Jade_Dragon

[ QUOTE ]
However, the PET AI issue could have been solved by introducing huge amounts of lag into the game, which would not have been acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no, no, no. The lag would have been introduced by fixing the issue where you can slot Dam/Rech into a power that doesn't take Recharge. (And possibly that the Dam/Rech is inherited by the pet when Rech isn't)

Here, let me add part of Castle's quote:

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, we have a long standing 'bug' that we cannot fix: Say you have a Damage power that for whatever reason doesn't allow Endurance Reduction. If you slot an enhancement (say, a Hammi-O) which does both, both effects are applied to the power, despite the fact that the power is not supposed to accept Endurance Reduction. We pretty much have let that become "by design" since it cannot be fixed.

[...] The alternative, as I understand it, would be to fix that long standing bug I said we couldn’t fix. That would result in up to a 50% increase in server CPU time in the Powers computations, though and that simply isn't a workable solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, he's referring back to the first paragraph and saying the second is the fix for it.

Although I wonder if the lag would not be so bad if ONLY recharge was tested for and excluded, not every single effect that an Enhancement can have.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't know why people keep missing this post from Castle...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why it isn't being considered that when Lightning Storm happened to inherit Recharge in issue 7 that it was a bug, much like it not getting the new immune to +recharge code which was just introduced right now. There were not as many players like Arcanaville looking over the dev's changes and making sure that individual powers and typos were not being missed. And there are pets that DON'T inherit recharge from their parents, (and do inherit, like, damage) right?

Of course, that makes me wonder why Recharge CAN'T be made so that it isn't inherited at all. But maybe this is where the difference between a Recharge Enhancement and a Dam/Recharge Enhancement comes in again. Maybe the inheritance code can't drop the second one, so pets that aren't inheriting recharge buffs from their parents are still inheriting Dam/Rech IOs.

Man, this is complicated...

[ QUOTE ]
If it wasnt meant to be then why let it go on for so long?

[/ QUOTE ]

Castle clearly stated why it was allowed to go on so long. The only way to fix it was to introduce huge amounts of lag into the game, and that was clearly unacceptable. So the only way to solve the problem was to kludge around it, to not allow Recharge to be slotted, or have the pets ignore the Recharge slotting. (And where that failed to catch the recharge was where they kept having to come up with new kludges)

Ultimately, the second most unacceptable solution was decided to be acceptable because it helped with the henchmen AI problems. It caused problems as well, it caused true pets to be unbuffable, and also made them immune to debuffs. (Which is a good thing, for player pets, at least in PvE) But they can't introduce the lag, they can't drop every IO that gives Recharge, and they can't leave things as they are.

[ QUOTE ]
I would be perfectly happy to have set IOs with recharge not affect the power, so long as external and inheritable buffs still apply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, I can't agree. I don't believe inheritable recharge should ever effect a pet. And that's because recharge is already allowing you to call up the pet more often. If the pet is naturally perma, then either increase its recharge, or don't allow it to be slotted for recharge at all. (Or allow you to summon multiples, which you often can)

Personally, if there is any way possible to remove Recharge from the inheritance code, I think that's what should be done. True pets can be externally buffed for recharge. Psuedo pets can be cast more often. I can't think of any other reason why recharge should be inherited. (Outside of just "I want to do more damage!") Find another way to fix the issue with IOs, and that will solve it.

At least with the AI problem, you can choose not to buff pets. I think the problem is that many MMs are slotting for their psuedo-pets, and that's giving their henchmen a lot more recharge than just what they'd get externally.

[ QUOTE ]
But my actual point was to use hyperbole to show that hyberbole was already being applied to the situation by others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I hope my response to his post addressed the counter argument and not the hyperbole. Hyperbole is fine, as long as you do not introduce an assumption that does not apply. (Such as that slotting an attack for recharge is the same thing as having a pet fire more quickly)

If you are in fact not taking a side in the argument, but instead mocking the debate, I can appreciate that, too. I addressed the side you seemed to be taking, sorry if I got it wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not the former type of pet (psuedo-pet) should inherit Recharge is another argument, but true pets definately shouldn't inherit buffs from their caster, as long as they can be buffed separately.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly the problem with this change. Even true pets will no longer have their attack rate boosted by anything, including being directly speed boosted by another character.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REASON from why psuedo-pets are being made immune to recharge.

