Morganite

Reminds me of some of the comments heard when another (non-superhero) game I play raised their level cap. People were upset about basically the same thing, but I looked at it more as opening up a different set of crazy things to be done. (Wouldn't really be how I look at it for anything in CoH though; that tends not to be how I find my fun here.)

It's actually not that uncommon. Of the two other games I play, one has some moderately useful perks one can get by paying extra over their subscription, but they don't have an actual combat effect. Another is pretty much the opposite, nearly everything you can buy could be called gear, and some has significant advantages over options that don't involve anyone spending cash on them. (There's also one game I once played that was -really- weird. It wasn't F2P - that hadn't even become a seriously considered market model at the time - but whenever you bought gametime you received a whole pile of stuff. Most of which I was never sure how to use anyway. Well, except for the quantity of ingame cash, which has obvious applications.) And as for games I haven't played... well, there's some real doozies out there.

Even if they don't touch anything about the way procs work, I'd still call CoH a very mild example of the phenomenon. Nothing that gives a gamebreaking advantage, nothing you have to keep buying again and again to use. (Yeah, there're consumables, but that's different. I once heard about a game where cash bought equipment would break over time, on top of it being staggeringly more powerful than anything else.)

ETA:

Ehhhh... you *sure* about that? I'm pretty sure in the discussion in beta on this someone said that none of the have ever been removed. And I know all the ones I can remember are still there. The only gaps I'm seeing are for enhancements that have never had SBEs in the first place. (And I've really gotta wonder when they'll get Explosive Strike in there...)

-Morgan.

I don't have my actual data available right now, but I have done some testing that made me pretty sure that it does. I was getting a proc rate almost twice as high in a radius 7 PBAoE compared to a radius 15 one. 15 radius TAoE to 30 radius had a ratio of about 1.5. (Although as far as I know there's only one kind of power that has a radius 30 TAoE - control set AoE immobilizes.)

Now, when I did this testing, I was making some assumptions that may not be correct. Those are that PPM procs are in fact based on cycle time (which I've seen and done enough single-target tests to be reasonably confident of), and that the effect of cycle time on AoE powers is linear. If it *isn't*... well, the PBAoEs being compared were Black Dwarf Mire and Thunder Strike, which are very close in cycle time.

Edit: Actually, according to a post by Arcanaville, the modifier for AoEs is based only on the size of the AoE, with target cap not being a factor. @.@

-Morgan.

Probably closer to 50%, since some testing on similarly fast-recharging powers makes it really likely that the rate is based on something like recharge + cast.

I don't know if anything in Icy can take the set though. -.-

-Morgan.

There's a thread in the Issue 22 Beta forums where people are discussing and testing proc rates, and someone mentioned that the in-game descriptions have incorrect PPM for some procs. City of Data says that the Dom proc is 5 PPM, and I'm inclined to believe it based on my tests in single-target powers.

Wormhole will probably still get a near-100% proc rate due to it's long recharge. (The "near" being due to... well, see below.)

There's something I noticed that may support your second theory. When I did that last test run of the Dom proc in Roots, I was a bit puzzled as to why the test run with multiple enemies had a slightly lower proc rate than the single-enemy test. Neither has that narrow a confidence interval, but it still didn't feel right. Well, yesterday I was reminded of a post I'd read about another ATO proc (don't remember which one), and someone said it only had a chance to fire if the attack hit the -targeted enemy-. The multiple-enemy test doesn't exclude ones that missed the targeted enemy, and since my test dummies all have the same name, there's no way to tell which attacks did or didn't. I did watch while doing a little more messing around with the Brute proc in Thunder Strike, and I never saw that proc fire when it missed the targeted enemy. But I also didn't watch all that long, because it was really boring.

I've got a couple ideas on how to do a reasonably conclusive test of this, although proving a negative tends to be a problem. We'll see how it works out.

(Also, this is why I say "near-100%" about Wormhole - because it would still have to succeed in that one particular hit roll if this is correct.)

If this is the case, it makes one wonder what's up with these procs in damage auras. Arbiter Hawk said this:

Damage auras have no selected target, obviously, but there do seem to be accuracy checks involved. It's really hard to tell what's going on with the procs in auras though. Except that they're really, really bad in them.

I'm pretty sure it can proc on more than one target. People tend to put it in AoEs a lot and all. However, I'm not sure what this is supposed to tell you, since it's an enemy debuff and this issue is all centered on self-buff powers. (Well, the defender proc isn't a self-buff, but it seems to end up functioning the same way.)

The second's an odd one to bring up in this context, since that's a single-target ranged proc. However, there are at least two powers I know of that hit multiple enemies, but take those sets.

One is Electric Control's Jolting Chain. It's well established that self-buff procs in this power only affect the caster on the first target, not the jumps. On the jumps, the enemy being hurt is technically the caster, it gets the effect of the proc. (Jolting Chain with the Entropic Chaos proc has been observed to heal enemies.)

