Dalghryn

Exactly. I'm going to take a look at the mission pop-up to see if I can hammer that idea home better, but it';s fairly obvious. Of all her great points, this is one of the few I probably won't worry about.

Um... "Who understands the thinking of the gods?"

Thanks for your support, yet again. You're such an ego boost.

The first of many really good spots. You're right, I ran through a series of bigger edits at one time and simply missed some of the obvious errors. Changing the alignment from "Heroic" to "Neutral" was one of them. I'll fix this ASAP.

Okay, I give. This is the complaint that broke the camel's back. In an attempt to vary some of the types of technical aspects, I really wanted him to have the ability to run, but it's either replace him with a different revamped Longbow=Original Vanguard E/B (and I'm not certain there is one, though I did "buy" some other models recently), or dump the running. Consider him hobbled, at least for now.

Since the point will be moot once I make the aforementioned correction, no harm, no foul. I will make a change to this dialogue should I find a different model and choose to re-instate the running.

Again, moot for now, but fixed if the runner returns.

Yep, it's an MA problem. I reworded some of his dialogue in the first arc to account for this. I'll look at some constructive change here, too.

I'll give these another look and try to clarify them better. As for the map, I've considered changing it, then unconsidered changing it. Jury's split 50/50 on it being great or sucktastic. For now, I'm leaving it pending further thought and input.

I'll tweak it.

You're in the minority on this one... or rather we are. I was still inclined to just up the time from 45 minutes to an hour or so, but there was an MA glitch that auto-failed missions with rescues, so I just cut the timer completely. If that glitch has been fixed, I'll re-instate the timer.

Mobile, true, but mobile units did use existing buildings at times. I may look at a tweak here, just because it's you that brought it up.

Agreed. This mission has seen on again, off again tweaks based on earlier criticism about escorts. I also ran out of memory. Because I eliminated Penthouse from both arcs (ggod catch later on, BTW) I now have the memory to add rescues (versus escorts), but I don't think the map will allow me to add them. I'll double check and tweak something to fix it one way or the other.

Fighting animation, coming right up!

This was a point specifically pointed out by one of your peers... Vanguard back then didn't have the tech they have now, because the tech came as a result of the ending of the war. Thus, I created the retro-Vanguard. Comments have been very positive about them, so I think I'll stick with 'em. You can't be 100% right, you know.

I'd prefer he was an ally. Players, however, are very unforgiving of allies. tend to agree with you, but I'll have to think on it. Something will be tweaked, though.

I'll tweak some dialogue. I need the battles to help re-inforce the intensity of the fight. Battles and patrols are critical to the ambiance.

Good points (again). Will do.

I tend to agree, but this map has some MA limits that won't allow more evacs. I'll think on it some and see if I can come up with something.

If you ever get a chance to re-run the revised Part 1, you'll see why G's here. I may look at making him a little more solid in this arc, but overall... well, you'll weep for him, too.

Mission 4
Is this a rating point for you? I have it split into two missions in order to give the characters that eventually demonstrate the "Consequences of War" more time to insinuate themselves into an aorta or some other part of your heart so that the ending will have the required punch. It also helps to hammer home the intensity of the battle. Overall, it's played well.

Consider him "Boss only." I've debated the clipping versus the story issue since creating this mission. There's not another Rikti EB I can use... For now, I think he'll stay.

That's something I've been considering. Probably a good idea.

She was originally an ally, but I made her a modified NPC in order to recoup some memory. I'll revisit her.

Let the tweaking begin...

You did, in the first arc... I thought I slipped him in somewhere, but I'll fix it if I didn't.

Will do. Though I've included defeat everyones in order to hammer home the whole war thing. I guess it's still accomplished without having to kill everything around the bosses, though.

Gotcha.

Ouch, ouch, ouch... You're absolutely right about both Penthouse being removed and my bad editing. Thanks for the multi-catches.

It basically ties up the entire jammer thread that runs from the first arc through the first mission of the second arc. I see your points, however. I've done battle with this one in my head for awhile now, so... I'll ponder.

