Stargazer

Ok, after having spent a little time with the new forums, my first impressions are...
I don't like it.

There are a bunch of small things I don't like, and so far I see relatively few benefits (it's great that the US and EU forums have been combined. It might be nice if the server pools are combined too, but then we'd have the same name-space collisions for Global IDs. Hilarity would be sure to ensue).

However, I do not necessarily see this initial dislike as a problem.
I've had five years to get used to the old forums. I've adjusted the options to my tastes. I've learned to use the tools it gave me, and to work within the limitations it set on me. I've learned the tricks. Basically, I've gotten used to them.

I don't think it's realistic to expect to suddenly feel as comfortable with an entirely new forum software.
Here too, I'll eventually adapt, adjust, customize and learn (and it seems likely that the community team will still tweak a few things on their end too). In time, I'll get used to these forums too.

When that happens, I'm sure there'll be things about the new forums that I'll prefer, and that there'll still be things I prefer about the old forums. At the moment, it's hard to predict which one I'll prefer more (though I hope it'll be the new forums).



There are however some things that I will *not* learn to like.

It is my opinion that signature images are detrimental to the forums, and it would be my preference that the ability to use them is removed, or that an option to block them (and only them) out is added.


Using the game account user/password for the forums *and* sending these over an unsecure connection is unacceptable. It'd be nice if we both got the option to use secure connections and to use (user/)password separate from the game account, but the lack of both is a non-starter.



Finally, a few suggestions.

It'd probably be a good idea to remove the reputation feature. I don't think any good will come from it, and there's a reason it(s counterpart) was eventually removed on the old forums.

I'd like to see an additional userstyle which does not use a color gradient behind our posts. The general look of the new forum is growing on me, but I'd still like to see what it looks like with a single-color background.
Since the forum software supports multiple user-styles, there could be a gradient version for those that prefer that, and a single-color version for those that prefer that.


edit: If you'd be using a color from the current gradient for a single-color style, I think I'd prefer the darker end.

Nivienne:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The handful of non-glowing responses I've seen have been very reasonable and more in the realm of disappointed but still understanding. For that I'm exceedingly grateful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't listen to them BABs, not at all.

These are the sort of people who, if you cured cancer, would just complain that you hadn't cured AIDS while you were at it. They'll never be happy... ever

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait... *If* he cured cancer? Does that mean that the cure for cancer *isn't* included in i16?
Aw shucks. That's so disappointing. I was really looking forward to that. Well, maybe it'll be in i17.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Fog of War is actually useful to me, I won't ever hit a button to make me have no idea where I need to go next on a map.

...and I am at 60+months already

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, i would use it in outdoor maps but indoor ones, I love being able to know where I have not been.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see how it could be neat on zone maps, but personally I also feel that removing the FoW on mission maps would be a net negative (of sizable magnitude). I'm sure there are some that will end up liking it on mission maps too though (but I believe that a subset of those will actually be doing themselves a disservice).


[ QUOTE ]
Side rant: Hate teaming with stalkers that go painting the map before we ever enter it, specially when it's a find glowy or hostage situation, its hard to suddenly know where we have not looked.

[/ QUOTE ]

"I'll scout" is one of the phrases that put me in alert-mode on PuGs.


Other phrases that have that effect (*on PuGs*):
"I'll pull" (seems to be PuG-code for "I'll take this closely packed spawn that we would have no trouble with and scatter it over the maximum possible area, thus both making them harder to control and spreading the team thin")

"Wait here, I'll TP" (which for some reason often tends to take *longer* than actually steamrolling through the mission would)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes city of data has been wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]Please tell me when it has been wrong, barring the period between I7 and I9(?) when it wasn't being updated.

[/ QUOTE ]

CoD is wrong at times, but it tends to be due to how the data is presented, not errors in the data itself.

One example is something that can happen when multiple effects are combined on one line (Super Reflexes/Elude is now listed as giving "DEF(Melee, Ranged, AOE) +45%" instead of having one entry per Defense type (they're actually 3 separate power effects)). This can at times make things easier to read, but the way it decides which attributes to "combine" is imperfect. Sometimes two effects are combined if they have the same scale values, even if they use different attribute modifiers.

Take Super Jump for example.

CoD lists it as giving (@lvl 50) "JumpHeight, SpeedJumping +27.8", or "JumpHeight, SpeedJumping 1.00000 Melee_Leap", but actually it's:

JumpHeight: 1.0 * Melee_Leap
SpeedJumping: 1.0 * Melee_SpeedJumping

At level 50, Melee_Leap is 27.8, and Melee_SpeedJumping is 2.49.

