[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully before it reaches that point, the devs will separate out the critter versions of Fire Imps and Jack Frost and make them debuffable.
[/ QUOTE ] This I doubt, because if they wont allow exemptions for the range only pets or pets with one attack, I dont think they are going to make a second set of pet powers just for this. Too much work for them. It is good that you bring up this point because I will ensure that no missions I create will have pets if I can help it because it wont be fair to the players.
[/ QUOTE ]
The reason they didn't make an exception for pets with one attack was not that it was too much work (making them affected actually required *more* work), it was because they didn't *want* them to not be affected.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, the story now is that it was never intended for you to be able to buff a fire imp with AM, nor was it ever intended for you to buff stoney with speedboost.
"never intended", "oversight" these are becoming swear words in my house lol.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how what you're saying is even relevant to what you're quoting.
We're talking about the devs' willingness to make an exception for certain powers, not what the changes were.
Ryu implies that they won't allow for an exception for pets with one attack (such as Lightning Storm) because it would be too much work, but the reason they don't want to make an exception for it is actually that they *want* it to be affected (and they actually had to do some work to make it affected in the first place).
Thus the fact that they are not making an exception for powers like Lightning Storm is not any reason to believe that they won't make a second set of pet powers "because it's too much work".
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I'm pretty sure Ryu was talking about singe attack pets like imps because that is what he was responding too. I think we are all passed asking for LS to be exempted since Castle said it is specifically targeted for the nerf and cause gun drone wtfpwns things...
My comment was pure sacrasm to your response to him where you said "they didn't want them to not be affected" Confusing double negative aside, me saying "they never intended you to buff imps" was just a joking attempt to point out that what you were saying made no sense and in fact was not relevant to what you were quoting 
.
Unless the devs really never intended for us to buff imps 
I apologize for not clearly communicating my sarcasm.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually I'm pretty sure Ryu was talking about singe attack pets like imps because that is what he was responding too. I think we are all passed asking for LS to be exempted since Castle said it is specifically targeted for the nerf and cause gun drone wtfpwns things...
[/ QUOTE ]
And as I pointed out, this entire argument is pointless, because it misses the entire point of my statement, which was that I was referring to the NPC pets in the MA, not player pets. Ryu was not even responding in the context in which I made the statement.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully before it reaches that point, the devs will separate out the critter versions of Fire Imps and Jack Frost and make them debuffable.
[/ QUOTE ] This I doubt, because if they wont allow exemptions for the range only pets or pets with one attack, I dont think they are going to make a second set of pet powers just for this. Too much work for them. It is good that you bring up this point because I will ensure that no missions I create will have pets if I can help it because it wont be fair to the players.
[/ QUOTE ]
The reason they didn't make an exception for pets with one attack was not that it was too much work (making them affected actually required *more* work), it was because they didn't *want* them to not be affected.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, the story now is that it was never intended for you to be able to buff a fire imp with AM, nor was it ever intended for you to buff stoney with speedboost.
"never intended", "oversight" these are becoming swear words in my house lol.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how what you're saying is even relevant to what you're quoting.
We're talking about the devs' willingness to make an exception for certain powers, not what the changes were.
Ryu implies that they won't allow for an exception for pets with one attack (such as Lightning Storm) because it would be too much work, but the reason they don't want to make an exception for it is actually that they *want* it to be affected (and they actually had to do some work to make it affected in the first place).
Thus the fact that they are not making an exception for powers like Lightning Storm is not any reason to believe that they won't make a second set of pet powers "because it's too much work".
[/ QUOTE ]I think people are not understanding me. If say they made an exemption for say fire imps this would be different, we all know fire imps do not have this so called AI problem the other pets have. They could do it but its too much work. If its too much work for just one pet or a handfull of pets just think of how much work its going to be to change all the npcs with pet powers to now use this newer version of said pet. THats what I mean too much work. Its got nothing to do with whether they wanted a certain pet effected by recharge or not.
