Stargazer

[ QUOTE ]
I actually did try to remove the google updater from the autostart stuff. Didn't work I guess. Maybe it's 'cause of Chrome being up? Ditto Welcome Center, how would I make that not appear? (It doesn't show up when I start up the computer, anyway, in any visible form)

[/ QUOTE ]

Last I checked, installing Chrome added a Scheduled Task that keeps restarting GoogleUpdater whenever you shut it down.
I chose to interpret this as a request for me to uninstall Chrome.

You should find the scheduled task under Start Menu/All Programs/Accessories/System Tools/Task Scheduler, and if you so desire you should be able to delete the task from there.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Aside from the effect this has on mobs that have been given higher Resistance to be tougher to defeat with a particular damage type (an effect that could in several cases be undesirable), this could also cause trouble with entities that have been made *immune* to certain damage types in order to make it impossible to destroy them (or limit the ways in which they can be killed).

Sure, you could potentially set up exceptions for each of these cases, but the number of such cases is not insignificant.

My initial feelings is that the number of cases where the change would be desirable *and* have a significant effect would be relatively low, and the number of cases where it would be undesirable would be relatively high.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned in a later post that we can make units that are meant to be hard or impossible to kill immune to the effect. 100% resistance cases are easy exceptions as you just tell the debuff to only apply if the target's resistance is not 100%.

Cases where the critter is intentionally hard for everyone also can be easy as you can make a bit more complex equation that compares all resistances to see if they are all the same value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be vary of using an equation to determine when the Armor Breaking should function.
What if I want to give a 75% resistance to all for say 30 seconds?
What if I specifically want to give a 75% resistance to Smashing for 30 seconds?

If some form of Armor Breaking would be added (which I'm not convinced is a good idea, and I'm even inclined to believe that it's a bad idea in a general case), I'd probably prefer that its function is determined by a flag rather than some equation.



[ QUOTE ]
Cases where the critter is intentionally hard only for one set, is a bit more complex. Most cases are plainly conceptual, actually, as far as we know every case is conceptual unless stated by the devs. Not sure how this policy stands these days but I recall an interview with Statesman noting how they designed all the critters based on pure concept, and assign powers accordingly. Not "what we want this guy to be strong at."

The most recent confirmation I get on this is a statement by Castle on how the writers wanted the arachnoids to be extremely hard, but were only forced to tone them down due to how much they ended up using them. That's another note that shows how the writer decides what the foe does and does not. It would be interesting to hear from Castle, though, if there are any encounters that are intentionally designed to be hard to kill by specific power sets due to balance decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It *feels* to me like the intent of the feature is to say "we don't trust the devs to assign resistances correctly, but we can't stop them, so lets add a feature to make their resistance settings essentially meaningless so we no longer care what they set a critter's resistances to."

[/ QUOTE ]

Close! I actually don't trust the writers to make these choices and they have been hinted already in the past to be the ones that decide what type of things critters do. It's (for what I have gathered) up to the power guy to do them within a realm of balance while pleasing the writer's desire.

[/ QUOTE ]


If the writer concept is to "make this critter tough against Smashing/Lethal", and the power designer is concerned that this concept would have unbalancing effects when taken to extremes, why let it go to extremes in the first place? Why not just give them 20% S/L Resistance instead of 75% S/L Resistance?

If a writer specifically asks for 75% Resistance (which would seem to be an oddly specific "concept"), then effectively bypassing that Resistance would seem to be subverting what was asked for. Wouldn't it be better to just refuse giving them 75% Resistance instead?

On the other hand, if a power designer *wants* to give something 75% Resistance, why take that option away from them (or at least significantly limit it)?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you mean -res, it actually is weaker against foes with resitance than against regular foes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on how you look at it.
The absolute decrease in Resistance is reduced if the target already has (unresistable) Resistance, but the relative increase in damage is the same regardless of the Resistance of the target (barring interference by caps).

Personally I tend to think of it as resistable Resistance debuffs being equally "strong" (having an equally "strong" effect) regardless of the pre-existing Resistance of the target (again, barring interference by caps), and unresistable Resistance debuffs being "stronger" against targets with higher pre-existing (unresistable) Resistance.

[/ QUOTE ]

The -resist in question you can add to certain builds is, as far as I understand, a resistible random -20 resist. If the foe has 20% resist, that will be a -18 resist that takes the foe to 4 resist.

This means your damage is increased by 14.2% relative to what the original target would had been against that target, instead of the 20% you would had against a no-resistant foe.

