Changes Focused on Boosting Game Performance

[Snormal]

Minor math quibble:

Since there's no save, we care about the probability of at least one attack proccing Nerve Venom. Multiple procs don't confer extra benefit

You're correct, though I'm sure nobody with access to the actual calculation is copy pasting my solution into the code, so I didn't feel the need to go deeper than a broad-strokes overview.


For offhand doublestrike, having PTWF, Tempest capstone, Vistani, etc change the ratio might be an option to proportionately accommodate what they lost, i.e. Tempest capstone changes the offhand DS % to 0.6, VKF abilities give +0.03 per or whatever. Keeps their flavour and power relative to other TWF stable. Currently on almost any melee build you're going to be building towards 100% doublestrike, so slapping main hand DS on these abilities (which many have suggested) is a band-aid fix at best.

I think a lot of people complaining about the dervish change haven't considered that right now Tempest capstone dominates so heavily that there's very little reason to not go 20 ranger on TWF. Fighters, barbs, paladins, monks etc all see a huge playability increase with this change, and I think that is a great thing. Yes, they should make dervish worth taking, but looking at it even with this change it's still stronger than a lot of capstones are for melees. It's nowhere near as good as it was before, so I'm not saying it doesn't need some help, one just needs to take into account that TWF actually on the whole got a decent increase with this change, and adding back the same amount of power to dervish would just result in 20 ranger crowding out the other options again.

[SpartanKiller13]

"Multi-processing shuriken build, you have been found guilty of excessive lag production! Do you have anything to say before sentence is passed?"
"But archers just got a new multi-processing arrow attack!"
"Irrelevant! Multi-processing shuriken build you are hereby sentenced to ...."

Pretty sure Shuriken are putting out more attacks/second than bow builds, even factoring Multishot lol.

I totally agree, my example was just to have some numbers to work around. If my idea was used they need to pick the numbers using a better source with better gear, past lifes, etc.

My point is that if 50% of your doublestrike is now your off-hand chance TWF is nerfed because the 2 biggest sources aren't giving anything while other builds without Dervish can end up with more off-hand chance, for example a TWF Kensei.

Maybe something as simple like giving some Melee Power can be what the sources of off-hand need.

Yes, everyone agrees Dervish needs a rework. Doesn't mean off-hand DS being half of main-hand DS is a nerf. It's mostly a buff for endgame toons, and everyone assumes something will be done to Dervish instead of just removing half the capstone and leaving it as-is.

The problem is I just don't have the confidence anymore that they will make an effort to rework or buff all of these proc effects that they're essentially reducing the frequency of them going off by 1/2 or 2/3 (I'm unclear about the math). And I'm especially more concerned about the debuffing/defensive/CC procs than the damage procs. In other words its going to hurt my characters far more that Nerve Venom, Guard Breaking, Paralyzing, Tendon Slice type procs will happen less than that Lightning or Magma Surge or Vorpal will go off less. A little worried about Shield Bashing too.

Damage procs are roughly speaking unaffected. It's the non-damage procs that are being nerfed, as they've basically stated that's the purpose of this pass - there's too many procs, so they're reducing the number of them.

No.

The idea is to reduce the number of times extra effects proc or have a chance to proc.

With Doubleshot today, it is possible for 3 or possibly 4 "actual" arrows or daggers to hit the target. Each arrow or dagger can apply all sorts of effects on each single hit.

The changes apply or have a chance to apply effects only once. Increasing the chance for an effect (like Nerve Venom) to apply still means it only has a chance to apply once as the check happens only once. The queue doesn't really get any longer like it does if you have to apply multiple effects multiple times.

If you increase duration of Nerve Venom sure, but otherwise there's just a 7% chance of it hitting 4x, which does nothing other than increase server load for no perceivable gain. Checking 4x would be equal to where it is now, but the devs have stated that's not what they're intending:

We are trying to reduce the amount of times over a period that procs happen, and changes that put us to the same amount of procs per second will not fix our effects queue problem.

The fix is so they can reduce the number of calculations the server has to make for every attack. I think there is a way to get the effective proc rate of these on hit effects to a similar level that they are on live while also reducing the server load without nerfing them to the ground.

For example someone with a dev tag needs to take the time to do the math to figure out what something like nerve venom's actual proc rate is at for say 3-5 hits on every attack and adjust the the 7% to the proper higher number. Mobs still get cced at the same rate but the server only has to make one calculation for the first hit and not on all the double shots or extra tosses that thrown weapons get.

