Mastermind Pets need survivability buffs

[Rudra]

10 minutes ago, TheSpiritFox said:

 

Using bots as an example, we got an extra 10% (total 30%) to 3/8 damage types and 0% resistance to others. 

 

Do I need to list the controller pets? Singularity with 50% resistance to everything. Tri cannon with 80%. Jack Frost with 25% defense to all base? Phantasm has gotten the fewest buffs from controller pets from what I have seen, because with phantom army taunting everything its less likely to take hits. Fly trap 30% to all but lethal and fire, plus psi defense. Animate stone, lowest resistance is 40%, highest is 100, most are 60%. 

 

Oh and almost all of them have mez protection that no mastermind pet has without it being provided by the secondary. Just base mez resist. 

 

By comparison, a "buff" from 20% to 30% to 3 damage categories and no base resistance, defense, or mez resistance is terrible. 

 

City of heroes has long suffered from "If it works somehow, dont fix it" which is why fire imps are still made of paper, because what does it matter if a fire kin neuters an entire spawn with CC and Fulcrum Shift. I'd like to see imps buffed too. 

 

But saying that the moving a resistance to the upgrades is like, making a huge difference in survivability? That its a buff in anything but name?

 

That's not a thought out buff to pet survivability. That's a cookie. So if you want to make the semantic argument that "pets have been buffed" and validate Peregrine's ego, sure. 

 

It does not change the fact that a single unlucky roll from a boss aoe wipes out entire tiers of pets for materminds, cratering our damage AND our survivability at the same time, and that's not balanced, not fun or engaging to play with, and there is absolutely no reason NOT to increase pet survivability for the one class that does actually depend on its pets for almost all of its ability to survive and do damage. 

 

 

MM pets use lower scalars than other pets. And the fact that other pets have better resists does not change the fact that moving MM pet defenses and damage resists into their T1 upgrade is a buff implemented to improve their survivability. Now, do you have anything that proves the provided buff was not in fact a buff or are you just going to keep crying that their buff does not count as one to you because MM pets are still intentionally lower than Controller/Dominator pets? (Edit: Oh, and using bots as the example? You can enhance their damage resist past 30% by slotting damage resist enhancements in their T1 upgrade, something Controller/Dominator pets can't.) (Edit again: And Controller/Dominator pets have a base 240 second recharge. The slowest pet recharge for MMs is 15 seconds at base. So if those Controllers and Dominators lose their pets? They're SoL unlike the MMs that just re-summon their lost pets.)

 

Yes, MM pets still need help. However, your insistence that the MM pet buff they already got is not a buff is undercutting your credibility.

Edited March 30 by Rudra

[TheSpiritFox]

Just now, Rudra said:

MM pets use lower scalars than other pets. And the fact that other pets have better resists does not change the fact that moving MM pet defenses and damage resists into their T1 upgrade is a buff implemented to improve their survivability. Now, do you have anything that proves the provided buff was not in fact a buff or are you just going to keep crying that their buff does not count as one to you because Mm pets are still intentionally lower than Controller/Dominator pets?

 

Yes, MM pets still need help. However, your insistence that the MM pet buff they already got is not a buff is undercutting your credibility.

 

My credibility doesn't really matter, even you agree that MM pets need help. Hell, peregrine didnt disagree with the situation, only with the idea that the situation is a problem. 

 

Me calling it not a buff and you saying "well, but technically it is" is derailing from focus on the issue to focus on my word choice. Can we stick to the topic please, if you dont like me saying (and I continue to say it) that the change to pet resistances and defenses moving it to the T1 was not a buff it was not even a band aid, you're entitled to not like it. I am not changing my tune. An extra 10% to thematic resistances which dont make any real difference in survivability in most content is not something I call a buff. 

 

Im not going to call anything a buff unless it manifestly changes the play experience. The change to upgrades and defense/res moving to them did not manifestly change anything about the play experience except turning the first upgrade into a place that tempts you to waste a slot enhancing it. 

