Bio Engineer Archive
Thread: 2nd Gen Armoured CL19's
SkyPreacher1
Sun Sep 12, 2004 10:30 pm
#14
CH need all the love we can get.
Takes one big hug from nancy. Thank you. Nice pet
Actually "pure CH's" do care about the damage output. We are also very interested in good resists across the board and specials. I would say poison special is a favorite, and if they make pets Dizzy/knockdown work effectively then that becomes a powerful combo.
Fought a kimo with a poison/dizzy cl 64 pet and at the end it dizzied the kimo and it went down, by the time my sword swinging friend moved in it never got up. SO yeah we are interested in Dmg output, would like to see it up in the 600's but anything over 400 is thot of as good.
Message Edited by SkyPreacher1 on 09-12-2004 10:35 PM
Seiryuu
Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:52 am
#15
Actually "pure CH's" do care about the damage output. We are also very interested in good resists across the board and specials.
Uh Sky? I said pure handlers were the only ones that cared, but that they are a rare are in the minority.
I'm quite aware that pure handlers are lacking power relative to other professions as I was one for many months.
I goofed my numbers.
The effective HAM on Nancy's pet is 50k, not 24k. Even taking into consideration the lesser damage, the pet is almost five times better.
From a pure tanking standpoint for someone that just needs to keep mobs at bay, it is eight times better.
Ok, Nancy's actually has half the dps of a wild CL 19 (14 vs 28).
I'll get accurate here so we can avoid any hyperbole. It's 57.7%.
Taking this number times the effective HAM shows the BE version to be 4.6 times better.
For example, say you were hunting a creature for meat, you did a search on www.swgcreatures.com and it came up with 2 hits, both which gave an identical amount of meat, both were missionable, and both missions paid the same. One creature had x dps and y HAM, the other had 2x dps and y/3 HAM.
The point of the Creature Rebalance was that this sort of situation doesn't occur. If there is a serious discrepancy between two creatures, then they failed to balance them. This would also need correcting.
Can you find these now?
I'd also just like to point out that we should all be very thankful that this calculation works like it does today (aside from the CL 10 bug) because nearly all our multi-generation pet formulas work on the principal of trading dps for effecitve kinetic (and sometimes other damage types as well) HAM.
I have no problem with trading dps for resistances or whatever.
These CL 19 pets are not doing that.
They are increasing the power almost five times. Were it an even converstion then these pets would have an effective HAM of 10832 if they kept their 120-130, 2.31s damage. At that HAM, we have accomplished it only if the pet has no armor or resistances.
With armor and 60% resistances, then the pet should have 2166 HAM to be equivalent.
I think this is what this argument boils down to and since the CL calculation seems to be consistent, this sort of thing is certainly not a "bug" or "exploit", just simply opinions about how you would implement the CL calculation if it were you doing the implementing.
Just because something is consistant does not mean it is not a bug.
Our tissues formulas are 50/30/20. They're consistant, but still a bug.
Anything that allows undesirable behavior is a bug. If you ask a developer if such creatures should exist, I am quite confident they would tell you no. Otherwise my Kliknik Queens would still have medium armor and be CL 35.
Let's compare this to armor, shall we?
With armor, 50% reduction, coupled with 60% resistances, this pet has a damage reduction of 80%. That is equal to composite armor that can get up to 80% and is felt by just about everyone to be seriously overpowered.
Couple that with people that have 3k HAM buffed as opposed to 10k HAM unbuffed (but can be buffed as well).
Now take the Combat Rebalance where armor is going to be gutted, and likely buffs, too. That pet still has an effective 80% damage reduction with 10k HAM. These weaker buffs can still be applied to a pet to up its regeneration and provide, even with only 1000 point health and action buffs, an effective 5000 more.
Tell me, why is armor going to be reduced in effectiveness? Why shouldn't pets?
If that isn't enough to convince you, then nothing but the inevitable nerf will.
