Just wanted to let everyone know that I -finally- got my Plant/Psi Dom to 50, and thus I could finally slot the Armageddon Chance for Fire Proc. I'll have an update of my mini-faq by the end of this week after I finish some testing with the Chance for Fire Proc along with a couple other of the new damage procs.
I'll also see about compiling a list of questions that came up during this thread to update the main post with as well. Sorry it's taken me so long to get around to updating this mini-faq, but the new version will be up Soon().
Damage Proc Mini-FAQ
Just noticed Damage Proc Mini-FAQ wasn't working with new forums, it's been updated.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I know, I stated as much in the part you quoted even.
[/ QUOTE ]
As your passage started with "I believe" it sounded to me like you were pretty sure but not totally sure. So, I provided you with a firm, specific piece of evidence.
True, it was more referring to my lack of PvP experience with the procs to be honest.
Damage Proc Mini-FAQ
Just noticed Damage Proc Mini-FAQ wasn't working with new forums, it's been updated.
Updated OP by request.
Ex
[ QUOTE ]
Updated OP by request.
Ex
[/ QUOTE ]
Awesome, thanks again Ex! Especially for bearing with me for my first time updating an OP. 
Damage Proc Mini-FAQ
Just noticed Damage Proc Mini-FAQ wasn't working with new forums, it's been updated.
Is there any way to track procs in Hero Stats. I have a smashing damage proc and a -rchg proc in Chilling Embrace. I hunted for 90 minutes and then went to review my Hero Stats log. I don't find any stats in CE as a damage power. Does HS not report on procs? I'm just trying to find a way to track them so I can weigh their benefits. I know in an aura they have a chance to fire every 10 seconds...so in theory, I'd have each proc every 50 seconds or so.
Thoughts? Advice?
Also, Natuski, your Damage Proc FAQ now updated for i11! I can't seem to open the link to your guide. Is it me (since I'm trying from work?) or is the link broken?
Link still works for me, so probably work is messing it up.
As far as Hero Stats is concerned, yes it does track the procs, however, it's not going to list which power the proc is slotted in as doing the damage.
There should be a section for the chance for smashing damage if you have more than one chance for smashing proc however, it will not distinguish between them and will instead total them all up. Then again, Hero Stats may not be coded to track the chance for smashing (It takes Positron's Blast, Touch of Death, and several others, just not certain about the chance for Smashing).
Damage Proc Mini-FAQ
Just noticed Damage Proc Mini-FAQ wasn't working with new forums, it's been updated.
I have a chance for smashing in Tar Pit and Hero Stats tracks it fine. Semi-related: the proc does alot of damage over the course of a night of play was worth the slot.
My question isn't about a damage proc, but a buff proc. I would assume they work in basically the same manner. The question is, can a proc get past a debuff? I would like to slot the Performance Shifter +END proc into my Elec blasters Thunderous Blast, because almost all Elec powers accept EndMod IOs. If the proc fires, will I get my +end, or will it be denied due to the -Recovery effect of the Alpha?
**EDIT** Someone enlightened me in regard to the effect of the Performance Shifter proc in another thread... nothing to see here, move along... 
Just a bit of a nitpick:
[ QUOTE ]
What does proc mean?
In this case, it means "Programmed Random Occurrence"
[/ QUOTE ]
Unless the CoH developers have decided to change the standard genre terminology themselves, this is not true - although it is a very common mistake.
"Proc" is short for "procedure", and it dates from the days of text MUDs (possibly even earlier). It refers to the segment of code that is called whenever one of these types of effects goes off; originally the term wasn't limited to only activated effects on attacks although this has become the only common usage.
"Procedure" isn't terribly intuitive however, particularly if as with most people, you were never exposed to a MUDs code and thus never saw the term used in context, so a number of alternative explanations have cropped up over the years; "programmed random occurence" "potential rate of cast" and "process" are all examples, but all are equally incorrect.
Text MUDs are also where we get the term "Mob" which was short for "Mobile Object" or just "Mobile", which typically referred to NPCs (although not always), and which sometimes causes confusion because while the term "mob" is singular, the word "mob" in regular English refers to a group, and people will use each version interchangeably - "I pulled a single mob from the mob" would be an example.
I digress; and perhaps I am arguing semantics anyway. "Programmed random occurence" is a perfectly reasonable definition of the term (at least in today's usage), but it is certainly not the original derivation - it was never an abbreviation for the phrase as implied by your highlights.
[ QUOTE ]
I digress; and perhaps I am arguing semantics anyway.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you are. Woulda been nice if you had something constructive to at least add instead.
Damage Proc Mini-FAQ
Just noticed Damage Proc Mini-FAQ wasn't working with new forums, it's been updated.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I digress; and perhaps I am arguing semantics anyway.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you are. Woulda been nice if you had something constructive to at least add instead.
