Intelligent Casting Attachment

[Dekar]

I also had a problem where the automaton would cast silence on a monster that has MP but doesn't cast magic. I thought they fixed that a while ago. Then again, been a few months since I played around with it.

[Rafien]

@Dekar, no, the automation will still cast silence on crabs. If the mob has MP, it'll cast silence regardless if the mob uses spells or not.

[Cowardlybabooon]

Love the knowledge bombs. Tell more secrets! Btw I'm not a pup.

[Alhanelem]

the automaton should really just do this anyway, without a special attachment. Honestly, does SE think the automaton is too powerful if it doesn't waste its time casting spells that will do nothing?

[Raksha]

the automaton should really just do this anyway, without a special attachment. Honestly, does SE think the automaton is too powerful if it doesn't waste its time casting spells that will do nothing?

yes

10char.

[SpankWustler]

the automaton should really just do this anyway, without a special attachment. Honestly, does SE think the automaton is too powerful if it doesn't waste its time casting spells that will do nothing?

Given some of the "helpful hints" that pop up from time to time, I suspect SE thinks more than a few players waste time casting spells that do nothing and that it would be weird if automatons did not.

[Dragonlord]

So we're back to a "You don't know how to play the job correctly" response. I'm having deja vu from when they said this about the damage gauge attachment and light maneuvers, yet the entire AI was largely overworked months after. They weren't totally wrong, but missed the point that the system was inherently flawed by setting debuffs before cures.

The simple fact is maneuvers are designed to dictate too much of how automatons react through WS, magic, attachment JAs, and AI. Activating 1 maneuver can counter what you're trying to do through other maneuvers, such as flame holder boosting a WS's damage, then the auto uses a terrible WS because the AI is also based on the same system.

[Glamdring]

So we're back to a "You don't know how to play the job correctly" response. I'm having deja vu from when they said this about the damage gauge attachment and light maneuvers, yet the entire AI was largely overworked months after. They weren't totally wrong, but missed the point that the system was inherently flawed by setting debuffs before cures.

The simple fact is maneuvers are designed to dictate too much of how automatons react through WS, magic, attachment JAs, and AI. Activating 1 maneuver can counter what you're trying to do through other maneuvers, such as flame holder boosting a WS's damage, then the auto uses a terrible WS because the AI is also based on the same system.

problem is the manuver thing is in part in response to player requests to have more control over our little buddies with the spindly legs. In other words, we asked not to have it just on autopilot. The real issue is leaving things automatic results in stupid actions, what we have with the manuver/attachments system results in not enough control; giving us full control results in reducing player DPS, meaning an extra 1-2 seconds to kill our prey (also the possibility of being caught in a cooldown timer more often, i.e. needing to call for a cure but too busy hitting earth to put stoneskin back up). Honestly, this could get as ugly as all the rdms pointing fingers at eachtother about what the job is...

[Dragonlord]

problem is the manuver thing is in part in response to player requests to have more control over our little buddies with the spindly legs. In other words, we asked not to have it just on autopilot.

The maneuver system has worked this way since day one (just with dumber AI). Also, maneuvers should be on a 0 timer with 0 after delay but that's a separate issue. I'd much rather have a system where we can control our automatons on a more fundamental level. But at the very least, we shouldn't be counteracting ourselves by needing to bypass yet another AI obstacle (in this case ice forces nukes, as well as activating the scanner's modified AI). A gambit system allowing players to modify puppet AI to fit their own need would be sheer win, and not be unbalanced.

[Ophannus]

the automaton should really just do this anyway, without a special attachment. Honestly, does SE think the automaton is too powerful if it doesn't waste its time casting spells that will do nothing?

Might be wrong, not a PUP, but doesn't the BLM head have a built in Scanner? I know it has one of the attachments built into it, pretty sure it's Scanner.