May be a subtle difference at 20%, but the relative effectiveness is weaker and magnifies drastically the more resistance the foe has. Direct damage buffing can be much more effective at some point, it all depends how much damage buffing we talking about, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

It'd still be a 20% increase in damage taken. ((1-4%)/(1-20%) = 1.2)

If they had 50% Resistance they'd only see a 10% decrease in Resistance, but the increase in damage taken would still be 20% ((1-50%+10%)/(1-50%) = 1.2)

With (unresistable) Resistance resisting resistable Resistance debuffs, the effect is that the relative increase in damage taken remains the same even if you change the (unresistable) Resistance to Resistance debuffs.

[ QUOTE ]
This may help me champion the "Armor Breaker" system.

The idea is a single target attack on every melee set (yes only melee sets) that will "break" resistances on a single target for a limited amount of time. The method:

Detoggle + Resist Cap set to zero to a specific damage type. If you are MA, you set the resist cap to Smashing to zero. If you are katana, you set the resist cap to lethal to zero, etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from the effect this has on mobs that have been given higher Resistance to be tougher to defeat with a particular damage type (an effect that could in several cases be undesirable), this could also cause trouble with entities that have been made *immune* to certain damage types in order to make it impossible to destroy them (or limit the ways in which they can be killed).

Sure, you could potentially set up exceptions for each of these cases, but the number of such cases is not insignificant.


My initial feelings is that the number of cases where the change would be desirable *and* have a significant effect would be relatively low, and the number of cases where it would be undesirable would be relatively high.

[ QUOTE ]
If you mean -res, it actually is weaker against foes with resitance than against regular foes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on how you look at it.
The absolute decrease in Resistance is reduced if the target already has (unresistable) Resistance, but the relative increase in damage is the same regardless of the Resistance of the target (barring interference by caps).

Personally I tend to think of it as resistable Resistance debuffs being equally "strong" (having an equally "strong" effect) regardless of the pre-existing Resistance of the target (again, barring interference by caps), and unresistable Resistance debuffs being "stronger" against targets with higher pre-existing (unresistable) Resistance.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We're sitting in a meeting and our Development Director said "We've contracted some Type R programmers".

I had never heard this term before, so I jotted it down on my notepad, so I could inquire about it later.

Just then our Lead Engineer asks "What is Type R?"

Our Dev Director looked stumped. "What do you mean?"

"You said 'Type R Programmers'" said the Lead Engineer.

"No, I said 'High Powered'." said the Dev Director.

"No you didn't. You said 'Type R.' See I wrote it down." I said, and showed him my notepad that said "Type R?".

So now, everything high powered and awesome in the office is "Type R".

I am now on a crusade to get it used outside our offices. I should add it to urban dictionary or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Type R

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspected that i16 would have something "big", but I didn't think it'd be this...

Side-switching will definitely be appreciated by many, and it has a lot of potential, but at the same time I can't help but feel a bit concerned. There are a lot of things that could end up having a negative effect depending on how they're implemented and how they end up being used. Hopefully everything will turn out for the best though. Time will tell.

It'll certainly be interesting to here more details later on.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, a certain power lists a "5% STRENGTH against attacks." What is "strength"? Does it make my character STRONGER (ie. do more damage?) No it means increased DEFENSE. Call it DEFENSE, not STRENGTH. Never call it anything BUT defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a fundamental difference between a power that offers 5% smashing defense, and 5% smashing defense strength. The first increases your defense to that attack type by 5 percentage points. The second increases your ability to use powers that offer defense against that attack type: it increases your defensive powers by 5%.

In other words, if you have a power that offers 20% defense to smashing_attack, and you get another power that offers 5% defense to smashing_attack, your total defense is 25%. If on the other hand the second power offered 5% strength to smashing_attack, then in this case (with a lot of caveats I'm skipping for simplicity purposes) your total defense would be 21% (20 * 1.05).

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately the detailed info windows show both types as "strength".
(e.g. Combat Jumping is listed as giving x% "strength" to the various Defense types)

So, for Defense, both regular Def and Def Str are listed as "strength" (in the power detailed info windows).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The problem being, those of us who *don't* like AE farming are paying our $15 a month and are having our fun impacted by you having yours. Tell me, chumley... what makes your fun more important than mine? If what you do frustrates me and causes me to want to pull my hair out, why should I just sit and blindly let you continue to do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for illustrating my example of extremists. Until you pay my subscription or become one of the developers, you have no say in how I play my game. Just like I have no say over yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't get to decide what other players are allowed to do in this game, that's for the developers to do. However, we can still have *opinions* on what *should* be allowed to do.
If I'm doing something that you believe is detrimental to the game, you can (and in at least some cases should) voice your opinion that the action in question should not be allowed.