 

That's *not* a buff to pet survivability in any manifest way that is visible anywhere except in combat attributes. I dont call anything a buff unless it makes an actual gameplay difference. And that change did absolutely nothing to stop pets from being one shotted, so therefore yes I absolutely stand by "They changed the math, that does not equate to a real, measurable buff of any significance"

[Rudra]

9 minutes ago, TheSpiritFox said:

 

My credibility doesn't really matter, even you agree that MM pets need help. Hell, peregrine didnt disagree with the situation, only with the idea that the situation is a problem. 

 

Me calling it not a buff and you saying "well, but technically it is" is derailing from focus on the issue to focus on my word choice. Can we stick to the topic please, if you dont like me saying (and I continue to say it) that the change to pet resistances and defenses moving it to the T1 was not a buff it was not even a band aid, you're entitled to not like it. I am not changing my tune. An extra 10% to thematic resistances which dont make any real difference in survivability in most content is not something I call a buff. 

 

Im not going to call anything a buff unless it manifestly changes the play experience. The change to upgrades and defense/res moving to them did not manifestly change anything about the play experience except turning the first upgrade into a place that tempts you to waste a slot enhancing it. 

 

That's *not* a buff to pet survivability in any manifest way that is visible anywhere except in combat attributes. I dont call anything a buff unless it makes an actual gameplay difference. And that change did absolutely nothing to stop pets from being one shotted, so therefore yes I absolutely stand by "They changed the math, that does not equate to a real, measurable buff of any significance"

To buff something in the game is to make stronger, better, or more effective. (Edit: In other words, to improve it in some fashion. And the improvement in this case is that having moved the defense and resists to the T1 power, now it can be enhanced. It now being enhanceable is a buff.) Whether you like the buff or not does not change that it is a buff. If you choose not to take advantage of that buff, that is on you. However, you cannot simply choose to say something is not a buff because it does not meet your preferred levels of achievement. So no, I am not going to let this go because you were arguing against @PeregrineFalcon that the buff the devs implemented is not a buff whereas it very clearly is. That you are not satisfied with it does not change what it is. And if you insist on arguing from a false standpoint, expect to have others argue back on that standpoint.

Edited March 30 by Rudra

[TheSpiritFox]

8 minutes ago, Rudra said:

To buff something in the game is to make stronger, better, or more effective. (Edit: In other words, to improve it in some fashion. And the improvement in this case is that having moved the defense and resists to the T1 power, now it can be enhanced. It now being enhanceable is a buff.) Whether you like the buff or not does not change that it is a buff. If you choose not to take advantage of that buff, that is on you. However, you cannot simply choose to say something is not a buff because it does not meet your preferred levels of achievement. So no, I am not going to let this go because you were arguing against @PeregrineFalcon that the buff the devs implemented is not a buff whereas it very clearly is. That you are not satisfied with it does not change what it is. And if you insist on arguing from a false standpoint, expect to have others argue back on that standpoint.

Then I'm done replying to you, because Im not here to argue what the definition of a buff is. 

 

A buff is not a buff unless it makes a manifest change. Define it however you like. That's how I do. Because my definition serves a function. Unless a manifest change is made to the player experience, its not a buff or a nerf, its just playing with math. 

 

When players ASK for a buff or a nerf, theyre not asking for minute changes to the math that dont affect the gameplay experience. They're asking directly, and specifically, for changes to the gameplay experience. So saying that changes to the gameplay experience are an essential part of something being a buff or a nerf is a much more reasonable definition than yours. 

 

If there is no change to the game play experience its just a math adjustment. 

Edited March 30 by TheSpiritFox

[PeregrineFalcon]

8 minutes ago, TheSpiritFox said:

My credibility doesn't really matter...

People aren't computers. If you want people to agree with you, on anything, you're going to have some credibility with them or they're just going to disbelieve or ignore anything you say.