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 ]
Like I said before, they wont do this,way too much work. Its more than a simple copy paste rename you know.
[/ QUOTE ]
But there is no reason NOT to. Plus, it is having an impact on the game, and the MA specifically. And in what way is it not a simple copy paste rename?
Granted, it is a lot harder to copy those shared critters over to a new critter just to make them exempt from this change, just as it is a lot harder to copy the change over to every single power of every single critter pet in the game, just to make them APPLICABLE to the change. But the former is certainly less work than the latter, and would be more acceptable to the players, as well.
(And thanks for addressing my argument, as well)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Well, at this point I am not sure if I believe your lack of trust is genuine, or simply spiteful. But either way, I am not going to make fun of it. There is not really anything that can be argued in the face of a total lack of belief in someone's honesty.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know, I've watched it happening over the last week since this was announced. It has been a conscious progression into madness, which I wonder if that is better or worse I've rapidly transformed from a dev sycophant into a tinfoil hatter 
Mind you I have been on the proverbial fence for a while now since Castle bent all the pvp'ers over the table and George Lucas'd them. I guess for me the camel finally got overloaded and its poor back broke and I'm left with two possibilities.
1/ they aren't telling us the whole story (A lie of omission is often not frowned upon as much as an outright lie by some)
2/ they aren't very smart
But I think they are smart people, I just don't think they work nearly as hard as they'd have us believe, but really very few people do, so no biggy. I've gone back and reread all the threads about this topic (lot of reading heh) and gone through the patch notes now and either I'm missing something essential to understanding, or something isn't adding up.
So I'm going to step back, nothing will be changed now and it likely won't be revisited for years. Continuing to be frustrated over something I have zero ability to affect is not prudent.
I appreciate you not taking the opportunity to antagonize me further it is noble of you.
[ QUOTE ]
we all know fire imps do not have this so called AI problem the other pets have. They could do it but its too much work.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, true, but I think they are changing Fire Imps for consistency. Plus, since they do have only one attack, it is possible to leverage recharge for more damage. Still, it was the intention of the devs for Fire Imps to be able to have their recharge boosted, but since they are nerfing every other pet in this respect, they (I guess) feel they should nerf them all.
[ QUOTE ]
If its too much work for just one pet or a handfull of pets just think of how much work its going to be to change all the npcs with pet powers to now use this newer version of said pet. THats what I mean too much work. Its got nothing to do with whether they wanted a certain pet effected by recharge or not.
[/ QUOTE ]
How many NPCs do you think use Fire Imps? Or Jack Frost? Frostfire is the main one I've heard of so far. How many NPCs can you think of that use player pets? Can you list some of them?
I believe I may have seen a Dark Servant here and there. Outcast bosses use Fire Imps. And I know a lot of Legacy Chain bosses use Animate Stone. But I think there are a lot fewer NPCs that would need to be changed than you think.
The bigger problem would be the MM pets. I can't see any way to duplicate them without making the list of critters considerably longer. Plus, any new MM sets added in the future would have to come with critter versions. So I suspect that the MM sets in the MA will probably keep the "no recharge debuff" code. Either the MA authors will avoid MM critters, or they'll just decide it's too minor a difference for the majority of MA missions. You will likely have a little more trouble than usual with the Boss, unless an author just decides to fill a mission with MM pets. (And you'll probably know that from the mission description)
[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate you not taking the opportunity to antagonize me further it is noble of you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I walk that line very closely, and I consider it a sign of respect. I do wish I could clarify the argument, that it isn't really LS that took a beating because of the AI, or true pets that were nerfed because of LS, but it's kind of both. And I think you get that. There really isn't anything further to say that isn't rehashing old arguments.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate you not taking the opportunity to antagonize me further it is noble of you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I walk that line very closely, and I consider it a sign of respect. I do wish I could clarify the argument, that it isn't really LS that took a beating because of the AI, or true pets that were nerfed because of LS, but it's kind of both. And I think you get that. There really isn't anything further to say that isn't rehashing old arguments.
