Why was % chance changed into 1.8x per minute (e.g.) ?

[ZerkerDwarf]

<p>Sure, it happened a very long time ago. But neither at the changing time nor inbetween up to now I got to know why the % chance description was changed into a 1.8 times per minute.</p><p>E.g. a proc that says "On a successfull melee attack a chance to cast on target. This triggers about 1.8 times per minute".</p><p>Isn't "6% chance on a successful melee attack" much clearer than "1.8 times per minute"?</p><p>"1.8 times per minute" seems as if the proc chance was the same with a weapon delay of 3s and 1.5s. With 1.5s delay the amount of triggers is twice as high as with a delay of 3s, isn't it?</p><p>With a % description you know what you have....(?)</p>

[Aule]

Anything that is based on % chance for each attack is unduly skewed in favor of faster swings/casts/etc. If the intent is that the bonus be the same, then 1.8x/min (or whatever) will give the same results either way. Makes balancing easier.

[Aeralik]

<p>The percentages were changed awhile back because people didnt understand the normalization that went on to determine if you proc.  The 9% from your example varies based on the delay of the weapon using a 3 sec base for normalization.  So for example if you had a 1 sec delay then your actual chance per hit is 3% not 9%.  So the procs per minute basically takes that confusion out and allows for a simpler and more understandable display.</p>

[Haciv]

<p><cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The percentages were changed awhile back because people didnt understand the normalization that went on to determine if you proc.  The 9% from your example varies based on the delay of the weapon using a 3 sec base for normalization.  So for example if you had a 1 sec delay then your actual chance per hit is 3% not 9%.  So the procs per minute basically takes that confusion out and allows for a simpler and more understandable display.</p></blockquote><p>To be completely honest, I can't stand the x/min statistic.  I <strong>greatly</strong> prefer the % based stat when viewing items.</p><p>Do you think there might ever be an option to toggle a view of proc rates?  Maybe have it do x/min by default and have a % view for an option with the advanced users.</p>

[Sedenten]

<p><cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The percentages were changed awhile back because people didnt understand the normalization that went on to determine if you proc.  The 9% from your example varies based on the delay of the weapon using a 3 sec base for normalization.  So for example if you had a 1 sec delay then your actual chance per hit is 3% not 9%.  So the procs per minute basically takes that confusion out and allows for a simpler and more understandable display.</p></blockquote><p>It would honestly make more sense to people to have the item examine display the normalized amount (i.e. the 9% would display as 3% for an item with 1 second delay).  I'm oblivious of whether or not the coding would be a beast to get working on the backend, of course.</p>

[Bright_Morn]

<p>There is possibly another issue with the display of procing items.  I believe that normalization does not take into account spell casting haste.  So all procing items chance to proc is based off of a spells un-modified casting time.  So if you have 100% spell casting haste (casting in half the time) your proc chance is still the same for the spell but your procs per min doubles!</p><p>As a side note, spell haste is still not properly displayed in the persona window (or whatever tool tip is used by modders to display it).</p>

[ZerkerDwarf]

<p>Thanks for the answers.</p><p>A faster delay (or a higher spell casting rate) shall not result in more procs within the same combat time.</p><p>But:</p><p>Let's assume you have a fight of three minutes (180 seconds). In the raid there are an illusionist and a wizard with the same proc-item (and no dirge etc that might increase proc rates). Both start to fire at the enemy from the first second of the fight without a pause until the mob is dead.</p><p>The illusionist fires like a machine gunner while the wizard casts slowly (heavier, but less amount of attacks). So both players have the same amount of that proc?</p><p>That's the confusing point for me: A higher density or amount of attacks results in the same amount of procs as if the player attacks fewer times <strong>within the same time</strong>?</p><p><strong>Being locked into combat only (crossed swords in player window) does not cause an item or buff to proc.</strong> <strong>The very attacks themselves cause the item or buff to proc.</strong> So a higher attack rate (melee or spell casting) causes more procs within the same time. How then can you proc 1.8x per minute with casting 1 spell each 2 seconds AND 1 spell each 8 seconds (e.g. and approx.)?</p><p>Btw, is there a difference in the treatment of caster-procs and autoattack-procs?</p><p>Hmmm, maybe I haven't got if fully? o_O</p>

[Geothe]

<p>ZerkerDwarf:You aren't understanding the mechanic what so ever. lolWeapon Delay, or spell casting time are factored into things (well. most things).If you have a 1 second delay weapon, you will get the same amount of procs per unit time if you were using a 7 second delay weapon.  The 1 second delay would have a smaller chance per hit to proc, but has more hits per minute so it balances out.Likewise, a fast casting chanter vs a sorcer.  The fast casting chanter has a smaller chance per spell to proc, but has more hits per minute balancing out with the slow casting sorcer, which has a higher chance per hit, but fewer hits per minute.This is all assuming, that the meleers have the exact same haste and the casters have the exact same casting speed of course. </p>

[de lori]