 

11 minutes ago, TheSpiritFox said:

That's *not* a buff to pet survivability in any manifest way that is visible anywhere except in combat attributes. I dont call anything a buff unless it makes an actual gameplay difference.

I too do not like it when people try to argue semantics, e.g. "but the devs increased their damage resistance by 0.39%! See! that's a buff." If it doesn't increase their survival by an amount of time visible to the human eye then it's not a buff. I agree with you on this.

 

Where I disagree with you on is the need for MM pets to have a survival buff. I have played many /FF, /Sonic and, /Dark MMs. All of those secondaries increase the survival of pet MMs. Traps does a bit too with its Force Field Generator, but I don't really care for the rest of the set so I don't play it. From what I've seen having to take care of and/or constantly resummon your pets is intended MM gameplay.

 

In short, it appears to me that the developers intend for MM pets to not be very durable.

[Rudra]

Just now, TheSpiritFox said:

Then I'm done replying to you, because Im not here to argue what the definition of a buff is. 

 

A buff is not a buff unless it makes a manifest change. Define it however you like. That's how I do. Because my definition serves a function. Unless a manifest change is made to the player experience, its not a buff or a nerf, its just playing with math. 

A buff is an improvement. A manifest change can be a buff but can also be a redesign. Your definition is irrelevant because it does not match up with what a buff is generally understood to be or is defined as. MMs have gotten 2 buffs so far. The pets get combat level shifts up to the MM's incarnate level while within Supremacy's radius in incarnate content, and their defense and damage resist can be enhanced which previously they could not. Those are buffs. No matter how much you close your eyes and cover your ears screaming la la la you can't hear me. That MM pets need further buffing is not in contention. With me at least. Your declaration that MMs have not gotten any buffs however, is.

[Rudra]

2 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

"but the devs increased their damage resistance by 0.39%!

Nah, I'd more argue that is a pointless buff or completely ignorable one. (Edit: Or a giant middle finger to the players buff.)

Edited March 30 by Rudra

[TheSpiritFox]

Just now, Rudra said:

A buff is an improvement. A manifest change can be a buff but can also be a redesign. Your definition is irrelevant because it does not match up with what a buff is generally understood to be or is defined as. MMs have gotten 2 buffs so far. The pets get combat level shifts up to the MM's incarnate level while within Supremacy's radius in incarnate content, and their defense and damage resist can be enhanced which previously they could not. Those are buffs. No matter how much you close your eyes and cover your ears screaming la la la you can't hear me. That MM pets need further buffing is not in contention. With me at least. Your declaration that MMs have not gotten any buffs however, is.

 

Why are you stuck on a semantic argument where you agree with me on the problem? 

 

And 

 

"A buff is an improvement"

By the definition you just stated, no manifest improvement was made. The math was adjusted. It did not actually improve the play experience. This is what happens when you argue semantics. Now youve contradicted yourself. 

[Rudra]

4 minutes ago, TheSpiritFox said:

 

Why are you stuck on a semantic argument where you agree with me on the problem? 

 

And 

 

"A buff is an improvement"

By the definition you just stated, no manifest improvement was made. The math was adjusted. It did not actually improve the play experience. This is what happens when you argue semantics. Now youve contradicted yourself. 

You've lost me. First, there is an improvement. My bots for instance can take more hits before they die. (My ninjas on the other hand still like to block enemy attacks with their faces instead of make use of their improved defenses. However, they do still more or less survive better with their enhancement improved defenses.) There is a bug where the enhancements don't always apply to the pets, but that is a bug the devs need to fix and is something they were aware of when they made the change.

 

Edit (for missed second half of thought): And second, how and where did I contradict myself?

Edited March 30 by Rudra

[Luminara]

39 minutes ago, TheSpiritFox said:

Do I need to list the controller pets?

 

Yes, along with the pet buff powers in the control sets (the primaries with the controller pets themselves, not the secondaries, which you've repeatedly discounted as irrelevant), which of those buffs accept +Def/+Res enhancements, and the controller pet commands equivalent to Stay/Follow and Aggressive/Defensive.

