Understanding PPM

These will still fire an above average number of times in an AOE power in large groups or x/+8 missions, correct?

Conversely, a power like Neutrino Blast is now a terrible proc power, since the formula is based on Cast+Recharge time. You would basically need to spam it in order to get the full PPM. Something like 30 casts in order to fire a 1 PPM proc, on average.

If you had your procs slotted efficiently, is there an upside to PPM?

Enemy-affecting procs will still get one chance to proc for each target hit, yes. The chance to proc will just be determined by the PPM formula, rather than being a flat 20%.

As to the second question: that depends on what you mean by "slotted efficiently".

For a majority of builds, from what I've seen, PPM is potentially a buff, if you take advantage of it (possibly requiring a respec). Yes, the Hecatomb proc will be terrible in Jab, but it will be excellent in Knockout Blow.

I thought the formula was intended to make it more or less the same number of procs over time whether it was slotted in a fast-recharging attack or a slow one. In that case, isn't it more properly thought of as "more predictable," perhaps, in Knockout Blow than "excellent" or "terrible"?

It's worse than it now is, because the current rules favor rapid-recharging attacks, but in the new regime it should be roughly the same (over the long term) in either power.

Therefore, isn't it kind of an illusion to say it (will be) worse in Jab? People have always calculated how much damage their attack chains do over a sustained period (DPS/DPA), and (under the coming rules) proc firing should even out over a sustained period. Maybe we should be thinking of procs-per-minute in the same way we think of DPS/DPA?

STUPID FORUM ATE MY REPLY. Raaarrrh, angry, caps. :@

The way I see it, there is two reasons for that.

First, sustained DPS is only relevant to specific situations.

When you're looking at guaranteed damage, as most of your attacks do, you can calculate DPS over a long period of time and derive your actual damage, not necessarily directly, but giving a relatively accurate idea of it.

Once you deal with chances to do damage, it's more complicated. If every proc has the same chances, it's as you said yourself: power used most get most out of procs. With different and proportional chances, higher probabilities to do some damage are better than lower probabilities to do more damage, because they are more reliable and end up doing more actual damage as a result.

For example, if you have a 300 damage attack and stick a proc with a 90% chance to go off for 100 extra damage, you're going to know you have a really good chance at doing 400 damage everytime this power goes off, and you can plan the way you use it accordingly; whereas if you have a 100 damage attack that you use three times as often as the previous one, and stick a proc with a 30% chance to go off for 100 extra damage, while it might seem as good on average it's nowhere near as reliable. Most of the time you will do 100 damage, sometimes you will do 200 damage. This makes it harder to plan, and will inevitably result in some overkill, making the actual damage actually lower than the estimated average.

Another thing highlighted in this example would be smaller attacks not only have a lower chance to proc, but also do less damage than bigger hits, making the proc damage a proportionally much bigger variation, adding to the unreliability/overkill of it all.

The second reason is you don't tend to use your small attacks as often as you could. Generally speaking they have lower DPA and serve to complete an attack chain. You might use, say, your 2s recharge attack every 8s, whereas you might use your big hitter recharging in 8s every 10s (I'm adding a hypothetical animation time in there, if you're wondering why I'm not just saying "every 8s"). This means much of the recharge on your smaller attack is wasted, and hurts your chances to proc, whereas higher tier attacks will generally be much closer to optimal recharge per actual use (and hence, optimal proc chance).

...Rereading it it kind of sounds like I'm saying procs are better in bigger attacks, period, whereas I meant to say "this is why a proc might be more or less efficient based on which power you slot it in". Due to the maximal chance it's not as simple as bigger is better, especially once you do care about sustained DPS. As a rule of thumb for ST damage I'd rank middle tier attacks > high tier attacks > lower tier attacks, for proc usage. Assuming you use those middle tier attacks twice as often as those high tier attacks.

Ignoring overkill, any ST in your attack chain should benefit roughly equally from procs now. But AOE is different. Most of us will be firing AOE's at more targets than the formula factors. In a proc mule like Sleet, I'm actually thinking of slotting no Recharge. With ~200% global, the return is minimal compared to the extra PPM from a zero rech power.

Sounds like I need to lose Neutrino, though. Too bad, the proc machine gun was fun, but minus that advantage, can't see my Rad/Rad def keeping it..

I think the ultimate "benefit" of PPM is making it more casual-friendly. A newborn player isn't necessarily going to assume that an IO with a with a 20% chance to proc is better off in a fast-recharging attack (even though he should, the stupid bugger). NOW someone can slot a proc in just about anything and achieve relatively the same benefit overall with a few notable exceptions.

Ultimately I think it's a good thing. It gives min/maxers more options and allows casuals the ability to slot in a way that doesn't require any pre-knowledge or math.

Most people don't like math. It's true. Look it up.