Pax__

[ QUOTE ]
I actually fail to see the purpose in Any threads on this matter as that guy has already said Numerous times Its not a Viable Option at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]
And you know, the same was said of Capes at one time.

And wings, too, for that matter; originally they thought they'd have to do a whole new Archetype just for Wings. And yet ... what's this?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's my suggestion for how to do this, mostly in terms of the User Interface:

Use the costume editor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that does seem to solve one part of the problem,which is how much server lag adding PC would create...at least from what your saying here

But the art and coding time would end up being the same on this...is that correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

And I believe there is no way to avoid there being a lot of Art & Animation time, period. We are asking for, in essence, new artwork. For most htings, you could stop short at "recoloring", but people would really really want to be able to change things a bit more - you KNOW the majority of players won't be satisfied until they can at least ick different swords, guns, axes, etc. Preferably also, different patterns/shapes for their blasts, where possible.

Here's my suggestion for how to do this, mostly in terms of the User Interface:

Use the costume editor.

Create new "costume slots" for each powerset, so that if you pick the "Katana" set, you get the "Katana" costume slot. With that slot, you can choose:

[u]Weapon or Power appearance[u]
The particular shape and pattern of your power might be changable - IOW, what does YOUR katana look like? Or maybe your Energy Blast has squares instead of circles ... maybe your energy blast is a thin line of energy, with a spiral/copil of anothr energy around it. Stuff like that.

[u]Colors[u]
Even if you stick with the default Energy Blast, say, maybe yours is green and white, instead of blue and white? Or maybe your Katana has a dark blue blade, instead of the default "bright silvery steel" look.

[u]Aura[u]
Not really an option here, but - for those with Weapons, maybe that weapon could become a new, selectible Aura location. Want a fiery Katana? Get to level 30 and make the right Aura choices!



[/ QUOTE ]

On the coding side, this means a whole new function has to be programmed in - to make the use of a power return not the default animation, but instead, return the specific CHOSEN animation, in the right colors. The download would be large, as it'd have to include all-new graphics for EVERY power, at least once. And all-new graphics for EVERY weapon, at least, say, three or four times (what point a choice, if you haven't got multiple things to choose FROM?).

But during play, it's a tiny bump of extra data, transmitted at the same time you get their Costume data ... because the new animations aretreated AS costume data.



[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, and because I've done it to everyone else with a PowCust idea ... fair's fair: I should smack myself with a Spank 'em, cowboy!

[ QUOTE ]
Just going ot on a limb here but: MGC and MadScientist (and yes I know there are others) really seem to be spearheading quite a bit of this.

Let them be the primary POC (assuming they want to be) and we filter the info through them as we have been (through the multiple issue consolidation threads)

It keeps the input sane and reasonable. A level of trust is built and we have a better chance of being heard.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ex Libris' PM to me about the topic seemed to indicate that she supports this very idea. And frankly, that's good enough for me.

Ex Libris wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
[...] from those who are most actively participating in the base building and functionality [...]

[/ QUOTE ]
Pardon the slight paraphrasing there, Ex, but ... this is, I believe, the single biggest issue with bases: "those who are actively making them". The possible costs and losses of having inexpert hands applied to a carefully-planned and long-labored-for base (resulting in loss of salvage-built items, losses of entire rooms, and/or just something aesthetically displeasing) ... causes most SG leadership, IME, to severely "limit the franchise".

We need a more robust way to assign base editing rights. We need to be able to define the ranks needed by (a) area and (b) level of edit control - rather than the current "base-wide, all-or-nothing" model.

I'd love to be able to plant, for example, a nice 2x2 "decorative" space, and set it so that ANY member can do ANYthing purely cosmetic in that space yet nowhere else ... and then tell the membership "that's the sandbox room. Play, practise, and futz about to your hearts' content. Offer suggestions for how other spaces could be done over in terms of aesthetics, even. Just don't expect anything to remain permanently, it's a shared space."

...

The problem, you see, is that most people don't care abotu bases ... because they have little or no input into how those bases are laid out, how they look, nor how they function. There's no feasible way for a player to make their own base, just for practise-and-play ... well, at least, not for the majority of non-forum-going players who might not know about the Test server.