[TheSpiritFox]

1 hour ago, Rudra said:

You've lost me. First, there is an improvement. My bots for instance can take more hits before they die. (My ninjas on the other hand still like to block enemy attacks with their faces instead of make use of their improved defenses. However, they do still more or less survive better with their enhancement improved defenses.) There is a bug where the enhancements don't always apply to the pets, but that is a bug the devs need to fix and is something they were aware of when they made the change.

 

Edit (for missed second half of thought): And second, how and where did I contradict myself?

 

Lets say the devs decided that blasters are too fragile. So they buff base blaster HP 5 hit points, exactly, and buff the HP cap for the blaster AT 10 hitpoints. 

 

You would call that a buff, despite the fact that it improves literally nothing about the class. But you also said buffs are an improvement. And since you wanted to do semantics, an improvement is "a thing that makes something better or is better than something else"

 

The changes to masterminds are not an improvement. They did not make the class *better* at surviving. So by your definition where a buff is an improvement, there was no improvement, and thus it is not a buff. That's the contradiction. Its not better than it was before, pets are not surviving more because of the change, it just adjusted the math in a way thats visible in combat attributes. 

 

By comparison, the incarnate level shift (which I did call a buff myself) seriously improved pets performance in Incarnate content, it greatly changed the gameplay experience of Masterminds in incarnate content. However, thats one buff across the entire history of masterminds directly to mastermind primary set survivability without respect to secondary powersets. 

 

They dont more or less survive better. There's been no noticeable change to the damage pets take as a result. Some enemies that already werent a huge threat now do slightly less damage. Nothing that one shots a pet no longer one shots it because of the change, and in high level content anything that one shot your pets before still does.  

 

Now lets compare it to a powerset specific buff. Protector bots used to have to individually shield allies every 2 minutes, the shields added up to about the same defense that you get with the aoe single shield now, and protector bots no longer waste tons of combat time casting shields everywhere. This was a huge buff. It increased DPS AND survivability by 1) Making protectors able to shield the entire pet team in one go from one protector enabling more shooting AND healing and 2) ensuring you get full protection from protectors with even one alive, rather than requiring both alive and 3) Shortening the time between bots being summoned and bots being buffed, lessening the likely hood that they'll get immediately one shot upon summon. This was a MASSIVE change to the gameplay experience of playing bots, for the better. 

 

Same way, Serum got an incredible buff that makes Mercs much less made of paper. The buffs to their resistance did not do much of anything for them, but serum letting them take alphas and shrug it off for 15 or so seconds makes a massive difference in their survivability and the fact that it can be close to permaed makes it a very reliable "stop killing me" button. 

 

Those are buffs. They improve and better the actual game experience, improve and better the performance of the powersets. 

 

Something that does not make a noticeable difference in performance on any level isnt something Im going to call a buff. If the game experience itself is not changed, if it is not bettered (or worsened in the case of nerfs) then Im not going to call it either. 

 

If they lowered pet base HP by 5 points, Im not going to call that a nerf. Its just a pointless change. 

 

Or if you really want to go full semantics. Improvement is itself defined with a subjective word "better" which is open to its own interpretation so we're both technically right, you could use the word buff either way and its not incorrect. And there wasnt a need to argue about it. 

 

Edited March 30 by TheSpiritFox

[Rudra]

3 minutes ago, TheSpiritFox said:

Lets say the devs decided that blasters are too fragile. So they buff base blaster HP 5 hit points, exactly, and buff the HP cap for the blaster AT 10 hitpoints. 

 

You would call that a buff, despite the fact that it improves literally nothing about the class.

Yes. I would call it a worthless buff, but it would still be a buff.

 

4 minutes ago, TheSpiritFox said:

But you also said buffs are an improvement. And since you wanted to do semantics, an improvement is "a thing that makes something better or is better than something else"

MM pets became enhanceable for their defense or damage resist depending on set. That is something that could not be done previously. So yes, that is a buff.

