Damage proc problems

[Psi-bolt]

From the description of those both pro and anti the current implementation of procs, procs are an abstruse mechanic.   They might be fair in some instances and not fair in others, but do procs have a major affect on balance?  It seems to me that most players don't have a significant enough understanding of the mechanics to capitalize on procs and even where players do, it really doesn't make a character so much better than someone who does more conventional slotting.

 

Personally, I think that making the mechanics more plain and easy to understand would be the first adjustment that should be made.  Then we would have a better baseline to see if they are a problem.

[tidge]

21 minutes ago, Psi-bolt said:

From the description of those both pro and anti the current implementation of procs, procs are an abstruse mechanic.   

 

[Psi-bolt]

16 hours ago, tidge said:

 

 

We need a tongue sticking out emoji.

 

EDIT: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abstruse

 

Edited July 31 by Psi-bolt

[skoryy]

Given its been six years and procs still haven't been touched, I'm filing any Procopalypse under "Spooky Stories Told Around A Campfire At Night." They're not a huge problem, if a problem at all.

[Maelwys]

2 hours ago, Forager said:

 

I didn't know this. Damage procs just do nothing? What about Remote Bomb?

 

This is tragic, if true, because I've had them in there awhile.

 

https://cod.uberguy.net./html/entity.html?entity=pets_traps_timebomb

 

The bomb entity that deals damage also immediately self destructs, so damage procs will do nothing for it and the most you'll get out of it is a Force Feedback +Rech.

[skoryy]

22 hours ago, Maelwys said:

Powers that create an entity that immediately "self destructs" (like Trip Mine) don't benefit from damage procs, but do from buff procs (e.g. Force Feedback).

 

Learning something new today, time to clean up some future builds.

[MTeague]

My solution, and I would be publicly crucified for this, would be to make every proc a Unique. No more than one copy of it per character, period.

 

That said, there's a reason I'm not a dev, and a reason I have never run a game company. I would drive away all my customers demanding they play my way. 

[aethereal]

To me the issue with procs is primarily the illegibility.  Look how many engaged, frequent posters don't know things about procs.  To understand whether a proc is amazing or worthless, you need to understand not just local vs global recharge and the basics of PPM formula, with special casing for auto-powers and toggles, but also things like pseudopets, executions, and various kinds of special cases, lockouts, and more.  It's as though we decided that damage enhancements would not only depend on a moderately simple formula, but would look at the number of letters in the internal name of a power and use that as a big component in how much it enhances the power.  Nobody would think that's a good idea!  Why do we think it's a good idea to do the same with procs?

 

I think there are an engaged group of ultra-mechanics-oriented builders who love this complexity -- it lets them broker obsessive levels of systems knowledge into performance that exceeds normal levels of the game.  And I get that, obviously "making builds" is in a lot of ways a fun minigame.  But I don't think it's actually healthy to cater to that minigame as much as procs do.

[tidge]

11 minutes ago, aethereal said:

To me the issue with procs is primarily the illegibility.  Look how many engaged, frequent posters don't know things about procs.  

 

Is this when we share that there is a city/islands map in addition to a zone map?

[Riverdusk]

I'd agree with some others that if procs are nerfed in some way, some counter balance needs to be done at the same time for the lower damaging AT's.  On something like a controller  I find myself heavily dependent on them.   

 

Honestly, I also really don't mind procs the way they are right now.  I find they add a nice variety to my builds and I like how often I have to make trade offs and choices between slotting for enhancement values, set bonuses, or procs.   I'd hate to see a piece of that slotting "puzzle" taken away from me and I think it'd make character building less interesting.

[Tankshock]

Been playing since Beta and the Rikti invasion.  Seeing procs get nerfed is not as bad as some of the things Statesman did, but it does make me very sad.

Feels like Reed Richards is being punished, and clearly this is all the Thing's idea.

 

[Forager]

2 hours ago, aethereal said:

To me the issue with procs is primarily the illegibility.  Look how many engaged, frequent posters don't know things about procs. 

 

Amen to that. I knew that the "x number of times per minute" came with caveats that are not described in-game, but I had no clue about the "oh btw in some powers it just doesn't do anything" caveat.

 

Heck, I even kinda get what a psuedo pet is and I had no clue I was wasting those slots.

Edited July 31 by Forager

[aethereal]

1 hour ago, Forager said:

 

Amen to that. I knew that the "x number of times per minute" came with caveats that are not described in-game, but I had no clue about the "oh btw in some powers it just doesn't do anything" caveat.

 

Heck, I even kinda get what a psuedo pet is and I had no clue I was wasting those slots.