[/ QUOTE ]
I definitely get that. But I guess I'm sort of with Ryu in that they can choose to exempt things that never were bugged and weren't the target of the nerf, but they are now choosing consistency when applying an inconsistent nerf and when they haven't defined any pet consistency via slotting.
It is confusing and just feels like they are arbitrarily picking and choosing based on convenience rather than logic, thematics or even precedence.
it's all good though. Ok take care guys, gl with this issue. I gotta go find a new toon to level up and pending that fails I'll just take a break until the next round of proliferation is complete.
[ 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 ]Firstly, a good portion of my damage comes from Tornado and LS. It's true that some comes from other sources...but Ice Control is a pretty low-damaging set. LS does contribute to my damage, and if the power was "ruined forever", it would be noticable.
Secondly, this is to counter all the people saying "Oh noes! I spent all this time and money on this build and now it's worthless!"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ryu implies that they won't allow for an exception for pets with one attack (such as Lightning Storm) because it would be too much work, but the reason they don't want to make an exception for it is actually that they *want* it to be affected (and they actually had to do some work to make it affected in the first place).
Thus the fact that they are not making an exception for powers like Lightning Storm is not any reason to believe that they won't make a second set of pet powers "because it's too much work".
[/ QUOTE ]I think people are not understanding me. [color= yellow]If say they made an exemption for say fire imps this would be different, we all know fire imps do not have this so called AI problem the other pets have. They could do it but its too much work.[/color] If its too much work for just one pet or a handfull of pets just think of how much work its going to be to change all the npcs with pet powers to now use this newer version of said pet. THats what I mean too much work. Its got nothing to do with whether they wanted a certain pet effected by recharge or not.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, it's not that making an exception for Fire Imps would have been too much work. Making the change in the first place is what takes extra work (adding the line about ignoring Recharge to the power).
Because of that, the rest of your argument falls.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully before it reaches that point, the devs will separate out the critter versions of Fire Imps and Jack Frost and make them debuffable.
[/ QUOTE ] This I doubt, because if they wont allow exemptions for the range only pets or pets with one attack, I dont think they are going to make a second set of pet powers just for this. Too much work for them. It is good that you bring up this point because I will ensure that no missions I create will have pets if I can help it because it wont be fair to the players.
[/ QUOTE ]
The reason they didn't make an exception for pets with one attack was not that it was too much work (making them affected actually required *more* work), it was because they didn't *want* them to not be affected.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, the story now is that it was never intended for you to be able to buff a fire imp with AM, nor was it ever intended for you to buff stoney with speedboost.
"never intended", "oversight" these are becoming swear words in my house lol.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how what you're saying is even relevant to what you're quoting.
We're talking about the devs' willingness to make an exception for certain powers, not what the changes were.
Ryu implies that they won't allow for an exception for pets with one attack (such as Lightning Storm) because it would be too much work, but the reason they don't want to make an exception for it is actually that they *want* it to be affected (and they actually had to do some work to make it affected in the first place).
Thus the fact that they are not making an exception for powers like Lightning Storm is not any reason to believe that they won't make a second set of pet powers "because it's too much work".
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I'm pretty sure Ryu was talking about singe attack pets like imps because that is what he was responding too. I think we are all passed asking for LS to be exempted since Castle said it is specifically targeted for the nerf and cause gun drone wtfpwns things...
My comment was pure sacrasm to your response to him where you said "they didn't want them to not be affected" Confusing double negative aside, me saying "they never intended you to buff imps" was just a joking attempt to point out that what you were saying made no sense and in fact was not relevant to what you were quoting .
Unless the devs really never intended for us to buff imps
I apologize for not clearly communicating my sarcasm.
[/ QUOTE ]
Responding to "if they're not making an exception to Power A because it's too much work, then they won't make an exception to many other powers" with "The reason they didn't make an exception to Power A was not because it was too much work, but rather that they didn't want it to get an exception" makes no sense and is not relevant?