Of course, as is often the case, not all opinions are equally well-informed and rational, and unfortunately people often fail to make a distinction between what they like (not all aspects of the game have to be liked by everyone) and what is "good for the game". However, people can have good reasons for believing that something should not be allowed, and as long as they express these opinions in an allowed fashion, they can (and often should) do so.
If they pay your subscription or not is irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
It's based off a table who's values are 10% of your AT's base HP at any given level. So yes, it works as if off of your base HP.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's Melee_HealSelf that's 10% of your AT's base HP.
The Panacea proc uses Melee_Heal, and that is not correlated to your base HP.

For the Panacea proc (absolute values @lvl 50):
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>AT Base HP Melee_Heal Relative heal Equiv Regen
Bla 1204.76 96.38 5.36% 25.73%
Con 1017.35 101.74 7.76% 37.24%
Def 1017.35 133.86 8.82% 42.32%
Scr 1338.62 96.38 4.82% 23.16%
Tan 1874.07 96.38 3.45% 16.54%
Khe 1070.9 96.38 6.03% 28.94%
Bru 1499.26 96.38 4.31% 20.67%
Sta 1204.76 96.38 5.36% 25.73%
Mas 803.17 117.8 9.83% 47.17%
Dom 1017.35 117.8 7.76% 37.24%
Cor 1070.9 96.38 6.03% 28.94%
SoA 1070.9 80.32 5.02% 20.10%</pre><hr />

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the point of view of the people that say all this was a loophole waiting to be closed. They put in the "show detailed info here" so we could all see what was happening. Put recharge in, time for recharge goes down.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, the detailed info was usually wrong (and still is).
Putting a regular Recharge enhancement into a pet did *not* improve the Recharge of powers used by the summoned entity (exception: Gun Drone), but the detailed info text still said that it did. That was (and still is) a bug with the detailed info texts.

What *did* improve the Recharge of powers used by summoned entities was *set* enhancements *containing* Recharge.
That behavior was not intended, and only coincidentally made the bugged detailed info texts correct in those cases.


edit:
[ QUOTE ]
LS takes kb, end mod, and ranged dmg, how could we be expected to use those sets, and NOT get recharge?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, Recharge will still make Lightning Storm recharge faster, it's just the Lightning Storm's Lightning attack that won't have its firing rate improved anymore.

[ QUOTE ]
What one could do ([color= yellow]if Recharge obeys its StrMax[/color], not everything has always obeyed all its caps) is to make a copy of minion_Pets (call it player_Pets or something), change their RechargeTime StrMax to 1, and make all player summoned pets create player_Pets instead of minion_Pets. This could be done instead of making pets summoned by NPCs using different powers than the ones our pets use (in order to make them affected by Recharge debuffs).

This way Recharge debuffs would work both in PvE and PvP.


In addition to this (and even if making a copy/changing pets would be unfeasible), one could change the RechargeTime StrMax of Minion_Henchman, Lt_Henchman and Boss_Henchman (the classes used by MM henchmen) to 1. Assuming that works, Recharge debuffs would work against them in PvP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like I had a definite duh-moment [color= yellow]there[/color]. I've been reminded that Recharge *does* obey its StrMax, something I've even used before...

Anyway, that'd seem to remove most of the "ifs" from this idea.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 ] 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. It is good that you bring up this point because I will ensure that no missions I create will have pets if I can help it because it wont be fair to the players.

[/ 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 ]

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 ]

I don't see how what you're saying is even relevant to what you're quoting.

We're talking about the devs' willingness to make an exception for certain powers, not what the changes were.

Ryu implies that they won't allow for an exception for pets with one attack (such as Lightning Storm) because it would be too much work, but the reason they don't want to make an exception for it is actually that they *want* it to be affected (and they actually had to do some work to make it affected in the first place).

Thus the fact that they are not making an exception for powers like Lightning Storm is not any reason to believe that they won't make a second set of pet powers "because it's too much work".

[/ 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...

My comment was pure sacrasm to your response to him where you said "they didn't want them to not be affected" Confusing double negative aside, me saying "they never intended you to buff imps" was just a joking attempt to point out that what you were saying made no sense and in fact was not relevant to what you were quoting .

