Bio Engineer Archive
Thread: CL9 pet with Armor !!!
This is the one I forgot to grab a picture of before...
CL10 Armor +20 kin
I also made a few damage pets...
CL4 340-390 dmg w/ranged atk
CL6 365-440 dmg
The second generation CL1 pets I've been making are excellent starting points for some cool pets. All the ones I've been posting about here are based on DNA from that CL1. The good thing is I consistently nail CL1 every time with the G1 + G2 templates I'm using. I don't even have to worry about the sample quality, it is always hitting CL1.
I need to find some new DNA though, I used up more than 40 MDH samples earlier today and am all out now (a key ingredient in my G2 template).
First off I, like many others, applaud the work done. Well done.
Joker9125 wrote:
*snip
got a problem with CL9 AR1 vuln to all? complain to the code. don't complain to the crafter that highlights this problem.
No I have a problem with a CL10 AR1 20% kinetic. And sure just blame the code not the player............Just like Jedi stacking 50+ crystals in there sabers, multiple sliced weapons,40K condition swoops, endor 0,0, force meditate, jedi breaking tracking droids, and people looting NPC weapons with 2k/5k min/max damage. Saying you should blame the system and not the player dosent fly........at all. A pretty sure fire way to know if your exploiting is if what your doing requires a very specific set of circumstances to recreate. The problem with applying this to BE pet crafting is that everything thing yall do requires a very specific set of circumstances to do. So its very hard to tell if something is actually using a bug in the system or not.
Here is a direct quote!
"Vulnerability denotes Damage Types in which the armor offers no protection whatsoever."
So unless i missed something, that CL9 pet with AP1 and ALL vul to resists = usless, so i really dont understand why everyone is impressed over a pet that does nothing LOL
Impress me by making an AP0 with full 50% resists at CL9 pet (bet'cha you cant!) which is why there is nothing to fix, the pet is legal and he who buys it will waste their credits lol
Message Edited by lerderek on 03-14-2005 04:09 PM
lerderek wrote:
Unless something has changed in the BE profession, Light Armor does nothing for Vulnerable resists.
Here is a direct quote!
"Vulnerability denotes Damage Types in which the armor offers no protection whatsoever."
So unless i missed something, that CL9 pet with AP1 and ALL vul to resists = usless, so i really dont understand why everyone is impressed over a pet that does nothing LOL
Impress me by making an AP0 with full 50% resists at CL9 pet (bet'cha you cant!) which is why there is nothing to fix, the pet is legal and he who buys it will waste their credits lolMessage Edited by lerderek on 03-14-2005 04:09 PM
Pratical use isn't the issue. We all thought it was impossible, it wasn't and we are all shocked that we have all been made into idiots. Go with it.
Spazzers wrote:
First off I, like many others, applaud the work done. Well done.
Joker9125 wrote:
*snip
got a problem with CL9 AR1 vuln to all? complain to the code. don't complain to the crafter that highlights this problem.
No I have a problem with a CL10 AR1 20% kinetic. And sure just blame the code not the player............Just like Jedi stacking 50+ crystals in there sabers, multiple sliced weapons,40K condition swoops, endor 0,0, force meditate, jedi breaking tracking droids, and people looting NPC weapons with 2k/5k min/max damage. Saying you should blame the system and not the player dosent fly........at all. A pretty sure fire way to know if your exploiting is if what your doing requires a very specific set of circumstances to recreate. The problem with applying this to BE pet crafting is that everything thing yall do requires a very specific set of circumstances to do. So its very hard to tell if something is actually using a bug in the system or not.
There I made the part of my origional post that explained why it was difficult to apply that rule fo thumb to the BE profession easier to read
Secondly, although I understand the emotions this type of comment draws from, I don't agree with what is being stated here. A BE created an animal using an in-gameprocess. The onlyvariable is the DNA used and where the experimentation points are placed. Regardless the process used to make an Uber pet is no different than crafting any other animal. If crafting an uber pet is an exploit then every BE animal is an exploit since the process is exactly the same.
reread the highlighted part of my message
I need specific DNA to craft the CL10 animals I sell on my vendor. Those animals are not the super high HAM high kinetic animals either. Because it requires a specific set of circumstances to craft these animals consistantly everytime does that qualify as an exploit? If I want to craft a CL70 animal I will need specific DNA (mutant rancor). Does that also qualify as an exploit?
Again reread the highlighted part
Faulting the player for creating a pet does no one a service. Another player will just come along and create it again. The fault does indeed lie in the code. It is the code that needs to be repaired. Don't kill the messenger. Without him we would not have known this was possible.
Ohh so no one should ever be faulted for exploiting a bug in the system just because someone will come along later and do it anyway? I just wish the devs shared in your logic, cause if they did I'd be up to my eyeballs in rebel commadore 2K/5K min/max damage T21s right about now.
BTW the star system is meaningless. We take it for granted any thread discussing non-creature handler animals will be bombarded by the one star bandit.