Ok.....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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*
[/ QUOTE ]
Several points:
<ul type="square">[*] Your character is an extreme edge case.[*] Telling us that you have a disdain for objective facts such as DPS doesn't make your subjective opinions more likely to be taken seriously in a discussion of play balance issues.[*] It sounds like you did much of your testing in an environment where the bad guys come to you. That is, in the very case in which the change to LS hurts the least, since it doesn't get left behind with 2/3rds of the damage you paid the END for still unused.[*] LS would not have been firing "a little less frequently". If you have 65% Recharge in it (I'm assuming you have Decimations in it for the +Rech Set bonus), 110% Global Recharge and 70% from Hasten you should get an average of about 270% Recharge (235% plus a bit from the Global Recharge affecting the firing rate at the beginning). That will cause LS to fire about 53% as often as it does on live. Barely over half as often is not "a little less frequently".[/list]
Kosmos
Global: @Calorie
MA Arcs in 4-star purgatory: Four in a Row (#2198) - Hostile Takeover (#69714) - Red Harvest (#268305)
You points are well taken, but a few things to bear in mind:
[ QUOTE ]
Your character is an extreme edge case.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's the "extreme edge cases" that are hardest hit by this change. To be honest, I would bet that the average non-forum-goer won't even notice the change. (I didn't notice for I don't know how long that LS was firing faster when I had Hasten up. Maybe I'm just not very observant.)
[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you did much of your testing in an environment where the bad guys come to you. That is, in the very case in which the change to LS hurts the least, since it doesn't get left behind with 2/3rds of the damage you paid the END for still unused.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would argue that the opposite is the case. The longer Ls is up and firing, the larger the disparity in damage done. If you have a cycle time of 3 seconds vs. 5 seconds, if you have enemies in range for 10 seconds, you'll get off 3 shots boostes, and only 2 shots at the normal recharge. If they're in range for 50 seconds, then you get off 16 shots instead of 10. In the first case, you get one extra shot; in the second, you get six.
Either way, LS is not an efficient use of endurance if you don't have it firing for most of its duration. That's an issue that should be looked at independent of this particular change.
[ QUOTE ]
LS would not have been firing "a little less frequently".
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, the extent to which your pets firing rate is noticeable given everything else that you'd be doing is questionable. As I said, I didn't find a 70% bonus particularly noticeable. I couldn't tell until I got a stopwatch.
[ QUOTE ]
You points are well taken, but a few things to bear in mind:
[ QUOTE ]
Your character is an extreme edge case.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's the "extreme edge cases" that are hardest hit by this change.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not true, as the extreme edge cases get less of their value from the Lightning Storm. The short duration Global Recharge only buffs LS for a brief period and has no effect on Jack Frost, while it does affect the ability to use APP attacks, Block of Ice, Freezing Rain and other direct damage attacks fully. Which leads to characters with large amounts getting a lesser percentage of their performance from the pets and pseudo-pets (Tornado only has toggles, so it is unaffected by the change). And in the case of an Ice/Storm, the high levels of Recharge self-buff may have been adversely affecting Jack Frost's performance.
The characters hurt the worst are actually apt to be those with long duration Global Recharge buffs such as Hasten to pass to pseudo-pets, IO set Recharge in their pets and pseudo-pets (or even basic Recharge in Gun Drone) and Recharge buffs such as SB, AM or AB to use on their pets.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LS would not have been firing "a little less frequently".
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, the extent to which your pets firing rate is noticeable given everything else that you'd be doing is questionable. As I said, I didn't find a 70% bonus particularly noticeable. I couldn't tell until I got a stopwatch.
[/ QUOTE ]
The difference with just Hasten is 1.65 seconds, how could you not notice that?
Kosmos
Global: @Calorie
MA Arcs in 4-star purgatory: Four in a Row (#2198) - Hostile Takeover (#69714) - Red Harvest (#268305)
[ QUOTE ]
It's the "extreme edge cases" that are hardest hit by this change. To be honest, I would bet that the average non-forum-goer won't even notice the change. (I didn't notice for I don't know how long that LS was firing faster when I had Hasten up. Maybe I'm just not very observant.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Personally, I could hear the difference in performance for LS on test vs. live, as I had both the +recharge from Hasten and from a slotted Decimation set. Many players might not ever notice a difference in their LS performance, but it was obvious to me.