 

6 minutes ago, TheSpiritFox said:

They did not make the class *better* at surviving. So by your definition where a buff is an improvement, there was no improvement, and thus it is not a buff. That's the contradiction. Its not better than it was before, pets are not surviving more because of the change, it just adjusted the math in a way thats visible in combat attributes. 

Except that MM pets did pick up more survivability. Bots for instance, can now have their damage resists enhanced. My bots MMs for instance, have their bots' damage resists improved by 60.96% from slotted enhancements. Something that could not be done before. My ninja MM has the ninjas' defense boosted by 71.85% from slotted enhancements, something that could not be done before. That is an improvement.

 

9 minutes ago, TheSpiritFox said:

By comparison, the incarnate level shift (which I did call a buff myself) seriously improved pets performance in Incarnate content, it greatly changed the gameplay experience of Masterminds in incarnate content.

And yet, my pets die just as fast in incarnate content as they do outside of incarnate content. So by your definition, that is not a buff. And we both agree it is a buff.

 

11 minutes ago, TheSpiritFox said:

They dont more or less survive better. There's been no noticeable change to the damage pets take as a result.

Check the damage your bots take without damage resist enhancements slotted and with damage resist enhancements slotted. Your bots can take more damage if you slot their upgrade with damage resist enhancements. It's just like how if you run around with your MM not in Bodyguard Mode you won't notice any major change in the damage you take just because you took Tough. You're still going to get mauled by most enemies doing Smashing or Lethal damage regardless of whether you have Tough or not unless you use Bodyguard Mode. Except your pets don't have a Bodyguard Mode to protect them. More crippling for them is that if you are in Bodyguard Mode, your pets will take both their damage and a portion of your damage, and that double hit is going to hurt even through their improved damage resists even with enhancements even for bots.

 

15 minutes ago, TheSpiritFox said:

Now lets compare it to a powerset specific buff. Protector bots used to have to individually shield allies every 2 minutes, the shields added up to about the same defense that you get with the aoe single shield now, and protector bots no longer waste tons of combat time casting shields everywhere. This was a huge buff. It increased DPS AND survivability by 1) Making protectors able to shield the entire pet team in one go from one protector enabling more shooting AND healing and 2) ensuring you get full protection from protectors with even one alive, rather than requiring both alive and 3) Shortening the time between bots being summoned and bots being buffed, lessening the likely hood that they'll get immediately one shot upon summon. This was a MASSIVE change to the gameplay experience of playing bots, for the better. 

Agreed, just like how the pet upgrade powers becoming an apply to all pets instead of just one pet per use was a massive buff/improvement for MMs. Not arguing that either.

 

17 minutes ago, TheSpiritFox said:

Something that does not make a noticeable difference in performance on any level isnt something Im going to call a buff. If the game experience itself is not changed, if it is not bettered (or worsened in the case of nerfs) then Im not going to call it either. 

Regardless of whether you think it is a buff or not, it is a buff. If you had instead argued that you thought it was an insufficient buff rather than it not being a buff at all, we wouldn't be having this debate. Because then you would be arguing your opinion and I can't impose my opinion on you. However, you instead chose to say that the obvious buff, regardless of whether you think it is sufficient or not, is not a buff, and the whole point of its implementation was to buff MM pet survivability.

 

[PoptartsNinja]

Honestly, MM pets should be the same level as the creator. That would be a survivability buff since the T1 pets would no longer be gray to +2 enemies.

 

When the T2 pet is picked up, it could then reduce pet damage of the T1 pets by a % equivalent to a level loss (or perhaps slightly higher since being higher level would give them inherently higher accuracy). The T3 pet could then do the same, reducing the damage of both the T2 and T1 pets. That would create interesting (sub-optimal but potentially fun) scenarios where your lower tier pets would do more damage if you skip one or more of the higher tier pets.

 

I've never understood Mastermind pet level reductions, they just don't make any sense.

