Difference between revisions of "Talk:Enhancement Set Bonuses"

Latest revision as of 20:39, 29 June 2012

Formatting Question 1

You say this follows the con system, but purple shopws up twice (ambiguous), and you skipped yellow. Also, I have no idea why this table isn't on the Invention Origin Enhancement Sets page. --Lin Chiao Feng 13:20, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

Yellow is skipped for readability reasons. Yellow text would be quite hard to read in many cases. Purple is reused at levels 6 and 7, neither of which are actually in use in any I9 sets. So that's a duplication issue that I put off until a future date when they actually get used. As for them being on their own page, the Invention Origin Enhancement Sets page is quite large with the tables that it does have. I made a judgment call when splitting up the enormous Invention Origin Enhancements page to split it into three pages instead of just two. So there is the logic behind these decisions.  :) - Sister Leortha 14:48, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

OK, I can see the yellow/orange thing now. I was thinking that a dark yellow would work, but it doesn't. --Lin Chiao Feng 12:09, 19 April 2007 (PDT)

Effects of Exemplaring

I've read multiple conflicting descriptions of how set bonuses work when exemplared. Things are further confused by some IOs having benefits treated as "set bonuses", which confuses me more, because my understanding of at what levels a set bonus is received does not jive with how people describe to me the levels a "set bonus" IO is received. If someone could expand this article with correct information I would be much obliged.

My current understanding is IOs that have a time limit to their benefit or have a chance of activating always work (as long as you have the power they're in) and when the benefit is not explicit in the description, have a benefit scaling to your combat level.

Otherwise, IOs with global benefits (such as Luck of the Gambler: Defense/Recharge Speed) function no lower than at the IO's level -3. This is usually described to me as "being like a set bonus". I'm confused about whether Gift of the Ancients is included in these, but I figure it probably is.

Finally, my current understanding of set bonuses is that the lowest level they can be obtained is the lowest level of the set -3, regardless of the levels of the IOs actually used.

Apparently this understanding is mistaken and I'd appreciate corrections. --Professor Immortal 12:06, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Dredging what I remember from how it was originally explained

• For the actual set bonuses: As you exemp down, you lose the benefit of any IOs above your current combat level. I.E. Let's say you are a level 50 and have a set of IOs that are level 30, 32, 33, 35, 40, and 45. You normally get the set bonus for having all 6 of those slotted. If you exemp down to level 34, the level 35, 40, and 45 IOs do not count toward the set bonus while you remain exemped. So, exemped at 34, you should only be getting the bonus for having 3 of those IOs slotted.

• For the IOs that affect only the power they're in: All of the IOs in this category function as normal regardless of level. What I'm not sure about is the any scaling that may or may not be applied to their effect as a result of the exemp.

• For IOs with a global effect: Not sure. Pure speculation on my part, but I would guess they function the same as the set bonuses. If that's true, then a level 42 Luck of the Gambler +Recharge will function down to level 42, but not at 41 or below.

--Eabrace 13:16, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Formatting Question II

Is this properly formatted? It appears in this section... I can't understand the syntax. Perhaps an example is in order? Zombie Man 21:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

<Size> Increased <Positional>/<Typed 1>/<Typed 2> Def Bonus - if the Positional defense bonus is the larger one

<Size> Increased <Typed 1>/<Typed 2>/<Positional> Def Bonus - if the Typed defense bonuses are the larger ones

I may be misunderstanding the question, but the examples of "Small Increased Fire/Cold/AoE Def Bonus" and "Huge Increased AoE/Fire/Cold Def Bonus" seem to illustrate the point.

Would it make more sense in a table?

--Eabrace 21:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely makes more sense that way. I thought I was looking at unparsed html code. Zombie Man 01:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I can see how someone could interpret it that way. --Eabrace 02:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)