[/ QUOTE ]
My biggest suggestion solely for the sake of improvement (rather than fixing what I see as a problem), is actually a SIMPLIFICATION of the artwork for the pieces and parts in a base:

USER DEFINED COLORS ...!

Seriously. Right now, we have ... how many sectional couches? At least black and grey, and I think white too. Why? Why not just ONE leather couch, and a color-selection palette? Heck, a two-done palette ... one color for the seat-cushions, the other for the body of the chair ... that way, I can do a couch in my SG's colors. Or maybe, a white or grey couch, with cushions that alternate between my SG's colors. Or something else entirely.

Countertops, again: it's the same shape, only the skin is changed. Why not make them all one object, with multiple skins, and some coloration options?

You could extend this to the various monitors and "TV" pieces - let us choose between two or more image sequences; maybe I want one that's set to silly cartoons; another that's set to a couple web-pages; another that shows a nes program. Doesn't have to be anything more than the current 3-5 image slideshows, either. Just ... different slideshows, that can be chosen between ... yes? All on the same single part, too!

... then again, I remember suggesting that during COV's open beta and it has yet to even be commented on, but ... eh *shrug* I can still keep on pluggin' away, yeh?


[/ QUOTE ]
My other issues & suggestions are, in no particular order:
[*] A lack of actual doors between rooms and corridors.
[*] A lack of control over lighting levels and colors in "doorway" blocks.
[*] The inability to place even purely decorative items in those same "doorway" blocks.
[*] Limited vertical space - I would love to be able to have the same sort of balcony-like spaces we see in certain mission maps. I'd also like the ability to include deeper pits. Frankly, I want to be able to create at least some places you can't get to without (a) using the stairs, and (b) using a power other than Sprint.
[*] Partitions - I'd like to be able to raise full or partial partitions between two otherwise adjacent blocks, making a thin wall. This way, I could take that 3x3 decorative space, set aaside six rooms (three to either side) as personal space for various SG members, and deocrate the remaining area as a corridor or hallway. Partial-height partitions owuld mean, by the by, railings.
[*] The rope-railing-ed "suspended bridges" are neat, but I'd like some that can be put down not adjacent to a wall.
[*] Hirable NPCs. Even if they're just decorative elements, I'd maybe like to have a few lab technicians wandering about X or Y room, or maybe the whole base.
[*] Arena kiosks. Why not? ^_^
[*] More styles. I'm particularly fond of the "ruined super-base" maps in Faultline, and would love to be able to apply the same musty, dusty look to my own bases. As well as, in fact, using some of the same "broken down" artwork elements.
[*] Multiple floors. I know, it's been said before, but you know? I'd like to be able to make an entry space, maybe done up as a fake restaurant, video carcade, library, house, or whatever. Then, open a hidden door (which closes again after a few moments) to reveal a hidden elevator, etc, which leads into the actual "Secret base".
[*] Windows and outdoor areas. Look, it does't have to sync up with what's actually going on in any particular place in the actual game, but it would be nice to have the big meeting room fitted out with a huge skylight, and one wal of floor-to-ceiling windows overloking a nice, peaceful forest/park (IOW, "generic nonurban exterior map"). Or a cemetery. Or space. Or the Shadow Shard. Or the bottom of a tropical bay, complete with fish.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's annoying because it bumps the chat you'd actually like to read. Personally, I think they should take the 'friends' channel that I've never seen anyone actually use past the first week of the game's release and remake it into an 'events' channel.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
/signed.

[ QUOTE ]
<qr>

Ex is correct. We datamined how many names would get freed up by doing the purge at every level. After level 5, the amount of names freed up drops noticably on every server. There are a LOT of names being "camped" by inactive accounts on characters under level 5.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm also willing to bet there's a bit of "hey, if you couldn't even level to 6, you probably don't care as much about that character anyway" involved in the thought process somewhere.

Honestly, I'd suggest never raising that bar higher than 14 - once you can get a travel power, that's a logical place to put the cutoff, on teh top end.

But for now, level 6 works just fine for me.

[ QUOTE ]
I think instead of the "CuppaJo" badge, it ought to be named "Coffee Achiever".

