Jade_Dragon

[ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid we're just going to have to just agree to disagree here, as you seem to be missing my point especially in your final comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

We obviously are in disagreement here, since all I am saying is that it seems to me to be implied.

Maybe the devs haven't commented specifically about PvP, but in general, there is nothing to say. There is nothing for them to say that they're going to do, because there's nothing for them to do. Nothing, that is, outside of a solution that would increase server load by 50%. Or so the devs seem to be saying.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you must have meant +recharge instead of +regen. The +regen and other aspects of AB are unchanged by this. Only the +recharge is being effected.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right. I was talking about +regen with Rigel_Kent (saying that AB would still have +regen even though it will no longer have +recharge) and must have gotten the two mixed up in my mind in that last post.

I intended to say +recharge. (Which is what I edited it to)

[ QUOTE ]
I'll admit, since I'm not even 32 yet, I don't know how much I'll be in danger, or (more to the point) how much Audrey will be in danger. If somehow Audrey's getting more aggro than Fort and RA can handle, maybe that regen will save me an Absorb Pain now and then. Though I suspect the Roots spam will be directing most of the aggro my way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, AB is hardly going to be the power when you are solo as it used to be. And that is unfortunately, the nerf was intended to catch those slotted Recharge and Set Bonuses that were stacked ON TOP of AB, and now you will get neither.

I'd like to see a solution where +recharge can be allowed for "true" pets, but constrained, say to 1.5 times normal instead of 3 or 5 or whatever times normal. It would not be great, but better then nothing. And you would have a counter against debuffs. (Although the Slow resistance would give you that if -recharge applied)

Speculation about other alternatives doesn't really mean that it can actually be done that way, though. And there is still the AI issue, although what pets are effected and how bad the problem is definately seems to be a source of much flaming.

[ QUOTE ]
In most solo situations? The "gee, this game is kind of easy, I just wish I were doing damage faster" situations? Yes, I'm saying precisely that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least that explains your conclusion.

That kind of high level slotting, though, where you are never in any danger and the only thing you can continue to tweak is how fast you make kills, is exactly what the devs appear to be trying to address. Unfortunately. I empathise, but not so much that I will take your side.

[ QUOTE ]
Because held, confused, knocked enemies don't deal damage or slow my Fly Trap's movement. And Fly Trap won't need protection from recharge debuffs anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that still doesn't answer the question of why, if you had the option, you would not use the power. Certainly if you have a teammate you can cast it on in preference to the Fly Trap, it would do more good. But you always had that choice to make anyway.

Are you saying that the ONLY thing useful about any power (to a pet user) is its ability to boost recharge?

[ QUOTE ]
But do I really need to log in to test to know that, someday, when my Plant/Emp hits level 38, I'm going to have to constantly remember to not bother AB'ing my Fly Trap (or any other pet for that matter) because of this hack?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why in the world would you not use Adrenaline Boost on your Fly Trap? It will heal faster, it will recover End faster, and it will be resistant to Slows. Sure, the End boost is likely not going to change anything, but surely you want the regeneration and slow resistance.

[ QUOTE ]
"some cases" implies it's a minor issue and will be gotten around to when there's free time. If those "some cases" didn't include the entire point of the next issue the change ships with, I would indeed be satisfied with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The MA will still use critter summoned pets just like normal missions do. The MA will still have missions that don't include critter pets at all, just like normal missions do. The only time you will run into this issue is when 1) you run into the normal critter summoned pets that happen to be the same as player pets, 2) a custom critter uses one of the custom sets that summon pets that happen to be the same as player pets, or 3) a custom critter is a Mastermind. This leaves plenty of alternatives for missions in which -recharge will effect every critter, summoned or not, in the mission.

As I've said previously, if this is a major issue, I expect the players themselves will note in their mission descriptions if they use MM critters. That should leave plenty of missions (if the players are designing missions around fun and concepts, not creating an unbeatable mission that no one can run) that you will have no innate weakness against.

Personally, I feel that if a lot of the custom power sets make use of player pets, an easy and quick solution is to change them to make use of the critter version of those pets where possible. This would eliminate 2), and just make it the same as 1), if you create a custom critter that uses the same pet as a normal critter would use, then you will get the player pet when the normal critter would get the player pet.

1) can then be eliminated just by duplicating those player pets that are in use by critters. This is less likely than 2), and would require more work, but it is not impossible as a choice down the line. That would leave only the MM pets, which are probably much more numerous that the other player pets which are shared by critters.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, what I'd like to know is how they're going to address the major imbalance this creates between MM's and -recharge powersets in PvP and MA arcs, or even that they realise what a major change this is in that regard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming that when Castle said:

[ QUOTE ]
Trust me, no one here was happy about this decision, but in the end, it was the only way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the things he meant. The only positive is that this effects ALL pet users, red side or blue side, and if your pets can't be debuffed, that means your enemy's pets can't be debuffed either. Clearly there's still an imbalance since MMs rely more heavily on pets than any other AT, but there's no reason to assume the devs are unaware of the impact it will have on PvP. Or even that they haven't commented on it.

