Activision Blizzard should proc nerfs in Everquest.

Almighty Tina the Time Salamander should grant us all the blessings of procing nerfs.

[InvaderStych]

2 hours ago, Major_Decoy said:

Accept presponsiblity:

 

Accepting Presponsibility:  The possession of foreknowledge that what one is about to do will have consequences, yet doing it anyway.

[Gulbasaur]

Procs are fine. 

 

Set bonuses, on the other hand... there's no reason why a current game blaster should have the same defence and resist values as an early game tanker. 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Gulbasaur

[Outrider_01]

What if you are studying up on procs and making proc-lomations ? 🤔

 

Does that make you a proctologist studying proc-tology ? 🤔

 

Is that even science or religion at this point.

[KC4800]

Ugh...another visit to the proctologist? No thanks.

 

To answer the OP, no one makes you slot procs. It is obvious you have to give up something every time you  slot one. You can convince yourself that it always better to not slot one if you so choose, then you can gleefully run around thinking you've made every correct choice in the game. Or you can be imperfect and just eat that donut. 🙂