[ QUOTE ]
[ 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)
[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I can tell, *almost* all IO set types (Ranged Damage, Resistance Buff, Hold) use *one* enhancement type for all IOs (the exception: The newish Universal Travel sets which would almost have to have 4 types, Fly, Run, Jump, Teleport).
(I've been hoping that more set IOs will gain more than one type)
For instance, every single IO in a Ranged Damage set counts as a Damage enhancement, every single IO in a Resistance Buff set counts as a Resistance enhancement, and every single IO in a Accurate Healing set counts as a Heal enhancement. This is independent of the bonuses those IOs give.
This means that they will only work in powers that accept those types of enhancements. Ranged Damage set IOs only work in powers that accept Damage enhancements, and Accurate Heal set IOs only work in powers that accept Heal enhancements.
When it comes to being accepted by a power, it does not matter what bonuses an IO gives, only what enhancement type it is. For instance, a Luck of the Gambler: End/Rech counts as a Defense enhancement, and can thus be slotted into the Super Reflexes passives, even though these powers are not slottable with (or benefit from) Endurance or Recharge enhancements.
There's one more thing that limits what powers we can *slot* enhancements in, and that's the set category itself. Ranged Damage set IOs will only be slottable into powers that accept Ranged Damage sets. However, this only limits you at the time of slotting, and does not determine in what powers the IOs will *work* once they're slotted.
As an example, early in i9 Swift/Hurdle/Quickness accepted Run/Jump sets respectively, which meant that you could slot the +Stealth IOs into those powers. Once those set categories were removed from those powers, you could no longer slot Run/Jump set IOs into the powers, but Run/Jump set IOs that were already slotted continue to work.
Basically, set IOs have two things that limit where you can slot them; the type of the set (Ranged Damage, Accurate Heal, Resistance Buff), and the type of the enhancements in those sets (Damage, Heal, Resistance). Once the IO is slotted, it's only the type of the enhancements that determines if a set IO works or not, and this is also what determines what sub-powers they are inherited by (in the case of pets).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They could have just as easily fixed it that many issues ago if it was truely a problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
You do not know that. Standard Code Rant applies.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, the Standard Code Rant usually does apply.
However, I believe the LS Pet power Lightning could be flagged as unenhanceble for recharge (ala SOW), which is what it sounds like they just did. (My understanding is that with the current change, LS still inherits the +recharge buffs, but the buff does not affect LS's powers.)
Hazel Black - Mind/Psi D
Stephanie Winters - Nightwidow
Jacqui Frost - Cold/Ice D
Jacqui Embers - Fire/Kin C
Simone Templar - Fire/MM B
Mallory Woods - Kin/Rad D
Sanguine Melody - Grav/Sonic C
Fumina Hara - Plant/Storm C
Nutmeg - Warshade
Lauren Wu - SS/WP B
[ QUOTE ]
If this change goes thru as is with no further tweaks to pets its just going to open the door for them to start lying to us again like how Jack did in the old days.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wait, which is better, being up front and telling us exactly why they made the change, even if it appears to disagree with previous design philosophy, or sticking to the version that was posted in the patch notes?
It seems to me the "lie" here is either Castle didn't work on Issue 7, therefore he doesn't know what the heck their "vision" was or was not, or the so-called "intended behavior" was a bug that slipped past QA. Damage can be passed on to summoned pets, accuracy can be passed on to summoned pets, who's going to put a lot of effort into checking that recharge is NOT?
[ QUOTE ]
How long ago was IO introduced? Am I to believe that the dev DID NOT know -recharge work with pets? If not, then I think the dev needs to spend more time PLAYING the game rather than datamining.
[/ QUOTE ]The devs *do* play the game. Quite a bit, I've heard.
BUt this isn't something the average playerbase knows. Ask a random person in the game what slotting recharge in their pet does, and I'm pretty certain that 9 times out of 10, the answer will be "Makes the pet come up faster."
There's nothing "intuitive" that makes one think that it makes the pets' powers come up faster. The logical response is that it does what recharge does in every other power...makes that power come up faster.