It may be that each combat style needs a slightly different % to keep them competitive. More work for the devs yes but they should take the time to do it properly.

I'll also respond to you with the same quote:

We are trying to reduce the amount of times over a period that procs happen, and changes that put us to the same amount of procs per second will not fix our effects queue problem.

Yes, it's a direct nerf to Nerve Venom. Adjusting the proc rate to a higher number would put it back to the same procs/second, which will not fix the effects queue problem. Any potential change to Nerve Venom etc should be towards effect, duration, cost, etc - not increasing the proc rate.

[salmag]

So how is it different if you get 2 or 3 attacks, each of them producing a proc effect for a net 2 or 3 Procs any different than 1 attack netting 2 or 3 procs based off of a multi-hit variable?

The # of procs is the same in both cases. Yes the number of hits is reduced but they never stated that was part of the goal of this change. Their only goal was to reduce the number of procs entering the queue.

So what you are saying is this:

3 attacks (hits) with a 7% chance to proc = 3 proc attempts at 7% = 3 different calculations.

compared to increasing the percentage to say 14%.

1 attack (hit) with a 14% chance to proc = 1 proc attempt at 14% = 1 calculation.

The number of procs is 1 compared to 3. I don't see HOW they are the same.

Basically, CC is dead, if they keep these changes.

[IBCrabin]

This change isn't going to do a whole lot if they continue to add more effects to the game.

Effects or game calculation doesn't only happen when a player attack a monster but also passive when people zone into reaper mode with a lot of points.

The latter isn't as frequent as an attack, but people zoning in and out of content with reaper points, running by someone as a bard and give them their "song" in town still adds to the effect the server has to calculate.

[Snormal]

So what you are saying is this:

3 attacks (hits) with a 7% chance to proc = 3 proc attempts at 7% = 3 different calculations.

compared to increasing the percentage to say 14%.

1 attack (hit) with a 14% chance to proc = 1 proc attempt at 14% = 1 calculation.

The number of procs is 1 compared to 3. I don't see HOW they are the same.

You are absolutely correct. I don't think it's been stated anywhere that # of calculations is the problem, it's the events queue that they're aiming to reduce.

100 attacks (hits) with 7% chance to proc = roughly 7 events to send to the queue. The queue now contains 7 events that need to be processed in the time it took for those 100 attacks.

33 attacks (hits) at 200% doubleshot with 21% chance to proc = roughly 7 events to send to the queue. The queue now contains 7 events that need to be processed in the time it took for those 33 attacks, which is the same time that 100 attacks previously took.

Increasing proc % may reduce calculations, but it doesn't decrease the amount of procs over a given time period, which appears to be the main issue they're working to fix here. For all we know the server load at the calculation phase is 2% of available resources. None of us have access to that information, which is why we probably just need to trust the developers and give our best feedback so that they can action accordingly. These are human beings doing their jobs, with real targets to hit and probably a substantial amount of pressure. If it comes down to offending some loud dude on the forum vs not hitting KPIs for the quarter, everybody is going to take the former option 99% of the time.

[rabidfox]

So what you are saying is this:

3 attacks (hits) with a 7% chance to proc = 3 proc attempts at 7% = 3 different calculations.

compared to increasing the percentage to say 14%.

1 attack (hit) with a 14% chance to proc = 1 proc attempt at 14% = 1 calculation.

The number of procs is 1 compared to 3. I don't see HOW they are the same.

That's (3x) 7% chance of effect being put into the effect queue vs (1x) 14% chance of being put into the effect queue. My assumption is that the processing for 3x vs 1x isn't the heavy load part, it's the successful proc getting put into the queue that's the issue resource wise.

[ValariusK]

Here are some suggestions for reducing processing: Looked at my oldest son's barbarian for an example. I'll post from the perspective of other characters if I get some time

Frenzy---this is a proc on everything, Pain touch in ravager---ditto. Pretty much every barbarian has these 2.
So change Frenzy to just give you +N damage when it is on. Ditto pain touch. No more procs. No more added effects queue. Simple, and nobody is super attached to these small numbers in the floaty text.
Consider dumping the demoralizing success on vorpal also, it only has DC20 so it rarely if every works, but it spams a lot if your attack rate is high. Maybe have it just be a shaken to the target hit only instead of an AE.

Looking at my monk alt I don't see massive numbers of gratuitous procs.

[Arkat]

So what you are saying is this:

3 attacks (hits) with a 7% chance to proc = 3 proc attempts at 7% = 3 different calculations.

compared to increasing the percentage to say 14%.

