Why RPPM trinkets feel too... random, and an alternate design proposition.

[Brusalk]

I like the new system, having a proc every 45 secs was boring and not really effected my gameplay.

I do however dislike that I sometimes get a new proc (my hydra trinket and enchants) before the old one has fully expired

If it didn't impact your gameplay then you weren't performing optimally.



Being able to plan around ICDs was one thing that differentiated good warlocks from exceptional warlocks. Now that it's pretty much random, there's no planning involved. It's now just sit on everything till you happen to get a proc, then blow everything.

[Surutcra]

Yes that's true, at the core of this discussion is the following tradeoff :

- An ultimately more complex gameplay, where you have close to perfect information and can plan ahead. Getting the absolute best out of your situation is usually more compelling because you can actually take all variables into account. And what allows you to do that kind of complex planing is that all attemts are going to be very similar to one another, which is arguably boring.

- An utimately more dynamic gameplay, where some key elements (the timing of your procs) are unknown and random. The best course of action is usually easier to figure out because dealing with the randomness usually comes down to following simpler "rules" (if "A", do "B") that are "good on average". But then you actually have to change the way you play from one try to another.


I don't believe you can objectively assert than one is better than the other, it really comes down to personal preference.

What I really try and make clear to people is that the current "level of randomness" of RPPM is not inherent to the system. RPPM makes your procs unpredictable, but you can tweak it to achieve any arbitrary level of randomness you choose.

[Brusalk]

Yes that's true, at the core of this discussion is the following tradeoff :

- An ultimately more complex gameplay, where you have close to perfect information and can plan ahead. Getting the absolute best out of your situation is usually more compelling because you can actually take all variables into account. And what allows you to do that kind of complex planing is that all attemts are going to be very similar to one another, which is arguably boring.

- An utimately more dynamic gameplay, where some key elements (the timing of your procs) are unknown and random. The best course of action is usually easier to figure out because dealing with the randomness usually comes down to following simpler "rules" (if "A", do "B") that are "good on average". But then you actually have to change the way you play from one try to another.


I don't believe you can objectively assert than one is better than the other, it really comes down to personal preference.

What I really try and make clear to people is that the current "level of randomness" of RPPM is not inherent to the system. RPPM makes your procs unpredictable, but you can tweak it to achieve any arbitrary level of randomness you choose.

I'm all for dynamic gameplay, but I feel that there is a high-enough level of dynamism introduced in encounters already.

At the least it is way too random right now. When you have phases of fights that have a built in damage check (Lei-shen) and never get a trinket proc during that amount of time, that's just bad.


Failing an encounter's damage checks just because you didn't get a trinket proc is frankly rather stupid. That's not to say that there aren't times when it's caused by sub-optimal play, or other causes. What I'm specifically referring to is when undergearing an encounter that it's entirely possible that more trinket procs would've gotten you past that damage check.



Personally, I think that trinkets should always proc within the first 5ish seconds of a fight, and then have an ICD in the old sense of the word, however rather than it proccing right away, you have ~15 seconds before and after the ICD occurs that you have a potential for a proc. Anything before 15 seconds of the ICD, and any time after 15 seconds of the ICD, and you can be assured that there won't be a proc.

That way you will pretty much can expect a proc to happen, but it won't happen right away and there's still some randomness.

[Surutcra]

I'm all for dynamic gameplay, but I feel that there is a high-enough level of dynamism introduced in encounters already.

At the least it is way too random right now. When you have phases of fights that have a built in damage check (Lei-shen) and never get a trinket proc during that amount of time, that's just bad.


Failing an encounter's damage checks just because you didn't get a trinket proc is frankly rather stupid. That's not to say that there aren't times when it's caused by sub-optimal play, or other causes. What I'm specifically referring to is when undergearing an encounter that it's entirely possible that more trinket procs would've gotten you past that damage check.

We completely agree on that point.

Personally, I think that trinkets should always proc within the first 5ish seconds of a fight, and then have an ICD in the old sense of the word, however rather than it proccing right away, you have ~15 seconds before and after the ICD occurs that you have a potential for a proc. Anything before 15 seconds of the ICD, and any time after 15 seconds of the ICD, and you can be assured that there won't be a proc.