[ QUOTE ]
The closest I can get is a paraphrase of an apparent PM in which Castle states that this was not intended to affect enemy pets in PvE but in some cases it will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, other than the fact that it's not intended, what do you want? I admit more could be said, such as whether the devs plan to give critters their own version of player pets, and if so, how soon, but isn't that a logical progression from it not being the intended behavior?

That's not even the only possible solution, if the idea suggested about allowing debuffs but putting a "cap" on buffs could be worked, then there wouldn't need to be separate pets. Maybe the devs haven't given an answer because they don't know how they are going to address it. And they have already said that they're aware of it, so all you're looking for is the "we're going to do something about it".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And I note that the devs have STILL not said a single word about the detrimental affect this is going to have on -recharge powersets vs pets. Makes you wonder if they thought about it at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

No word in any thread, and they seem to be ignoring any PMs on the subject as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not ignoring PMs, I sent one to Castle, and posted his response in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate you not taking the opportunity to antagonize me further it is noble of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I walk that line very closely, and I consider it a sign of respect. I do wish I could clarify the argument, that it isn't really LS that took a beating because of the AI, or true pets that were nerfed because of LS, but it's kind of both. And I think you get that. There really isn't anything further to say that isn't rehashing old arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
we all know fire imps do not have this so called AI problem the other pets have. They could do it but its too much work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, true, but I think they are changing Fire Imps for consistency. Plus, since they do have only one attack, it is possible to leverage recharge for more damage. Still, it was the intention of the devs for Fire Imps to be able to have their recharge boosted, but since they are nerfing every other pet in this respect, they (I guess) feel they should nerf them all.

[ QUOTE ]
If its too much work for just one pet or a handfull of pets just think of how much work its going to be to change all the npcs with pet powers to now use this newer version of said pet. THats what I mean too much work. Its got nothing to do with whether they wanted a certain pet effected by recharge or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many NPCs do you think use Fire Imps? Or Jack Frost? Frostfire is the main one I've heard of so far. How many NPCs can you think of that use player pets? Can you list some of them?

I believe I may have seen a Dark Servant here and there. Outcast bosses use Fire Imps. And I know a lot of Legacy Chain bosses use Animate Stone. But I think there are a lot fewer NPCs that would need to be changed than you think.

The bigger problem would be the MM pets. I can't see any way to duplicate them without making the list of critters considerably longer. Plus, any new MM sets added in the future would have to come with critter versions. So I suspect that the MM sets in the MA will probably keep the "no recharge debuff" code. Either the MA authors will avoid MM critters, or they'll just decide it's too minor a difference for the majority of MA missions. You will likely have a little more trouble than usual with the Boss, unless an author just decides to fill a mission with MM pets. (And you'll probably know that from the mission description)

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said before, they wont do this,way too much work. Its more than a simple copy paste rename you know.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there is no reason NOT to. Plus, it is having an impact on the game, and the MA specifically. And in what way is it not a simple copy paste rename?

Granted, it is a lot harder to copy those shared critters over to a new critter just to make them exempt from this change, just as it is a lot harder to copy the change over to every single power of every single critter pet in the game, just to make them APPLICABLE to the change. But the former is certainly less work than the latter, and would be more acceptable to the players, as well.

(And thanks for addressing my argument, as well)

[ QUOTE ]
Actually I'm pretty sure Ryu was talking about singe attack pets like imps because that is what he was responding too. I think we are all passed asking for LS to be exempted since Castle said it is specifically targeted for the nerf and cause gun drone wtfpwns things...

[/ QUOTE ]

And as I pointed out, this entire argument is pointless, because it misses the entire point of my statement, which was that I was referring to the NPC pets in the MA, not player pets. Ryu was not even responding in the context in which I made the statement.

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said "never intended" is getting pretty old, there is only so many times "the dog ate my homework" is believable and we all know it whether we admit it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at this point I am not sure if I believe your lack of trust is genuine, or simply spiteful. But either way, I am not going to make fun of it. There is not really anything that can be argued in the face of a total lack of belief in someone's honesty.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, please pardon the interuption to the recharge debate.

I have a question reguarding these pets in general. Is recharge the only thing that can carry over from global bonuses? or does Acc and Damage from both the IO and/or the global bonuses carry over to the pet as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I don't know. I would guess that Set Bonuses that boost your to hit or damage will boost your pets' to hit and damage. It would be the same thing as slotting for Damage, the enhancement HAS to go to the pet, there's no where else for it to go.

On the other hand, that's a buff on you, like Build Up. Build Up will effect a psuedo-pet like Lightning Storm, but it won't effect a Bruiser. So I'm guessing the inherit code is not effecting pets like the Bruiser, and so he won't get "your" Set bonuses. Only your summoned psuedo-pets, like Voltaic Sentinel and Lightning Storm will.

In the latter case, it's only recharge which is being "blocked". Damage and other inherited buffs should be left alone. Plus, for targettable pets you should be able to buff their damage or whatever.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason they didn't make an exception for pets with one attack was not that it was too much work (making them affected actually required *more* work), it was because they didn't *want* them to not be affected.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it would take even MORE work to make all critter/NPC pets effected. And they aren't doing that work. (Or at least, have not announced an intention to do that work)

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, the story now is that it was never intended for you to be able to buff a fire imp with AM, nor was it ever intended for you to buff stoney with speedboost.