The other is Traps' Acid Mortar. In pet powers self-buff procs are known to get one chance to fire on the caster when the power is cast, and after that has chances to fire on the pet's attacks. (With caveats based on the nature of the proc - for instance, if a pet takes immobilize sets, an immobilize proc would only fire on attacks that can immobilize. Not an issue in this case.) I figured, I have a traps corrupter, it's worth a try? Well, the SBE at least isn't firing off even once in most volleys, let alone twice. The regular proc might be better than the SBE in this case, but I don't already have one of those sitting around. Not sure how much further pursuit this one is worth.

Siphon Insight? I've got something that can test that too. Scrapper, Darkness Mastery, Torrent. Never saw it proc twice on one cast, although my number of samples is not that high. Enough that getting 4% on procs per hit seems a bit too low for a proc with a stated rate of 10%. (13/308).

-Morgan.

Uh, are you really really sure about this? Because I've done some testing on the Brute proc too. (Although not as much as on the Dom proc. The brute kills enemies quickly enough that it slows things down...)

The Obliteration proc has lower ppm than the Brute proc. But if the Brute proc was checking as often with even the lower rate I got for the Obliteration proc in Thunder Strike (51%), it should have had a near 100% rate when used in a group. But it didn't. It was more like 71%.

Now, the number of samples on that last test is pretty low. So it's not very confident. But it does make me pretty sure that when Thunder Strike with the Brute proc slotted hits 8 mobs, it isn't making 8 rolls at anything within the 95% confidence interval of my Obliteration test. Because those would all give a less than 1% chance of the Brute proc -not- firing. What I've seen fits a lot more closely if the Brute proc, like the Dom proc, is being checked once per activation only.

Of course, given that Beta just got another patch, I have to add to that they could have changed the way the proc works *again* since I did my testing.

Really, I have my doubts about the ppm procs normalizing things. In most cases a saturated AoE will still get more procs than a similar single-target. SBE procs in some AoEs will fire a lot more than the equivalent enhancement proc. And as far as I can tell from either reading discussions or my own testing, all the self-buff procs have a ridiculously low fire rate in AoEs compared to single-target powers, which is hardly normalized at all.

-Morgan.

Whatever should be happening, the only way to explain what actually is happening that I can see is that in this case the effects *aren't* being evaluated per-target, but instead only once regardless of how many targets are hit.

Now, what you're describing is how I'd like to see it work. Then I could stick it in Roots on my Plant/Icy, have it go off at a reasonable rate, and be happy.

-Morgan.

Well, I have tested, and it's not quite like that.

For one thing, the target cap isn't the only thing that matters - the radius does too. There's also a difference between conical and spherical AoEs.

And another, it's not just a linear division thing. The control set AoE immobilizes I've found to pretty consistently get proc rates of about one-fifth that of a single-target control power. Those powers are notable as having both a high target cap and a huge radius.

Also, as Codewalker noted, it would not be a 100% regardless. Both the AoE immobilizes and the single-target holds recharge too fast for that. It's pretty high though. (According to City of Data, the regular proc is 5ppm, not 3. Which explains a few things. My testing with Strangler shows a pretty consistent proc rate of somewhere around 80%.)

My Plant/Icy doesn't spam any of those. I'm out of luck then?

... Doesn't hold up under testing.

I did some more runs with this proc in Roots, with only a single enemy in range. 84 procs / 605 hits, or about 14%. (The number of activations is slightly higher, but I don't think the proc can fire if it doesn't hit at least one enemy. It definitely did not fire on any of the 30 misses during this test run.)

So, you'd expect hitting more targets to yield more procs, right?

On a test run versus 9-12 enemies, 53 procs / 418 activations. (Due to the streakbreaker, there's no way I could get all misses on a cast.) Or a little under 13%.

Now, the 95% confidence interval for both those ranges about from 10% to 16%. But unless lots of things about the way these procs work that Arbiter Hawk has been lying to us about, I can't think of a way that multiple targets could be increasing the proc chances.

There is one caveat to these results - I did my testing on Beta. Live might be doing something different. But if it is, you can probably expect the future to hold Live changing to function the same way as Beta. That's what happened with the Brute proc.

-Morgan.

Well, that's why I've been thinking the best option would be slot the proc in something from the secondary, and slot the rest in a suitable control. Of course, that's if I'm not going for ranged defense. Which my Plant isn't. Too bad Icy doesn't have a thing it can go in...

It looks like cast time may also be factored into proc rates, so even if the rate wasn't reduced for AoEs, Roots and Strangler might have slightly different proc rates. Other than that, I think you've got everything correct.

What I actually *expected* was for the proc (when put in an aoe) to be similar to the Force Feedback proc - a low chance for the effect to fire per target, but an effectively pretty high chance that it'll fire from one or more... but only one firing per click will actually do anything. But they might not be *able* to have it work like that and still be able to stack with itself over multiple clicks.

So, given that it (AFAIK) only rolls once per cast ever, it'd certainly be nice if it didn't get the AoE reduction.

-Morgan.

I don't know if I'd get my hopes up based on that, since as I understand it the fix here makes the brute proc more like the dom proc. Before, it could apparently fire multiple times per cast, but had the reduced proc rate due to being AoE. Now, only once per cast, still has the reduced proc rate. Still not absolutely certain whether the low proc rate is WAI or not though.