[/ QUOTE ]
How rude! I wouldn't have posted if I didn't think it was constructive. I might not be contributing data on proc percentages, but I'm still offering my knowledge and time in an effort to improve your FAQ; you could show a bit of gratitude - or at least courtesy.
What about procs and exemplaring?
I'm assuming they'll still work, even if the IO is more than 3 above your exemplared level, but can anyone confirm?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I digress; and perhaps I am arguing semantics anyway.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you are. Woulda been nice if you had something constructive to at least add instead.
[/ QUOTE ]
How rude! I wouldn't have posted if I didn't think it was constructive. I might not be contributing data on proc percentages, but I'm still offering my knowledge and time in an effort to improve your FAQ; you could show a bit of gratitude - or at least courtesy.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nit picking is not exactly something that is constructive, and you picked a rather bad day to do it and bad timing. I had just finished my shift at work, where not a single one of my tools were working properly.
In all honesty, I found your post to be rude first and returned it in kind.
EDIT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitpicking
"As nitpicking inherently requires fastidious, meticulous attention to detail, the term has become appropriated to describe the practice of meticulously searching for minor, even trivial errors in detail (often referred to as "nits" as well), and then criticising them."
I chose Programmed Random Occurence because it is the -easiest- definition for the average person to understand for proc.
The reason I do not like "procedure" is due to most people thinking of it in the lines of the outcome be exactly the same time every single time.
Damage Proc Mini-FAQ
Just noticed Damage Proc Mini-FAQ wasn't working with new forums, it's been updated.
[ QUOTE ]
What about procs and exemplaring?
I'm assuming they'll still work, even if the IO is more than 3 above your exemplared level, but can anyone confirm?
[/ QUOTE ]
Damage procs always work while exemplaring, even below the level of the IO.
However, there are some buff procs that are not working properly. (Gaussians' chance for Build Up, and Force Feedback chance for +Recharge come to mind)
Damage Proc Mini-FAQ
Just noticed Damage Proc Mini-FAQ wasn't working with new forums, it's been updated.
Well Natsuki, I'm sorry if I caught you on a bad day, but my post certainly wasn't intended to be rude, it was only intended to be helpful - and honestly, I've read and re-read my post, and I cannot fathom for the life of me what you took offense at.
My post was quite definitely constructive and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop saying otherwise. The difference between constructive and unconstructive criticism is that constructive criticism contains suggestions to address the item being criticised; unconstructive criticism would simply be of the form "you got X wrong" or "X is rubbish" which I obviously did not do.
While "programmed random occurence" may be "easier" in some sense it is still factually incorrect, particularly given the misleading highlights you have used on the term, and spreading incorrect information in a FAQ is not something I personally approve of. Believing in a flat earth may be "easier" than explaining the realities of geography, astronomy and physics, but I'd still be motivated to speak up if schools started teaching my kids we lived on a flat earth.
You are of course under no obligation to update your FAQ, but your posting it here gives your tacit consent for anyone reading to levy criticism or offer suggestions for improvement - if you don't want that, post it on your own web page instead of on a discussion forum. My only motivation in posting was to help improve your FAQ in however minor a way, and quite honestly your rude and ungrateful reaction makes me wonder why I bothered.
I think we are veering into "noise > signal" territory so I'm not going to continue this discussion here, but if you think there's more to say feel free to PM me.
[ QUOTE ]
Well Natsuki, I'm sorry if I caught you on a bad day, but my post certainly wasn't intended to be rude, it was only intended to be helpful
[/ QUOTE ]
If it wasn't, that's fine then. Since you preferred me to bring further arguing over semantics into PM's instead, that's what I have done.
My FAQ is about a specific type of PROC and is not about the history of the various definitions of PROC, which there are many of them.
PROC Process
PRoC People's Republic of China
PROC Peoples Republic of Cork (Ireland)
PROC Procedure
PROC Proceeding(s)
PROC Processing
PROC Processor
PROC Procurement
Proc Programmed Random Occurrence
PROC Proposed Required Operational Capability
PROC Puerto Rican Operations Center (US DoD)
This'll be the last post I make off-topic about this discussion in this thread.
Damage Proc Mini-FAQ
Just noticed Damage Proc Mini-FAQ wasn't working with new forums, it's been updated.
[ QUOTE ]
My FAQ is about a specific type of PROC and is not about the history of the various definitions of PROC, which there are many of them.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know, if someone points out an error in a polite way, you should try to dredge up a little class and say, "Thank you," whether or not you intend to implement the change. There was nothing rude about Kal's posts.
Like I said above, I felt it was rather off-topic about it and not really correcting an error when there are several different definitions of it.
Yes, I probably shouldn't have snapped at him, but it's too late, no point in drudging it up again ok?