Granted, true pets were not intended to never have their recharge buffed. However, it makes it easier to maintain the AI if this factor is eliminated. (I'm not going to say it fixes the AI issues, although from what I have read it has made the situation better)

True pets were NOT intended to have recharge effected by Recharge enhancements (because that effects how often they are summoned, instead) and they were not intended to inherit their parent's powers. (Because they are true pets and thus don't inherit) MM Henchmen may have been intended to slotted for Recharge, but this was removed because it was inconsistent. They were never intended to inherit from the MM. (Except those IOs which specifically apply to the pets, but those aren't part of the inheritance mechanism)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then by all means lets make recharge effects no longer affect Blaster and Defender attacks as well. Because, hey, you'd still be blasting guys and killing guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

We should do it for everything as well since it is all irrelevant.

Hyperbole iz fun!

[/ QUOTE ]

While I appreciate the humor, it's still not getting the point across, apparently. I hate to keep repeating it, but...

When you slot an attack for recharge, you decrease the amount of time it takes for that attack to come up again. You do not make that attack fire twice instead of only once.

That's the difference between slotting a pet for recharge, and slotting the pet's powers for recharge.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And buffing recharge is not the same as slotting for recharge. You can slot accuracy, but you can't buff accuracy, only to hit.

[/ QUOTE ]
In terms of external buffs this is generally correct, but there are a few self-buff powers that boost accuracy (Focused Accuracy, Targeting Drone for Scrappers, and Combat Training: Offensive).

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't they boost to hit? They seem the same as Targetting Drone for Devices, and Tactics, respectively.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Recharge from the caster was never intended to be passed to the pets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Hasten, Speed Boost, Siphon Speed, and AM have passed the casters recharge to summoned pets since approximately I7. Further, tangible pets (Singy, Imps) have been directly buffable by these same powers forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Doing" and "intending to be doing" are two different things. Just because something is possible doesn't mean the devs intend for it to be possible. In fact, where the devs allow something in some way and don't allow it in another is a clear sign that the way in which it is allowed is not intended.

And buffing recharge is not the same as slotting for recharge. You can slot accuracy, but you can't buff accuracy, only to hit. They are two independent mechanisms, and allowing the one does not necessarily allow the other.

In fact, it can probably be argued that either a pet should inherit a particular boost from its parent, OR it should be directly buffable, but not both. A Burn patch inherits a damage buff from its caster, but cannot be buffed by a Siphon Power. A Fire Imps damage can be buffed by a Siphon Power, but it does not inherit a Build Up from its caster.

Whether or not the former type of pet (psuedo-pet) should inherit Recharge is another argument, but true pets definately shouldn't inherit buffs from their caster, as long as they can be buffed separately.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The ability to slot def/rech in Mind Link is not a bug. It was known throughout Beta and is working as intended, IIRC.

[/ QUOTE ]
Honest, curious question here: If having recharge slotted in Mind Link is acceptable by the devs, why doesn't it just accept recharge enhancements directly?

This leads to complicated and confusing scenarios like the one with the pets, where you can slot recharges into them and they get the benefit, but that's not working as intended so they change it.

I don't want to wake up one day and find that my ML recharge time is fixed at 240 seconds when I worked to have it perma (and I'm rather squishy without it being perma, considering low HP, no RES, no heal).

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not continue to believe that this is working as intended. Castle has stated out right that this is a "long standing bug" and there is no workable way to fix it. (Because as he said, it would introduce lag into the server) Not in regards to Mind Link specifically, but for any power you can slot something into it that it does not normally take with multiple effect IOs.

Maybe it will never be changed, maybe it will. But you are right to believe that you should not overly depend on this, as it could be nerfed, forcing you to respec. (With luck, though, Castle's statement that existing powers will not have their recharge time "locked" applies in this case. I would not depend on another solution never being found, though)

[ QUOTE ]
If Pet's AI with -recharge causes major lag problem, then it should definitely be fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was not the problem, that was the problem with what Castle said was the other solution. Which is, to take every power used by a pet, and have it in the code decide whether or not to use specific aspects of an Enhancement. Like, using the Dam part of a Dam/Rech IO, but not the Rech part.