Uh Sky? I said pure handlers were the only ones that cared, but that they are a rare are in the minority.
I'm quite aware that pure handlers are lacking power relative to other professions as I was one for many months.
I goofed my numbers.
The effective HAM on Nancy's pet is 50k, not 24k. Even taking into consideration the lesser damage, the pet is almost five times better.
From a pure tanking standpoint for someone that just needs to keep mobs at bay, it is eight times better.
Ok, Nancy's actually has half the dps of a wild CL 19 (14 vs 28).
I'll get accurate here so we can avoid any hyperbole. It's 57.7%.
Taking this number times the effective HAM shows the BE version to be 4.6 times better.
For example, say you were hunting a creature for meat, you did a search on www.swgcreatures.com and it came up with 2 hits, both which gave an identical amount of meat, both were missionable, and both missions paid the same. One creature had x dps and y HAM, the other had 2x dps and y/3 HAM.
The point of the Creature Rebalance was that this sort of situation doesn't occur. If there is a serious discrepancy between two creatures, then they failed to balance them. This would also need correcting.
Can you find these now?
I'd also just like to point out that we should all be very thankful that this calculation works like it does today (aside from the CL 10 bug) because nearly all our multi-generation pet formulas work on the principal of trading dps for effecitve kinetic (and sometimes other damage types as well) HAM.
I have no problem with trading dps for resistances or whatever.
These CL 19 pets are not doing that.
They are increasing the power almost five times. Were it an even converstion then these pets would have an effective HAM of 10832 if they kept their 120-130, 2.31s damage. At that HAM, we have accomplished it only if the pet has no armor or resistances.
With armor and 60% resistances, then the pet should have 2166 HAM to be equivalent.
I think this is what this argument boils down to and since the CL calculation seems to be consistent, this sort of thing is certainly not a "bug" or "exploit", just simply opinions about how you would implement the CL calculation if it were you doing the implementing.
Just because something is consistant does not mean it is not a bug.
Our tissues formulas are 50/30/20. They're consistant, but still a bug.
Anything that allows undesirable behavior is a bug. If you ask a developer if such creatures should exist, I am quite confident they would tell you no. Otherwise my Kliknik Queens would still have medium armor and be CL 35.
Let's compare this to armor, shall we?
With armor, 50% reduction, coupled with 60% resistances, this pet has a damage reduction of 80%. That is equal to composite armor that can get up to 80% and is felt by just about everyone to be seriously overpowered.
Couple that with people that have 3k HAM buffed as opposed to 10k HAM unbuffed (but can be buffed as well).
Now take the Combat Rebalance where armor is going to be gutted, and likely buffs, too. That pet still has an effective 80% damage reduction with 10k HAM. These weaker buffs can still be applied to a pet to up its regeneration and provide, even with only 1000 point health and action buffs, an effective 5000 more.
Tell me, why is armor going to be reduced in effectiveness? Why shouldn't pets?
If that isn't enough to convince you, then nothing but the inevitable nerf will.
Acrod_Novys
Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:21 am
#16
Nice work Nancy, 5 stars for you for
--creating a great pet
--being extremely generous with the details, as usual
--presenting it clearly and concisely
I hope that doesn't come off as condescending--I just liked alot of things 
As for the rest of this... errr.. post, I will only re-contribute the same to the discussion that's the same:
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=bio-engineer&message.id=80516#M80516
(my star-rating improvement post)
Zadokk
Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:26 am
#17
That may well be true but using bugged pets (in my opinion) is like justifying the use of an exploit. I can't see how people can sit here and say non-ch pets are buggy and therefore exploits and yet when an identical situation concerning CH pets come up say that it's not wrong because it is profession specific. This sounds like double standards to me.
SkyPreacher1 wrote:
CH need all the love we can get.