1 attack (hit) with a 14% chance to proc = 1 proc attempt at 14% = 1 calculation.

The number of procs is 1 compared to 3. I don't see HOW they are the same.

Basically, CC is dead, if they keep these changes.

Yes

That's (3x) 7% chance of effect being put into the effect queue vs (1x) 14% chance of being put into the effect queue. My assumption is that the processing for 3x vs 1x isn't the heavy load part, it's the successful proc getting put into the queue that's the issue resource wise.

No

[Lynnabel]

That's (3x) 7% chance of effect being put into the effect queue vs (1x) 14% chance of being put into the effect queue. My assumption is that the processing for 3x vs 1x isn't the heavy load part, it's the successful proc getting put into the queue that's the issue resource wise.

This is correct. Effects that are culled by filtration (which includes proc chance) do not meaningfully contribute to the type of lag we're specifically targeting with this change. It is only when an effect actually goes off that it gets added to the queue.

[salmag]

You are absolutely correct. I don't think it's been stated anywhere that # of calculations is the problem, it's the events queue that they're aiming to reduce.

100 attacks (hits) with 7% chance to proc = roughly 7 events to send to the queue. The queue now contains 7 events that need to be processed in the time it took for those 100 attacks.

33 attacks (hits) at 200% doubleshot with 21% chance to proc = roughly 7 events to send to the queue. The queue now contains 7 events that need to be processed in the time it took for those 33 attacks, which is the same time that 100 attacks previously took.

Increasing proc % may reduce calculations, but it doesn't decrease the amount of procs over a given time period, which appears to be the main issue they're working to fix here.

That's (3x) 7% chance of effect being put into the effect queue vs (1x) 14% chance of being put into the effect queue. My assumption is that the processing for 3x vs 1x isn't the heavy load part, it's the successful proc getting put into the queue that's the issue resource wise.

So basically, they want to lower the number of effects going into the queue.
Why have any extra effects, then?
After they get rid of all the extra effects, and there is still lag, what's next?

[Snormal]

So basically, they want to lower the number of effects going into the queue.

This is what has been stated, yes.

Why have any extra effects, then?

Why buy a Toyota when you can buy a Ferrari? Because there are more factors at play (cost, use cases, return on investment, etc).

After they get rid of all the extra effects, and there is still lag, what's next?

Presumably, they move onto the next most egregious lag generator.

[Zoveride]

I am not trying to silence anyone. I am saying that the devs have posted multiple times that the whole goal of these changes is to reduce the number of procs going into the que, yet people keep asking for the number of procs to be increased since the number of hits are being reduced. It is just counter productive and not logical.

Voice your opinion, absolutely, but think a bit before you do. If your idea is 100% opposite of what they are trying to accomplish, probably need to rethink it. Others have had excellent ideas that fit within these changes, Aelonwy for one. Work with the devs, not against them.

Is the forums only for players who are mathematicians and programmers? I am definitely neither of those but like others, we can clearly see that something is wrong and SOMETHING needs to be done to fix this.
Their ideas may not be the right or the best but the idea is there that something has to be done. Whether it is increasing the chance, DC, the value, duration, etc...
Whatever needs to be done is not up to the player to decide, but for the developers to come up with. We are here to voice our concerns that this is wrong and a nerf, and they need to come up with an appropriate mathematical solution.
I'm not going to pretend and say, add 7% or use this (xyz) formula
These mathematical solutions coming from me and many others could and are most likely useless, but in the end it sends the same message - this is wrong, fix it

[Arkat]

This is correct. Effects that are culled by filtration (which includes proc chance) do not meaningfully contribute to the type of lag we're specifically targeting with this change. It is only when an effect actually goes off that it gets added to the queue.

Understood.

So basically, they want to lower the number of effects going into the queue.
Why have any extra effects, then?
After they get rid of all the extra effects, and there is still lag, what's next?

After Lynn's answer above, I was also wondering the same.

Seriously, making one check that might be at a higher than currently established chance for an effect instead of three or four smaller chances seems like a better solution from a player's PoV, anyway. Yes, there would be a higher chance one Nerve Venom would get added to the queue, but there would be ZERO chance two, three, or four Nerve Venoms would get added to the queue.

Presumably, they move onto the next most egregious lag generator.

Which is?

[Vorachtin]

Has anyone tested arcane archer with the new performance changes? with most of the goodies from AA i.e paralyzing, smiting etc being non damaging effects is that class/tree being put in the grave?

