Is there really a massive proc nerf just around the corner?

[Videra]

5 hours ago, DougGraves said:

 

I suppose when facts and logic are against you, I suppose ad hominen attacks are what you have to go with.

 

Please explain what facts and logic make a blanket 'Aprocalypse' either healthy for the game or a good idea, design-wise.

You cannot, because the simple reality is that all a proc nerf to that effect would do is result in the decimation of every non-conventional AT in an era where, outside of Cold, Kin and Nature Corrs being building blocks, DPS is all that matters.

Edited April 12 by Videra

[Ston]

I've done some testing on proc vs procless builds. My findings are that most of the top performing sets benefit from procs more than the lowest performers. Yes, even fire blast.

A proc nerf will do nothing to make the game more enjoyable. I'd be willing to hear out changes to procs, but any flat nerfs to damage procs will just make the game slower and reduce variety in builds.

 

 

[GM Crumpet]

Barring a comment from a dev, I'm unable to say yes or no. The only time I've heard this (and the conversations I've seen about a so called aprocalypse have been going on for over four years at this point) has been from players. Are the devs looking at procs? Who knows? Procs in general can be game changing, but not game breaking. If they do decide to do a run on procs the chances are it will be to look at the ones that underperform and tweak them to make them better. Our devs like consistency and things to work equally across the board. Under or over performing stuff gets looked at all the time, and any changes are generally small to bring them in line with other similar powers and power sets. 

 

The devs have a massive list of things they want to do, and much of it is very low level priority so gets looked at if a dev has a particular interest in that area, or it's been bumped up to a priority for game breaking or balancing issues. There are older power sets and AT's that need loving far more than procs do.

When the devs make changes there is a whole process before it even goes live. Internal testing, alpha testing, closed beta testing, open beta testing and eventually release to live. Players are involved in most of the steps and their input is invaluable. A lot of changes never get out of testing and even some on open beta have been rolled back due to player feedback. If there are proc changes you can be sure there will be plenty of warning and player feedback will be taken into consideration. It's not suddenly going to appear on live in a patch and a "there you go".

Edited April 12 by GM Crumpet

[GM Crumpet]

11 hours ago, Lines said:

Proc changes were on the dev's radar quite some time ago, but it's not come up recently.

And apologies, I'd forgotten that post (such a long time ago). As the dev said, much of it is conceptual and on the list to be looked at without any kind of time scale, or actual interest in pursuing it. 

[Videra]

9 minutes ago, GM Crumpet said:

Thanks Crumpet

 

Thanks, Crumpet. It's always nice to see you and Flint weigh in. The most I can, myself, say on this matter is that I am reasonably certain that blanket proc nerfs are not currently on the docket. And I suspect if they were, the forums would actually be on fire.

[Haijinx]

7 hours ago, Azari said:

How about this: it would cripple MANY people’s favorite toons.

Thats kind of the argument for

 

Unless such a heavy reliance on procs was intended.

 

 

[Videra]

4 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Thats kind of the argument for

 

Unless such a heavy reliance on procs was intended.

 

 

 

Intended or not? What matters is what we currently have, have had for four years, and will continue having into the future. Why are you implicitly supporting a solution for a non-existent problem? Hell, Ston literally just posted the math and agrees that a proc nerf would make the game worse.

Edited April 12 by Videra

[Haijinx]

4 minutes ago, Videra said:

 

Intended or not? What matters is what we currently have, have had for four years, and will continue having into the future. Why are you implicitly supporting a solution for a non-existent problem? Hell, Ston literally just posted the math and agrees that a proc nerf would make the game worse.

Worse is a very subjective term. 

 

He stated proc builds help high performing sets more than low performing ones.  Try to think about that statement absent of bias. 

 

One of the arguments for proc type builds is it levels the playing field between sets.  This is not necessarily true it seems.

 

=====

 

But you should be careful with your straw men. You are claiming I implicitly support something merely because I can see and have said something about an issue. The classic with us or against us forums flamefest logic. 

[Videra]

6 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Worse is a very subjective term. 

 

He stated proc builds help high performing sets more than low performing ones.  Try to think about that statement absent of bias. 

 

One of the arguments for proc type builds is it levels the playing field between sets.  This is not necessarily true it seems.

 

=====

 

But you should be careful with your straw men. You are claiming I implicitly support something merely because I can see and have said something about an issue. The classic with us or against us forums flamefest logic. 

 

Except it's not subjective.

 

If you stack more damage into something that deals more damage by default, it is obviously going to deal more damage. However, if you stack more damage via procs into something that deals less damage, it makes that thing less garbage than it used to be. Incidentally, a lot of worse sets have better proc options than fire blast - which has minimal secondary affects. This is what people mean when they say it creates relative parity.

A Proc nerf making the game less enjoyable and eliminating build variety is a mathematical fact. Simple as.