Unless the devs really never intended for us to buff imps

I apologize for not clearly communicating my sarcasm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Responding to "if they're not making an exception to Power A because it's too much work, then they won't make an exception to many other powers" with "The reason they didn't make an exception to Power A was not because it was too much work, but rather that they didn't want it to get an exception" makes no sense and is not relevant?
Ok.....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ryu implies that they won't allow for an exception for pets with one attack (such as Lightning Storm) because it would be too much work, but the reason they don't want to make an exception for it is actually that they *want* it to be affected (and they actually had to do some work to make it affected in the first place).

Thus the fact that they are not making an exception for powers like Lightning Storm is not any reason to believe that they won't make a second set of pet powers "because it's too much work".

[/ QUOTE ]I think people are not understanding me. [color= yellow]If say they made an exemption for say fire imps this would be different, 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.[/color] 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 ]

Again, it's not that making an exception for Fire Imps would have been too much work. Making the change in the first place is what takes extra work (adding the line about ignoring Recharge to the power).

Because of that, the rest of your argument falls.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

For the pets that inherit global buffs, Damage and ToHit are also inherited (not sure about Acc actually, but Acc bonuses are in all cases very short duration (meaning that even if they are inherited they'd only affect the pet for a few seconds)).

edit: update: It appears that Acc is also inherited

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 ] 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. It is good that you bring up this point because I will ensure that no missions I create will have pets if I can help it because it wont be fair to the players.

[/ 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 ]

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 ]

I don't see how what you're saying is even relevant to what you're quoting.

We're talking about the devs' willingness to make an exception for certain powers, not what the changes were.

Ryu implies that they won't allow for an exception for pets with one attack (such as Lightning Storm) because it would be too much work, but the reason they don't want to make an exception for it is actually that they *want* it to be affected (and they actually had to do some work to make it affected in the first place).

Thus the fact that they are not making an exception for powers like Lightning Storm is not any reason to believe that they won't make a second set of pet powers "because it's too much work".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
re-reading Castle's OP in this thread again it still isn't entirely clear without substantial understanding of the inner workings of the game. He is all over the map in the OP, citing LS and RIP in the same paragraph, which is a bit confusing as LS does not take RIP sets, so you really have to read between the lines.

Is this statement an accurate summation?
"we never intended for pets to benefit from recharge, but we made the RIP sets knowing 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"

Something isn't adding up there. To put it in light, your assumption about how players should have viewed RIP sets is cavernous compared to the missing logic in what happened in the above statement"

[/ 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 do not think that is possible. They have known that multi-enhancements boost things not directly slottable since HO's.

If you are saying they did not think it would be the case yet again when they designed RIP sets despite it working that way since.. can't recall what issue HO's were put in, but a long time... Then we all have a lot more to worry about within the dev team than this crappy fix heh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that they *should* have known, but the devs are human (more or less), and humans make mistakes.

To be fair, the pet pass-through code also added an extra level of complexity to the subject.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 ] 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. It is good that you bring up this point because I will ensure that no missions I create will have pets if I can help it because it wont be fair to the players.

[/ 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 ]
re-reading Castle's OP in this thread again it still isn't entirely clear without substantial understanding of the inner workings of the game. He is all over the map in the OP, citing LS and RIP in the same paragraph, which is a bit confusing as LS does not take RIP sets, so you really have to read between the lines.

Is this statement an accurate summation?
"we never intended for pets to benefit from recharge, but we made the RIP sets knowing 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"

Something isn't adding up there. To put it in light, your assumption about how players should have viewed RIP sets is cavernous compared to the missing logic in what happened in the above statement"

[/ 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 ]
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 ]

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 ]
or 4/
you are again applying information that 99% of people did not have access to. I see no where in the patch notes or any live server dev discussion where it indicates one way or the other how they are intended to operate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prior to information being available, people can form *beliefs* of their own. People can make their own assumptions of what the "intent" for something was.

However, once people actually *have* information, and then continue to make claims directly contrary to this information, then I believe that it is fair to say that those claims are unreasonable (assuming that the information can be trusted).

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.

(it should also be added that I am not aware of any information actually suggesting that it *was* intended - all I've seen from people with that belief is assumptions)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or maybe just make a recharge cap for pets. BAM! That seems like something that would help.

[/ QUOTE ]

Setting RechargeTime MaxStr to 1 for minion_Pets (the class our summoned pets use) could actually have some uses.


[/ QUOTE ]

That would affect only -Recharge and not +Recharge?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would mean (assuming it works) that their powers could never recharge faster than their base recharge time.

