Just copying some comments I’d made on this in case it’s handy to people in figuring out what’s going on with trinkets. Trying to remember to do this more where the info might be generally handy and the post is clear without context.
I liked the Mists model that generally had a primary stat and a secondary stat on each trinket, in equal amounts, with either one or the other replaced by a proc. Made it easy to conceptualize and evaluate trinkets at a glance. So for example, at equal ilvl, you might have:
X pimary + X secondary (passive)
X primary + [proc for 6x secondary lasting 20s, 115s ICD]
X primary + [Use: for 5x secondary lasting 10s, 60s CD]
X secondary + [proc for 6x primary lasting 10s, 0.92 RPPM]
X primary + [unique proc tuned to equal X secondary]
[unique passive tuned to equal X secondary] + [proc for 6x primary lasting 10s, 0.92 RPPM]
And so on (the above actually decribes most Mists trinkets). Technically yes, it’s all consistent with itemization where Int is valued at 2x a secondary. But you’re not even getting to the point of having to worry about that; you just stick with a basic framework where a trinket has two “halves”.
Warlords started very similar to that, with two caveats:
1) Spirit and Bonus Armor take up the “primary” half where they appear. I’m just going to flag that and leave it alone for now.
2) Some trinkets were off at release, with a proc that was too high or too low, and they’ve been adjusted by changing the passive rather than the proc, leading to some confusion.
Examples (note: at ilvl 630, X=159):
Totally vanilla trinket, 159 passive primary and secondary. (Follows the model I described above).
Same thing, shows that Spirit is in the “primary” slot for this purpose.
If it followed the pattern above, the Use would be 159*5 = 795. So while it had 159 passive stats + the Use for 1060, it was overbudget. This was corrected by reducing the passive to compensate. But if the “secondary” half of a trinket is worth less than the “primary” half, you get imbalances when you add to one and reduce the other.
I would have instead changed Shadowgem(630) to be 159 Spirit with the Use reduced to 795 crit (keeping the two halves of the trinket equal). That would also have followed the trinket pattern more clearly, and would be a lot easier to evaluate by eyeball for both casual players and mathy players.
Exactly the same as Shadowgem.
Following the pattern, you’d expect that proc to be 159*6 = 954.
Again, the real proc is higher (it would have corresponded to a passive of 1383/6 = 230). So they reduced the Int to 88 (note 230+88 = 318, the right “total”). But again, I’d simply have kept the 159 Int and reduced the proc to 954 MS.
So, the basic point that the problems are caused by treating primary and secondary as equal is still right. But I think looking at the usual patterns for trinket itemization makes clearer what’s going on. Trinkets have always (recently) been derived from a hypothetical baseline of X primary + X secondary. In that setup, the “primary” half is ~2/3 the trinket value, regardless of which is the passive and which is the proc. That’s no problem though–it’s actually a very good setup, since it remains balanced even if the relative value of primary vs. secondary changes.
Some Warlords trinkets had overbudget procs for whatever reason. Fixing that by changing the passive half broke this nicely working pattern. Now
1) balance is messed up because primary and secondary were treated interchangeably, and
2) trinkets are hard to evaluate because you can’t just look at the passive and proc halves and trust that the average values are all consistent.
I’d undo the recent fix, and redo it by simply changing any overbudget (or underbudget, there are a few) procs to conform to usual trinket budgeting.