And since the effects of rech are largely unnoticable unless you already know about what the recharge does, (and/or have *massive* levels of recharge) and decide to number crunch...it's not surprising.
Besides which...just because they're now fixing it doesn't mean that they just recently knew about it. It's not like there's a big switch that says "NERF PETS". They tried to come up with alternatives for this fix, so they have to have known about it for a while.
[ QUOTE ]
My main toon is an Ice/Storm controller and in all honesty, I find storm very flashy and very unimpressive unless you love lots of aggro.
[/ QUOTE ]My main toon is also an Ice/Storm...and she loves extra aggro, because she has so many tricks to deal with them. Throw a Frostbite and a Tornado at them to keep them busy...throw an Ice Slick and Freezing Rain at them. I try not to use Lightning Storm for this, since that's generally the mob I'm dealing with...but if you use Ice very properly to synergize with it., Storm is *incredible*.
[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't even imagine playing the storm set on a defender with no way to mitigate the knockback with immoblizes and holds and in my opinion really isn't even a viable defender set.
[/ QUOTE ]On the other hand, my friend's Elec/Storm defender has soloed AVs...
[ QUOTE ]
Lightning Storm could have been fixed very simply at any time since I7, by making the changes on the power that were just made (and are not yet made to Defender LS).
[/ QUOTE ]Just because they have a fix now doesn't mean they've always been aware of that fix. The devs aren't omniscient...and it does take them time to fix problems. Sometimes more than we would like, but it still does.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Honest question; why would they lie?
[/ QUOTE ]Thats the million dollar question we are trying to get the real answer to. I still think there is more to this change than what they are telling us. Because its completely retarded to nerf powers that are already subpar.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course you do, because you're crazy and think there's always an ulterior motive.
[/ QUOTE ]You mean..the devs aren't really out to destroy the game and kill everything and everyone EvilRyu has ever loved...or even liked a little?
You...just blew my mind, man.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually in i7 pseudo-pets like LS were actually changed to inherent the casters' state. Now rech (ie hasten, speedboost) "may" not have been intended, but I find that very hard to believe that it wasn't known to be happening like claimed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Known? Yes. Statistically significant (as in, a noticeable blip in datamining), no. That came later.
[ QUOTE ]
However, I believe the LS Pet power Lightning could be flagged as unenhanceble for recharge (ala SOW), which is what it sounds like they just did. (My understanding is that with the current change, LS still inherits the +recharge buffs, but the buff does not affect LS's powers.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahem. The SoW flag was added for SoW. It didn't exist before then. 
OMG!!! First post after a redname!!! 
Hm. I don't think it's my first though.
[ QUOTE ]
And while I do believe the devs are a great team who do fantastic work, a small voice in the back of my head screams at me to go study the code and find a better solution.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've worked with a coder for a combat system for a much smaller game than this. When she originally created the system, she built it organically, adding things as necessary and hacking them into the existing code. Several times she would go to add a feature, pause, and say she couldn't, because the structure of the code wouldn't allow it. Eventually she broke apart the logic of the system and rewrote it to be modular, cleaner, and more efficient, and even then down the road she found some things she couldn't do.
MMO code is a monstrosity. It's worked on by several different people, with folks leaving and joining the team on a semi-regular basis. There's no way to expect that Cryptic could have foreseen today's needs four, three, or even two years ago, and when NCSoft inherited the game they were even more at a loss.
It's entirely possible that it's impossible to make a change regarding -recharge to only one pet. Due to the structure of the code, the change would have to affect all or none. They could hack something, possibly, but that would make the system unstable and even more complicated. They could overhaul the system and rewrite it to allow them to do what they want to do, but it's possible that could take an entire development cycle by itself.
Given that an MMO that adds nothing new for too long stagnates and dies (we saw some of that between I12 and I13), they cannot devote all or even most of their effort toward cleaning up existing code. They have to balance code cleanup with gamebreaking bug fixes, balance tweaks, and new content/mechanic creation. Given everything that demands priority, they can't take the long, hard, but correct path. They have to take the compromise path that's not perfect but is quicker.