GoldMemberBria
Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:03 am
#18
doh! mis-post, sorry
Message Edited by GoldMemberBria on 09-13-2004 10:07 AM
ArthurDentOnBria
Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:06 am
#19
Seiryuu,
All your calculations are from the standpoint of kinetic resists only and you are saying that health = HAM. Both of these assumptions are unacceptable and discount the entire point of being a BE. We make tradeoffs, and we make creatures more useful. That's what we do. The fact that it is more useful to have kinetic resist than it is cold resist and more useful to have health than action is precisely why we exist and there is a market for our creatures.
So let's look at it a wee bit more objectively ok?
Nancy's pet has 21k of HAM spread across 3 statistics. That equates to 7k/7k/7k or just 7k of HAM. Correct? Also, while Nancy's pet now has 35k of HAM vs kinetic, it only has 7k of HAM vs energy and all other resists. So here is the tradeoff being made in summary:
Nancy's:
effective HAM vs kinetic: 35k
effective HAM vs every other type of damage: 7k
dps: 14.6
Gronda
effective HAM vs kinetic: 6.8k
effective HAM vs energy: 6.4k
effective HAM vs everything else: 5.5k
dps: 28
So by using your own formula Seiryuu (effective HAM x dps) we get these results:
vs kinetic: gronda: 190k nancy's: 511k (nancy's is 2.7x more effective)
vs energy: gronda: 180k nancy's: 102k (gronda is 1.8x more effective)
vs all other resists: gronda: 154k nancy's: 102k (gronda is 1.5x more effective).
So now I'll make the same statement you made to me:
If that isn't enough to convince you, then nothing (will).
Seiryuu wrote:
The effective HAM on Nancy's pet is 50k, not 24k. Even taking into consideration the lesser damage, the pet is almost five times better.
From a pure tanking standpoint for someone that just needs to keep mobs at bay, it is eight times better.
Message Edited by ArthurDentOnBria on 09-13-2004 11:43 AM
Mattakar
Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:08 am
#20
Look, there is no such thing as an overpowered pet anymore. Players routinely run around for 3 hour buff sessions essentially in God Mode. There is essentially nothing in the game that challenges anyone in combat, and those few things that do slaughter pets near instantly. Pets help in the grind without docs around, but docs are everywhere, and 2 missions pay for the buff. Pets just slow down grinding in comparison.
That is the dark secret of why the Devs don't care about pet power much. There is no such thing as challenging content for 95% of the combat player base, the game is built around the challenge of the "grind" to appeal to the achiever mindset, and the grind to jedi for the uber elite PVP mindset.
When there is a pet made that can withstand a pistoleer for 15 seconds, then you can start to worry about pet power. Right now, no one using CH as their power or tanking ability is overpowered.
Organic pets are all wrong in the game. Pets should be about offense, not defense. The hides of these creatures are not going to offer resistance to futuristic guns - the lasers should be slicing right through them. But things hit by rancors should just go smush or be flung several hundred yards, and it doesn't matter how much armor they have on.
NancyJ
Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:28 am
#21
Zadokk wrote:That may well be true but using bugged pets (in my opinion) is like justifying the use of an exploit. I can't see how people can sit here and say non-ch pets are buggy and therefore exploits and yet when an identical situation concerning CH pets come up say that it's not wrong because it is profession specific. This sounds like double standards to me.
SkyPreacher1 wrote:CH need all the love we can get.
Why IMO its different:
1. for the non-ch pet combo we have an official statement saying that those pets are overpowered.
2. CH requires significant skill point investment (in this particular case they were made as a pair to be used together, and the customer does intend to master CH)
3. CH's were balanced in December in preparation for the CB, since then their power has sucked in comparision to a player with a maxed out combat template.
Being able to make strong pets for CH at least keeps the profession somewhat viable.
Non-CH pets that are as strong as a CL25 pet should be allow players to effectively gain the defensive perks of the CH class without sacrificing the offensive capabilities of 250 skill points in weapon based combat classes.