StrMax for the various attributes are the caps on what we often call "enhancement bonuses" (Str - Strength) for those attributes.
For instance, the StrMax for the various Damage attributes is 5 for Blasters, which means that regardless of how many Damage buffs you stack on them, their damage output will still be limited to 5 times the base damage of their attacks.

The *minimum* allowed values for Str are determined by StrMin, so the effective values of Str will be limited to StrMin&lt;=Str&lt;=StrMax.

If we set StrMax to 1, Str should not be able to go over 1 (equal to base Recharge), but it could still go lower (as low as StrMin which is 0.25 for Recharge). In other words, powers would never be able to recharge faster than their base recharge time, but Recharge debuffs could make them recharge slower.
In theory at least.

If you have both Recharge buffs and Recharge debuffs the limits should be applied to the total, which would mean that Recharge buffs can offset Recharge debuffs.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To me at least, it seems blatantly obvious that the RIP set IOs were *never* *intended* to boost the Recharge of powers belonging to the summoned pets, and once it was realized that they did, that was prevented from happening (well before those sets even went Live).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find this statement to be reasonable.

Going back to VS. VS accepts the RIP sets. VS has a limit of one pet out at a time, a duration of 60 seconds, and a recharge of 60 seconds. It can't really benefit from the +rech portion of the RIP sets except for increased attack speed.

Gun Drone which has a 180 second recharge and a 90 second duration but which can have multiple copies out could benefit from the recharge in the RIP sets but can't slot them.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I say in this post, the reason that Voltaic Sentinel accepts RIP sets appears to be that it accepts Pet Damage sets and Recharge enhancements.

Gun Drone does *not* accept Pet Damage sets, and was thus not considered for RIP sets. Instead, it can get Recharge from the Ranged Damage sets that it *does* accept.


I'm not really sure what that has to do with my statement being reasonable or not though.


However, claiming that RIP sets improving the Recharge of pets' powers was *intended* would seem to require that:
1) The devs are lying.
2) The devs accidentally made changes directly contrary to this goal during i13, without any apparent reason.
3) The devs did not bother undoing this change before i13 went live (or even up until now), even though it would have also had the significant bonus of also making the *other* aspects of the IOs (Damage, Acc...) work.

Now *that* would seem unreasonable.


edit: I should add that for 3), undoing the change was apparently also within the realm of what they could do since they did it with the patch that contained the change discussed here. It would thus appear that an added condition would have been that it was a pure coincidence that those two changes were added in the same patch.

[ QUOTE ]
Or maybe just make a recharge cap for pets. BAM! That seems like something that would help.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm.

Setting RechargeTime StrMax to 1 for minion_Pets (the class our summoned pets use) could actually have some uses.

Benefit:
Recharge debuffs would still work on them.

Side-effect:
Recharge buffs would "work" in as much as they'd provide a "buffer" to Recharge debuffs.

Downside:
minion_Pets is not only used by summoned pets, so this could also affect things like some hostages and other in-mission creatures.


What one could do (if Recharge obeys its StrMax, not everything has always obeyed all its caps) is to make a copy of minion_Pets (call it player_Pets or something), change their RechargeTime StrMax to 1, and make all player summoned pets create player_Pets instead of minion_Pets. This could be done instead of making pets summoned by NPCs using different powers than the ones our pets use (in order to make them affected by Recharge debuffs).

This way Recharge debuffs would work both in PvE and PvP.


In addition to this (and even if making a copy/changing pets would be unfeasible), one could change the RechargeTime StrMax of Minion_Henchman, Lt_Henchman and Boss_Henchman (the classes used by MM henchmen) to 1. Assuming that works, Recharge debuffs would work against them in PvP.

Recharge "sneaked into" pets would still have a benefit as a buffer to Recharge debuffs, but having Recharge debuffs work in *most* situations still seems like a net positive.


edit: MaxStr -&gt; StrMax

edit2: I've been reminded that Recharge *does* obey its StrMax. Duh. I've even referenced those values before... Anyway, that would seem to remove most of the "ifs" from this idea...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Recharge intensive pet sets. I understood that these were created to increase the firing rate of the pets that they were accepted into. What exactly is their purpose now?

[/ QUOTE ]

That was never my understanding of what these sets were created to do. They are to increase the recharge rate of the summon power for the pet.

[/ 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).
There's no specific requirement on "how much benefit" a power needs to gain from a specific set. In some cases this leads to situations where some people may feel that a given set confers very little in the way of benefit for a given power, and apparently that is the case here.