And I say again to EvilRyu: you cannot know what they are or are not capable of doing. You do yourself no credit by insisting otherwise.
De minimis non curat Lex Luthor.
[ QUOTE ]
I do remember the recharge inheritance and buff inheritance and the like being mentioned in the patch notes when it went into effect. When that patch went live, I knew because of the patch notes. I did little else aside from running around, eating as many reds as I could, clicking hasten, and then letting fly with Cages, LS and Tornado.
It is entirely possible that the recharge wasnt mentioned at all in the patch notes and that I learned about it from word of mouth. My memory could be faulty. I just remember that at least some of the types of inheritance to storm powers was acknowledged in the patch notes when the effect went into play. I have been a Stormie from WAY back.
I am still of the opinion that they did mention it, either in patch notes or forum posts, because I remember it. But, you know, 10 different people won't describe the same accident / train wreck / disaster / software patch the same way.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the only reference I see in the i7 patch notes (www.paragonwiki.com):
[ QUOTE ]
Many Location based powers (Such as Rain of Fire and Blizzard) can now be affected by the casters Buffs (for example, using Build Up will now increase the damage of Blizzard).
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't recall if any devs specifically mentioned Recharge being inherited or not, or if it was mentioned in any promotional material for i7 (or if it was mentioned in a later patch).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, we have a long standing 'bug' that we cannot fix:
[/ QUOTE ]
That says it ALL right there.
I don't even play PET classes and this still disgusts me. I'm through accepting THAT answer for all the things wrong with this game, Castle.
Sorry as hell, but I'm sick of it.
Cal2
[/ QUOTE ]
Cal2 is they do fix that bug then the server's power processing load will increase by 50%. That's the consequence of fixing that bug. Combats will starting being to lag noticeable. Any mass combat situation (like a Zombie Apocalyse) will be measured in seconds per frame. So get server performance back to it's current level would probably take $250-$500K of hardware for all of the game servers. You don't happen to have a spare 1/2 million dollars you could give to NCSoft now, do you? Or they can totally rewrite the game engine or license a new one and take, oh, 2-3 years to reimplement the game? I'm sure that everyone would like to have no game updates for 2-3 years.
I think I am pretty much over this "crisis". I am one of those rare players that LOVE relying on pets. I love to customize pets any way I can. I even tested their AI when the Pet AI was changed (making them cycle ranged attacks at melee range) on test server and posted the results. I LOVE pets that much.
This is a pretty huge shocker to me because IO wasn't introduced like last month. I think the dev should have made a solid decision on whether to give pets -recharge or not. Not only did they not introduce this "change" sooner, they added even more -recharge in the newest sets. This is what gets me.
The dev gave out so many candies and now they want them back! That's the feeling. It does not feel good I can tell you that. I specifically spent time to collect -recharge to make pets better because other ATs are going so crazy with global recharge reduction bonus (ex: perma-hasten, perma-dom, perma mink link or almost perma of whatever that is important). If they can reduce their recharge globally, why can't I do the same for my pets?
I know what needs to be done. Server stability is way more important. It's just that customizing MM is going to be quite boring... to the point of unnecessary and I hate to see it that way. So instead of spending another 25-50 hours on customizing MMs at lvl 50, I think I'll just roll a new toon like back in Single Origin-only days.
And I have a feeling procs in pet isn't "allowed" either but we'll see.
What's left is to normalize all Assassin Strikes and improve Stalker's old sets (Claw, MA and EM)! You don't need to bring back the missing PbAoE attack. You just need to make the existing ones better! For example, make Slice a WIDER and LONGER cone.
[ QUOTE ]
This will only affect the recharge of the pets attacks/powers correct? Not the recharge of the characters powers that summon the pets.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is correct.
[ QUOTE ]
MMO code is a monstrosity. It's worked on by several different people, with folks leaving and joining the team on a semi-regular basis. There's no way to expect that Cryptic could have foreseen today's needs four, three, or even two years ago, and when NCSoft inherited the game they were even more at a loss.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. I also haven't said I could find a better solution in their code, just that I wish I could go look for one. 