Kristy

[/ QUOTE ]
.... Caffeinated

[ QUOTE ]
so you believe that none of the existing powersets would work to fill those gaps? that extensive powerset sharing should be limited to classes like defender, blaster, etc?

[/ QUOTE ]
Quote me where I said that. Quote me where I said anything even remotely resembling that.

[ QUOTE ]
you didn't say those exact words, but the jist of your post...

[/ QUOTE ]
The "jist" of my post is nothing even remotely close to what you imply. The "jist" of my post is simply that Tankers are the singly least diverse Archetype out there.

[ QUOTE ]
and i like how you skewed your numbers to support your view.

[/ QUOTE ]
I stated my personal beliefs, and was clear and up front that I was weighting the values of the first table accordingly.

[ QUOTE ]
tankers have more combinations available than stalkers, doms and MMs, but they need more combos, and if the 3 diff 25-28 ISN'T a big deal, then the 1 diff of scrappers 24-25 is even less of a deal.

[/ QUOTE ]
There may be more permutations for Tankers - but the majority of them come from Secondaries. I am of the opinion that a character's strongest, most defining characteristic is their primary. Therefor, a dearth of primaries is somewhat more significant than an abundance of secondaries.

When you describe a character, for most if not all archetypes, when you give only a single powerset ...? It's the primary. You don't typically say "I'm going to make a /Devices Blaster", you instead say "I'm going to make a Fire/ Blaster" or "I'm going to make an AR/ Blaster".

Obviously, in some circumstances, this does not hold absolutely true. But generally speaking, it's the Primary which most defines any particular character, within their Archetype.

[ QUOTE ]
why not do as someone else suggested (and is even on the list in the form of Force Fields) and just re-use a couple of powersets here and there?

HOW hard is that?

[/ QUOTE ]
I never suggested NOT doing this. You, being such a devout proponent, are merely assuming that I oppose your desires, based on nothing more than a lack of overt support.

I do think each Archetype should have one or more Primaries unique to itself, rather than just being tweaked versions of otherwise existing powersets.

[ QUOTE ]
Zombie, Tankers and scrappers have not gotten any new sets since the game came out. Whether we get something by porting over an existing set or a new set, you can't deny that those two ATs have gotten no new powersets in over three years. I think it's high time we got something new, don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't play Tankers at all, and Dark/Regen is pretty much the limit of my interest in Scrapeprs. Nonetheless, I agree: Tankers and Scrapers need some new sets. As an archetype, and excluding the Epics (which work with different rules anyway) ... Scrappers are the single least-diverse possible characetrs on either side of the Red/Blue divide, at (6x4). Tankers aren't much better off, at (4x7).

And frankly, I think the main source of diversity in an archetype comes from it's primary powerset choices. Tankers are the only non-epic Archetype with fewer than five Primaries; most archetypes have six, seven, or - Defenders - even eight. I've got three tables below; the first one is double-weighted, to reflect my own beliefs regarding the importance of Primaries in terms of perceived diversity within an Archetype.

[u]Arranged by Number of Primaries:[u][*] (10pt) Defender - 8 primaries; 7 secondaries.[*] (8pt) Blaster - 7 primaries; 5 secondaries.[*] (8pt) Corrupter - 7 primaries; 7 secondaries.[*] (6pt) Brute - 6 primaries; 6 secondaries.[*] (6pt) Controller - 6 primaries; 7 secondaries.[*] (6pt) Scrapper - 6 primaries; 4 secondaries.[*] (4pt) Dominator - 5 primaries; 5 secondaries.[*] (4pt) Mastermind - 5 primaries; 5 secondaries.[*] (4pt) Stalker - 5 primaries; 5 secondaries.[*] (2pt) Tanker - 4 primaries; 7 secondaries.

[u]Arranged by Total Number of Combinations:[u][*] (8pt) Defender - 56.[*] (7pt) Corrupter - 49.[*] (6pt) Controller - 42.[*] (5pt) Brute - 36.[*] (4pt) Blaster - 35.[*] (3pt) Tanker - 28.[*] (2pt) Dominator - 25.[*] (2pt) Mastermind - 25.[*] (2pt) Stalker - 25.[*] (1pt) Scrapper - 24.

