Bio Engineer Archive
Thread: A Pretty Good Tank
lammergeier wrote:
gave one of these to a MCH, in a narglatch skin (per request).
with +taming mod clothing (aggro skin), they were able to tame it.
they stored it. they tried to call it again.
"invalid pet" error.
kind of makes all this testing moot for usability.
LOL, I thought validity checks were over! It looks like they still have them in place 
. I'm curious whether you think the increased psych or the HAM imbalance had the most effect on the level. Also, while I am not surprised that this one would fail the validity check, I wonder what it was about this particular pet that caused it to fail while the high-powered low levels don't.
It was a fantastic pet--a little high for the level, but to stack medium armor, high kinetic and ENERGY resistances with that kind of HAM is highly impressive, regardless of damage. I wonder if the extraneous resistances had been cancelled out if it would have passed the validity check.
Also, has anyone noticed a correlation between resampling ability and species? I wonder if you had used a non-aggressive species instead of A if you could have resampled more.
My guess is that there is just a simple rule in there that says:
medium armor = no go for a pet
It is dissappointing though. I actually feel that this pet in many ways that this wasthe first balanced pet that we've seen at CL 70. It's become kind of an unwritten rule that if you are a master CH you will use 2 CL 35's or 3 CL 23's because of our inability to create something worthy of that CL, and their inability to tame something worthy at that CL in the wild. If it were possible to create such a creature (or balance it the other way for damage or whatever) I think we'd probably see more master CH's, and we'd also see more master CH's using only 1 pet. It's a real shame.
As far as cancelling out resistances, hehe, it's difficult when most of those resistances start at 100 
I did my best by adding harvester and blooming jax in the early stages, and the resists are considerably lower than the ABR ones in the end, but I don't think you'll ever see a:
60/v/v/v/v/v...or 60/60/v/v/v/v...type of medium armored critter.
Hylidex wrote:
LOL, I thought validity checks were over! It looks like they still have them in place
It was a fantastic pet--a little high for the level, but to stack medium armor, high kinetic and ENERGY resistances with that kind of HAM is highly impressive, regardless of damage. I wonder if the extraneous resistances had been cancelled out if it would have passed the validity check.
Also, has anyone noticed a correlation between resampling ability and species? I wonder if you had used a non-aggressive species instead of A if you could have resampled more.
Message Edited by ArthurDentOnBria on 01-28-2005 09:46 AM
Halthron wrote:
I'd settle for low. I'm still working on the "at what point does a stat max out when experimented" issue. It would be nice to be able to look at the stats that are getting combined and know that this time, it's okay to experiment on Physique even though fortitude currently stands at 460. At the moment, I just have a feel, nothing more.
Here is the info you're looking for here and here. The neat thing about this formula, is that it actually predicts the really bizarre behavior that I saw when playing around with the ABR dna. We tried this combine:
ABR - ABR - CBD - CBD - ABR (ABR = ancient bull rancor, CBD = corellian butterfly defender).
The fortitudes were all 1000 on the ABR's, and were 60/65 on the CBD's.
So the max value for fortitude would be: 1000 * .4 + 1000 * .25 + 60 * .05 + 65 * .05 + 1000 * .25 = 906
But according to Meroc's formula, the starting value on the unexperimented template would actually be higher than the max value, or: 906 * (906 / 1000 + .15) = 956. And what actually happened was that when I did the combine, and experimented on physique, and got a great success, the fortitude actually went down (i.e. it actually got closer to the "max" value).
Anyway, I have a lot of these cool, incredibly insightful threads that I intend to add to the FAQ, but I just need some time to tackle this task and completely re-organize the FAQ.
I had previously looked at the part in the FAQ, but experience is giving added importance to a paragraph I thought I understood before. The other thread is new though and interesting.