/agree
Joker9125 wrote:
These pets are made using the current system, but did you ever consider that the current system (or at least the part that calculates the CL on the lower end of things) could be bugged?
Did you ever consider that it's a complex formula that a programmer threw together and didn't fully test? There is no exploit here anymore than killing krayts to get pearls is an exploit (a very specific set of conditions). The problem is with over 800 creatures, some new since release, no one could forsee all the ramifications of 800 critters, half a dozen DNA quality levels and a random range of stats in each one.
The whole "certain set of circumstances" bit is a weak argument. What we're really doing is finding the best resources to craft with. Can you fault a doctor for finding a certain flora that works great for making stimpacks or buffpacks? Can you fault a weaponsmith for using krayt loot in their weapons because they come out more powerful? We're doing the exact same thing here, we are finding DNA that works better than the average DNA to get the results we want.
Is it an exploit to use DNA from certain creatures? Or do you feel that we're using an exploit in how we choose to insert DNA into the template? Or is it in how we assign experimentation points? All those steps we do for EVERY pet regardless of the outcome, where is the exploit? I can't see it.
Joker9125 wrote:
Now lets see if I can explain what a bug is. In programming terms a bug is when a program you write dosent work as you intended it to or just dosent work at all. These can be caused by a variety of reasons ranging from not putting a ; at the end of a line of code, declaring a variable as the wrong type such a "bool" intstead of "double", trying to make an int varible act like a double, andthese can even be cause by unforseen input or unforseen combinations of input that cause the code to "bug". What we have here as you yourself have stated (or at least implied)is a system in which certain types combinations of input (DNA) cause results that are not intended. So is there a bug? Absolutely.
Now lets define explot.
An exploit knowingly abusing a known bug in the system to do things that were not intended.
Sounds alot like an exploit to me.
However since the devs have stated that these "bugged" pets will be rebalanced sometimein the future no one is going to be punished for using them. It seems to me that people are taking the lack of punishment to mean that its perfectly ok.
Message Edited by Joker9125 on 03-15-2005 12:38 AM
Please show me where a dev has ever said these pets were bugged or the result of any bugged process.
I disagree that there is a bug here and I disagree with your definition of a bug. A bug is a coding error, pure and simple. A bug occurs during the coding process. By definition, since these pets are not taking advantage of a bug, they are not an exploit.
These pets are the result of an improperly designed and incompletely tested but properly coded formula. A dev has been quoted as saying they are more powerful than intended but they are not exploits. People who create them are not taking advantage of any bug in the system.
And I snip down quotes to save space.
Joker9125 wrote:Now lets see if I can explain what a bug is. In programming terms a bug is when a program you write dosent work as you intended it to or just dosent work at all. These can be caused by a variety of reasons ranging from not putting a ; at the end of a line of code, declaring a variable as the wrong type such a "bool" intstead of "double", trying to make an int varible act like a double, and these can even be cause by unforseen input or unforseen combinations of input that cause the code to "bug". What we have here as you yourself have stated (or at least implied) is a system in which certain types combinations of input (DNA) cause results that are not intended. So is there a bug? Absolutely.
As a programmer I see this definition as being incorrect. All the above examples are syntax errors, and would be picked up by a compiler assumming the code is C/C++ (There is no way it isn't on a large scale commercial game application). The C/C++ compiler is pretty strict, even is it is pretty uninformative sometimes as to what the error is.
A bug in the code is an innexplicable fault, usually related to the logic or using an incorrect operator ie a "<" used when a ">" should have been used. Other bugs include such things as buffer overflows where a program attempts to write to space that is too small, or another bug is attempting to write to space that has been deallocated.
This is not a bug in the sense that is in a inexplicable fault, it is explicable. The Merek creatures like the MH in particular and the MDH have exceptional resists. These resists are so strong in one area, weak in others, or in the MDH case a broad range of weak resists with strong stats that they cause an unexpected 'imbalance' in the formula. It was never intended to put in a creature with 75% Kin resists. There is NOTHING in the game we can sample that has 70% or above resists except MH. This is the 'bug'. It isn't in the calculations at all...it's in the input. The same goes for the MDH, u can use it to lower/neutralise a load of resists while keeping the stats such as fortitude relatively high to give AR1.
Looking at the code will not fix this, short of putting in more validity checks, which so far do not work, and actually cause more problems than good.
The only way to fix once and for all would be the removal/rebalance of the Merek creatures from the game. Something that BEs would scream NERF at, not because of the CL10s, but because of the knockon effect to almost all BE pets under cl35.
It's not a bug until someone figures out what the bug is, i.e. mixing XXXX DNA with YYYY DNA and resampling and combining with ZZZZ DNA causes an error in the CL calculation because it doesn't take into account Factor AAAA, thus you should not use this combination of DNA.
As of now, if you want to call it a bug, then the entire BE crafting system is bugged and all pets are invalid. Then anyone that is using BE pets are exploiting and they should all be spanked with the naughty stick.
Message Edited by rahbert on 03-15-2005 08:56 AM
You must not use Microsoft Visual Studio