[u]Net Total Ranking[u][*] (18pt) Defender[*] (15pt) Corrupter[*] (12pt) Blaster[*] (12pt) Controller[*] (11pt) Brute[*] (7pt) Scrapper[*] (6pt) Dominator[*] (6pt) Mastermind[*] (6pt) Stalker[*] (5pt) Tanker

(In the interest of legibility in both Hero and Villain color schemes, I've tweaked the colors a bit - using a lighter shades for Blue and Red.)

Please notice how the Tanker is at the bottom of the first list, and still below average in the second. As a result, it hits utter rock bottom on the combined and weighted list.

Defenders are the last people who shuld get a new set - no offense to the Defs among us. Bruts, Blasters, Corruptors, and Controllers don't need anything i the short term either. Scrappers could use something new in the Secondary department. Tankers need new EVERYthing, but especially Primaries. Masterminds, Dominators, and Stalkers could use one set, of either type, apiece.

I think the short-term goal should be to get every pre-Epic Archetype to at least 6 primaries and at least 6 secondaries. In the long term, I believe we should try to let no one archetrype have more than two Primaries and/or Secondaries more than any other Archetype.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Density - think Vision from the comics..

make yourself super-dense (+Def) or decrease your density (can't attack or be attacked), possibly affect enemies.. make them so dense they can't move and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good. That's not how I saw it when I was voting. and while you might think that, is that how the Devs view it? Is that how everyone else who took the survey viewed it? Personal interpretation shouldn't be as large of a factor as it was.

A general description of the sets and how the Devs think they'd work should have accompanied each of the surveys.

[/ QUOTE ]
How else would density control be used? It is a common concept. Characters with Water or Sand compositions would use density control as their means of defense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Control the density of the air around you - thicken it ahead of your enemies' weapons ... thin it to near-vacuum behind those weapons. Create updrafts and downdrafts of air by increasing or decreasing density in place (A), then letting go so it rushes toward or from place (B).

There's a different form of "density control", right there. After all - who says it's your OWN density you're affecting?

[ QUOTE ]
Posi, how are you going to account for the skewedness of the poll?

What I mean is that we have no idea what your intentions were behind some of the sets. Like, how is Vibration different than Fore Fields? How is either of those different than current armors?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have to echo this, actually. Two or three sentences that gave me a better idea what each set was meant to be, would have been an immense help in choosing what I wanted to vote for.

Let's take, for example, "dual blades". What kind of blades do you mean? [Dual shortswords] is not the same as [Rapier-and-dagger] is not the same as [Dual Knives] is not the same as [Dual Hatchets] is not the same as ....

Well, you get the idea. (And for the record, I'd hope it was "dual hatchets", that'd be a very different sort of set. Failing that, Rapier-and-dagger, or "Fencing", would be a nice swashbuckler-y set).

And that ignores other issues Aett has raised: what, exactly, does a set like "Vibration" entail, as a defense set? How would it work, how would it look? And what about "Street Fighting"? How does that work?

Lack of clarity has, IMO, harmed this poll. To what extent I do not know; I doubt the poll is useless, but I do think there has been some skewing of results.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
MAny serious 'street fighting' character is likely to rely on Martial Arts training before too long.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I want when I voted Street Fighting was a brawling/punching set. Basically, the same as Martial Arts, only you'd actually use your fists.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I presumed the "Street Fighting" set woudl be a Punching, Hand/Fist/Arm oriented form of martial arts, whereas "Martial Arts" as Scrappers already have it is a Kicking, Foot/Leg oriented combat style.

[ QUOTE ]
o.o I don't know.. I'd buy a new retail box as long as I got some more server slots with it.. I'm kinda full on 3 servers.. not to mention a box expansion means more money is put into its development...

[/ QUOTE ]
A completely-optional pack, with (say) one new primary and secondary per non-epic AT (both sides of the game), plus maybe two additional character slots per server? I'd buy that.

[ QUOTE ]
As I mentioned a little while ago, we really want to focus on what the players want...that's why we decided to go with this poll. Most of these Power Set ideas came from you guys - in the Archetype and Suggestions boards!

Enjoy!