That is the intended behavior, but because of the immense lag it would cause, it is not a workable solution.

[ QUOTE ]
Slotting regular Recharge enhancements into Fire Imps or Lightning Storm will make their power info windows *report* a reduced Recharge for their powers, but that is only a display error, and it will *not* actually reduce that Recharge. Those Recharge enhancements have no effect on the powers belonging to those pets. The powers simply ignore any enhancements of the type Recharge.

However, set IOs make it possible to bypass that. When I slot a Decimation: Acc/End/Rech into Lightning Storm, that's not a Recharge enhancement, it's a *Damage* enhancement

[/ QUOTE ]

OH!!!!!! Thank you for that explanation, I think I finally understand the mechanic!

The problem is that you can tell a power not to respond to Recharge Enhancements, but not recharge provided by an Enhancement, specifically. If you told it not to respond to Acc/End/Rech, it would not respond to the Acc and End as well. Plus, that doesn't effect inherited recharge. The only other choice is to tell it not to respond to +recharge AT ALL. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. If there were a way to allow recharge buffs, but not recharge enhancement (generically, not specifically) then that would work.

Of course, there is also the issue with pet AI, but that issue would be a lot easier to control if recharge were more controllable, and so much of it was not inherited in an unpredictable way. (If you could give a pet about 30% to 50% recharge and no more, say with a Unique IO, that would probably not seriously effect the AI)

What I wonder is why the IO is regarded as a Damage Enhancement and not a Recharge. Are all the IOs in a set treated as the same kind of Enhancement? Is there a coding reason for this? They obviously have to all be of the same Set IO type, to allow them to be slotted as a Set type, so maybe that overrides the normal Enhancement type. (In other words, they're not Damage Enhancements, they're Ranged Damage Set Enhancements)

As for Inherited Recharge, that's not literally an Enhancement either, so that can't be stopped by a "no Recharge Enhancement" flag on a power either. I was thinking of them as the same thing, but it's not.

[ QUOTE ]
Its doubtful they will let some pets off because they are part of the enemy mob, some of those pets are part of the reason for this change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably true. Just trying to be a little more positive.

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully the patch note for when this goes to live will be extra-clear on this for people like me who were all head-scratchy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, it took a while for me to get my head around it, too. My first thought was, "Of course this doesn't effect foes, they have totally different powers." But of course some of those powers summon different pets, and some of them summon the same pets. So I did need more information before I could be sure.

Fortunately, Castle responded to a PM, and Arcanaville happened to come up with a list of all effected powers. Plus, we know it is per individual power, so it CAN be "pick and choose", at least where player powers vs critter powers are concerned.

Who knows, maybe individual pets will get the exemption because they are shared by foes. Although that might be counterintuitive.

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why there is so much animosity twords this change.

It's not needed in such a broad sweeping movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously the devs don't agree.

That's certainly a reason for animosity, of course. People tend to become angry with those who don't agree with them.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to follow through with this, I would suggest that you lower the recharge times of pet summoning to compensate for the fact that we can no longer slot 3 recharges in them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, seems like it would be a good idea to make it so you can slot recharges in them.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not advocating for LS here Mac, I'm advocating for MM and controller pets. Why are they going to be subject to this "change" when it is within the realm of possibility to leave them out of it; they don't inherit hasten from the caster nor any other buffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

The MM and Controller pets are because of the AI issues. Again, the devs don't want to pick and choose who has an issue and who doesn't, they want a broad, sweeping change.

Yes, they COULD make it specific to a pet. But I think it's very likely they won't.

[ QUOTE ]
But then that is not a broad sweeping fix as it's advertised. If that is the case then they have the ability to pick and choose what pets are affected.

If that's the case then why must every pet suffer for the sake of an issue happening with a few? Flag the ones with the issue and move on leaving the rest alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because, it appears, it is not the devs' intention to pick and choose the culprits in this problem. Instead, they intend for it to be a broad, sweeping change.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question is, do the devs have ANY clue what is making the exemption for the Def version?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Defender version uses a different pet than the other three ATs that have access to it (slightly higher damage is the only difference). Chances are simply someone forgot [...]