Edited March 30 by PoptartsNinja

[TheSpiritFox]

3 hours ago, Rudra said:

Yes. I would call it a worthless buff, but it would still be a buff.

 

MM pets became enhanceable for their defense or damage resist depending on set. That is something that could not be done previously. So yes, that is a buff.

 

Except that MM pets did pick up more survivability. Bots for instance, can now have their damage resists enhanced. My bots MMs for instance, have their bots' damage resists improved by 60.96% from slotted enhancements. Something that could not be done before. My ninja MM has the ninjas' defense boosted by 71.85% from slotted enhancements, something that could not be done before. That is an improvement.

 

And yet, my pets die just as fast in incarnate content as they do outside of incarnate content. So by your definition, that is not a buff. And we both agree it is a buff.

 

Check the damage your bots take without damage resist enhancements slotted and with damage resist enhancements slotted. Your bots can take more damage if you slot their upgrade with damage resist enhancements. It's just like how if you run around with your MM not in Bodyguard Mode you won't notice any major change in the damage you take just because you took Tough. You're still going to get mauled by most enemies doing Smashing or Lethal damage regardless of whether you have Tough or not unless you use Bodyguard Mode. Except your pets don't have a Bodyguard Mode to protect them. More crippling for them is that if you are in Bodyguard Mode, your pets will take both their damage and a portion of your damage, and that double hit is going to hurt even through their improved damage resists even with enhancements even for bots.

 

Agreed, just like how the pet upgrade powers becoming an apply to all pets instead of just one pet per use was a massive buff/improvement for MMs. Not arguing that either.

 

Regardless of whether you think it is a buff or not, it is a buff. If you had instead argued that you thought it was an insufficient buff rather than it not being a buff at all, we wouldn't be having this debate. Because then you would be arguing your opinion and I can't impose my opinion on you. However, you instead chose to say that the obvious buff, regardless of whether you think it is sufficient or not, is not a buff, and the whole point of its implementation was to buff MM pet survivability.

 

Lord. Did you really just throw out percentages. 60% improvement to resists that aren't noticeable is still not noticeable. 

 

If you google the definition of "buff" it says to make something more powerful.

 

Since you want to keep arguing semantics (and keep pretending that more powerful and improved and better are not subjective concepts open to interpretation)

 

The actual definition of a buff is to make something more powerful. More powerful means a definable improvement in performance. There has been no increased performance of pet survivability compared to before the change, therefore its not a buff. 

 

The world agrees with me more than you. And since the definition is also listed as "informal" you lose out to colloquial/common use, which is to denote an actual change to the gameplay experience, since the definition disagrees with you and states that a buff must actually make something more powerful, you lose this absolutely pointless, mostly subjective argument you started that derailed from the original point which you agree with. Please just shut up about it. I'm genuinely asking. 

 

 

[Rudra]

14 minutes ago, TheSpiritFox said:

Lord. Did you really just throw out percentages. 60% improvement to resists that aren't noticeable is still not noticeable. 

 

If you google the definition of "buff" it says to make something more powerful.

 

Since you want to keep arguing semantics (and keep pretending that more powerful and improved and better are not subjective concepts open to interpretation)

 

The actual definition of a buff is to make something more powerful. More powerful means a definable improvement in performance. There has been no increased performance of pet survivability compared to before the change, therefore its not a buff. 

 

The world agrees with me more than you. And since the definition is also listed as "informal" you lose out to colloquial/common use, which is to denote an actual change to the gameplay experience, since the definition disagrees with you and states that a buff must actually make something more powerful, you lose this absolutely pointless, mostly subjective argument you started that derailed from the original point which you agree with. Please just shut up about it. I'm genuinely asking. 

 

 

All MM bots get +25% damage resistance from Equip Robot. That damage resist becomes 40.24% with that +60.96% boost from slotting Equip Robot. That is an improvement. Their damage resist is more powerful. The fact you refuse to acknowledge what the moved defenses and damage resists let you do with your MM pets tells me you are trolling.