[/ QUOTE ]
Because I'm intensely curious - the Force Fields set ... I PMed you or Positron a "Force Armor" set, and posted it to the Suggestions Board as well. Might it have been the seed that sprouted this idea? ^_^

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I need some insights on what those suggested Defensive sets are about. Can anyone more imaginative than me care to elaborate or speculate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I figure that the Force Fields one would be like the Defender Force Fields, but for personal use.

[/ QUOTE ]
I posted a Force Armor set to the Suggestions board some weeks ago. And PMed that same set to ... I think Statesman, and/or Positron, at about the same time. Maybe the idea caught on ... ^_^

[ QUOTE ]
Willpower I think is a more "natural" feel for Tankers: a kind of "okay, I'm refusing to get hurt", rather than "I am unspeakably invulnerable" or "I dodge everything".

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe strong on +HP and mez resists?

[Deleted by user - wrong thread]

CAVEAT: I take my numbers from Sherksilver's Builder. They are not guaranteed to be 100% completely accurate. But they should still be close enough for our purposes today.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The problem, as I see it, is that ToHit buffs are ADDITIVE, while accuracy is MULTIPLICATIVE. And the ADD happens before the MULTIPLY, which only serves to compound both of them. Plus, the same character can get both sides of that coin, at the same time, even when playing solo.


...

This boils down to OFFENSE having a decided advantage over DEFENSE, in the majority of encounters. The cause of this is, ultimately, the very ToHit formulae used by the game. The only real fix would be to rip it out by the roots, and rebuild from the foundations up. That might strike some folks as a bit SWG-esque, though. So I won't hold my breath over it, sorry to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see this as a problem at all. As long as Defense can floor any amount pf +toHit, the accuracy multiplier can then get the actual chances back into reasonable numbers (which is about 10%).

[/ QUOTE ]
Defense cannot floor someone strongly ToHit buffed that way.

Let's see - the current "oh my god" maximum Accuracy-and-ToHit buff would be a Scrapper running both Tactics and Focussed Accuracy, firing off a triple-SO-slotted attack, yes? We'll be extra-cruel, and make it a [Martial Arts / Invulnerability] scrapper - and throw both Focus Chi and Invincibility into the mix. Triple-slotted for ToHit, wherever possible.
[*] PvP Base: 50%[*] Tactics: +11.01%[*] Focussed Accuracy: +29.11%[*] Focussed Chi: +31.47%[*] Invincibility: 5.90% per foe in melee range

This totals to a base ToHit of 127.49% ...! And the o.05/o.95 boundaries only kick in AFTER defense, at this point in the formula ...!!

The top-end defense such a scrapper might face in a PvP zone? Probably something like my own Robo/FF mastermind. We'll assume, for whatever reason, he's going against my Assault Bot - which I can currently cap out at 54.5% defense, pretty much against everything. We'll add in an insanely triple-slotted Maneuvers to that, for anotehr ~2.7% ... totallin 57.2% defense.

127.49%, minus 57.2%, is ... 70.29% base to-hit; within bounds. That, compounted by the 102% net accuracy MA attacks triple-slotted for ACC get? 141.9858% - close enough to just say "142%, especially since it is now Bounded to 0.05/0.95

Net result? He has a 95% chance to hit my Assault bot - and everything else in the game. Purely because ToHit and Accuracy are multiplicative, and Accuracy comes after Defense.

Even if it were my MM, and I had (and used) PFF?
[*] Maneuvers, ~2.7%[*] Dispersion Bubble, ~11.8%[*] single Protector bubble, ~11.8%[*] PFF, ~106.2%

That totals to an amazing 132.5% defense. The Scrapper, however?

142, minus 132.5, is 19.5 ... 19.5, times 2.02, is 39.39 ... almost a fourty percent chance to hit ... and, barring now-ineffectual Pet attacks, the MM can't strike back through that PFF. His supposedly "supreme defense at the expense of being able to act" ... really isn't very supreme at all, anymore.

[ QUOTE ]
1) You have the default To Hit value (ie no buffs), your target has no Defense value. How often do you WANT to hit him? Conversely, as the defender, how often do you expect to be missed?

[/ QUOTE ]
About 50/50, assuming an even-conned opponent (or even-combat-level Player opponent).