EDIT:
Bleh, actually, I think I'm going to stop posting until i12. It's not just me but everyone's a bit antsy about i12 Closed Beta, and there's a lot of tension running higher than usual. >_<
While I still don't feel it was a valid nitpick due to the whole issue of semantics, I do apologize for the way that I reacted towards him. Anyways.
Damage Proc Mini-FAQ
Just noticed Damage Proc Mini-FAQ wasn't working with new forums, it's been updated.
Thanks to a post in a separate thread, I have finally found an official source for what proc stands for within CoX, and as such I am updating this thread with that information.
http://www.cityofheroes.com/game_update9_qa.html
Not sure why I never saw this (or at the very least do not remember seeing it), and I do apologize to those I have butted heads with over this but since I have it from a devs words, well, that ends the argument for me. (Previously, I had thought there was no official words by the devs for this, hence my insistence on it being just a matter of semantics)
Damage Proc Mini-FAQ
Just noticed Damage Proc Mini-FAQ wasn't working with new forums, it's been updated.
[ QUOTE ]
What about powers that only have a chance for the enhancements type to fire off (Such as Energy Blast with Explosive Strike)?
There has been much debate about this particular point; via testing and thanks to Biowraith, there is now a perfect example/proof of how this works. In essence, a power only needs to be enhanceable for the type of enhancement for the proc to fire off. The power does not even need to contain such an effect for the proc to work! That is to say, slotting an Explosive Strike chance for Smashing into a power that has a 20% chance for Knockback, it will roll the chance for Smashing proc whether or not the chance for knockback the power has inherently fires off! What's my proof? Robotics Mastermind's first attack, Pulse Rifle Blast (Tier1 attack), has NO knockback effect at all, however, the power accepts both Knockback enhancers and Knockback Set Enhancers, and yes, the Explosive Strike proc works in it.
[/ QUOTE ]
i put an explosive strike proc in my lich, which without upgrades, has torrent (kb) and dark blast (no kb). torrent will proc, but dark blast will not - which is contrary to what is stated above.
50: Ill/Kin(A+,R,J)-1047 badges RE/Dark(A) Fire/Elec Warshade BS/Regen Necro/Poison Ice/Fiery(A+) Son/Son Bane(A) FM/DA(A) DM/Nin Grav/Icy
lvling: Inv/EM DM/Sheild Arch/MM Bane NW Elec/Earth Grav/Elec Elec/FA Rad/Ice
Paragon Elite/Rogue Elite Joined Oct 2004
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about powers that only have a chance for the enhancements type to fire off (Such as Energy Blast with Explosive Strike)?
There has been much debate about this particular point; via testing and thanks to Biowraith, there is now a perfect example/proof of how this works. In essence, a power only needs to be enhanceable for the type of enhancement for the proc to fire off. The power does not even need to contain such an effect for the proc to work! That is to say, slotting an Explosive Strike chance for Smashing into a power that has a 20% chance for Knockback, it will roll the chance for Smashing proc whether or not the chance for knockback the power has inherently fires off! What's my proof? Robotics Mastermind's first attack, Pulse Rifle Blast (Tier1 attack), has NO knockback effect at all, however, the power accepts both Knockback enhancers and Knockback Set Enhancers, and yes, the Explosive Strike proc works in it.
[/ QUOTE ]
i put an explosive strike proc in my lich, which without upgrades, has torrent (kb) and dark blast (no kb). torrent will proc, but dark blast will not - which is contrary to what is stated above.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even though Pulse Rifle doesn't do knockback, it does accept knockback enhancements and sets (although there is/was a patch to fix that in the works), therefore the proc would have a chance to fire when that power was used.
Your Lich, though it is one power, has multiple attacks of its own. Some do knockback, some do not. Only the attacks that are flagged for knockback will have a chance that the proc will fire.
@macskull, @Not Mac | XBL: macskull | Steam: macskull | Skype: macskull
"One day we all may see each other elsewhere. In Tyria, in Azeroth. We may pass each other and never know it. And that's sad. But if nothing else, we'll still have Rhode Island."
"One day we all may see each other elsewhere. In Tyria, in Azeroth. We may pass each other and never know it. And that's sad. But if nothing else, we'll still have Rhode Island."
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about powers that only have a chance for the enhancements type to fire off (Such as Energy Blast with Explosive Strike)?
There has been much debate about this particular point; via testing and thanks to Biowraith, there is now a perfect example/proof of how this works. In essence, a power only needs to be enhanceable for the type of enhancement for the proc to fire off. The power does not even need to contain such an effect for the proc to work! That is to say, slotting an Explosive Strike chance for Smashing into a power that has a 20% chance for Knockback, it will roll the chance for Smashing proc whether or not the chance for knockback the power has inherently fires off! What's my proof? Robotics Mastermind's first attack, Pulse Rifle Blast (Tier1 attack), has NO knockback effect at all, however, the power accepts both Knockback enhancers and Knockback Set Enhancers, and yes, the Explosive Strike proc works in it.