Hazel Black - Mind/Psi D
Stephanie Winters - Nightwidow
Jacqui Frost - Cold/Ice D
Jacqui Embers - Fire/Kin C
Simone Templar - Fire/MM B
Mallory Woods - Kin/Rad D
Sanguine Melody - Grav/Sonic C
Fumina Hara - Plant/Storm C
Nutmeg - Warshade
Lauren Wu - SS/WP B
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Castle,
I am worried about my Fire Imps. I checked the Info tab on the power and Imps ONLY have Brawl. If this does affect Fire Imps, do you plan on giving them another power so they benefit from the cycling as this fix is intended to provide? Or do you believe Fire is still too powerful because of Kinetics?
How about adding an Immobilize to the Imps or a small version of Burn?
[/ QUOTE ]
Super-overpowered-farming-build-go!
Brawl is already a fast recharging attack. Fire/kin and fire/rad were both AV soloing builds before IO's and sets came along. They'll go back to being only mildly overpowered.
[/ QUOTE ]
Errrm no they won't. They will still being doing what they are doing.
Fire Imps is the least of what allows them to be able to do what they do, including soloing AVs if they could before.
If this nerfbuff was targeted at them. It failed.
[/ QUOTE ]
So in your and bpphantom's opinion, Speed Boost did not really provide a significant boost to DPS?
And bpphantom, I don't understand why you needed to comment as you did when I'm just looking for information. Thank you for assuming you know me and how I play.
And Aura, I do not think this was targeted at Fire Imps or Fire/Kin controllers. I'm just looking for a dev to comment "sorry, they just got caught in the fix, they took a mild hit but datamining shows you would hardly notice a difference in gameplay". I can live with that and move on. A dev comment not player comments that assume way too much about me and my posts.
[ QUOTE ]
Normally I would let this kind of thing go but this is setting a precedent, at any given moment in time they can always say something was never intended just so they can nerf with not justifiable reason. At this point their word is meaningless because we were encouraged to use recharge,damage, accuracy buffs since issue 7 since that part of the technology was added to psuedo pets.
[/ QUOTE ]
I cannot say I am one who reads everything in the forums, but I read a great deal. I have been playing since March 2005, and it took me almost a year to think I had anything useful to offer posting on the forums (hence my reg date.)
Until Castle's post yesterday, I had never heard that Lightning Storm inheriting the Hasten buff was "never intended." Until the recent patch went to Test, I had never known it was even contemplated that it be changed. So I never knew to toss in my two cents worth while it was being contemplated.
And with the assertion of "This was never intended," the discussion is over before it started for me, because the Devs said that the matter was therefore closed and would be implemented.
At first, I thought that the nerf to Lightning Storm and the others was an unforeseen consequence of fixing Pet AI, and so I was hoping the Devs might compensate by increasing Lightning Storm's base striking frequency. Then came Castle's post. So while this may be therapeutic to post, it will have zero effect on anything.
When big changes came in 2005, I did not think it too unreasonable on the whole that it might take a year or so to fix "unintended" results, like being able to cast so many multiples of pets. Now since the pets had a finite life, and you could six-slot recharge, I was skeptical that this was unforeseen, much less unintended, but okay, the pets are single and perma now, and I moved along.
But when "never intended" things go on for YEARS and YEARS, have they not passed from "bugs" to "features"? Well, the answer is No, and pronouncing something "Never intended" also ends all discussion on the matter. (see last year's "fix" to Hover, which had been "bugged" for four years.)
Let me be clear: I greatly dislike the change to Lightning Storm and the rest. That is my major beef.
But the manner in which this has been done, out of the blue with "Never intended" ending all discussion, simply is the icing to the aggro cake. There is nothing more to be added to the matter, as all discussion is DOA.
But it is a valid point to be concerned, as quoted above, that "Never intended" will be used as the magic talisman that likewise ends all discussion in the future.
"How do you know you are on the side of good?" a Paragon citizen asked him. "How can we even know what is 'good'?"