I also feel that anyone who normally buffs their standard pets (Singularity, Jack Frost, Stoney, Audrey) with Speed Boost or AM will also notice a difference in their damage output. I wouldn't consider anyone with /Kin or /Rad (or who regularly teams with a /Kin or /Rad) and extreme edge case.
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 ]
It's the "extreme edge cases" that are hardest hit by this change. To be honest, I would bet that the average non-forum-goer won't even notice the change. (I didn't notice for I don't know how long that LS was firing faster when I had Hasten up. Maybe I'm just not very observant.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Personally, I could hear the difference in performance for LS on test vs. live, as I had both the +recharge from Hasten and from a slotted Decimation set. Many players might not ever notice a difference in their LS performance, but it was obvious to me.
I also feel that anyone who normally buffs their standard pets (Singularity, Jack Frost, Stoney, Audrey) with Speed Boost or AM will also notice a difference in their damage output. I wouldn't consider anyone with /Kin or /Rad (or who regularly teams with a /Kin or /Rad) and extreme edge case.
[/ QUOTE ]
The thing is... both those secondaries have countless other things (-res, -regen, + dam, etc) to fall back on. It will hurt... but I highly doubt it will be anywhere near the levels that some have claimed.
IIRC even Ice powers will be hardly effected for the most part in PVE.
[ QUOTE ]
What one could do ([color= yellow]if Recharge obeys its StrMax[/color], not everything has always obeyed all its caps) is to make a copy of minion_Pets (call it player_Pets or something), change their RechargeTime StrMax to 1, and make all player summoned pets create player_Pets instead of minion_Pets. This could be done instead of making pets summoned by NPCs using different powers than the ones our pets use (in order to make them affected by Recharge debuffs).
This way Recharge debuffs would work both in PvE and PvP.
In addition to this (and even if making a copy/changing pets would be unfeasible), one could change the RechargeTime StrMax of Minion_Henchman, Lt_Henchman and Boss_Henchman (the classes used by MM henchmen) to 1. Assuming that works, Recharge debuffs would work against them in PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
Seems like I had a definite duh-moment [color= yellow]there[/color]. I've been reminded that Recharge *does* obey its StrMax, something I've even used before...
Anyway, that'd seem to remove most of the "ifs" from this idea.
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that the opposite is the case. The longer Ls is up and firing, the larger the disparity in damage done. If you have a cycle time of 3 seconds vs. 5 seconds, if you have enemies in range for 10 seconds, you'll get off 3 shots boostes, and only 2 shots at the normal recharge. If they're in range for 50 seconds, then you get off 16 shots instead of 10. In the first case, you get one extra shot; in the second, you get six.
Either way, LS is not an efficient use of endurance if you don't have it firing for most of its duration. That's an issue that should be looked at independent of this particular change.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ignoring the fact that the first shot occurs at the same time and discrete issues, a 60% increase in firing rate will result in 60% more shots in any given time increment. When you factor in the first shot, the percentage decrease from the nerf is lower the shorter the time. This is a pretty small effect.
However, the issue really is the END cost. If it's not worth casting for a 10s fight now - and it isn't - then the damage reduction due to this nerf is 100% for that case, while in a 30s fight - where it is worth casting - is necessarily less than that.
You need to take into account the opportunity costs. They are the same for a short fight and a long fight, since it takes the same time and costs the same amount of END to cast in either case.
