Bio Engineer Archive
Thread: Question to TH: Invalid pets, submitted 5/3/04
GMANHNC wrote:
a system check should go out on all current pets and either balance them or label them in valid.
Someone help me with the history here because I must admit to not being in the loop about it. My impression was that the "valid check" was put in to correct some old pets that were created with stats that aren't valid, and that the fact that you can still create them that aren't valid is a bit of a bug. Is this correct? Am I missing some piece of the puzzle?
I think the question as asked will evoke a response that you can work with or will at least spark discussion on the dev team about the issue.
DocSavag wrote:
Someone help me with the history here because I must admit to not being in the loop about it. My impression was that the "valid check" was put in to correct some old pets that were created with stats that aren't valid, and that the fact that you can still create them that aren't valid is a bit of a bug. Is this correct? Am I missing some piece of the puzzle?
I think the question as asked will evoke a response that you can work with or will at least spark discussion on the dev team about the issue.
The pet validity check was put in to counter the 10K HAM CL 10 pets that popped up shortly after the BE crafting revamp. The problem is that the validity check isn't just for CL 10 pets (its been reported that CH lvl pets have been 'invalid' too but not as often as non-ch) and that it isn't consistant. 3K HAM CL 10 petsare easily doable and still valid, while 1.5K or 2K HAM CL 10 pets get labled as invalid. Some ppl have even reported making CL 10 pets with higher than 3K HAM and those are still valid as well.
So, not only do we not know what is a 'valid' or 'invalid' pet, it seems the validity check also doesn't know. That's why this is such a game breaker because we get inconsistant feedback from the devs and the system the devs have put in. We have almost no way of know if what we sell will even be usable as crafted or not.
Message Edited by Kevm on 05-04-2004 01:44 PM
Kevie wrote:
*folds his hands in his lap and waits for the answer*
At least you're not *holding your breath*
Kevm wrote:
Kevie wrote:
*folds his hands in his lap and waits for the answer*
At least you're not *holding your breath*
would have run out a long time ago
NJ62 wrote:
When in doubt.. use the word when.
Question was submitted on 5/3/04.
It is 5/7/04.
I would thinka Moderator or Developer could at least acknowledge receipt of the question with this amount ot time.
NancyJ wrote:
Devero this is our question for Th's weekly '19 questions' it will be answered on Monday.
Does this mean he skipped a week?
NancyJ wrote:
Devero this is our question for Th's weekly '19 questions' it will be answered on Monday.
Cool. Sounds good.
NancyJ wrote:
Each profession gets 1 question answered every other week
This I know... I am not dumb.. but look at the dates...
he hasn't posted anything this week... he posted stuff last two weeks in a row. I am not stressed to geta response... honestly I think they are all too busy with E3 since it is this next week.