"The Most High has spoken, even with His own blood," Melancton replied. "Surely we know."
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually in i7 pseudo-pets like LS were actually changed to inherent the casters' state. Now rech (ie hasten, speedboost) "may" not have been intended, but I find that very hard to believe that it wasn't known to be happening like claimed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Known? Yes. Statistically significant (as in, a noticeable blip in datamining), no. That came later.
[/ QUOTE ]What do you mean statistically significant? Its either you know its going to effect recharge or it isnt. You dont need datamining to know that. Just what exactly were you guys shooting for on this? Is it that you all didnt expect or want it be effected by IOs and +recharge powers but having it just effected by +recharge powers was ok? Are you saying the only way to fix it was to just to disallow all recharge instead of just saying it can just gain only the buffs on the caster? All the datamining did was just prove the powers were subpar and the main way people got past that was with all the extra slotting. To me it would make sense to fix the powers in addition to this fix to all pets you are doing. But I got the feeling the datamining is saying the power is overpowered.
Bump and Grind Bane/SoA
Kenja No Ishi Earth/Empathy Controller
Legendary Sannin Ninja/Pain Mastermind
Entoxicated Ninja/PSN Mastermind
Ninja Ryukenden Kat/WP Scrapper
Hellish Thoughts Fire/PSI Dominator
Thank You Devs for Merits!!!!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually in i7 pseudo-pets like LS were actually changed to inherent the casters' state. Now rech (ie hasten, speedboost) "may" not have been intended, but I find that very hard to believe that it wasn't known to be happening like claimed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Known? Yes. Statistically significant (as in, a noticeable blip in datamining), no. That came later.
[/ QUOTE ]
1: I agree, I don't recall many threads until this past year, and even mostly half year, that explained how to get your pet's attacks up faster. Even if the ability existed since I7, I doubt it was too widespread until relatively recently.
2: Given that this ability DOES cause an apparent statistical blip, is it warranted to revisit those sets that may have been boosted by the ability, and that now are going to lose some performance compared to competing sets? Specifically: Traps, Devices, Storm, Electric Blast, Mercs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually in i7 pseudo-pets like LS were actually changed to inherent the casters' state. Now rech (ie hasten, speedboost) "may" not have been intended, but I find that very hard to believe that it wasn't known to be happening like claimed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Known? Yes. Statistically significant (as in, a noticeable blip in datamining), no. That came later.
[/ QUOTE ]What do you mean statistically significant? Its either you know its going to effect recharge or it isnt. You dont need datamining to know that. Just what exactly were you guys shooting for on this? Is it that you all didnt expect or want it be effected by IOs and +recharge powers but having it just effected by +recharge powers was ok? Are you saying the only way to fix it was to just to disallow all recharge instead of just saying it can just gain only the buffs on the caster? All the datamining did was just prove the powers were subpar and the main way people got past that was with all the extra slotting. To me it would make sense to fix the powers in addition to this fix to all pets you are doing. But I got the feeling the datamining is saying the power is overpowered.
[/ QUOTE ]
It means they knew that it was happening. But didn't know how much of an impact it would have on the game as a whole.
"Pets recharge is affected? Eh, it'll be fine"
*one datamine later*
"HOLY CRAP, look at these numbers!"
Though perhaps not QUITE like that. You get the idea
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, I believe the LS Pet power Lightning could be flagged as unenhanceble for recharge (ala SOW), which is what it sounds like they just did. (My understanding is that with the current change, LS still inherits the +recharge buffs, but the buff does not affect LS's powers.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahem. The SoW flag was added for SoW. It didn't exist before then.
OMG!!! First post after a redname!!!
Hm. I don't think it's my first though.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. Couldn't give anything the SoW treatment until SoW was given said treatment in I11 (November 2007).
Still, I wish we'd had more prior communication that passing recharge buffs down to the psuedopets was not desired behavior.
BTW, somewhere during all these exchanges my caffine has kicked in. I hope my earlier posts did not seem excessively cranky....
