[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
So that information has been available to everyone in this particular thread for at most 4 days now? Nearly 5 months after the fact?
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"
To be fair, I think that the current change making pets immune to external buffs like AM & SB is wrong & counter-intuitive.
Having said that, while I can't cite where I saw the info, that info was out there that RIP IO sets were specifically intended to only affect the player's recharge of the pet summon power, not the recharge of the pets themselves.
I was not in closed beta, and did not know anyone that was. I recall coming across that information several times here on the forum during 13's open beta phase.
[ 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 ]
Well, I've gone over my characters and the following won't be going into PvP or MA missions when I14 goes live, as the total wipeout of -recharge on pets is going to gut their effectiveness completely:
[/ QUOTE ]
You need only avoid MA missions that use player-created Mastermind critters, or those critters that summon Fire Imps, Jack Frost, or the like. Most MA missions will not have pets that cannot be debuffed, just as most dev missions will not have pets that cannot be debuffed.
And in fact, if this becomes a huge issue, I expect that MA authors will begin posting in their descriptions "includes debuff immune pets", "does not include debuff immune pets" and the like.
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 ]
Yep, that was kind of my point. You can't look at a nerf to one power in isolation -- it has to be considered in light of the performance of the other 22 powers at your disposal.
[/ QUOTE ]My Perma-Hastened Ice/Storm performs just fine on Test. She's been making mincemeat of MA missions, including getting to round 3 of Arcanaville's Scrapper Challenge. I'm not an obsessive number-cruncher, so I can't tell you the DPS on Test vs Live or any such nonsense...but she didn't seem to be underperforming one bit. Lightning Storm was firing a little less frequently...but I was still killing things at about the same pace. *shrug*
I don't have a Storm defender...but I'll see if I can get my friend to take his AV-soloing Storm/Elec defender on Test.
[ 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.
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 ]
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 ]
[ 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 ]
So that information has been available to everyone in this particular thread for at most 4 days now? Nearly 5 months after the fact?
[/ QUOTE ]
As a bit of backup for what you're saying, I and several other Illusion control players posted in the Invention section of the forum soon after I13 went live, regarding what we considered a bug in the RIP sets - that the accuracy and damage were not being applied to the pets (Phantom Army Decoys). I also bugged it in-game and received the normal "yes it's a bug" response from the support staff.
Everyone seemed to think it was a bug, and no posters corrected this notion. Now we learn from Castle that the RIP sets' effects on pets (Acc, Dmg, Rech) were intentionally left deactivated to avoid an unintended pet attack rate increase until some solution could be found. It was not listed in the known issues at the time, despite being a developer-known issue...
The simple fact is that very little information was made public at the time when it could be used by the players to determine what was really working as intended versus what was bugged.
[ 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 ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not exemptions for the PLAYERS, exemptions for the CRITTERS. There are plenty of critter pets that will not be effected. The only ones that will be effected are those that the players have, and if the devs want critters to be uneffected by this, then all they really need to do is duplicate the few pets that are shared.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yep, that was kind of my point. You can't look at a nerf to one power in isolation -- it has to be considered in light of the performance of the other 22 powers at your disposal.
[/ QUOTE ]My Perma-Hastened Ice/Storm performs just fine on Test. She's been making mincemeat of MA missions, including getting to round 3 of Arcanaville's Scrapper Challenge. I'm not an obsessive number-cruncher, so I can't tell you the DPS on Test vs Live or any such nonsense...but she didn't seem to be underperforming one bit. Lightning Storm was firing a little less frequently...but I was still killing things at about the same pace. *shrug*
I don't have a Storm defender...but I'll see if I can get my friend to take his AV-soloing Storm/Elec defender on Test.
[/ QUOTE ]
well its good to know a billion inf + build is performing ok...I mean come on... your damage wouldnt have stemed from your "pets" anyway, its from freezing rain, frostbite and copious amounts of epic blasts thrown which can be throw much more often when running so much +recharge that hasten becomes perma, and given that you need BETTER than hasten to get perma hasten its not really a suprise that such an extreme build can chew things up without pets making a difference. Your post is like a fire/kin saying the epic blast nerf doesnt affect controllers much, it doesnt affect fire/kins as they have damage oozing from every pore but tell a earth/ff that they needed their damage reduced with a straight face.
A "real world" build is hit a lot harder than an elitists super slotted death machine.
[ 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 ]
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 think what Castle was trying to say was:
"we never intended for pets to benefit from recharge [of the power], but we made the RIP sets knowing they would affect recharge [of the power]."