It kind of annoys me that I can't find anyplace good to use this in my Plant/Icy. Don't think anything in the secondary can take it, it's no good with Roots, and I don't use Strangler that frequently to benefit. Guess I'll probably just be using it for set bonuses.

-Morgan.

This is not, strictly speaking, true. The chance to proc is lower in AoE attacks, but the factor by which it's lowered isn't enormous in most cases. For instance, if I put the Obliteration sbe proc (which is rated 3ppm) in Black Dwarf Mire, I can expect to have the proc fire about nine times per minute... assuming no recharge in the power. (And, of course, having ten things for it to hit every time.) The numbers in Foot Stomp would be similar, since that power has the same radius, target cap, and recharge time. The only case I've found where a sbe proc ends up being worse than the normal proc is in control set AoE immobilize. (Which combine a short recharge, a high target cap, and a very high radius.)

In all the testing I've done, the brute proc only seems to be able to fire once per click even in AoE powers. But this has been on the beta server, which might be different than live. (And they seem to be particularly bad in the damage auras. I've never seen it fire more than once or twice a minute in one of those, regardless of number of targets nearby.)

Edit: Well, that explains that...

Looks like the numbers in the description are rounded up. I'm seeing 5.55 from the non-superior proc. Which seems like a pretty pathetic difference between the two, but the superior proc should also fire more often.

-Morgan.

Wouldn't be the first thing I've thought they were wrong about.

"Should never have" does not equal "is a bad idea for it to be able to".

And if you don't see the reason why it's not all that much of an exploit, I'm starting to feel the same way about you?

Eliminate the usefulness of the fix? You mean it'd also allow people to once again use HOs to get schedule A enhancement in powers that are only supposed to be enhanceable at schedule B and enhance DDR in Active Defense? The stuff that's something more resembling actually broken?

Seriously, if the only thing the HO change affected was Eclipse, they probably wouldn't even have bothered.

-Morgan. Would you like it more if I suggested putting schedule B resistance on Endoplasms?

I suppose we're using different standards to determine what's called an exploit and what isn't. The DDR thing? That's an exploit. The DDR of the power in question was just plain not supposed to be enhanceable.

Eclipse? It's supposed to be enhanceable for everything it was getting enhanced for. The only questionable part to me was that it was giving schedule A enhancement instead of schedule B, but that's pretty minor by comparison.

That's why I'm suggesting just giving Nucleolus a schedule B resistance component. Eliminates the exploitative part, preserves the usefulness, everyone's happy. Except Fugacity, I suppose.

-Morgan, for the record, has never even had any HOs. Res/Rchg x3 + Acc/Rchg x(1-2) ftw.

You'll note that I'm not advocating them doing this.

Now who's comparing apples and oranges? Something that had those traits would be Effect/Effect, which in most cases don't happen. (I say "most", because there's Acc/Mez enhancements and the defense/tohit buff/debuff groupings. But powers where multiple aspects in those pairings exist are relatively rare.)



I'd expect them to be Schedule B values, same as what I suggested earlier in the thread.

I've spent some time looking at the values in mids, using an EndMod/Acc and a Res/EndRed to stand in for an Acc/Res (since I slot Eclipse for neither EndMod nor EndRed), and I'm not actually all that interested. Oh sure, I can get about the same values for a four-slot configuration using five less enhancement boosters. But the super packs I opened gave me enough of them that I just don't care. Other people's slotting priorities (and willingness to use boosters) are likely to vary from mine though.

Yes.

-Morgan.

My instinctive response is to say "So?", but that's probably a little too flip. So instead I'll say try looking at it from the other end. I don't play any characters who have a use for an accurate tohit debuff enhancement.* So there's no need for an accurate tohit debuff set to exist, right? Well no, some people actually have tohit debuff powers that need accuracy. And were I to make a character who had those kind of powers, I'd expect to be able to use sets like those, because that's the expectation created by all the other accurate do-stuff powers I've met.

... Except for Eclipse. Eclipse breaks the expectations set by the rest of the invention system, which somehow seems like a *bad thing* to me. It's esthetically displeasing, if nothing else.

Now, that doesn't make Accurate Resistance enhancements not something with limited use, which is why I don't support adding a new enhancement category. There's easier ways to fill that void well enough for most purposes.

*May not actually be true, depending in part on whether or not you think enhancing the debuff in Dark Melee attacks is useful. I don't. Anyway, it's hypothetical, hypothetical!

You don't seriously think people didn't already use Res/Rchg IOs in Eclipse, do you? People have been using Res/Rchg in Eclipse before you even joined this forum. And I mean years before, not months. Even I probably used Res/Rchg IOs before then. This is not news.

(Also neither of those things you suggest has enough Res for my taste.)

I'm pretty sure he didn't call it an exploit. That was just you. In this case, I think a little more argument can be made. (There have been some other questions about things affected by this change too. Active Defense's DDR definitely wasn't supposed to have been enhanceable, but what about the recharge in Mind Link? Def/Rchg enhancements still worked just fine, after all. Did they ever figure out what the deal was there?)

-Morgan.