 

To be clear, procs do function in most pseudopet powers, they just have a bad activation rate.  But yeah, it's just a welter of confusing information that you have no way of getting through the game itself.

 

My favorite proc fact: the Superior Critical Strikes: Recharge/+50% Critical Hit Chance Proc has always claimed to have a PPM of 3.  Its actual PPM is 4.

[Logansan]

Personally, I rarely use procs  outside of the ones that come when slotting a full set. Not because anything is wrong with them, it's just (as others as mentioned) to known where to use them to get the best output can be very complex and I play the game to have fun, the last thing I need is for it to be just like work. However, I have no problem with others min/maxing to get the best results as the game (for me anyway) is not a competition. 

 

I have no idea if procs themselves are "a problem", but I am not a fan of the idea that the "solution" is to add more of them.

[tidge]

7 hours ago, aethereal said:

 

To be clear, procs do function in most pseudopet powers, they just have a bad activation rate.  But yeah, it's just a welter of confusing information that you have no way of getting through the game itself.

 

There are the logs, which is IMO key to understanding. It is typically necessary to set up to monitor specific things in specific windows (like 'Pet Damage' for instance). Just looking for floating numbers during testing also helps.

 

There isn't IMO much reason for a player to assume they have near-perfect knowledge of the game... for example, I'm not sure that in-game there is any explanation of damage types/resistances, debuffs/buffs, or how Defense works ... let alone defense types. From memory there is a brief explanation of levels and ToHits in the Outbreak tutorial, I cannot recall if Destroyed Galaxy City does as well. Red Side tutorial always seems to be more about just running around the map.

 

I think there is sometimes a base assumption that is basically "%procs are the magic way to do more damage" which ignores all sorts of things such as:

• Accuracy and ToHit (of the power, pet, hechman, pseudopet), especially for +4 difficulty settings
• Which effect is actually being used, and how often (i.e. some power sets can be slotted but may not be leveraged all that often)
• If the %proc is enemy-affecting or character-affecting
• If something different happens on-cast versus 'in-combat'

...even before we get into how often a %proc might actually fire.

 

 

[Ukase]

20 hours ago, Gerswin said:

I do think players should be 'rewarded' for either a solid grasp of statistics or careful scrutiny of character performance when testing builds.

 Statistics are useful, so is math. I dig into the numbers because I my reflexes are somewhat slower some days. I figure my poor character needs all the help it can get. 
The idea that someone who knows slope b regression analysis should be able to squeeze out more damage than someone who doesn't is not a good idea. We want transparency; not calculus or algebra. At least, I do. 

I could almost go with careful scrutiny. I think most people do that just by playing. Now, I don't want to take anything away from players that painstakingly look at the recharge times of their attacks, and somehow are able to have an attack chain with no downtime, using nothing but their harder hitting attacks, and further, have eked out enough endurance recovery to continue the chain, and the defense/resists high enough to survive long enough to complete the battle and go on to the next encounter. Those players undoubtedly have a desire to play as well as they possibly can. Most of us do - but I think most of us, when we log off don't want to pore over the various combat stats on a given character and eke out a few more points of damage for this or that.  Fortunately, we don't have to. 

Now, I've stated that great players can take a trash build and still play well with it. And bad players can take a great build and still reek with it. The good players who I would rate high on game knowledge AND skill, those players are already a tier above the players with just good skill or just good game knowledge. Isn't that reward enough? 

[Maelwys]

10 minutes ago, tidge said:

I think there is sometimes a base assumption that is basically "%procs are the magic way to do more damage" which ignores all sorts of things such as:

• Accuracy and ToHit (of the power, pet, hechman, pseudopet), especially for +4 difficulty settings
• Which effect is actually being used, and how often (i.e. some power sets can be slotted but may not be leveraged all that often)
• If the %proc is enemy-affecting or character-affecting
• If something different happens on-cast versus 'in-combat'

...even before we get into how often a %proc might actually fire.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

There are lots of caveats to consider; whether or not a proc will work as you expect is never a "sure thing" so for anything other than very straightforward attack powers (non-pseudopet and no "adaptive recharge"!) you're almost always better off testing it yourself or asking someone who has.

Offensive Procs need to pass an Accuracy "Hit check" roll to do anything.
Pets and Psuedopets make this tricky. Some "Autohit" powers like Caltrops can make it impossible to boost proc accuracy so they have a much lower observed activation rate.