Kosmos
Global: @Calorie
MA Arcs in 4-star purgatory: Four in a Row (#2198) - Hostile Takeover (#69714) - Red Harvest (#268305)
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I could hear the difference in performance for LS on test vs. live, as I had both the +recharge from Hasten and from a slotted Decimation set. Many players might not ever notice a difference in their LS performance, but it was obvious to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
With Hasten and Decimation both, you're getting to over +150% recharge, right? I'm sure that much difference would be pretty noticeable. On the other hand, I'm not sure that a particularly high fraction of LS users have that much recharge. I'm not sure that a particularly high fraction of LS users have anything more than Hasten. Maybe +150% isn't an extreme edge case, but it's hardly the norm either.
[ QUOTE ]
I also feel that anyone who normally buffs their standard pets (Singularity, Jack Frost, Stoney, Audrey) with Speed Boost or AM will also notice a difference in their damage output.
[/ QUOTE ]
You may well be right. You might not. Unless someone actually goes out and measures the difference in damage output in actual game situations, accounting for things like pet AI, travel time between enemies, all that jazz, we won't really know.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To me at least, it seems blatantly obvious that the RIP set IOs were *never* *intended* to boost the Recharge of powers belonging to the summoned pets, and once it was realized that they did, that was prevented from happening (well before those sets even went Live).
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't find this statement to be reasonable.
Going back to VS. VS accepts the RIP sets. VS has a limit of one pet out at a time, a duration of 60 seconds, and a recharge of 60 seconds. It can't really benefit from the +rech portion of the RIP sets except for increased attack speed.
Gun Drone which has a 180 second recharge and a 90 second duration but which can have multiple copies out could benefit from the recharge in the RIP sets but can't slot them.
[/ QUOTE ]
As I say in <a href="/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=Dev&Number=132589 50&Searchpage=1&Main=13242168Search=true#P ost13258950" target="_blank">this</a> post, the reason that Voltaic Sentinel accepts RIP sets appears to be that it accepts Pet Damage sets and Recharge enhancements.
Gun Drone does *not* accept Pet Damage sets, and was thus not considered for RIP sets. Instead, it can get Recharge from the Ranged Damage sets that it *does* accept.
I'm not really sure what that has to do with my statement being reasonable or not though.
However, claiming that RIP sets improving the Recharge of pets' powers was *intended* would seem to require that:
1) The devs are lying.
2) The devs accidentally made changes directly contrary to this goal during i13, without any apparent reason.
3) The devs did not bother undoing this change before i13 went live (or even up until now), even though it would have also had the significant bonus of also making the *other* aspects of the IOs (Damage, Acc...) work.
Now *that* would seem unreasonable.
edit: I should add that for 3), undoing the change was apparently also within the realm of what they could do since they did it with the patch that contained the change discussed here. It would thus appear that an added condition would have been that it was a pure coincidence that those two changes were added in the same patch.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm simply saying that the devs have had (in some cases multiple) miscomunications within their own departments.
A few examples:
Procs in taunt auras. (This and Tanker Energy Melee are reasons that the triumphant insult proc is both mag 1 and turned off and most likely will never be repaired)
Stealth IOs and the negative stealth kludge.
Knockback changes put in before additional solutions to the nerf were put in game.
Gausians unique not being unique, patch notes, and in game help conflicting and being incorrect in the past.
I13 PvP.
I understand why people are anxious about these slap dash solutions, its because sometimes it takes literally years before the devs get around to resolving a problem.
Cathedral of Pain (off line and un-repaired since I5), base raids, (off line in I13 and I14 and who knows how much longer after that).
I too hate spending a bunch of inf to IO out a toon only to have a feature that has been in game for years nerfed or changed so that the feature no longer works with my vision for the character.
If I've spent 500 million inf on IOing out that toon that means that the devs have esentially caused me to waste 500 hours of game time spent accumulting those IOs. Nerfs/changes like this are customer service nightmares. They tick off and drive away your long term customer base.
I believe that the dev team would do well to take more time to actually fix the problem than slap a quick nerf bandaid on that may or may not get adressed again until the wound festers.
-Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein.
-I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei
-When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. - Thomas Jefferson
[ QUOTE ]
The difference with just Hasten is 1.65 seconds, how could you not notice that?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because I had more important things to be paying attention to?
