Naomi

You can post it or I can move it for you into the Bug Reports sub-forum or Report Costume Issues Here thread in the Bug Reports sub-forum. Your comment here is not feedback related to any costume changes listed in the patch notes for Page 7.

Approximately zero when posted in a Focused Feedback thread. Here is a link to the Read First guidelines. Please post unrelated ideas in the Suggestions & Ideas sub-forum.

The latest build did indeed change the SFX.

Now this is a suggestion I can get behind.

I'll look into this, however you will likely lose the top two shoulder capes, with the Sybil top wrapping together behind the neck instead (as options). I did test it the way it is now, and the two capes clip too much with all of the back pieces, capes and wings with them there. This isn't all of them, but they mostly follow this theme (credit primarily goes to Cryptic/Paragon for these, as the bulk of the texture data was sourced from the enemy group itself, with some editing and adjustments to port them as capes):

You'll have to remind me what this was. Are you referring to something that happened pre-2012? According to our repository, the file that controls this hasn't been modified since Homecoming's inception. As I recall, someone asked for a version that could have the middle stripe tint more strongly last summer, which is what was added this patch. The modification history only shows a duplicate of the original boot settings as it was when Homecoming came about, and adds a new tint texture. Comparing the two, there is no difference in shininess:

Can you elaborate more? Nothing was changed or taken away with this note. Something was added.

Okay, these are only available with regular mantles.

I was not able to reproduce this, are you able to provide a screenshot?

There is often no usable texture data in the empty spaces outside of the UV mapping. If the UVs got updated, it would negatively effect hundreds of texture files that were authored for the current UV set. Whether or not a particular texture looks quirky right now is simply due to the care given to that area on the seam by the original artists. The UVs in that particular spot are not optimal to work with for texture artists though, so that's likely why a lot of them had a hard time making it seamless before the advent of 3d texturing. You are correct in that they should be fixed, but it's not worth the time involved to check and fix every single hip texture it would impact in order to do so, vs fixing the worst offenders that come up. Also, while there are ways to automate things like that very quickly for flat files, that wouldn't apply to the source PSDs themselves, which are where changes to textures would actually need to occur.

We do have a way to prevent these combinations. Unfortunately, the costume validation screen when you load a saved .costume file does not currently work with parts using that method yet.

Nothing was added or changed with sitting emotes this patch, just got tired of typing sitchair out of habit instead of sitchair1, so an alias was added. I'll keep your post in mind if what you ask for happens.

This has been on my list for quite awhile, as have a number of requests, but it's slightly involved for niche parts that it always falls to the wayside (primarily because those legs often don't play very well with animations). The proper way to do it is the same way it was done for regular skirts, which is to duplicate the monstrous hips mesh, tuck the bottom in, and then duplicate all of the skirt and short options and adjust to the legs. For males, and huge, which wouldn't technically be necessary, but only fair, boxing shorts and kilts would need the same treatment. For new parts entirely, they need to be more specific than just 'new things'.

This is a limitation on back options currently. Scales don't apply to the back node.

It shouldn't, but I had an odd issue with it on one of my own characters yesterday, similar to yours.

Just to confirm, you're not in SG mode?

There's a link that will open the Vault Reserve window on the title bar jelly of the Salvage window, so you don't actually need to visit a Vault Reserve.

In this economy, infamy can be tight, so I use Supergroup mode to save up to 87K in tailor fees whenever I want to change the color of my character's underwear.

You'll probably want to re-validate your files. I'm not able to reproduce this and everything you've describe loads fine in both character creation and in game.

What srmalloy said, @Clave Dark 5. The Halloween event is started with a command that triggers an existing script that's always there. The texture for the windows, on the other hand, simply gets replaced via a client patch. It was forgotten about by the time Oct rolled around (with lots of folks busy this year) and so wasn't able to get patched in.

A checkbox option on the load costume screen that only parses the scales from .costume files onto your current costume might eliminate having to have scale files.

If you PM me a list of every part in question, omitting textures if that's the only difference, formatted as: Upper Body > Robes > CostumePartName (geometryFileName.geo/CostumePartName) Whatever > Whatever > (geometry name from .costume file) I'll take a look at them. I'm assuming female NPCs of cot don't exist that have them already?

Great suggestions!

Not every boot shares the same texture mapping as other boots. As a result, when used with flat feet in this case, you can still see an area where the heel was textured in that spot on lighter tones. This may not bother some people but it's still unfortunate. This makes putting them in the flat feet category a little odd, without a custom texture to fix it. Usually this isn't just the one texture, it's all of the supporting textures, which on average comes out to 4 that need to be edited. Duplicating a lot of textures and a material for such a minor compatibility quirk here then becomes harder to justify. Just wanted to give you some context as to why sometimes benign requests like this often don't get dev traction.

Sorry, that's kind of poorly written. They're both one and the same, really. What I meant to say was that I don't personally like to use those words specifically at players depending on the context and intent of the designer, programmer and player. I had a wall of text going into the philosophy and all, but at the end of the day, I didn't mean to say using those words is necessarily wrong, in fact I would agree it isn't, mostly that in a case like this, I would prefer not to use them or use something less harsh, like "avoiding the timeout". That's what the Roleplayers do who jump on AE Task Forces when they idle around Pocket D alt-tabbed.. to really say they're "exploiting" or "abusing" the timeout to me just sounds a bit harsh there, even if it's technically accurate I guess, but again, context of everything comes into play. What I don't like is when a system is hastily or poorly designed and developers or designers finger point at players or players finger point at each other instead of the devs or expecting players to behave like well behaved robots instead of ants in a sand box and then being surprised when they tunnel under instead of over after you've installed a dome, provided of course, their actions or "exploits" aren't causing harm to the game or other players. It depends on the reward and a lot of other factors involved. My opinion on insane badge number requirements specifically with damage or healing is that they end up being worth more on the AT or class it wasn't designed for to begin with and you're left with this weird scenario where you look at a support class that has the badge and shrug, but if a Brute has it and they used Aid Other for 5 years of playing the game it's like the holy grail of bragging rights that you have just created, even though you designed it to be a reward for the support class as THE design goal or intent of such high numbers. Just don't be surprised when people start trying to exploit or farm for it as a side effect. If you want to make something impossibly-locked then that's one thing, but if it's open-to-all yet meant or intended to be something else.. then I think that's ill-considered design by at least some measure. You'll end up with people farming it or complaining about how hard it is to get no matter what you try to tell them was the design goal.