UberGuy

The PvPOs give a recovery bonus, while the Makos give immob resist. While the +recovery may not be worth the price, per-se, the immob resist is truly valueless to an Invuln.

Agreed. That's the Tribal pattern, and that's been here since day -3.

If you tend to spam Fire Ball, I am pretty sure the end reduction is going to help your net end recovery more than either the Panacea or the PS procs would. Of course, it won't do anything for your regen rate, but if you're able to regularly land Siphon Life, that may be a minor consideration.

It's not nearly as sexy to slot a common end reduction as to slot a ~2B PvPIO, but it might give you the most noticeable benefit.

If you don't spam Fire Ball, then the Panacea probably looks best to me, giving you both some +end and +health.

Nothing especially helpful. They all sound like good ideas. I think given your stats, I'd probably either grab the Panacea (though I say that without having given the numbers much thought - it just sounds good ) or go for the end reduction in Fire Ball. Adding a 6th slot of end reduction to 5 purples is something I do quite often.

Kismet in Invincibility does wierd things. Since it won't affect your total # of slots or bonuses, if you keep it I'd move it to some other toggle, perhaps Weave. What happens is that it only goes off when foes are in range of Invincibility (meaning it won't give you benefit for Fireballs at range). Also, last it was tested, which was a few issues back, it scaled with foe rank when placed in Invincibility, meaning it was a larger toHit bonus for under-level foes and a smaller one for higher-level foes.

Basically, bad mojo.

When I respec'd my BS/Inv for I19, I ended up dropping it. The situation's a little different though, since he has Build Up to help penetrate initial defenses and -def on all his attacks. Basically I can stand in the debuff of a +2 Death Mage and sustain a 95% hit chance, so I ditched mine to save a slot.

When XP/inf exploits land, they tend to make a small percentage of the playerbase immensely wealthy relative to pre-existing prices through direct creation of new inf. That then trickles down through the rest of the players using the market, and inf fees remove 10% of that money every time. But the initial surge still represents short-term price inflation, because these wealthy players often start spending much more than they would have before for items, empowered by the sense that they can earn back what they're spending in a short time.

Even once prices settle on a new equilibrum, those new equilibrium prices will be higher than they were before. For aggregate outflow of inf from fees to match an increased aggregate inf creation, the either the number of transactions per time has to increase or the market prices have to rise to level where the 10% fee can balance the increase. More transactions/time is certainly possible, but higher price/transaction seems more likely to me.

I think what people have been seeing is that we've had a long series of changes that have, in fact, increased this aggregate rate of inf creation. XP smoothing made over-level mobs worth more per kill. IOs sped up the reward/time efficiency of characters. I16 difficulty settings made if far easier for each player to set the game to their optimal reward/time capability. The doubling of inf rewards is a clear doubling on top of all that. Now we have the Alpha Slot and, to some extent, even Inherent Fitness increasing the reward efficiency of existing 50s, and on top of that I19 is probably convincing more people to play 50s more of the time.

Between each of these changes have been relatively short periods between inf production rate shifts. The market may have achieved some degree of equilibrium between each one, but this is almost impossible to see with data players usually have at hand as other factors shifted both supply and demand for specific products around and AE exploits introduced jolts in inf rates of varying size and duration.

The main point, though, is that the total rate of inf creation has been trending upwards for some time. For a fixed market fee rate, that means prices will trend up over time as well. My own contention is that the only negative effect of this, generally, is sticker shock on people who don't want to use the market except as a store, for whatever reason. I think it would be nice if we could avoid that effect, but I don't feel, personally, that avoiding it is worth dramatic change for that sake alone.

That's actual applied type, right? Like if the attack hits you, that's the type(s) of damage it's likely to apply to you? I ask because, while it's not that common, some attacks have attack type flags (for defense purposes) that don't match up 100% with their applied damage types. My canonical example is Fire Ball, which deals Fire and Smashing damage, but is attack typed only AoE and Fire.

She seems exceptionally annoying. For some reason you can't even target her. Leading a hostage like this out of caves is fraught with the AI getting stuck repeatedly.

It's not really the idea of what was done here that's annoying, it's (a) the reality of the implementation and (b) that there was no patch note.

And I'm sorry, but I'm going to preemptively state anyone who responds to (b) with "but it was an exploit" is full of crap. Stealthing to the end of a map is not an exploit of the sort that calls for the devs to make a change sans patch notes. This isn't the sort of change they've intentionally done that for before, either. I'm guessing it got missed in the patch notes. That's bad, because it's extremely likely no one in beta tested it - why would they? That means no one gave feedback on the wonky hostage AI.

Wow. Just wow.

I eagerly await a response to that.

Edit: I'll toss in my own.