Biowraith

1. Not sure, never really paid attention, but pretty sure it's a longer range than handing to players. I *think* it may either be unlimited range, or within supremacy range, but I'm mostly just guessing. Easy enough to test though - use a goto command to get the pets far away from you, then pass an inspiration and see if they take it.

2. The pet level will not get lower each time you summon them. It's based on how many pets the power can summon: When you first get Soldiers, it only summons one pet, so that pet is the same level as you. At a certain level (for the life of me I can't remember which - 6?) it starts summoning two pets, and at that point it changes to them being -1 level. At 18 it starts summoning three pets, and at that point it changes to them being -2 levels. It'll stay -2 levels for the rest of your career (save exemping back below 18). Similar story for Spec Ops. Commando is always your level.

3. The things pets say like "Rock and Roll" is fixed (linked to the commands you give them) and won't ever change. The /petsay commands are one off speech - they'll immediately say whatever you've put in the command at the time you hit return, but won't say it again without another /petsay command.

4. The difference is what powers they can be slotted in. Edict of the Master and Sovereign Right can go in any pet power (that is, the 3 tiers of Mastermind henchmen pets and powers treated like pets including those from other powersets such as Tornado or Dark Servant). Call to Arms and Expedient Reinforcements are a different set type, and not as many powers are flagged to accept them - the 3 tiers of Mastermind henchmen pets can't slot them, but powers like Tornado can.

5. The alpha slotting will affect your henchmen as well as you. I don't have the % information handy on the different slot types right now though.

6. Yes, I'm pretty sure it's what you describe - the pets die on exiting the zone to be automatically resummoned on the other.

7. The main thing mercs have over other pets is the tier 2 pets, the Spec Ops, get some aoe controls that trump the more limited controls other sets' pets get. Or should trump them; the problem is they're on quite long timers and the player has little if any control over when their stupid pets use them, so they're just as likely to throw them at a single half dead minion as they are to hold an entire spawn (and if they hit the single half dead minion it's gonna be a while before they get another chance to use them intelligently). Other than that mercs don't do much that the other sets don't do equally or better (though I guess they get a bit more mileage from procs).

A) No
B) For damage, or in general? In general, not sure there's really a clear leader. For damage, I'd go with ones that have multiple AoE - low MM damage can be sorta compensated if you're hitting lots of targets - still crappy per target, but adds up across an entire spawn. Especially as AoEs can take the Positron damage proc, and many of them can take another on top of that.
C) Procs - not much can be done for Zombies, but Grave Knights can benefit from Lady Grey damage proc, Achilles -res proc, Soulbound buildup proc, though I'd only pick 2 of those so's not to compromise acc/dam slotting. Also Lich can take Cloud Senses proc for a bit of a boost (since about 80% of its attacks and controls can trigger it).
D) Slotting endurance reduction (frankenslotting/sets can help do this without sacrificing other areas), Numina and/or Miracle uniques in Health, Performance Shifter proc in Stamina (in addition to actual endmod enhancement).

And as maligned as they are, you could also take the other personal attacks - they're low damage, but Dark Blast and Gloom can both take the Cloud Senses proc for a bit of a boost (and if you really want to throw money at the problem, one can take the Apocalypse proc too). If nothing else, they give you something to do besides reapply debuffs.

-Damage is a little different in that it is resisted by the corresponding type of damage resistance. That is to say, smashing damage resistance on the target will make -damage debuffs less effective when applied to the target's smashing damage (and only smashing damage) attacks.

This gives the following scenarios:
* Enemy has no damage resistances at all - damage debuffs are unresisted.
* Enemy has damage resistances, but they are of different types than the attacks they deal (e.g. lethal/smashing resists, but energy attacks) - damage debuffs are still unresisted.
* Enemy has damage resistances, and attack damage types to match (e.g. energy resists and energy attacks) - damage debuff is resisted by an equivalent amount.

This also means you can boost -damage debuffs by applying -resistance debuffs to the target.

Also, while it's unaffected by Purple Triangles, it does still scale by relative level like any other debuff (i.e. lower values vs +4s than +1s).

Yes, yes though end usage may hurt a bit paired with dark, yes if you're taking leadership already, definitely YES, up to you really, depends on your build and its current performance.