Hazel Black - Mind/Psi D
Stephanie Winters - Nightwidow
Jacqui Frost - Cold/Ice D
Jacqui Embers - Fire/Kin C
Simone Templar - Fire/MM B
Mallory Woods - Kin/Rad D
Sanguine Melody - Grav/Sonic C
Fumina Hara - Plant/Storm C
Nutmeg - Warshade
Lauren Wu - SS/WP B
[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean statistically significant?
[/ QUOTE ]
It didn't seem like it was worth spending time fixing before, but new data came in more recently that said otherwise.
And do you need to be reminded again about development cycles and how long it takes from someone saying "Hey, we need to do this" to implementation? The only stuff that really bypasses that cycle are emergencies, horrific gamebreaking bugs that have to be fixed or there is no game to play. This was not one of them.
De minimis non curat Lex Luthor.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually in i7 pseudo-pets like LS were actually changed to inherent the casters' state. Now rech (ie hasten, speedboost) "may" not have been intended, but I find that very hard to believe that it wasn't known to be happening like claimed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Known? Yes. Statistically significant (as in, a noticeable blip in datamining), no. That came later.
[/ QUOTE ]What do you mean statistically significant? Its either you know its going to effect recharge or it isnt. You dont need datamining to know that. Just what exactly were you guys shooting for on this? Is it that you all didnt expect or want it be effected by IOs and +recharge powers but having it just effected by +recharge powers was ok? Are you saying the only way to fix it was to just to disallow all recharge instead of just saying it can just gain only the buffs on the caster? All the datamining did was just prove the powers were subpar and the main way people got past that was with all the extra slotting. To me it would make sense to fix the powers in addition to this fix to all pets you are doing. But I got the feeling the datamining is saying the power is overpowered.
[/ QUOTE ]
It means they knew that it was happening. But didn't know how much of an impact it would have on the game as a whole.
"Pets recharge is affected? Eh, it'll be fine"
*one datamine later*
"HOLY CRAP, look at these numbers!"
Though perhaps not QUITE like that. You get the idea
[/ QUOTE ]Again why does it even matter, its not like storm defenders are soloing the STF or something. I could see if that was the case but I seriously doubt a single storm defender is doing that right now. What so significant about these powers? Maybe I am just using them wrong or something I cant see how they can be leveraged to the point of soloing lvl 54 AVs. Just what exactly are the devs afraid that LS, VS, Gun Drone are going to do?
Bump and Grind Bane/SoA
Kenja No Ishi Earth/Empathy Controller
Legendary Sannin Ninja/Pain Mastermind
Entoxicated Ninja/PSN Mastermind
Ninja Ryukenden Kat/WP Scrapper
Hellish Thoughts Fire/PSI Dominator
Thank You Devs for Merits!!!!
[ QUOTE ]
If Pet's AI with -recharge causes major lag problem, then it should definitely be fixed.
[/ QUOTE ]
You misunderstand: The Up to 50% increase wasn't pet powers. It was EVERY power, from every entity in the game -- it would require sandwiching a new check between calculating all Attribute alterations and applying those alterations in the powers system in general. So every single power in the game just because more CPU intensive, reducing the number of powers that can be processed at any given time. Things like the Zombie Apocalypse or Rikti Invasion would be horrendously affected. Hammi raids might need to be redone again.
That simply isn't a viable solution, despite it being the proper 'code' solution. Oh, it would also eliminate the ability for players to increase the recharge time of powers like Mind Link which don't normally accept recharge enhancements via Hammi-O's or Set IOs (Hasten and Speed Boost would still work, though.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually in i7 pseudo-pets like LS were actually changed to inherent the casters' state. Now rech (ie hasten, speedboost) "may" not have been intended, but I find that very hard to believe that it wasn't known to be happening like claimed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Known? Yes. Statistically significant (as in, a noticeable blip in datamining), no. That came later.