This means that the power actually gives (@50) 1.0*27.8 = +27.8 Jumpheight, and 1.0*2.49 = +2.49 SpeedJumping.


This sort of thing is rare, but CoD can't always be trusted when several "different" attributes have been combined on one line.



Another issue is that CoD currently does not always properly display "unresistable" tags (they're missing from some self (de)buffs).




[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It sure as hell isnt updated now is it.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes it is, and it's updated frequently - almost in time with the game patches (since we have Test Server access)

[/ QUOTE ]

Pet peeve: Sometimes CoD is updated *before* an issue goes Live, which means that there's a period where you can't see what powers currently do.

It'd be nice if it was possible to access power data from previous issues, but I'm not holding my breath about that.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So before you come in here saying CoD showed be quoted as the gospel get your facts straight. Dont get me wrong CoD was a good tool to use prior to the real number interface but now its not as useful.

[/ QUOTE ]There are still many instances where CoD is more accurate or more complete than the "Real Numbers" (which is really just "Most Of The Numbers We Think You'd Find Important"). So much so that, unless you actually go and bring proof of your claims which can be reproduced, I'll believe CoD over you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. CoD is generally very reliable, while the in-game information has variable reliability. Some things are very reliable (The per-attribute summaries in the Combat Attributes window), while others are... less so (for instance some aspects of the power info windows). You sort of have to know how to interpret some of that information, and I don't think very many have a good understanding of that.

This also assumes that people are looking at the correct power information in the first place. Often people just type [Power Name] and use the AT selector, thinking that this will give them the correct information for their AT. That's... not how it works.

[ QUOTE ]
[u]DARK SERVANT[u]

So, DS can't take either pet-based IO Set. It can't take Pet Damage because it's not a damage-based pet. And it can't take Recharge Intensive Pet Sets because... it's not a damage-based pet! I didn't realize that Recharge = Damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Recharge isn't Damage, but the RIP set IOs are Damage enhancements. Every single one of them. Not a single one of them are Recharge enhancements. *That* is why they can't be slotted into Dark Servant.

Yes, some of them *give* Recharge, but when the slotting system looks at them, all it sees is a Damage enhancement, because that is the *type* they have.
When the slotting system determines which enhancements actually have an effect, it goes something like this:
"Ok, here's an Expedient Reinforcement: Accuracy/Recharge. It has the type Damage. Does Dark Servant accept enhancements of the type Damage? No. Ok, IO has no effect."

It doesn't matter that the IO gives Accuracy and Recharge, because that's just what the enhancement *does*, it's not what (type) it *is*.


To make the Recharge from RIP set IOs work in Dark Servant (without fundamental changes to the IOs and/or slotting system), you'd have to make it accept Damage enhancements.

To make the Accuracy/EndRdx from RIP set IOs work in Dark Servant's powers, you'd also have to make its subpowers (at least the ones you want to be affected by Acc and EndRdx) accept Damage enhancements. This would include Twilight Grasp (a heal/debuff) and Petrifying Gaze (a Hold).


Similar things hold for other IO sets slotted in Dark Servant.
Acc/* from Accurate Healing sets only applies to Twilight Grasp.
Acc/* from Hold sets only applies to Petrifying Gaze.
Acc/* from Immob sets only applies to Tenebrous Tentacles.
Acc/* from Accurate ToHit Debuff sets only applies to Twilight Grasp and Tenebrous Tentacles (well, Chill of the Night too, but since that's autohit.....)


Basically, slotting sets into Dark Servant doesn't always do what you want it to do.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, Corruptor and Controller Fulcrum Shift is still using the Defender version of the buff pets summoned at the targeted enemies (each enemy hit should be +20% Damage for them, not +25%, it was this way before and changed either in I14 or one of the patches before I15). Please fix! Before "fixing it" becomes "nerfing it".

[/ QUOTE ]

This didn't happen recently. I've been tracking it for about 3.5 years.

The cause seems to be something as simple as an incorrect text entry.
There's a _Controller version of all relevant sub-powers, but in one case the "wrong" entity is being created.


Pets_KineticTransferDebuff_Controller summons Pets_KineticTransferBuff instead of Pets_KineticTransferBuff_Controller.

(which means that Pets_KineticTransferBuff_Controller is never actually used, even though it exists)