That way you will pretty much can expect a proc to happen, but it won't happen right away and there's still some randomness.

It would indeed make for an interesting gameplay. As I explained in the earlier posts in this thread you can "engineer" any distribution for the time between two procs by tweaking the chance to proc per unit of time (as a function of the time since last proc).


As an example, let's derive the math for this :

     f(t) = 0 on [0, a] U [b, +infinity], 1/(b - a) on [a, b]
     h(t) =  ?
     where dP = h(t) dt

We have :
     h(t) = H'(t)
     f(t) = - g'(t)
     g(t) = exp(- H(t))

From which :
     Integral(0,t)[f(u) du] = 1 - exp(- H(t))
     H(t) = - ln(1 - Integral(0,t)[f(u) du])
     h(t) = f(t) / (1 - Integral(0,t)[f(u) du])

And in this case :
     Integral(0,t)[f(u) du] = 0 on [0, a], (x - a) / (b - a) on [a, b], 1 on [b, +infinity]

And using matlab to plot the graphs for a = 50s, b = 70s (guaranteed proc in a 20s interval centered on one minute) :



Which shows the probability density of the time between procs in blue, and the "engineered" chance to proc per second in green.

[eschatological]

I don't know how it is for other classes, but for hunters, with the RNG element of the proc, we can't plan or hold anything for a potential RPPM trinket proc. Delaying any of our abilities for anything more than a few seconds (maybe a dozen for longer CDs) is going to be a DPS loss. I can't hold AMoC just for Rentaki's and/or Bad Juju to go off, because the loss of DPS from having less AMoCs outweighs the gain of a buffed AMoC.

So, even though the RPPM system is "dynamic," effectively it becomes less so than the complex, planned system, because I'm forced to use my abilities to maintain my DPS rotation, and ultimately, when it DOES proc, I'm simply popping what I have up at the time under my normal priority (there is some gaming you can do with Rentaki's building buff, but only for non-dynamic abilities like Lynx Rush, which no good hunter uses anyways).

Edit: I can see why it might be a thing for destro locks, who can hover around 3.x embers and then unload some super buffed chaos bolts under trinket procs, but I don't think that's true for most classes.

[Surutcra]

I don't know how it is for other classes, but for hunters, with the RNG element of the proc, we can't plan or hold anything for a potential RPPM trinket proc. Delaying any of our abilities for anything more than a few seconds (maybe a dozen for longer CDs) is going to be a DPS loss. I can't hold AMoC just for Rentaki's and/or Bad Juju to go off, because the loss of DPS from having less AMoCs outweighs the gain of a buffed AMoC.

So, even though the RPPM system is "dynamic," effectively it becomes less so than the complex, planned system, because I'm forced to use my abilities to maintain my DPS rotation, and ultimately, when it DOES proc, I'm simply popping what I have up at the time under my normal priority (there is some gaming you can do with Rentaki's building buff, but only for non-dynamic abilities like Lynx Rush, which no good hunter uses anyways).

Edit: I can see why it might be a thing for destro locks, who can hover around 3.x embers and then unload some super buffed chaos bolts under trinket procs, but I don't think that's true for most classes.

You're probably right that we're all looking at it the warlock way around here ! And trinket procs do have a huge impact on your gameplay in any spec as a warlock ;-)

[ComputerNerd]

I understand it's Blizz's way of keeping us from stacking too many cooldowns and they want to keep it a random system, but the system they are creating now is one where you HAVE to set up a weak aura or other indication for when it goes off, cause missing it and not taking advantage of the proc will mean you just wasted your best DPS boost you have (in gear terms). Funniest thing is that the best of the best will STILL find a way to get as much use out of it as before and the the lesser mortals will still be likely not to get 100% benefit from it.

That is another issue also, where the default UI really falls short in displaying information that you should be able to react to.

[Surutcra]

To be fair, RPPM or not, you should track your trinket procs (however it may be that ToT trinkets are better than usual ones and therefore require more attention).

In fact with the ICD system you even need to track two things : whether the proc is up, and the time to the end of the ICD.