Do Pets Suffer -Recharge?

Trickshooter's Characters | @Trickshooter @Brightside

Speedboosting Fusionette is a mistake, however.

Why did you have to say that? Now I want to see that, and I don't have any kinetics heroes.

But that's exactly the problem, you won't actually see anything distinguishable.

But you would hear the collective sound of a hundred tanks crying.

A buff and a debuff are the exact same thing, except that one has a positive value, the other a negative. In all cases, if a buff or debuff is ignored, then the corresponding opposite is as well.

See also: vet and temp powers during Rage crash.

Wait, mustn't talk about that. Forget I said anything. <.<

Yeah! And isn't it funny that by the time Sands of Mu finishes animating, and the weapon draw and Nemesis/Blackwand staff finish animating, the rage crash is over?

Oh. Right. Nothing to see here.

Move along.

Incorrect because you can put procs into some pets such as the KB one which adds a +rech bonus and it allows Phantasm to summon two decoys at the same time when it triggers. So if they can be influenced by +rech then they can be influenced by -rech.

You may have been away when Castle went through and curbstomped all the fun people were having.

All pets (assuming he didn't miss any)and pseudo-pets that benefited from recharge were set to ignore recharge modifications. Basically they were given the Strength of Will treatment.

It accomplished three things:
1. It supposedly corrected some AI issues that pets with multiple attacks would experience when their recharge was modified
2. It nerfed the hell out of powers like Lightning storm and Fire Imps that never had issues cycling attacks because they only have one attack.
3. It eliminated one of the unique advantages that some sets could provide such as cold protecting pets from recharge debuffs, Kins doing the same and making them attack faster, and the unique advantage that zombies originally had in being 100% immune to rech/speed debuffs

How recently have you seen this occur? All pet powers are now intended to be immune to changes in the recharge rates of their powers. If you're seeing otherwise, it's a bug.

Trickshooter's Characters | @Trickshooter @Brightside

Not necessarily. They could have implemented this by setting the +Recharge cap for pets to zero and leaving the -Recharge cap at -75%. Pets already have different caps than players (e.g. to +Damage) hence the question.

Well, no. Even if that's technically true pets have an effective -Recharge and +Recharge cap of 0, where everyone else has -75% and +400%. I don't know if the devs can manually adjust caps for Recharge the way they can HP, Regen, Endurance, Defense, Resistance, etc, but I see no reason they couldn't. If they can, then I assume to implement by "ignored recharge" you'd simply change the max and min cap to zero. That way the pet ignores enhancements from the player, friendly buffs used by the player, and enemy debuffs. The other option would be to flag the pet's powers individually as ignoring recharge buffs--but if you did that, the pet would still suffer -Recharge from enemy attacks.

I'm pretty sure that a Power that is immune to +Recharge, like Strength of Will, is immune to -Recharge too.

I'm not sure that is how this was accomplished for pets, though.

Player pet powers are, in fact, flagged to ignore recharge "buffs." Specifically they are flagged to ignore recharge strength of any kind, which means both buffs and debuffs should have no effect on those powers. Which means the pet is essentially immune to recharge buffs or debuffs of any kind (even unresistable ones).

Fiddling with the caps has issues. For one thing, players are not the only things that summon "pets" and changing the caps on pet-type critters would make all such critters immune to all recharge debuffs. That might have unintended side effects.

The game engine has no knowledge of the difference between a "buff" and a "debuff." Its just all strength changes. In fact, what we call a "mez protection buff" is actually a power that reduces our mez state to a negative number. We only call that a buff because we would prefer the number to be low than high (mez states above zero mean you're mezzed). We don't normally say that illusionists "buff our hold protection."

Yes. There was great anger from one poster in particular. Nobody else really seemed to care. I was that poster lol.

Well again it doesn't really matter to me how they technically achieve it. If the value is ignored then in effect, if not in fact, it has a positive and negative cap of zero. If we argue that isn't so then I might as well say the caps "really" range from 32,767 to -32,767 because they are (presumably) integers. Thanks for the info though.

[EDIT: On reflection they are actually probably float values and not integers. Same point tho. ]