Both Defensive and Offensive Procs also need the power they're slotted in to actually "activate" that enhancement type - and this is hidden behaviour that cannot be worked out just from glancing at the in-game detailed power effects screen or often even by looking at CoDv2. One example of this is Liquid Nitrogen from the Arsenal Control set (damage procs only kick in whenever enemies are knocked down!). Usually a Defensive/Buff proc kicks in straight away on using a power... but not always; like in some Blaster Sustains - Frigid Protection (for example) won't ever activate Healing procs until an enemy is within its range.

It is a convoluted mess and makes no sense unless you dive deep into power mechanics... and even then there are unusual "WTF?" cases that you really need to test... 🤯

[ForeverLaxx]

I just wish the procs that aren't damage-focused (damage procs, recharge procs, -resist procs, etc) were more useful. Trying to use an Immob Proc in Oppressive Gloom to keep enemies from stumbling out of its area of influence is basically a waste of time because of how procs work and how weak the mag is on said proc (I still slot it anyway, but I know it's practically pointless). Like, why bother trying to use procs to get more use out of the primary function of the power when you can just slot damage procs instead and kill the target instead of immobilize them?

 

This is my main problem with procs as they're implemented currently. Damage will always be helpful, but a random Mag 2 Immobilize against one target when you've got 12 targets surrounding you isn't. There has to be some way to make procs that aren't damage-oriented more attractive/useful.

Edited July 31 by ForeverLaxx
grammar

[MTeague]

2 hours ago, Ukase said:

 Statistics are useful, so is math. I dig into the numbers because I my reflexes are somewhat slower some days. I figure my poor character needs all the help it can get. 
The idea that someone who knows slope b regression analysis should be able to squeeze out more damage than someone who doesn't is not a good idea. We want transparency; not calculus or algebra.

 

If a %proc boards a northbound train leaving Pittsburg at 11:00 am, travelling at 95 mph, and another %proc boards a southbound train leaving Washington DC at 11:00 am, travelling at 80 mph, how long does it take you to realize this is a trick question? 😀

 

I agree with the main point, though. To the extent that factors in procs can be made more human-readable, they should be.

• This might require some kind of "pseudopet" tag on the power's detailed information page, so people don't have to guess which is and which ain't.
• This might require some field for "on-cast proc activation rate", and another for "ongoing proc activation rate", for things like rains or other non-instant powers.
• This might require a note about accuracy rolls used for procs for the given power. 

There may still probably be a point where the existing %proc formula can't be fully explained well in text. I mean, basic parabola equations are good for artillery in most conditions, but said equation cannot factor in the effects of a category 4 hurricane happening during a powerful earthquake.  Newtonian physics is good for a lot, but when you want to do plot the right course for a spacecraft to travel to alpha centauri, it stops being good enough.  Whether that means the formula itself ought to be simplified, is a fair question.

[Uun]

4 hours ago, Maelwys said:

Both Defensive and Offensive Procs also need the power they're slotted in to actually "activate" that enhancement type - and this is hidden behaviour that cannot be worked out just from glancing at the in-game detailed power effects screen or often even by looking at CoDv2. One example of this is Liquid Nitrogen from the Arsenal Control set (damage procs only kick in whenever enemies are knocked down!)

Touch of Fear (Dark Melee) accepts ToHit Debuff, Accurate ToHit Debuff, Fear, Melee AoE, Universal Damage and ATO sets (plus Taunt sets on brutes and tanks). The power's fear and tohit debuff effects are single target and procs from ToHit Debuff, Accurate ToHit Debuff and Fear sets only have a chance to hit the primary target. The power's damage is a 6 ft radius AoE and procs from Melee AoE, Universal Damage, ATO and Taunt sets have a chance to hit all targets in the AoE.

[ScarySai]

Procs are the band-aid to make bad powers good barring a massive balance pass that HC simply doesn't have the release cadence or awareness to manage in a timely manner.

 

Would I like it if proc bombs naturally hit hard without them? Maybe. Would I love dual pistols to be buffed to not rely on them? Yep. Will that happen in the next two years? Probably not at this rate.

[macskull]

20 hours ago, skoryy said:

Given its been six years and procs still haven't been touched, I'm filing any Procopalypse under "Spooky Stories Told Around A Campfire At Night." They're not a huge problem, if a problem at all.

Agreed they’re not a problem, but “if they haven’t been touched yet they aren’t going to” is not a great argument. It took HC what, four years to implement the name release policy they announced? The fact some of these changes haven’t already happened is more due to HC’s glacial pace of updates.

[aethereal]

6 hours ago, tidge said:

There isn't IMO much reason for a player to assume they have near-perfect knowledge of the game... for example, I'm not sure that in-game there is any explanation of damage types/resistances, debuffs/buffs, or how Defense works ... let alone defense types.