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that since Castle just said this is the power he was intending to look at, it's oversight must be just that, an oversight. The critter version of the power has been changed, it could be that was accidently changed instead of the Defender version, or maybe the Defender version was just missed.

[ QUOTE ]
The only concern I have is the flipside. If pets can't be affected by -recharge, does this extend to pets summoned by enemies? That would change the tactics you need to use with some characters against some mobs, if so, and I'd like confirmation one way or another on this point, particularly as regards custom MA mobs like Masterminds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Direct from Castle: It is not intended to extend to enemies, but in some cases it does. This is when enemies use the same powers we do. The devs will not add this feature to enemy pets that we players do not summon.

Yes, it's very likely that Mastermind critters in the MA will summon pets that cannot have their recharge debuffed, and some other sets may summon such pets too. It depends on whether there are critter versions of the pets which can be summoned instead.

Arcanaville recommended that the devs go over this and possibly clone any pets that are currently shared at a future time. I think that's probably the best solution too. Mastermind pets, though, there are just so many of them that it may not be possible to just create duplicates of them all. Then again, critter MMs may have other issues that will be balanced like this. (Such as, Enforcers often take so long to summon that they can take some damage even before they appear)

[ QUOTE ]
I assure you, in case you had any doubts, that VS does indeed suck in all incarnations. I also assure you, in case you had any doubts that it is not a viable tier 9 power even in its current, super game breaking form with its mighty ability to recycle its one attack faster than 2.5 seconds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your opinion. Mine, as someone who uses VS, is different.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you see "scourge" appearing over somethings head doesnt mean the damage being done is awesome, 1 pt of damage scourging is still only 2 pts of damage. If VS was perma its still unlikely to be worth taking over other powers especially as a tier 9

[/ QUOTE ]

I can assure you, in case you had any doubts, that VS does not do a mere 1 point of damage.

[ QUOTE ]
And yet on test, it's not fixing the AI issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

But Castle has said that the AI issues are not the only reason for the "fix". That's just 3), there is also 1) and 2).

And from what I have heard, the change has made the AI behavior better. It may not be totally correct, but it has not become WORSE. Therefore, it has accomplished its stated goal. The question is whether that goal, plus the new immunity to recharge debuffs your pets now have, makes up for the loss of DPS that a few individuals with tweaked out builds are able to demonstrate.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's amusing that the name of this thread is "Recharge Inheritance Change"


[/ QUOTE ]

It can mean the inheritance by the pet's own powers of the recharge slotted in the parent summoning power, as well as inheritance of buffs on the caster by pets.

[/ QUOTE ]

But none of that has been changed. If I'm understanding what is being said, the values are being inherited, but they are just being ignored.

Note that if I'm right, no Mastermind pets or "true" pets should be inheriting recharge from their parent. So the reason they are getting this change is not because they are getting recharge from their parent. It's because they are having AI problems. The two separate problems, though (2) and 3)) are being handled by simply ignoring recharge in both cases.

I suspect that in some cases, though, inherited recharge is "slipping past" to true pets. And recharge buffs are being accidently applied to psuedo-pets. I can't be sure that's what's happening, but I can't be sure it isn't, either.

[ QUOTE ]
None of the pets could self stack powers to the point the universe would colapse . Nothing beyond the example you give of some pets double benefiting from rech in that they attack faster and you can summon them faster provided of course you can stack that pet, which for LS you can, but for VS you can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, for the three situations described above, 2) is for pseudo-pets, and 3) is for "real" pets. Either one or the other could apply, but not both.

1) was the exploit the devs were trying to fix, 2) was questionable, 3) was acceptable. Any fix had to effect all three, though, there was no way to separate them.

It's amusing that the name of this thread is "Recharge Inheritance Change", as that clearly refers to 2) and not 3). The ability to inherit recharge from the parent wasn't what was changed, though. I would actually like to know why it has to be all or nothing, why does inheriting damage and accuracy automatically include inheriting recharge? Is that a coding error, or something that can't be coded?