UberGuy

So in a single-target attack, the chance to proc is basically the listed PPM * (Base Power Recharge in sec) / (60 sec). The max chance is of course 100%. So a 15s recharge power with a 4 PPM proc works out to (4 * 15 / 60) = 100%. An 8 second power works out to (4 * 8 / 60) = 40% chance.

Edit: The reason you have seen both 12s and 15s for 100% chance of activation is that the superior (purple) versions have a PPM of 5. (5 * 12 / 60 = 100%)

As mentioned, we know that AoEs proc less often, but don't know exactly how much less often. We were told that both the power's target cap and its max radius mattered for reducing the proc rate.

Right now the AoE nature of "gauntlet" in Tanker attacks seems to be trigger this reduction, and testing by other players suggest that single-target Tanker attacks that should get 100% chances are getting 20% chances. Because single-target Tanker attacks can hit up to 5 targets with their taunt (including the main attack target), this suggests a straight division by the target cap. (20% = 100%/5) If this is correct, it means your best average proc rate is one target per AoE activation, and that assumes your recharge-based proc rate is 100% (15s or longer base recharge) and you always saturate your AoE's target cap.

This might give reasonable performance for things like the Defender or Brute ATO procs, which give buffs to the user. In such cases, one buff on average per power activation isn't too bad (though remember that such a rate still requires you to hit the target cap regularly). However, for damage procs, the more targets your attack can hit the more inferior such procs look compared to standard IO damage procs, which have a flat chance to damage every target you hit. Because of this, right now I would recommend against slotting the Blaster ATO proc in an AoE unless you both want the six-slot bonus and want to slot an AoE with the good enhancement the rest of the set gives.

And you can state this because ... right, you can't. You don't have any inside track to that. Saying we can overlay IOs is no better an argument than saying we could buy a respec on the in-game market. In order to adjust to changes made to our powers by the devs we are having to expend our own resources. That's not how things have been done for quite some time, and if it's the new direction, it's not one I support.

Nope. As mentioned up-thread, it does reset missions you have active, but that's it.

I think you haven't come up with good "role play" explanation for the difference in Stalker and Scrapper mechanics. The way I see it, Stalkers are weaker physical combatants than Scrappers. That doesn't mean they can't do a lot of damage - obviously the whole point of this change is that now they do. However, they don't achieve it through the same manner as a Scrapper. They are more physically fragile in the sense of lower HP, and they don't usually hit as hard as a Scrapper per blow, but they can make up for this in mastery of leading the fight where they want it to go. Assassin's Focus isn't some poor-man's fury - it's the Stalker using their other attacks to set up their opponent for an Assassin's Strike in a critical area. A Scrapper is also masterful, but simply a more direct fighter. They tend to hit harder, occasionally getting in dangerous hits through sheer strength, skill or instinct rather than how the Stalker's more methodically leads the foe to a deadly checkmate.

The two don't really play alike, even for like sets. Sure, they play similarly - I don't see that as a bad thing, as long as they aren't actually the same.

I'd like to know what you think "couldn't compete" means. Because I don't see how you can tell the difference, and how you know with certainty that Stalkers could "compete".

I don't expect this to be fixed, to be honest.

Based on the gaps and re-mapping of the attributes in my windows, I think the way the window "maps" to the attributes got changed. In other words, I think our windows said something like this.

Attrib A -> Lethal Defense
Attrib C -> Regen Rate
Attrib D -> Last Hit Chance
Attrib G -> Recharge Bonus

After the change, they looked like this:

Attrib A -> Fire Defense
Attrib C -> (Not valid)
Attrib D -> Lethal Defense
Attrib G -> Range Bonus

This happened very early in I22 beta, and was never fixed throughout the beta. I /bugged it in beta and posted about it on the beta bug boards. It's not in the "known issues" list on live.

If my guess about what happened to cause this is right, they would have to run some sort of re-mapping tool against everyone's stored attribute monitor windows. That would probably re-break everyone who has already fixed their monitor.

So I'm going to bet we're stuck having to correct them, and waiting probably won't help.

I could be wrong, though.

I had it slotted very poorly for recharge and endurance, because it was not an attack I used often. What was slotted in it was desirable to keep. My non-respec choices were to overlay valuable IOs or spend Paragon Points or Reward Tokens on unslotters.

While I was personally affected by that, I refrain from asking for a respec for adjusting to replacing those HOs. Rednames told us long ago that using HOs that way was a mild exploit, and that some day it would change. I feel for people who might have done it because the game allowed it, but I'm not sure that one warrants a freespec on its own based on its "exploity" nature. That's just my opinion, though.

The do not have taunt effects on the Scrapper versions.

Dude, this is the technical issues forum. The devs do read this. Past track record has shown that sometimes they learn about things here that they never saw because of how the QA team handled the bug reports. While it's no guarantee anything posted here will be fixed sooner or ever, that teaches people that there is value in posting here.

Why do you care?

It is indeed 9999. I know someone who capped it.

Please do not waste everyone's time lurking in the tech issues forum trying to convince everyone that the right way to get bugs fixed is to campaign for a CoH2 that doesn't have them. There are other forums for discussing that tired topic.

I am not sure that really explains it, at least not fully. When foes die, the game knows they are on the ground. They usually land or stop sliding at the spots we'd more or less expect. But their limbs and torsos continue to twirl and bend in ways that are new. Both things changed in I21.

Regardless, what actually broke specifically isn't particularly relevant. We players are not likely to answer that question with any authority. What we know is that it broke recently, coincident with an upgrade to the PhysX engine. That matters because it deflates the argument that this is something that's going to take unraveling years of code to fix. This broke in this particular, new way quite recently. That doesn't mean its easy to fix - we can't know that. But it does mean the reason its hard to fix is not that they have to unravel ancient code going back to I6 or something. They broke this last issue.

You are mistaken. This complaint is about a new, significantly more severe version of the issue. Foes get stuck in ragdoll on flat surfaces. Even when they do not get stuck, they contort in ways that are radically severe. This never happened to any appreciable degree until very recently. Yes, critters got occasionally stuck on railings, corners and other detailed geometries, and sometimes got propelled through walls and the like. This is not that problem. This is new. This changed in I21.

That doesn't surprise me, since I think Nvidia is the only place they could get new versions of it. It seems weird though that they got new versions but they still seemingly rely on the old dedicated Ageia hardware. (Not only is the option greyed out for me, the label still says "(AGEIA) PhysX...".)

Are we sure it was for that reason? I have a modern nVidia card (GTX570) with fairly up-to-date PhysX drivers and my game still has PhysX accelleration grayed out.

There is no reason at all to conclude that. This is a recent problem, introduced with a new version of PhysX. Based on what was said, it's possible that they only need to re-tune some of the parameters that control the ragdoll behavior.

Ragdoll physics worked fine for ages before that. Claiming they can't get back to that doesn't make any sense.

I don't disagree, but how is this an indicator of doom and gloom for certain ATs?

This is way off base. It was broken by an upgrade to PhysX. There was a post from a red name saying that was probably the cause, and that it took them by surprise too. It was not changed to fix anything.

As mentioned, the issue does impact practical play. I have been knocking foes down on flat floors and having them squirm around for 2-3 times what they would have suffered before, during which time I get free hits on them. I have also had NPC-delivered KB do the same thing to my pets, making them useless in certain fights.