[ QUOTE ]
Ignoring the fact that the first shot occurs at the same time and discrete issues, a 60% increase in firing rate will result in 60% more shots in any given time increment. When you factor in the first shot, the percentage decrease from the nerf is lower the shorter the time. This is a pretty small effect.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's only a small effect in long fights. In short fights, it's the same order as the effect of the nerf itself -- hardly non-negligible.
[ QUOTE ]
However, the issue really is the END cost. If it's not worth casting for a 10s fight now - and it isn't - then the damage reduction due to this nerf is 100% for that case, while in a 30s fight - where it is worth casting - is necessarily less than that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe a clearer way of looking at this would be to ask at what point, for a given level of recharge, casting LS does become worth its endurance use. That will depend on a number of other factors -- overall EndRx slotting, set bonuses, power selection, etc. -- so it's not clear that there's a simple answer to that question.
That said, if we use the normal attack dpe of 5.2/DS (i.e. a 1 damage scale attack uses 5.2 end, a 2 DS attack uses 10.4, etc.), then LS (which uses 31.2 end) needs to fire 6 times to be as endurance-efficient as a normal attack. (This isn't entirely a fair comparison -- the LS attack has a small AoE and multiple secondary effects: KB,-end, -recovery.) With no recharge, it takes 31 seconds to hit the break-even point; with Hasten, it needs to be firing for 21 seconds, and with +150% recharge, it breaks even after 17 seconds. (Apologies if you've already been through this; this thread is long enough now that I've lost track of who's said what.)
I'm not sure that this necessarily means "it's not worth casting" if it's not going to get to fire 6 times -- sometimes the most efficient use of endurance isn't necessarily the best, especially if you have plenty of +recovery or endrx.
Part of the problem is that reducing recharge is in general not supposed to increase dpe -- only dps. LS as it now stands on live basically gets double bonuses from +recharge: you can get more of them out (increasing dps) and they fire faster (further increasing dps, meaning that +recharge does more to increase damage than +damage does!) which also means that each individual storm fires more times (increasing dpe). Recharge bonuses are doing triple duty here, and that's a balance problem. Not because it's overpowered now, but because the fact that it benefits synergistically from recharge bonuses may very well mask the power's current weakness.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What one could do ([color= yellow]if Recharge obeys its StrMax[/color], not everything has always obeyed all its caps) is to make a copy of minion_Pets (call it player_Pets or something), change their RechargeTime StrMax to 1, and make all player summoned pets create player_Pets instead of minion_Pets. This could be done instead of making pets summoned by NPCs using different powers than the ones our pets use (in order to make them affected by Recharge debuffs).
This way Recharge debuffs would work both in PvE and PvP.
In addition to this (and even if making a copy/changing pets would be unfeasible), one could change the RechargeTime StrMax of Minion_Henchman, Lt_Henchman and Boss_Henchman (the classes used by MM henchmen) to 1. Assuming that works, Recharge debuffs would work against them in PvP.
[/ QUOTE ]
Seems like I had a definite duh-moment [color= yellow]there[/color]. I've been reminded that Recharge *does* obey its StrMax, something I've even used before...
Anyway, that'd seem to remove most of the "ifs" from this idea.
[/ QUOTE ]
Something else that comes up in regards to this solution: at what levels of pet recharge does the AI start to go funky? Because if they're okay at, say, +20%, then couldn't you just set the max to 1.2? You still get some benefit from recharge buffs, the AI still behaves itself, and the whole RIP thing, while not totally fixed, becomes much less of an issue. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.
I guess this is still kind of a kludge. But maybe a slightly friendlier one.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if only he could spam his Decoy...that would be hawt
[/ QUOTE ]
Not really.