[ QUOTE ]
2) You have the maximum possible To Hit value, and your target has no defense value. How often do you WANT to hit him? Conversely, as the defender, how often do you expect to be missed?

[/ QUOTE ]
Almost every single time. I'm okay with a 95% maximum here - but then, I'm a D&D gamer from waaaaaay back, so I'm used to the "twenty sided die" level of ganularity there.

[ QUOTE ]
3) You have the default To Hit value, and your target has the maximum possible defense value. How often do you WANT to hit him? Conversely, as the defender, how often do you expect to be missed?

[/ QUOTE ]
Almost never - in both cases. Kick me for being fair-to-a-fault - but if I haven't got any extra "hit",a nd he's got the absolute maximum "not get hit", then he should win the exchange ... hands down.

[ QUOTE ]
4) You have the maximum possible To Hit value, and your target has the maximum possible defense value. How often do you WANT to hit him? Conversely, as the defender, how often do you expect to be missed?

[/ QUOTE ]
About 50/50. Seriously - even after all the ToHit and Accuracy stuff, the maximum defense should drop them back to a 50/50 scenario.

The problem, as I see it, is that ToHit buffs are ADDITIVE, while accuracy is MULTIPLICATIVE. And the ADD happens before the MULTIPLY, which only serves to compound both of them. Plus, the same character can get both sides of that coin, at the same time, even when playing solo.

Whereas Defense is strictly SUBTRACTIVE, and is almost impossible - solo - to pair with a debuff to anyone's ToHit. And those ToHit debuffs are similarly limited, in that they are purely subtractive ... and ALSO rarely available alongside Defense buffs on the same, solo character.

...

This boils down to OFFENSE having a decided advantage over DEFENSE, in the majority of encounters. The cause of this is, ultimately, the very ToHit formulae used by the game. The only real fix would be to rip it out by the roots, and rebuild from the foundations up. That might strike some folks as a bit SWG-esque, though. So I won't hold my breath over it, sorry to say.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Along this line... What can you tell us about the various +Stealth IOs from the Travel Sets?

Specifically, can they be slotted in passive powers? If so, how is this going to interact with NPC hostages and such that won't interact with a stealthed character?

[/ QUOTE ]

Currently:
<ul type="square">[*]They can be slotted into passive movement powers.[*]You can have one of each type on your character for some massive bonuses.[*]Escort NPCs will not follow you if these are slotted on your characters.[/list]
Now, before the uproar starts, I have to say that unless we find a satisfactory solution for the last item on the list, these IO's have a high probability of being cut before reaching the live servers. Even if that problem is solved, it is still unlikely that you will be able to slot all 4 versions in a single character -- either that, or the stealth aspect will be reduced greatly.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is a single, very simple solution to this issue, which also preserves some of the benefits of Hide for Stalkers (and "old fashioned" Stealth, for others).

Give Escort NPCs a whole bucketful of +Perception ...!

As for the RP side, simple - maybe a stealthy hero keeps saying *psst* ... over here! ... or your villain just casually clubs the poor sap over the head and CARRIES them out. Whatever works for each player.

But again, let me restate: just give the Escort NPCs a high +Perception value.

...

To add a twist, maybe unwilling Escort-NPCs actually radiate that +perception, revealing the stealthy character's location to their enemies!

((CC via PM))

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While not quite on the topic of your post, your thread title makes this a good spot to talk about this.

Most of the Unique Enhancements offer completely new effects to a power they are slotted into. In the Edict of the Master example, your summon power now effectively gives you a 'click' version of Leadership/Maneuvers that only applies to your pets. That's a pretty good bonus, in my opinion.

Now, let's talk about why it has a duration. Since these are enhancements, the system only knows about them when you use the power they are slotted into. Once used, the effects of those powers hang around until their duration ends. If they are slotted into a toggle, the effects are constant while the toggle is running, but end as soon as the toggle is shut off. So, slotting Numina's Convalescence: Regeneration/Recovery into Rest isn't a great idea (actually, it's no longer possible, but it was a good example to use!)

So, making it a 'short term buff' wasn't an arbitrary decision. It is simply the only way to get the abilities to work in all desired cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just as an update, this information isn't entirely true any longer.