[Snormal]

Which is?

Not sure if you're addressing this to me, but since you quoted me on the question, I will respond.

I am a player and thus have no access to this information. It also doesn't really matter what it is, they're going to address what they're going to address, where the benefit:cost ratio is highest.

People can assume the best or the worst of SSG, but the fact is that as players we have only the information they're giving to us. I see no point getting hung up on something I can't control - I've given my feedback and they'll either read it or trash it as is their prerogative.

I'm not happy how this leaves some of my characters, but I trust they'll work to resolve the issues. If they don't, I'll stop playing those characters or TR them into something that works post-change. If any of these changes or future changes ruin my enjoyment of the game, I'll stop playing the game. I also assume SSG knows this and does their best to NOT ruin the enjoyment of their paying customers where possible.

[Certon]

to blazes with all these complicated solutions. the fix is simple--

introduce cooldowns for all procs. you want procs to happen less? increase the cooldown for said proc. the proc for a particular ability needs to happen more? lessen (or eliminate) the cooldown. that way you can leave everything the way it is now and still reduce resource drain. you only check for proccing on cooldowns that are 0 (or less for some reason, just to make sure items don't get broken at some point and just go into the negative forever and never proc again because some coder screwed up and =0 instead of <=0 somewhere)

also--

maybe make some (or all) procs 100% with cooldowns that are variable instead. then you are just checking for a <=0 variable to proc.

---

Now the procs themselves. I'm going to say something you're not going to like. There are two REAL solutions to this. Everything else is just making your code and the gameplay worse.

Solution 1 is to have a server dedicated to procs. That's all it does. it calculates and spits out the information for all servers and it has NO OTHER JOB. This lessens the load on the older servers, but would require quite a bit of coding on the backend to get the servers to sync with this other server, AND if that server went down, the old servers would need to have the ability to revert to the old style of proccing while the situation is resolved, or all servers would stop functioning at the same time.

Solution 2 is to push the proc calculations client side. You HATE this because you think people will cheat, but you don't have the player's PC do its own calculations. That information is handed to a random client to process every time it is needed. All the server needs to do is ferry the information from client to client. LET THE PLAYERS PCs LIGHTEN THE LOAD.

I think Solution 2 is the best one. Do it.

[thunir]

If it hasn't already need stated, my largest concern with the approach to this update is the 50% decrease in my chance to recharge Adrenaline or benefit from vorpal procks. Someone with perfect SWF or THF in Fury is getting hosed.

Can we just change this to a flat 10% chance? Would it not be relatively the same thing?

[Aelonwy]

Damage procs are roughly speaking unaffected. It's the non-damage procs that are being nerfed, as they've basically stated that's the purpose of this pass - there's too many procs, so they're reducing the number of them.

Yes I get it. The purpose of this pass is to NERF procs by reducing the frequency with which they occur. If you check back over my comments I am NOT asking to increase the FREQUENCY of the procs I am asking for them to buff or improve them in some other way. I explicitly said

Could we have the procs themselves last longer? stack faster or have the stacks do more each stack? Maybe remove the save roll from some procs? I mean that would also be less calculations.

They could also slow the rate at which stacks expire.

[DjangoKeys]

This is correct. Effects that are culled by filtration (which includes proc chance) do not meaningfully contribute to the type of lag we're specifically targeting with this change. It is only when an effect actually goes off that it gets added to the queue.

So, since you're taking well over half of my proc chances away, would it be too much to ask to have the stacks doubled?

[SpartanKiller13]

If it hasn't already need stated, my largest concern with the approach to this update is the 50% decrease in my chance to recharge Adrenaline or benefit from vorpal procks. Someone with perfect SWF or THF in Fury is getting hosed.

Can we just change this to a flat 10% chance? Would it not be relatively the same thing?

FWIW your Adrenaline damage roughly doubles in SWF/THF (since you now get Adrenaline on both). Also Unbridled Fury gets a huge buff here (at least AFAICT), as it doesn't care about recharging but gives you double the current damage for bosses etc.

Yes I get it. The purpose of this pass is to NERF procs by reducing the frequency with which they occur. If you check back over my comments I am NOT asking to increase the FREQUENCY of the procs I am asking for them to buff or improve them in some other way.

They could also slow the rate at which stacks expire.

That's fair, I was just responding for the math part.

I'm also in favor of buffing non-damage procs, just gotta be careful how it's done.

For multiple-stack effects, having multiple/hit or reducing the expiration seems like the obvious method to me too