 

I agree that MM pets still need help. However, they have been buffed with that defense/damage resist move to their T1 upgrade no matter how much you scream otherwise.

 

Edit: And ninjas go from 18% AoE defense and 13.5% ranged and melee defense to 30.933% AoE defense and 23.2% ranged/melee defense.

 

Edited March 30 by Rudra
Edited to correct "Battle drones" to "All MM bots".

[TheSpiritFox]

3 hours ago, PoptartsNinja said:

Honestly, MM pets should be the same level as the creator. That would be a survivability buff since the T1 pets would no longer be gray to +2 enemies.

 

When the T2 pet is picked up, it could then reduce pet damage of the T1 pets by a % equivalent to a level loss (or perhaps slightly higher since being higher level would give them inherently higher accuracy). The T3 pet could then do the same, reducing the damage of both the T2 and T1 pets. That would create interesting (sub-optimal but potentially fun) scenarios where your lower tier pets would do more damage if you skip one or more of the higher tier pets.

 

I've never understood Mastermind pet level reductions, they just don't make any sense.

 

It kinda makes sense within the structure of the game. Minion, lts, bosses are all level shifted from each other even at the same level, and they were copying their own structure for how bad guys work, because MMs originally were bad guys. 

 

It makes no sense from any perspective other than a lore/concept point of view, which comes from the stupid ass "hide the numbers, numbers aren't that important" design philosophy CoH had a long time ago before things like combat attributes were implemented. 

 

I agree that making MM pets the same level as the master (so as to remove the massive damage increase from 4+ level shifts) and then nerfing the damage down a few rounds until MMs produce similar DPS on 54 purple mobs is the best overall solution. It would not be that hard to do, but I feel like buffing base resistance is more likely to actually happen. 

[TheSpiritFox]

Just now, Rudra said:

Battle Drones get +25% damage resistance from Equip Robot. That damage resist becomes 40.24% with that +60.96% boost from slotting Equip Robot. That is an improvement. Their damage resist is more powerful. The fact you refuse to acknowledge what the moved defenses and damage resists let you do with your MM pets tells me you are trolling.

 

I agree that MM pets still need help. However, they have been buffed with that defense/damage resist move to their T1 upgrade no matter how much you scream otherwise.

 

Its 20% and 29% at level 50 with two +5 IOs please get your numbers right. Its also to, as stated, 3/8 damage types. The five remaining continue to be at 0% resistance, psionic is a relatively rare damage type compared to the rest so it applies to much less content. 

 

More powerful does not mean "the numbers went up" it means a manifest change in the gameplay. A 60% increase to resistance which does not stop pets from being one shotted because the level shifts increase damage to the drones 50% or more is not actually more powerful. 

 

But, again, you refuse to admit that this concept is in the end subjective and that you're the one here screaming into the wind that you agree with my concept but disagree with my goddamn word choice. Do you not remember that this is supposed to stay on topic? I've asked you to stop repeatedly. Please stop autistically sticking to this point like it even matters. 

[Rudra]

36 minutes ago, TheSpiritFox said:

 

Its 20% and 29% at level 50 with two +5 IOs please get your numbers right. Its also to, as stated, 3/8 damage types. The five remaining continue to be at 0% resistance, psionic is a relatively rare damage type compared to the rest so it applies to much less content. 

 

More powerful does not mean "the numbers went up" it means a manifest change in the gameplay. A 60% increase to resistance which does not stop pets from being one shotted because the level shifts increase damage to the drones 50% or more is not actually more powerful. 

 

But, again, you refuse to admit that this concept is in the end subjective and that you're the one here screaming into the wind that you agree with my concept but disagree with my goddamn word choice. Do you not remember that this is supposed to stay on topic? I've asked you to stop repeatedly. Please stop autistically sticking to this point like it even matters. 

Yeah, you're trolling. Yes, MM pets have lots of open areas in their defenses. That is intentional. However, we can improve the resists and defenses they get. That is an improvement. That is a buff. (Edit: Also, I don't use boosted IOs. I use attuned ones. And my numbers are pulled from City of Data. If you want, I'll log on my MMs and pull the data from in game.)