The Pet Damage enhancements which give unique effects (such as Taunt and Placate Resistance) turned out not to work well with the Mastermind code. So after a bit of work on the programming staffs part and a bit more of my time, those abilities now work 100% of the time once the enhancement is slotted. The radius limitation remains unchanged.

[/ QUOTE ]
Woo!

Has the strength been reduced from what little we've been able to get ahold of, numbers-wise? I.E., that Defense bonus ... is it still 10%?

^_^

Eh, hearing the "Why" is certainly on-topic, IMO at least, _Castle_.

And, okay ... now, might it be possible at this juncture to talk about extending the duration of those buffs? Even just a bit ...?

Mainly I'm looking at the fact that, for a higher-level Mastermind's "setup routine", a solid two minutes can be eaten up just by Equipping and Upgrading ... and that's almost half of the time that buff lasts. I really don't want to have to "waste"-click a summon to refresh that buff, if I don't also need to replace one or more of that tier's pets.

So, what about seven or eight minutes, for the Pet-set specials? Even if you cut Edict from 5% Defense to, say, 4% defense (and the resitance from 10% to 8%), that'd still be an improvement IMO.

If permanent just isn't doable, then let's at least make sure everyone who might use them, will get to benefit form them for more than one or two fights. ^_^

[ QUOTE ]
I must play my mastermind incorrectly.

Is there some rule against summoning and then buffing as we fight? I mean, I'm sure 3 minutes of doing nothing for a 15 minute mission is really delightful, but it hardly seems necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, nothing says you can't upgrade "on the fly" ... but nothing, equally, says you must. And at least for Robots? The more upgraded they are, the higher their alpha strike damage is.

[ QUOTE ]
And, finally, assuming you're not losing a pet ever, we all know exactly how much you need a resistance or defense buff at that time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, ah, ah ... you'e reading too much into what I said. I didn't say I never lose anything. I said I (baring screwups) never need to replace any of them, until the fight is done. That's entirely different. On Relentless, for example, I do regularly need to replace a Drone or two, and occasionally a Protector.

About twice a mission for the Drones, and once every other mission for the Protectors. But yes, never for the Assault bot (he's the first to be bubbled, the first to get inspirations, etc).

As brought to light in a recent post on the U.K. boards, certain of the Pet-set IOs - the "Aura" enhancements for sets like Edict of the Master and Sovereign Right - will have a duration; the time length cited was five minutes.

I don't like that. At all.

For me, it can take as much as three minutes to completely summon, Equip, Upgrade, and Force-field-bubble my Robotic henchmen. The summonings happen first, leaving me with, at that point, two or three minutes of those "durational buffs".

I really don't like that.

You see, my experience has been ... "if I have to resummon my henchmen mid-combat, I have screwed up so badly I deserve to be debt-capped on the spot, immediately and without delay."

Between fights, yeah, I sometimes have to replace a Drone. Big whoop. But, mid-fight? If I've lost enough henchmen to need to start resummoning right then and there, and I'm not simply running away instead? I'm being an absolute idiot.

...

So those Duration-limited effects will have little, if any, effect on my character ... played simply and competently. Making those slots wasted resources.

You know what? I'd take HALF THE BONUS, if the effect were just "always on". Seriously.

Does anyoen feel the same? Or differently? Maybe your experiences with resummoning on the fly differs from mine in some way?

[ QUOTE ]
For Safeguard/Mayhem mish's... I would vote no. I farm Mayhem's daily. It takes 20 ish min to do the newspaper mish's to get the mayhem and I can stay inside a mayhem for over an hour and a half before getting bored of chasing people around with pompom's. If they do, I would say maybe the uncommon drops or recepies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uncommons are all Pool A - from generic enemy defeats. So are Commons, and a good number of the Rares.

And, 20 minutes for four newspaper missions? So? It took me maybe thirty minutes to do the WHOLE of Doc Buzzsaw's first arc. Another twenty or so to do her second arc.

That would've been two legit Pool B drops right there, in fifty minutes.

So I say, so what if you can open a Mayhem every twenty minutes, and complete it in as little as five minutes ...? It's not like COV story arcs are many-hours-long affairs, by and large.