So, about procs...

Define "proc".

If you mean "chance for X" then no - they are always on as long as the power is available, regardless of level. If you intend to use them in a set bonus, then they need to be a level that fits the exmplaring rules. If you are just slotting a proc, use whatever level is least expensive imo.

If you mean continuous globals, then yes, level matters. You must be no more than 3 levels below the enhancement - however, these can be slotted into powers that are not available and you will still get the bonus.

I find this all extremely confusing and frankly I wish the devs had just said: You get the powers to the level you exemp to. You get all of the set bonuses and IOs that are slotted in all available powers. Enjoy.

It would have made life SO much easier...

Bzzt! Wrong!

The Uniques from Numina's Convalescence, Miracle, Regenerative Tissue, and Kismet all function like the "Chance to X" procs, except that they always fire (no roll). They function as long as you have the power they are slotted in, and stop if you lose access to (or turn off) the power that they are in.

If you had said Luck of the Gambler +Recharge, one of the -KB IOs, or the Steadfast Protection Unique, you'd be right though.

To the OP: There are only two reasons low-level procs are "better". One is for counting towards set bonuses. The other is for slotting them at an earlier level - your level 30 character cannot slot a level 50 Numina Unique. If the Unique is the only piece you're slotting, your 50 could slot a 30 or a 50, and never see the difference, no matter how low they exemplared.

EDIT: Damn you, Spruce, for typing faster than me, and damn you, phone, for having a tiny keyboard that makes me type slow!

Bzzzt! Way to be a dick.

I will correct the Numina typo - even though I state GLOBAL in the sentence. Its late - sue me

Edit: Also, thank you spruce and roderic for both repeating what I said. Its nice to be affirmed

I was just being silly. Sorry you have no sense of humor.

The problem is that Numina is NOT a global, and you've called it one at least a few times, including in the guide you wrote.

As you said, special IOs can be confusing. There are THREE types, not two, and knowing how to tell them apart lessens much of the confusion.

Procs: These always say "Chance to". Whenever the power they're in is used, they have a chance to trigger. In toggle powers and auto powers, they trigger when the power first activates and once every 10 seconds the power remains on. You must have access to the power the IO is in to get its benefit, and the level of the IO doesn't matter.

Proc120s: I can't remember the wording on these, but it's along the lines of "grants (whatever) for 120 sec when this power is used". In a click power, they grant the buff for 2 minutes. In a toggle or auto power they grant the buff for as long as the power is on, and turn off if the power does. Like procs, level does not matter, only whether you have access to the power or not.

Globals: These just say "grants (whatever)", with no mention of a chance or duration. In this case, the benefit is granted at all times, even if you haven't used the click power it's in, or if it's in a toggle that's turned off. If you exemplar below the minimum level to slot the IO (IO level - 3), it turns off, just like a set bonus would. If you exemplar low enough to lose the power it's slotted in, you keep the bonus, unless you also drop below the IO's minimum level. Global IOs that are also PVP or Purple IOs are exceptions to this rule, and always function, no matter how low you exemplar.

Remember these three (not so) simple rules, and all special IOs will be a lot less confusing.

And sorry if I sounded like a jerk in this post or the previous. Not my intention, but text tends to lack somewhat in inflection, even when using stupid smileys.

EDIT: The Kismet +6% Acc IO is a Proc 120 as well. Try the LotG +Recharge, or a -KB IO.

So long as the proc doesn't provide enhancement strength to an attribute, then yes. For example, Luck of the Gambler +7.5s also buff defense, so higher level ones are better than lower level ones.

Shh don't tell people that! For some reason lately they've been paying more for the lower level ones.

Then again, "for some reason" might be because they want to slot them on lowbies. I know I like to slot those asap.

I never slot level 50s of these. It's always more valuable to me to be able to exemplar down as far as possible and retain the +recharge bonus.

Have you looked at the difference in enhancement% on a level 50 versus a level 25? Even for defense, where small % changes can be a big deal near the softcap, once you actually calculate the difference in total enhancement (remember, people don't typically just slot the Global in meaningful +def powers) times the base defense of a power, I have found the difference in a level 25 versus a level 50 to almost always be ignorable.

FYI, the lower ones have typically, though not always, been more expensive for a very, very long time.

To me it makes more sense to just think if it as just two types - procs are procs, and function basically the same whether they have a click-like effect or a toggle-like effect. That's just semantics though, think of it however it makes sense to you.
Yep. One way to be sure is to check out the set in Mid's. Global IO bonuses will appear along with all of the other set bonuses when you hover over a set piece. Procs will not.

Bleh this thread is confusing me. I was thinking when I wrote that that the Lucks didn't turn off when you exemp as long as you keep the power. Never mind. >.>

Edit: And in my own defense, the post I quoted did say "so higher levels ones are better" which helped me confuse myself.

I was making a usage agnostic judgment when I stated that higher level LotG procs are always "better". Of course, everyone should judge the values of the items by how they intend to use them in the context of the goals of a build. Uberguy gave great reasons why the value of low level LotG's are higher than high levels ones to him. They aren't equivalent like, for example, the "chance to X" ones are numbers-wise, however.

Yeah I know what you meant, now, I just took it the wrong way (and ran with it) the first time I read it.