<p><span style="color: #444444; font-family: verdana; font-size: 11px;"><p><span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; font-size: 12px; white-space: pre;"><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=660&topic_id=419860" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=419860</a></span></p><p><cite>simpwrx02 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"></span></p><p>How do you standardize procs, I am glad you asked.  The proc rate is standardized based around a spell that takes 2.5 seconds to cast and has a .5 second recovery.  An item that has a 1.8 ppm is given roughly a 9% chance to proc on a spell that takes a total of 3 seconds, or you can cast 20 spells per minute and that will net you 1.8 procs on average, or the % becomes 1.8/20 or 9%.  This is how proc rate is converted to a % chance to proc.  </p><p>Now say we have this same item lets do some math to find the actual proc % based on total cast time( cast time+recovery time) for a 1.8ppm</p><p>3 seconds will net you (3/3)*(1.8/20)=9%</p><p>2.5 seconds will net you (2.5/3)*(1.8/20)=7.5%</p><p>2.0 seconds will net you (2/3)*(1.8/20)=6%</p><p>3.5 seconds will net you (3.5/3)*(1.8/20)=10.5%</p><p>4.0 seconds will net you (4/3)*(1.8/20)=12%</p><p>that is how you standardize procs based on cast times, however the way to fiure out the % is to use the unmodified cast time with no spell haste or recovery reduction.</p><p>Yes a 2.0 ppm is a 10% chance to proc per cast based on 20 casts per minute.</p></blockquote></span></p>

[Bodracoran]

<p><cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The percentages were changed awhile back because people didnt understand the normalization that went on to determine if you proc.  The 9% from your example varies based on the delay of the weapon using a 3 sec base for normalization.  So for example if you had a 1 sec delay then your actual chance per hit is 3% not 9%.  So the procs per minute basically takes that confusion out and allows for a simpler and more understandable display.</p></blockquote><p>I loath the x/min description as well.</p><p>Don't know why making the game more complex seems to be an ongoing theme...</p>

[kcirrot]

<p><cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The percentages were changed awhile back because people didnt understand the normalization that went on to determine if you proc.  The 9% from your example varies based on the delay of the weapon using a 3 sec base for normalization.  So for example if you had a 1 sec delay then your actual chance per hit is 3% not 9%.  So the procs per minute basically takes that confusion out and allows for a simpler and more understandable display.</p></blockquote><p>It's not simpler or more understandable.  I didn't understand it until you just posted that.  Now I play a healer as a main so it's not like I went out of my way to understand it either.</p>

[LoreLady]

Its just more accurate - just saying %age gives false readings, especially when there are abilities/items out there that have a real %age to them (say a ranger offensive - or counter attack items). I for one would rather not be confused with these two mechanics.

[Noaani]

<p><cite>ZerkerDwarf wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>The illusionist fires like a machine gunner while the wizard casts slowly (heavier, but less amount of attacks). So both players have the same amount of that proc?</blockquote><p>Wizard vs illusionist (using made up spell timers, assuming no spell haste, all timers including reuse).</p><p>Illusionist has spells with 1 second cast timers, wizard has spells with 3 second cast timers. If an item is listed as a 1.8 times per minute proc rate, the wizard has a 9% chance for that effect to proc on each spell. With 20 casts in 1 minute multiplied by the 9% chance (20 * 0.09), we get an average of 1.8 procs per minute from 20 spell casts.</p><p>With the illusionist casting spells every second, they get 60 off every minute. The proc rate for spells of 1 second is 1/3 the proc rate of spells with a 3 second cast time, so they get a 3% chance per spell to proc the effect. With 60 spells cast in one minute, at 3% chance per spell (60 * 0.03), they get 1.8 procs per minute from 60 spell casts.</p><p>If someone was casting spells that had a 6 second cast time, they would have a 18% chance per spell cast to proc the effect, with 10 spells per minute cast, so at (10 * 0.1<img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> they also get 1.8 procs per minute.</p><p>Any combination of spell cast timers will result in the same 1.8 procs per minute on average, with the only changes to this being haste (and spell haste) and proc increasing buffs.</p>

[JinjAB]

<p>Whichever way you figure it (I like the idea of the actual % to be displayed) is it still down to the RNG?</p><p>So you could (in an extremely lucky scenarion) proc every hit/cast, but equally you could be out of luck and not proc at all? Hmmm.....</p>

[Faenril]

<p><cite>Sedenten wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Aeralik wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The percentages were changed awhile back because people didnt understand the normalization that went on to determine if you proc.  The 9% from your example varies based on the delay of the weapon using a 3 sec base for normalization.  So for example if you had a 1 sec delay then your actual chance per hit is 3% not 9%.  So the procs per minute basically takes that confusion out and allows for a simpler and more understandable display.</p></blockquote><p>It would honestly make more sense to people to have the item examine display the normalized amount (i.e. the 9% would display as 3% for an item with 1 second delay).  I'm oblivious of whether or not the coding would be a beast to get working on the backend, of course.</p></blockquote><p>This raises two problems, which are the reasons why proc/minute display is better or let's say more accurate (though % based is more user friendly):</p><p>1) For melee procs the description associated with the proc would have to change depending on the delay of your equiped weapons. This would be more work to implement than a static (constant) description. What happens if you have 2 weapons with different delay?</p><p>2) For spell based procs, what % would you display ? The same caster have spells casting timers from 0.5 s to 5 seconds or more, so what % would you show, as it depends on the spell ? percentage based on 3 second casting timers were highly confusing ppl...</p><p>The proc/minute display, while we don't like it is the correct way to display the proc rate information.</p>