[/ QUOTE ]
i put an explosive strike proc in my lich, which without upgrades, has torrent (kb) and dark blast (no kb). torrent will proc, but dark blast will not - which is contrary to what is stated above.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even though Pulse Rifle doesn't do knockback, it does accept knockback enhancements and sets (although there is/was a patch to fix that in the works), therefore the proc would have a chance to fire when that power was used.
Your Lich, though it is one power, has multiple attacks of its own. Some do knockback, some do not. Only the attacks that are flagged for knockback will have a chance that the proc will fire.
[/ QUOTE ]
it just sounded like the Pulse Rifle Blast (which i assume has no KB component) could set off the proc (now that i re-read it, i realize this is the MM's power and not the teir 1 pet). the way i tested it, and the way you describe, makes the most sense, given how over powered it would be in pets if every attack (regardless of type) had a chance to set off the proc.
50: Ill/Kin(A+,R,J)-1047 badges RE/Dark(A) Fire/Elec Warshade BS/Regen Necro/Poison Ice/Fiery(A+) Son/Son Bane(A) FM/DA(A) DM/Nin Grav/Icy
lvling: Inv/EM DM/Sheild Arch/MM Bane NW Elec/Earth Grav/Elec Elec/FA Rad/Ice
Paragon Elite/Rogue Elite Joined Oct 2004
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about powers that only have a chance for the enhancements type to fire off (Such as Energy Blast with Explosive Strike)?
There has been much debate about this particular point; via testing and thanks to Biowraith, there is now a perfect example/proof of how this works. In essence, a power only needs to be enhanceable for the type of enhancement for the proc to fire off. The power does not even need to contain such an effect for the proc to work! That is to say, slotting an Explosive Strike chance for Smashing into a power that has a 20% chance for Knockback, it will roll the chance for Smashing proc whether or not the chance for knockback the power has inherently fires off! What's my proof? Robotics Mastermind's first attack, Pulse Rifle Blast (Tier1 attack), has NO knockback effect at all, however, the power accepts both Knockback enhancers and Knockback Set Enhancers, and yes, the Explosive Strike proc works in it.
[/ QUOTE ]
i put an explosive strike proc in my lich, which without upgrades, has torrent (kb) and dark blast (no kb). torrent will proc, but dark blast will not - which is contrary to what is stated above.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even though Pulse Rifle doesn't do knockback, it does accept knockback enhancements and sets (although there is/was a patch to fix that in the works), therefore the proc would have a chance to fire when that power was used.
Your Lich, though it is one power, has multiple attacks of its own. Some do knockback, some do not. Only the attacks that are flagged for knockback will have a chance that the proc will fire.
[/ QUOTE ]
it just sounded like the Pulse Rifle Blast (which i assume has no KB component) could set off the proc (now that i re-read it, i realize this is the MM's power and not the teir 1 pet). the way i tested it, and the way you describe, makes the most sense, given how over powered it would be in pets if every attack (regardless of type) had a chance to set off the proc.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry for the confusion there. In the case of the Lich, only ONE of their powers is "enhanceable" for knock back. So, this is working as intended.
<Shakes fist> And of course, City of Data's new "user interface" bars me from posting an easy link to the Lich to show you which powers are enhanceable for what.
So, yes, the Lich "summon" accepts Knockback enhancements, however, to determine which powers procs do work for you have to look at the individual Lich "powers". This is what really determines whether a proc will function or not.
EDIT:
Drawing for another MM Pet example.
Enforcers. Slotting the KB Chance for Damage into them would mean only one of their attacks would have the chance for damage, which would be the Blast Clip Power.
Now, if you slot the Defense Debuff Chance for Damage into the Enforcers all of their attacks except two will have the chance for Damage. The two it would not get them in, is Brawl, and Blast Clip. Neither of those powers are enhanceable for Defense Debuff.
Damage Proc Mini-FAQ
Just noticed Damage Proc Mini-FAQ wasn't working with new forums, it's been updated.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that's only in PvP that they are considered unresisted. At the time I wrote this guide, it was based on my testing in PvE and it wasn't until much much later that I found out that some procs are unresisted in PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
Procs are definitely resistable in PvE, I have both an energy and psi proc in Deceive and I frequently see two different numbers as energy resistance is much more common than Psi.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I know, I stated as much in the part you quoted even. My guide was based solely on PvE testing where all procs are resistable, it wasn't until much after I released my mini-faq that I found in PvP some procs are unresisted.
Damage Proc Mini-FAQ
Just noticed Damage Proc Mini-FAQ wasn't working with new forums, it's been updated.