 

I think there's a real difference between "near-perfect knowledge" and "Does this proc which advertises a rate of approximately 3.5 procs per minute proc massively more commonly or massively less commonly than that."

 

It's fine not to have players be able to figure out the exact proc rate based on in-game numbers.  It's not fine for players to have no way of knowing whether the proc will activate something vaguely like its advertised rate or not.

 

A solution to all of this would be:

 

1.  Revert procs to having a percentage chance to fire.

2.  Give powers an (advertised) multiplier to that percentage chance.

 

So you might have most procs have a baseline 20% chance to fire, and then powers have a x0.5, x1, x2, x3, or x4  chance to activate procs, with a cap of 90%.  Base the multiplier on the base recharge time and area factor today, but make it like the damage formula: it's a design principle, not an algorithm that the code follows.  If you then wanted to make a given power that seems basically fine but procs too well a little less good, you could just adjust the proc chance multiplier for it.

 

The builder types could go searching for powers that were "near the line" of a multiplier -- so like if a power with a 4-6 second recharge had a x1 multiplier, they could go look for powers that are right at 4 seconds.  I think this would have the following effects, all salutory:

 

1.  Vastly clearer to the player
2.  No local/global recharge time shenanigans

3.  Makes it simple to tweak proc rates and gives another route to adjust powers

4.  Shake up the build minigame, let builders take a fresh look at a bunch of powers to try to wring optimization out of them, without, if numbers are chosen right, totally invalidating most current builds

[Yomo Kimyata]

What I like about procs:

 

* A little basic knowledge of math and information on how the game works can have a big impact on the strength of your character.  Reward knowledge -- I'm good with that.

* You can get some fun effects that change powers.

 

What I do not like about procs:

 

* The math is inconsistent.  Pseudopets v. pets.  Procs on application v. ongoing procs.

* The risk/reward balance is screwed up for a lot of powers.  I'm fine with gambling on sometimes I get a bonus, but I don't think that (for example) four procs in an attack should statistically be the optimal outcome.  I'd like to see PPMs drop personally, but that will get me tarred and feathered.

 

I think it is very clear that the devs want to reduce the effects of procs.  This whole adjustable recharge mechanic with a base recharge of a few seconds is a concrete example of this.  I don't know what their mandate is, but I agree with a lot of it.  I hate the meta of using powers as proc bombs.  It feels like exploitation of the mechanics of procs as currently instituted and I feel like the devs are doing backflips to reduce the effectiveness of damage procs without unleashing the villagers with torches and pitchforks.

 

If I were the benevolent dictator, which I clearly am not, I would cut some damage procs.  Let people wrestle with whether or not a 2ppm slow damage proc is better than an alternative.

 

For the record, the only damage procs I usually use are purples, because I like the high PPM.  I'd personally rather have the consistency of 100 damage an attack than a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.  But what we seem to have is a mean of 110 and a standard deviation of 15 versus a consistent 100.

 

I do use all kinds of other procs though.  The knockdown and -res ones are bueno.

[skoryy]

1 hour ago, macskull said:

Agreed they’re not a problem, but “if they haven’t been touched yet they aren’t going to” is not a great argument. It took HC what, four years to implement the name release policy they announced? The fact some of these changes haven’t already happened is more due to HC’s glacial pace of updates.

 

Nothing changed in six years doesn't make it sound like a priority.  Could they change them? Sure. Would it be the feared Procopalypse? No.

 

Procs are mainly used in two ways:

• A way to give some pop to low damage scale powers on Defenders, Corruptors, et al.
• A way for high end players to get high rewards for high risk

Procs have one big problem:

• They're horrifically unintuitive. If you need a spreadsheet to figure out how often they fire without even knowing if they'll be useful to begin with because psuedopet shenanigans, that's a problem. I can click on a power to see how much average damage it does with enhancements. It won't tell me how often my proc is gonna fire - or if it will fire. That's no bueno.

Again, there's no reason in the above to nerf procs. The problem is making them easier to understand, and I'm not intuitive enough with the code to figure out if the server melts into a slagheap if you try to put it in the power info. Or you can include global recharge but that's a whole new can o' worms.

 

2 hours ago, ScarySai said:

Procs are the band-aid to make bad powers good barring a massive balance pass that HC simply doesn't have the release cadence or awareness to manage in a timely manner.

 

That tanker damage scales have been changed and not anyone else sounds to me like that any balance pass wouldn't buff damage scales. Defenders certainly aren't going to get blaster scales out of their secondary.  Thus, procs are staying.