[/ QUOTE ]What do you mean statistically significant? Its either you know its going to effect recharge or it isnt. You dont need datamining to know that. Just what exactly were you guys shooting for on this? Is it that you all didnt expect or want it be effected by IOs and +recharge powers but having it just effected by +recharge powers was ok? Are you saying the only way to fix it was to just to disallow all recharge instead of just saying it can just gain only the buffs on the caster? All the datamining did was just prove the powers were subpar and the main way people got past that was with all the extra slotting. To me it would make sense to fix the powers in addition to this fix to all pets you are doing. But I got the feeling the datamining is saying the power is overpowered.
[/ QUOTE ]
It means they knew that it was happening. But didn't know how much of an impact it would have on the game as a whole.
"Pets recharge is affected? Eh, it'll be fine"
*one datamine later*
"HOLY CRAP, look at these numbers!"
Though perhaps not QUITE like that. You get the idea
[/ QUOTE ]Again why does it even matter, its not like storm defenders are soloing the STF or something. I could see if that was the case but I seriously doubt a single storm defender is doing that right now. What so significant about these powers? Maybe I am just using them wrong or something I cant see how they can be leveraged to the point of soloing lvl 54 AVs. Just what exactly are the devs afraid that LS, VS, Gun Drone are going to do?
[/ QUOTE ]
Overthrow the game and name you as the leader?
[ QUOTE ]
Again why does it even matter, its not like storm defenders are soloing the STF or something. I could see if that was the case but I seriously doubt a single storm defender is doing that right now. What so significant about these powers? Maybe I am just using them wrong or something I cant see how they can be leveraged to the point of soloing lvl 54 AVs. Just what exactly are the devs afraid that LS, VS, Gun Drone are going to do?
[/ QUOTE ]*blink*
So...if something can't solo the STF, it's perfectly fine and needs no adjustments? That's the only benchmark for power you think there should be?
*blinkblink*
...you've left me speechless.
Thanks again for the dialogue and info, Castle. I also misread your original post, and assumed the 50% increase in CPU load described a separate proposed code change to fix the pet ai issue.
Hazel Black - Mind/Psi D
Stephanie Winters - Nightwidow
Jacqui Frost - Cold/Ice D
Jacqui Embers - Fire/Kin C
Simone Templar - Fire/MM B
Mallory Woods - Kin/Rad D
Sanguine Melody - Grav/Sonic C
Fumina Hara - Plant/Storm C
Nutmeg - Warshade
Lauren Wu - SS/WP B
[ QUOTE ]
Honest question; why would they lie?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because they are human. However, I didnt say they lied. They could also be mistaken, as could I.
I do remember the recharge inheritance and buff inheritance and the like being mentioned in the patch notes when it went into effect. When that patch went live, I knew because of the patch notes. I did little else aside from running around, eating as many reds as I could, clicking hasten, and then letting fly with Cages, LS and Tornado.
It is entirely possible that the recharge wasnt mentioned at all in the patch notes and that I learned about it from word of mouth. My memory could be faulty. I just remember that at least some of the types of inheritance to storm powers was acknowledged in the patch notes when the effect went into play. I have been a Stormie from WAY back.
I am still of the opinion that they did mention it, either in patch notes or forum posts, because I remember it. But, you know, 10 different people won't describe the same accident / train wreck / disaster / software patch the same way.
Also, internal communication may have been such that other devs or mods or patch creators mentioned it or let it get through despite the fact that other devs didnt intend it, so it may be a case of "people hold politicians responsible for what others in their party might say".
Regardless, intended or not intended, the game has certainly NOT been broken by Lightning Storm being enhanceable. Regardless of what they intended, or forgot, or didnt forget, this change is sweeping enough that it deserves to have powers individually considered instead of just doing a sweeping change.
At the very least, if they disagree with LS being buffable, they should just say so. If it was really intended or they forgot, they should learn from past COX history that we've had some rough patches, in terms of trust issues between devs and the community, due to the phrase "working as intended."
Perhaps I'm still just too sensitive over past nerfs and the lack of diplomacy.
Lewis
Random AT Generation!
"I remember... the Alamo." -- Pee-wee Herman
"Oh don't worry. I always leave things to the last moment." -- The Doctor
"Telescopes are time machines." -- Carl Sagan