____________________

I have no idea how that's a straw-man argument when what I am conveying to you is my face-value read of your interactions with this subject. I'm far too autistic to engage in 'Us vs Them' nonsense.

Edited April 12 by Videra

[twozerofoxtrot]

4 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

 

One of the arguments for proc type builds is it levels the playing field between sets.  This is not necessarily true it seems.

 

Maybe not in all cases, but generally yes it is.

 

Mobs have fixed HP. You only need to improve damage output up to that point. Anything else is overkill. The term "corpse blasting" comes to mind.

 

This becomes less true in hard modes, or perhaps against AVs, but then other considerations come into play such as debuffs to regen and resists. 

[cranebump]

5 hours ago, Videra said:

 

A Proc nerf making the game less enjoyable and eliminating build variety is a mathematical fact. Simple as.
 

The first part is not completely mathematical, because enjoyment can’t be quantified. The second part is questionable, too, since a nerf doesn’t eliminate anything. Variety would still be present unless the procs are removed, rather than weakened. However, I think you can say that, if procs were nerfed, fewer people would rush to get them, thereby reducing their presence, thereby reducing variety, etc. a proc nerf resulting in a drop in player population more or less supports the “mathematical” aspect. 

 

That aside, I think there’s this assumption that procs are standard for most players. They may be for people who frequent these boards. I’m thinking maybe not for the majority of players. So I wonder just how much they’d be missed, on the whole. Seeing as how no one HAS to have them to play the game, though, I wouldn’t think there’d be any move to eliminate them, since such a move might turn people off the game (due to the previously mentioned “lack of enjoyment”). But a nerf is not the same thing as a deletion, so I’m not sure how we can accurately judge the effect of any possible changes, overall.

Edited April 12 by cranebump

[Videra]

1 hour ago, cranebump said:

Snip

 

Alright, now that I'm actually medicated and not completely a crabby bitch,

Let me simply say that I do get where you're coming from there, and am willing to admit that my thinking on certain subjects can tilt towards the binary. It is very hard for me to conceive of a reason - for example - that people would not be disappointed in a blanket proc nerf. It would result in a great deal of my favorite things in the game essentially being neutered RE: Damage Output.

In the context of an MMO, to me, enjoyment has a few different aspects. One is maths - namely, the 'Number Go Up', aspect. Doing higher DPS is from my perspective an inherently more satisfying thing. Which I realize is a subjective statement, setting aside that you will objectively go through content faster if you have higher damage output. Play-style is where subjectivity lies - not everyone is going to enjoy playing a changeling Warshade or Peacebringer and doubling the game's APM. But to me? That shit is fun.

I also enjoy Controllers and Masterminds, despite their lacking status in The Meta - because I find soloing with them to be a more cerebral experience. But there is the simple reality that their ability to do so at a reasonable pace largely leans on damage procs. Masterminds, less so - depending on combo, but procs still make a huge difference in pets as well.

An argument I often see in regards to this topic is that if these things are leaning on procs to function well, then it was either unintended (irrelevant, IMO) or that they should be tuned such that they do not need to lean on procs. This is something I agree with, but Homecoming does not have the manpower to do that - or inclination, as I have seen. We've very seldomly seen a simple 'Number Go Up' balance pass on this server.

This is why I strongly believe proc nerfs are a solution in search of a problem, but I wanted to explain that in good faith.

Edited April 12 by Videra

[tidge]

2 hours ago, Ston said:

I've done some testing on proc vs procless builds. My findings are that most of the top performing sets benefit from procs more than the lowest performers. Yes, even fire blast.

A proc nerf will do nothing to make the game more enjoyable. I'd be willing to hear out changes to procs, but any flat nerfs to damage procs will just make the game slower and reduce variety in builds.

 

 

Can we see the data you collected for Controllers versus Blasters?

[Triumphant]

4 hours ago, Ston said:

I've done some testing on proc vs procless builds. My findings are that most of the top performing sets benefit from procs more than the lowest performers. Yes, even fire blast.

A proc nerf will do nothing to make the game more enjoyable. I'd be willing to hear out changes to procs, but any flat nerfs to damage procs will just make the game slower and reduce variety in builds.

 

 

DPS difference on a Brute definitely seems to be greater on a Brute than a Blaster (Water blast, being the sole exception, it seems).

[Marshal_General]

Proc nerfs were just around the corner until they realized the building was round.

[Ston]

1 hour ago, tidge said:

 

Can we see the data you collected for Controllers versus Blasters?

I haven’t collected any for Controllers.

 

36 minutes ago, Triumphant said:

DPS difference on a Brute definitely seems to be greater on a Brute than a Blaster (Water blast, being the sole exception, it seems).

This is largely due to melee sets being much more inconsistent in their attack recharge/damage numbers compared to ranged sets. Also, all melee powers have access to a minimum of 4 damage procs while ranged powers have access to a minimum of 2 (blaze, blazing arrow, etc). 