The assumption being made here is that when a dev refers to recharge, he always is talking about recharge on the pet. This is an assumption, as the dev could be talking about recharge on the pet, or recharge on the power. Unless the dev is clear on which is meant, it could be either.
[ 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 ]
Actually, that was intended, but the devs are removing that because they feel it complicates the AI. They do not want to, it is not "intended behavior", but neither is the AI.
The devs have been completely up front about that. They wanted MM pets and other true pets to be buffable, but they have decided to sacrifice that. In this case they have changed their intention, and told us so, and why.
MM pets and true pets are not the same as and not the same issue as Lightning Storm. There's a totally different intention involved there. (At least, at the present)
[ 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 ]
this
in Castles spreadsheet driven life VS spamming its pathetic electric blast more than once every 3.5 seconds angried up his blood something rotten, what we players dont realise is just how much damage little sparky can produce (warning huge great caveats are required for sparky to "produce" this damage)
What Castle doesnt seem to realise is the game doesnt consist of just standing against an undying mob resummoning a pet racking up optimal damage. This is a MMO GAME not a speadsheet.
[ 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 ]
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 ]
And it would take even MORE work to make all critter/NPC pets effected. And they aren't doing that work. (Or at least, have not announced an intention to do that work)
Ok, please pardon the interuption to the recharge debate.
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 ]
[ 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 think what Castle was trying to say was:
"we never intended for pets to benefit from recharge [of the power], but we made the RIP sets knowing they would affect recharge [of the power]."
The assumption being made here is that when a dev refers to recharge, he always is talking about recharge on the pet. This is an assumption, as the dev could be talking about recharge on the pet, or recharge on the power. Unless the dev is clear on which is meant, it could be either.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think we can all agree that a lot of headache could have been solved with even a tiny bit of dev clarity, but that has been the case time and time again, so why we get our hopes up is beyond me.
I mean jeez the issue still isn't clear. it really feels like we are only getting (optimistically) half the story. The second half of the story is probably being saved for some other unpopular change he is going to jam through in the future 
Like I said "never intended" is getting pretty old, there is only so many times "the dog ate my homework" is believable and we all know it whether we admit it or not.
[ 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 ]
Ok, please pardon the interuption to the recharge debate.
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 ]
Honestly, I don't know. I would guess that Set Bonuses that boost your to hit or damage will boost your pets' to hit and damage. It would be the same thing as slotting for Damage, the enhancement HAS to go to the pet, there's no where else for it to go.
On the other hand, that's a buff on you, like Build Up. Build Up will effect a psuedo-pet like Lightning Storm, but it won't effect a Bruiser. So I'm guessing the inherit code is not effecting pets like the Bruiser, and so he won't get "your" Set bonuses. Only your summoned psuedo-pets, like Voltaic Sentinel and Lightning Storm will.
In the latter case, it's only recharge which is being "blocked". Damage and other inherited buffs should be left alone. Plus, for targettable pets you should be able to buff their damage or whatever.
Thanks Jade
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not exemptions for the PLAYERS, exemptions for the CRITTERS. There are plenty of critter pets that will not be effected. The only ones that will be effected are those that the players have, and if the devs want critters to be uneffected by this, then all they really need to do is duplicate the few pets that are shared.
[/ QUOTE ]Like I said before, they wont do this,way too much work. Its more than a simple copy paste rename you know.
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!!!!
Well, I've gone over my characters and the following won't be going into PvP or MA missions when I14 goes live, as the total wipeout of -recharge on pets is going to gut their effectiveness completely:
Kin/Psi defender
Ill/Kin controller
Ice/Ice blaster
Ice/Cold corruptor
Ice/Rad controller
These characters as squishy, and the main factor in their survival is the -recharge lockdown they can bring to bear, especially the specialists like the Ice/Ice blaster and Ice/Cold corr.
I may try my Arch/MM blaster and Rad/Sonic defender, as -recharge isn't as important a part of my build for those.
But seriously, have the Devs even commented ONCE about this massive nerf to all -recharge sets? Have they even thought about it? I can't see a single statement from them aside from how this will affect pet powers, nothing to do with the massive shift of balance in favour of pets (both MM and mob-generated such as Legacy Chain) over those powersets focusing on -recharge.
I don't expect an answer when I PM a dev (as I've done to Castle in regards to this issue) but I'd like to think that they actually looked at what this will do to the overall game.
Thus far, I haven't seen a single sign of it. C'mon rednames, won't SOMEBODY take some responsibility and address this issue? It's not like this change will go live any day now....