As I said earlier, MA limitations are hampering me a bit here, but I tend to agree and I am going to look at it.

I've had a real time trying to balance the complaints of "helping allies" with what I wanted the story to do. Your outlook is very similar to my own, and the arc was written more closely to your suggestions earlier on. I tweaked the allies back because of a few comments. This may be a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" editorial call. In which case, I'll probably do exactly as you suggest.

Thank you very, VERY much, PW. Once the changes are made I'll let you know. Maybe sometime in the future you can re-run them both together and see if I nailed them.

Just to clarify, you said "...the story..." not necessarily "...the arc?" The reason I ask is simply that I've had several suggestions that caused me do some major revisions to *the arc* in order to accomplish them. They left *the story* intact provided I was willing to do the work to keep it the way I wanted.

Suggestions can be drastic. It'll be the creator's responsibility to decide whether the arc will be better for them and adjust accordingly. The problem comes from a reviewer's suggesting changes based on personal preference, rather than real need, and grading an arc down accordingly. If the need is there, however drastic, it's well within a reviewer's right to point it out.

Ok, I'll bite again... *where* in-game does it state this, so I can either shut up or rant about how they hide information that's rather important in the darkest corners of the game rather than make it simple to find.

Edit: As I noted in another thread, "I found where it says that "Final" is the only status that will be accepted for Dev's Choice. As someone else noted, you'll find it if you click on the "?" next to "Story Arc Status" under "Story Parameters." I still think they should explain more fully in the "Rewards" part of the MA tabs in the help section exactly what's required at minimum to be eligible for Dev's Choice, and maybe even create a stickied thread in this forum, rather than assuming everyone will click every question mark in the MA regardless of how obvious the choices for that field seem."

Sense or not, the fact that they have many Dev Choices that have something other than "Final" is confusing. They need to clarify what, exactly, they expect from an arc for it to qualify as a Dev's Choice instead of making us speculate simply because they want to keep their options open.

Edit: I found where it says that "Final" is the only status that will be accepted for Dev's Choice. As someone else noted, you'll find it if you click on the "?" next to "Story Arc Status" under "Story Parameters." I still think they should explain more fully in the "Rewards" part of the MA tabs in the help section exactly what the minimum requirements are to be eligible for Dev's Choice Award, and maybe even create a stickied thread in this forum rather than assuming everyone will click every question mark in the MA regardless of how obvious the choices for that field seem.

Ah ha! :: pounces :: Troy... buddy... have you published any arcs? Curious minds are dying to know.

Well, I searched the entire help section that applied to MA and couldn't find where it stated that an arc had to be "Final" for it to be considered. That's not saying it's not there... somewhere... but I couldn't find it. Even so, I went ahead and "Finaled" Part 1. That doesn't mean I still won't make adjustments based on constructive feedback, of course, but there's no sense taking chances, I guess. Not that it likely matters, since my bet is that Devs Choices for I16 have probably already been selected, but it never hurts to hope, huh?

Do you remember where, exactly, this was? As I noted earlier, many of the current DCs are set to "Work in Progress." I didn't check all of them, but there may also be some "Looking for Feedbacks." It would really be nice, not to mention professional, if the Devs would stop being so secretive about what criteria they use to select DCs.

Is this specifically stated somewhere recently, because there are several of the DCs that currently read "Work in Progress?" If so, and they've instituted yet another seemingly arbitrary condition, that's just one more thing they're doing to irritate me. Even if I think it's "Final," I want to encourage feedback on my arcs. I've thought my arcs were "Final," several times already, and through feedback still managed to improve them... immensely. I'll go ahead and do it if that's one of the silly requirements, but I won't have to like it.

Seems pretty par for the course with a lot of the devs' decisions regarding MA lately...

Color me very disappointed, then. That explains why so many really *good* arcs haven't seen a DC while the majority of the ones that have probably would only get 4 stars in my book. I've played arcs by each of the primary reviewers in this forum, and they all rate better than any of the DCs I've played, as do the majority of the arcs that have been given five star reviews (and in many cases *4 star* reviews) by those same reviewers...

...yeah, VERY disappointing.