[UltraAlt]

14 hours ago, WumpusRat said:

But since almost nobody bothers to actually USE the non-damage procs

 

Meanwhile, 

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Luck_of_the_Gambler:_Defense/Increased_Global_Recharge_Speed

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Panacea:_Chance_for_%2BHit_Points/Endurance

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Sudden_Acceleration:_Knockback_to_Knockdown

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Performance_Shifter:_Chance_for_%2BEndurance

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Power_Transfer:_Chance_to_Heal_Self

... and ... do I really need to go on?

[Crysis]

7 hours ago, Snarky said:

MMs are quite powerful.  Two things keep me off them.  I am not a fan of pets in general and really not a fan of MM pets.  Any customization of pets would work.  Dark is my go to.  I just do not get necromancy.  Where did the two grave knights and a lich cone from?  Are we in D&D?  A Lich?   Do you know about those things?   Give me zombies more zombies and a big zombie.  Give me zombies, black shadow dogs and the strange spook from Dark Corr.  But….  I have to make a backstory for a super.  I cant work with that.  
 

But anyways MM are very powerful.  As I understand it this performance hit the toilet at about TinPex onwards.  But the journey through 50 they are quite good.  

 

Voodoo Priest is quite a popular ‘backstory’ for many necro MM’s I’ve seen.  And ironically, I’ve seen more than one Vampire-themed necro MM’s. This game is meant to reflect comic-book levels of logic.  It’s not hard to stretch bio’s to fit the powersets and vice-versa.  

 

Many people forget that MM’s were designed as the COV version of tankers initially, whereas Brutes were meant to be more the melee scrapper replacement.  This was before cross-over.  MM’s can take a LOT of damage when in bodyguard mode.  But that stupid pre-Incarnate level shift issue for the tier 1/2 pets is what prevents them from being more effective than they can be.

 

Still, I can do things with a well equipped MM in half the time a well equipped scrapper or brute can.  Including burning pylons, AV’s, GM’s and a whole host of other stuff.  MM’s are their own team.  Scrappers/Brutes can accomplish these feats sometimes also, but it takes far longer.

 

[ZemX]

2 minutes ago, Crysis said:

Many people forget that MM’s were designed as the COV version of tankers initially

 

Not everyone forgets this.  Some of us just think it's an enduring myth.

 

Bodyguard Mode was a whole issue later than CoV.  It was certainly true from the start that MM pets could take an alpha, probably better than a Brute.  But even so.... that's surviving.  Not "tanking."  One redside AT got tanker armors and melee damage sets, mez protect, high resistance, and Taunt.

 

And it wasn't MMs.

[Hedgefund]

13 minutes ago, ZemX said:

 

Not everyone forgets this.  Some of us just think it's an enduring myth.

 

Bodyguard Mode was a whole issue later than CoV.  It was certainly true from the start that MM pets could take an alpha, probably better than a Brute.  But even so.... that's surviving.  Not "tanking."  One redside AT got tanker armors and melee damage sets, mez protect, high resistance, and Taunt.

 

And it wasn't MMs.

I wince every time I see or hear "MMs were originally CoV's tanks".  For an intended tank, they sure didn't get any tank tools.  I've once seen a summary on some "official' source (I forgot where) that can be paraphrased as "with bodyguard mode a MM effectively has a Tanker's HP" and I'm thinking that's where this myth came from.  If someone can show some link where it was more explicitly stated that MMs = tanks, I'd love to see it.

[PoptartsNinja]

That was never said, it's a long-running myth / misunderstanding.

[Snakebit]

Where do we queue up for manufactured outrage? Is it still City Hall?

[cranebump]

1 minute ago, Snakebit said:

Where do we queue up for manufactured outrage? Is it still City Hall?

I feel like we can do it just about anywhere.:-)

[macskull]

47 minutes ago, UltraAlt said:

 

Meanwhile, 

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Luck_of_the_Gambler:_Defense/Increased_Global_Recharge_Speed

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Panacea:_Chance_for_%2BHit_Points/Endurance

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Sudden_Acceleration:_Knockback_to_Knockdown

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Performance_Shifter:_Chance_for_%2BEndurance

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Power_Transfer:_Chance_to_Heal_Self

... and ... do I really need to go on?

Two of the things on that list aren’t even procs, the other three are common but could hardly be considered overpowered, and previous changes have demonstrated that if a particular non-damage proc is considered to have an unacceptably high level of performance then that proc is addressed on an individual basis (looking at you, Call of the Sandman).

[ZemX]

1 minute ago, Snakebit said:

Where do we queue up for manufactured outrage? Is it still City Hall?

 

The queue has been moved outside to the steps of City Hall.  But only during a Positron 1 Task Force when @Snarky is on the team.  Please line up at the door upon entering the last mission.  Someone will be... with you shortly.