IMO its no different than using vendors without being a merchant.
At the end of the day this is just a recipe, the itent of this post was not to spark a debate on the morality of pet crafting, merely to contribute to the community and encourage others to share their recipes too.
How you use it is entirely up to your own morality.
Zadokk
Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:49 am
#22
Perhaps, but the wild equivalent would require more SP to use. Look, I don't really agree with what I'm saying - I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. I personally don't think these pets are overpowered. I was just trying to point out some fallacies in your work (im evil, sorry). I'll look forward to the next BE revamp and especially trying to get uber cl10 pets
NancyJ wrote:
2. CH requires significant skill point investment (in this particular case they were made as a pair to be used together, and the customer does intend to master CH)
NancyJ
Mon Sep 13, 2004 11:01 am
#23
Zadokk wrote:Perhaps, but the wild equivalent would require more SP to use.
NancyJ wrote:
2. CH requires significant skill point investment (in this particular case they were made as a pair to be used together, and the customer does intend to master CH)
By that logic ALL BE pets are overpowered
I'll look forward to the next BE revamp and especially trying to get uber cl10 pets
Damn right
Message Edited by NancyJ on 09-13-2004 07:02 PM
Zadokk
Mon Sep 13, 2004 11:29 am
#24
NancyJ wrote:
Zadokk wrote:
NancyJ wrote:
2. CH requires significant skill point investment (in this particular case they were made as a pair to be used together, and the customer does intend to master CH)
Perhaps, but the wild equivalent would require more SP to use.
By that logic ALL BE pets are overpowered
Well thats exactly my logic for justifying all my pets existances. The devs havent admitted that the uber cl10 pets exist because of their faulty coding but instead have said its a bug which makes me wonder how they can call it that despite re-writing it in January. Tbh I only think they are considered bugs becauseof pressure fromCH's and some altruistic BEs. Idont wantto start _another_ cl10 debate but that's just what I think.
Message Edited by Zadokk on 09-13-2004 07:30 PM
NancyJ
Mon Sep 13, 2004 11:36 am
#25
Faulty coding causes bugs, if everyone wrote perfect code there would be no bugs.
That said, the 33/33/33 thing is NOT a bug, its an error/oversight. The chef schematics were the same for a long time, IMO either the 33/33/33 split was a placeholder figure or someone put the wrong numbers in. Its not a bug, its not acting in a way that is unepected, they just put the numbers in wrong.
A bug is when you code something but it doesnt work in the way that you expect it to or, it has unexpected consequenses.
That said, the 33/33/33 thing is NOT a bug, its an error/oversight. The chef schematics were the same for a long time, IMO either the 33/33/33 split was a placeholder figure or someone put the wrong numbers in. Its not a bug, its not acting in a way that is unepected, they just put the numbers in wrong.
A bug is when you code something but it doesnt work in the way that you expect it to or, it has unexpected consequenses.
Zadokk
Mon Sep 13, 2004 11:52 am
#26
Okay okay so we're all human and we make mistakes but my beef is this: they wrote the coding, tested it and it was fine. Then people found holes so they took time out and re-wrote it - devoted an entire publish to it and now we come back a few months later and we've done the same again. Sounds to me that either a) the devs don't know really know what they're doing or b) they really don't care. Again - I don't want to get into a debate where someone tells me to stop whining and if I could do a better job then I should go do it blah blah. What I wonder is that if they have to keep re-writing the code then surely there must be something wrong and if they don't know how to fix it then they should just hard-code a solution in. Of course, I don't want that - that would damage the profession too much.
I know the devs are busy with JTL and soon the Combat Revamp/Nerf but it seems to me that BEs aren't in line for love any time soon. Smugglers are due soon and I know that a couple other profs have gone without a revamp for a while, so what I see is that either these get fixed (or just nerfed the hell out of) in a mini-publish or nothing will happen for 6 months.