 

Edit again: Well, you are correct. My math is off. I checked my main bots MM, and dropping the +30% from the procs, they get +40.29% rather than 40.26%. (Except for the Assault Bot. The Assault Bot is at 50.36% before the +30% from the procs.)

 

Edited March 30 by Rudra
Edited to add ".36" to "50.36%".

[Outrider_01]

Rethink your strategy when sending pets to attack.  Make separate keys that are like Pet all in body guard mode, tier 2/3 pets attack while tier 1 are held in body guard mode, then a final key that sends in the tier 1.  The last higher pets can take a hit, the first 3 can be like a wave attack when the aggro has been dispersed from the alpha attack of the group.  this works on teams, I send them after the mayhem is started and the pets tend to last longer; not so much solo.

[starro]

Nyah.  Mm pets are basic to mid level if not sub-par villains that can get chewed up and thrown out. If they were balanced or smarter they would not work for me or try to take over. 

 

Hey, one of my soldiers or robots actually survived that fight - you other 4, welp, it was nice knowing you. 

[lemming]

I think if they got rid of the level shifts and did a rebalance shuffle, it would be a good step.

[wjrasmussen]

Master Mind Pets should be Master Minds.  They should summon their own Master Mind Pets.  All things considered Master Mind pets, should be able to summon Master Mind Pets.

[Rudra]

1 minute ago, wjrasmussen said:

Master Mind Pets should be Master Minds.  They should summon their own Master Mind Pets.  All things considered Master Mind pets, should be able to summon Master Mind Pets.

Jamie Madrox, eat your heart out. It's the new Infinity Engine. If you can't beat them, bury them under a sea of pets. 😄

[gameboy1234]

2 hours ago, lemming said:

I think if they got rid of the level shifts and did a rebalance shuffle, it would be a good step.

 

I'd like to see the pets not die every time I change levels (due to being on a team or league, most of the time).  Honestly I don't know if this is feasible but if the pets could just level up or down with my level that would be ideal.  Also ideal: once summoned, pets just appear and disappear with the level changes, no need to re-summon them when my level goes up again, they just show up.  Very handy on large leagues when there's a leadership shuffle (which always seems to happen) and everyone's level yo-yos around for a while.

 

Other ideas: make the pet buffs inherent rather than targeted click powers.  If the MM has the upgrade, the pets get the buff when summoned.  This shouldn't even need line of sight or anything, just make the check as part of the summon process.

 

Making pets equal to your level seems like it would be easy, even if the pets are still relatively weaker.  Maybe increasing the recharge time of the summoning power would balance this.  (Pets die less easily, but if they do die the power has a greater chance of being on cool-down.)

 

 

[Rudra]

4 minutes ago, gameboy1234 said:

 

I'd like to see the pets not die every time I change levels (due to being on a team or league, most of the time).  Honestly I don't know if this is feasible but if the pets could just level up or down with my level that would be ideal.  Also ideal: once summoned, pets just appear and disappear with the level changes, no need to re-summon them when my level goes up again, they just show up.  Very handy on large leagues when there's a leadership shuffle (which always seems to happen) and everyone's level yo-yos around for a while.

 

Other ideas: make the pet buffs inherent rather than targeted click powers.  If the MM has the upgrade, the pets get the buff when summoned.  This shouldn't even need line of sight or anything, just make the check as part of the summon process.

 

Making pets equal to your level seems like it would be easy, even if the pets are still relatively weaker.  Maybe increasing the recharge time of the summoning power would balance this.  (Pets die less easily, but if they do die the power has a greater chance of being on cool-down.)

 

 

If your pets are dying because you leveled up and not from enemy inflicted damage, you need to report it as a bug. The only time your character changing levels causes them to go away is when you level down. If you level up, they just remain at their current level until you re-summon them or zone.