"never intended", "oversight" these are becoming swear words in my house lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that was intended, but the devs are removing that because they feel it complicates the AI. They do not want to, it is not "intended behavior", but neither is the AI.

The devs have been completely up front about that. They wanted MM pets and other true pets to be buffable, but they have decided to sacrifice that. In this case they have changed their intention, and told us so, and why.

MM pets and true pets are not the same as and not the same issue as Lightning Storm. There's a totally different intention involved there. (At least, at the present)

[ QUOTE ]
No, this would be more accurate:
"we never intended for pets to benefit from recharge, but we made the RIP sets [color= yellow]not realizing[/color] they would affect recharge. We then attempted to correct the RIP sets despite never being able to counter the issue of multi-factor enhancements boosting aspects not necessarily intended and subsequently completely broke them"

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what Castle was trying to say was:

"we never intended for pets to benefit from recharge [of the power], but we made the RIP sets knowing they would affect recharge [of the power]."

The assumption being made here is that when a dev refers to recharge, he always is talking about recharge on the pet. This is an assumption, as the dev could be talking about recharge on the pet, or recharge on the power. Unless the dev is clear on which is meant, it could be either.

[ QUOTE ]
This I doubt, because if they wont allow exemptions for the range only pets or pets with one attack, I dont think they are going to make a second set of pet powers just for this. Too much work for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exemptions for the PLAYERS, exemptions for the CRITTERS. There are plenty of critter pets that will not be effected. The only ones that will be effected are those that the players have, and if the devs want critters to be uneffected by this, then all they really need to do is duplicate the few pets that are shared.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I've gone over my characters and the following won't be going into PvP or MA missions when I14 goes live, as the total wipeout of -recharge on pets is going to gut their effectiveness completely:

[/ QUOTE ]

You need only avoid MA missions that use player-created Mastermind critters, or those critters that summon Fire Imps, Jack Frost, or the like. Most MA missions will not have pets that cannot be debuffed, just as most dev missions will not have pets that cannot be debuffed.

And in fact, if this becomes a huge issue, I expect that MA authors will begin posting in their descriptions "includes debuff immune pets", "does not include debuff immune pets" and the like.

Hopefully before it reaches that point, the devs will separate out the critter versions of Fire Imps and Jack Frost and make them debuffable.

[ QUOTE ]
That's the big question. IIRC ToHit once ignored its Max (not StrMax), so it's possible for attributes to ignore some of the limits given to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, ToHit had another cap, so that might not have been noticable.

I'm crossing my fingers, but something tells me if that would work, it has already been tried.

Maybe a code fix can be put in down the line if it is being ignored, though, and that mechanism can be changed to instead of denying the recharge. Although honestly I'm not sure I would like to give up the inability for pets to have their recharge debuffed once we get it. (Even though technically it could be considered as much of an exploit as slotting IOs for pet recharge)

[ QUOTE ]
The very first post in this thread has Castle saying that it was not intended, so to continue to claim that it was intended would seem unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the claim is that the devs are lying. At some time in the past they had some other intention, now they have changed their minds and have another intention, and they are not being honest with the players, and thus they are lying.

All this talk about "you don't know what the devs intended in the past" is ignoring that we do know that the devs are doing right now. Of course, maybe the devs don't know what the intentions of the previous devs were, if they are not those same devs. However, we know that Castle and the current devs have been working on this, so either they have changed their intentions, or they have not.

[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, the actual recharge values provided by the RIP sets are not very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

"And why do you think that is, Les?"

"Well, I always figured it was some sort of conspiracy..."

[ QUOTE ]
The *minimum* allowed values for Str are determined by StrMin, so the effective values of Str will be limited to StrMin<=Str<=StrMax.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that would work, then I think that's a very good idea.

You could even make it, like 1.25 or 1.5 for true pets. That shouldn't be high enough to seriously interfere with AI, and yet still give a minor bonus for those Power Sets that give recharge buffs. (And alternately, I think that psuedo-pets should have a StrMin of 1 as well, if you think of LS as a DoT then it should not be buffable, but it should not be debuffable, either)

Castle? Anyone? (The only issue I see is if MaxStr is something that applies to damage and the like, but not recharge. The stat may be there, but if it's not applied in the code...)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then why does Sparky accept these sets since they do absolutely nothing for this pet?

[/ QUOTE ]

The criteria for making a power accept RIP sets appears to basically be:

A) The power already accepts Pet Damage IO sets.
B) The power accepts regular Recharge enhancements.

So, the reason Voltaic Sentinel accepts RIP sets is simply that it fulfills both condition A) and condition B).

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, there is the question of why Sparky takes Recharge in the first place. But it's the same question, just displaced from RIP sets to Recharge in general.

I'm guessing it's an oversight, either that or it's meant to cover the few seconds of cast time it takes to make him not perma. Unless he can get inadventantly killed somehow. (Perhaps by an AoE, or an auto hit attack)