[/ QUOTE ]
He already could, according to my understanding. I heard decoys base recharge was 30, same as its duration. Add SB and he summons a second decoy because the power recharges quicker. People have even said they have had three phantasm decoys out, because of the FF proc and other buffs. At 100% recharge bonus, phant would have perma two decoys, so some IO bonuses from soulbound and speedboost- add in the FF proc and u've got three decoys. Or u could say AB, which i believe is 90% recharge boost (cant remember for certain) from the empathy set, and the FF proc, and u basically have two perma decoys, if not three sometimes. The nerf will lower protection and damage ratings for ill/emps, and they could do it legit.
And as for phantasm spamming his single target attack, he always does. Mine doesnt have any recharge buffs and thats what he does. I think it has to do with his st attack having an 80 foot range and short recharge, and his aoe attack having only like a 40 or 50 foot range and long recharge. I dont really care though, as his aoe has knockback, and having him kb everything away from a tankers tight herd all the time would cheese me off; as would him knocking everything off of my burning oil patch. heh.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you for confirming the behavior of Phantasm. I do not have experience with the procs so did not comment on it. I was commenting on the fix and it helping pets "cycle through their powers". As you confirmed Phantasm has a problem using Energy Torrent consistently. Instead of starting a fight from too far a distance or the mob getting knocked back due to PB or ET, I would like to see it move into range when Energy Torrent's "turn" comes up in the cycle. It doesn't so I don't see how this fix will address that, thus it is less beneficial than I believe they are making it out to be.
I don't care much about Phantasm's damage output in teams either but solo-wise if you are not using Energy Torrent, it is a significant loss of DPS imo.
Well, according the devs decreasing the recharge rate of pets was not intended so it doesn't matter whether you were using procs or powers, the end result now is it is NOT legit. All I can really say is I disagree with their decision, will hope for the best but adjust for the change at the worst. </shrug>
[ QUOTE ]
With Hasten and Decimation both, you're getting to over +150% recharge, right? I'm sure that much difference would be pretty noticeable.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's 2.4s vs the 1.65s from just Hasten.
[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, I'm not sure that a particularly high fraction of LS users have that much recharge. I'm not sure that a particularly high fraction of LS users have anything more than Hasten. Maybe +150% isn't an extreme edge case, but it's hardly the norm either.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's probably not the norm, but it's any IO user (and LS is an L32+ power) with Hasten - hardly a rare build, which I'm guessing is why LS is getting targeted for a nerf.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also feel that anyone who normally buffs their standard pets (Singularity, Jack Frost, Stoney, Audrey) with Speed Boost or AM will also notice a difference in their damage output.
[/ QUOTE ]
You may well be right. You might not. Unless someone actually goes out and measures the difference in damage output in actual game situations, accounting for things like pet AI, travel time between enemies, all that jazz, we won't really know.
[/ QUOTE ]
I recorded damage numbers when testing Audrey, but I was testing for behavioral changes and so didn't do any sort of control for damage resistances or other related factors. But I did do the same missions in both places. I was mostly fighting Praetorians - Robots, Council Empire and Clockworks - with some CoT and Crey mixed in.
So, for what the numbers are worth, I saw a 37% reduction in damage output from Twitchy using Adrenalin Boost and about a 2% reduction with just the Def Debuff Recharge IO. The improved AI offsets a good portion of the nerf. But I can't attribute the AI improvement in this case to the recharge ignorance, since Twitchy misbehaves on live even with no +Rech anywhere. Also Twitchy gets most of her damage from a power that discounts a relatively large proportion of +Rech. (Thorny Darts has 1.452s ArcanaTime Cast and 3s Recharge, so only about 67% of the cycle time is enhanceable. There's also a small delay with pets that is unenhanceable too - perhaps while they decide what to do - so it's really even a bit lower than that; so effective +Rech in Thorny Darts is about 66% of actual +Rech.)
Kosmos
Global: @Calorie
MA Arcs in 4-star purgatory: Four in a Row (#2198) - Hostile Takeover (#69714) - Red Harvest (#268305)
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Well, at this point I am not sure if I believe your lack of trust is genuine, or simply spiteful. But either way, I am not going to make fun of it. There is not really anything that can be argued in the face of a total lack of belief in someone's honesty.