But we know those people were just plain wrong, right? I mean, that's one of the few cases where it's not just difference of opinion: they got to keep everything they had before it went inherent, and then got some extra stuff. Nerf, or even semi-nerf, requires some kind of reduction - that it wasn't as much extra stuff as they wanted doesn't change that "got to keep everything they had before it" is 100% contradictory to "nerf".

Fitness isn't not the only time that reasoning has been used to oppose a suggested change, just the most obvious and recent. In the case of inherent Fitness, it's actually made us more powerful rather than less.

I'd also question exactly how much "risk" you're taking away - it's already pretty trivial to keep a team perma-bubbled (tedious at times which is why people sometimes request this change, but still pretty trivial). The shields aren't "unstable" - with a simple timer you can predict exactly when they'll fail, and even without you get a graphical warning early enough to ensure no actual downtime in buff. Increasing duration would increase quality of life but not really increase power levels (you're getting the same +def, and unattentive players aside it's usually going to be perma or close to it either way), whereas decreasing +def would definitely decrease power levels whatever the duration - on a powerset that many already consider to be somewhat struggling to compete with other buff/debuff sets. Sounds like weak solution vs strong solution to me.


But I want to stress, I'm not saying that a buff duration increase *definitely would not* mean a reduction in buff strength - it might. I'm not even arguing that we really must get an increase - it'd be nice, but I can see some potential pitfalls and I can cope with the current setup.

I'm just arguing against the assertion that it most definitely *would* result in a lower buff strength. It's a prediction that's been made often enough in similar scenarios and then failed to come true often enough that it's just not a given. Sometimes a buff comes without a nerf - and in this case, the buff is far more to quality of life than it is (if at all) to actual character power levels.



(Someone with better memory than me - did they not already increase Force Field and Sonic buffs' durations? I have this vague but nagging memory of them starting out as 2 minute buffs)

1. I don't think there's much in it. Demons get a fairly good (well, within the context of stupid pets) healer pet, but then all Necro pets end up with a basic self heal option. Demons get a lot of -recharge from the tier 3, and better personal resists, but the Necro tier 3 pumps out quite a lot of mez and -tohit.

2. Demons have a bit more AoE potential (though not to the extent of Bots/Thugs' burn patch abuse), a couple of pets do -res for further damage increases, and their tier 3 is more damage focused. Necro is better at single target (though if you're careful you can leverage zombie vomit to good effect) and more proc potential (pop an Achilles and Lady Grey proc in Grave Knights for example). Dependent on procs, spawn density, and what you're fighting, I'd probably give Demons the edge overall.

3. I'm not sure I'd use "smartest" in the same sentence as "henchies" Current MM AI loves to send pets into melee, and both sets are quite happy in melee. That's about the best you can hope for from MM pets, really.

The most obvious and recent example would be making Fitness inherent. A number of people were opposed to it for the (apparently) sole reason that "if they make Fitness inherent I guarantee you they'll nerf it in some way to compensate". The prediction did not come true. There's been others.

(Apologies if I didn't respond to your whole post but it was quite large, and I got the impression early on that you'd misunderstood exactly which aspect of Claws' argument I was unconvinced by).

Sure. They're already perma, and if you pick your timing for rebuffs it doesn't even have to eat into your dps or other activities. It'd largely just be a quality of life change, it'd not actually make the characters any more powerful so there'd be no need to weaken them to compensate.

I'm not sure I'd advocate "massive" increases (though I suppose that depends on your interpretation of massive), but I'd definitely like to see stuff like ID or SB increased a bit (and in anticipation: complaints from those who do not want those buffs is a whole other thread), and I'd not say no to a further increase in the shield buffs.


edit: I'll expand on not advocating "massive" increases in that I agree that durations of e.g. 30 minutes would create the scenario of people logging on buffbot alts before a mission, buffing the team, then switching back to the char they really want to play. It was common practice in the MUDs I used to play. I'd probably favour the mastermind-pet-upgrade style aoe effect instead, though it'd need coding not to affect the caster and the unwanted speedboost issue would likely need addressed. Or just don't make the increase that massive, 1.5x to 2x would improve quality of life without being hugely abusable.

I am unconvinced by your certainty, especially given previous game/power changes where players had been making similar assertions prior to the change.