BlackSpectre

That has always been true for toggle powers. Click powers worked differently, especially if there were mixed click and toggle powers in the command string. But now, they appear to work the same when mixed. I do need to do more testing, though, to make sure what I've seen is not an anomaly. A click power with a very long activation/cast time, for example, might account for the ability of a toggle power to interrupt it, but... A string of click power commands will only activate the last (far right) click power, and nothing else, whether it's on cool down and queued or not. The first click activates the last power, the next click queues it while it's in cool down, and subsequent clicks simply refreshes the queue for the last power again. Toggle powers work a little differently. The last toggle power in the string activates first, but when the bound key is pressed again, the activated power is turned off, and the second to last toggle power is activated. And then it just cycles back and forth, on and off. That said, what toggle power activates in the command string really depends on which power(s) in the string are in the ON state. Turning off a toggle power takes the game almost no time to accomplish and if multiple toggle powers are ON, then all the toggle powers will be turned off, and the first toggle power in the OFF state (if any) from right to left will be toggled ON. OK, thank you. In re-reading the click power section in my guide for a second time, I think I just got confused when I re-read it the first time. In my guide I often refer to the command on the far right as the "first" command because I am referring to its apparent activation (ON state) sequence, not its attempted execution sequence. If I ever rewrite the guide, I'll change that and always refer to the command on the far left as the "first" command in a string. Less confusing I think, especially if you're reading it quickly.

As some of you may know, when I wrote my Advanced Bind Guide back in 2007, I analyzed the game's parsing of bind strings, and power activation sequences. To my surprise at least one thing is a little different now. It used to be that if a click power was placed first (far left) in a bind string, that no other powers than the click power would activate. Now it's reversed! No other powers in a bind string will activate if the click power is the last command in the bind string (far right). More importantly, toggle_on powers will now interrupt a click power, and a click power will interrupt a toggle_on power. All toggle_on powers will activate, and once that's done the click power at the beginning of the bind string will activate. /bind K "powexec_name CLICK POWER$$powexec_toggle_on TOGGLE A$$powexec_toggle_on TOGGLE B$$powexec_toggle_on TOGGLE C" In the above bind string, Toggle C will activate first. Toggle B will activate on the second key press, and Toggle A will activate on the third key press. Then on the fourth key press the Click Power will activate. If this is an actual change and not just a bug, it's a good one. It treats all powers executed by powexec commands the same, as far as interrupting goes. Can anyone try this in their game to see if what I saw is true? Does anyone know if this change was intentional or an unintended consequence of some other code? In other words, is this change here to stay?

Should we update The Incomplete and Unofficial Guide to /bind? As I said in its talk page, I'm a bit hesitant about changing anything in it. It's been THE guide players have gone to in order to learn keybinding since the beginning of the game. However, there are some important things that could be added from my own Advanced Bind Guide, new discoveries from the Homecoming forums, and from recent updates to the binding system in the game (Issue 27 Page 7). After reading its talk/discussion page, it's clear that @Curveball's guide was rewritten by a team of Paragon Wiki editors with @Curveball's permission. In fact, @curveball even joins in on the discussion and offers his approval of the changes. The guide is stamped with the standard wiki warning "This is a players guide, we disavow all responsibility for it". The guide was originally written by a player, yet because wiki editors played a major part in rewriting it, I kind of feel like the wiki version is not really a player's guide... but rather a wiki guide (if there is such a thing?). The information in it is accurate, authoritative, and proven. If you read it, not a lot of opinion is in the guide either. So... I feel like we should remove that tag and make it an official wiki document. Make it authoritative. What do you think? Re: updating... if we decide it's a good thing to update the guide, anyone interested could work together with me many different ways. I could take the lead, for example, and suggest changes for discussion, or we could do something else. We could discuss it here, or on its talk page... but first thing's first... should we edit it at all?

OK. I've finished testing and the numbers check out. I'll write a note in the talk page. Updating the Experience page now... 🙂

Welcome, hero! If you have any questions about the game, try out the wiki. Lots of good info in there! https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Main_Page

Generally speaking, the above posts are accurate, but... Read this https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Macro_(Slash_Command) and this It's a more complicated setup, and there are limitations, but you can definitely use one macro to change a costume and activate fly and then click it again to change the costume back and turn off fly. Also multiple powers may be turned OFF with a single command string. In City of Heroes, unlike other games, a "macro" is a BUTTON that activates a command string using a mouse to click on it. Whereas a keybind is a keyboard KEY that activates a command string when that key is pressed. Keybinds are slightly more versatile in that they can utilize the "+" prefix in the beginning of a bind string to activate a command on key PRESS and a different command on key RELEASE, basically simulating turning on 2 powers with a single key stroke. It's a little finicky as sometimes one command string is not activated because the key was pressed and released too quickly. Some players use /powexec_auto to turn 2 powers on with a single command string, even click powers. Suggested further reading if interested: https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/The_Incomplete_and_Unofficial_Guide_to_/bind http://www.barbariankeep.com/bs/bindguide.html

Well, it's taking longer than I anticipated. I've had very little time to log in and test the numbers I have. So far I've tested and vetted everything except the team size bonuses for teams of 5, 7, and 8. So almost done. If you'd like to see what I've done so far, you can look at the revised Experience page work in progress here https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/User:BlackSpectre/Testthis Also if you have any suggestions I'm happy to hear them. 🙂

I know you don't want to hear this, but I hardly notice my teammates at all. That said, I am aware of my environment and that includes teammates that happen to be next to me. I do that for threat assessment and battle tactics.... what resources do I have around me? Otherwise, teammates can be on the other side of the map and I couldn't care less. I have learned over many many years that players will do whatever they please regardless of what I want... and apparently that is as it should be. The word organized is just a hop away from the word controlled, and too many players have a neuroses about being bossed around or controlled by others. So much so that even suggesting a coordinated attack rubs them the wrong way. I've also learned never to suggest anything to them or inform them of better tactics or use of powers, or basically anything that could possibly be interpreted or spun as looking down on them because I know so much more. There's a lot of bruised egos out there, but I think they got bruised at birth! It would be better if they just looked at suggestions as the beginning of a conversation, a negotiation, or improvement, but nope. Of course, I'm talking about PUGs (Pick Up Groups). PUGs do what PUGs do and there aint nothin' you can do about it. Even if the team splits, I continue on playing as if I'm playing solo, and think of my teammates as NPCs. If I do a threat assessment of a room, and I conclude that the 2 heroes I have with me will not be enough to defeat the room and survive, I then look at the map and go join the other group. I never ask them to join me because that would be controlling, and would likely cause a tantrum. Yes, I know I'm the team leader, but that's in name only. Really, I'm just a team assembler. And even in that role I don't care who joins, not their archetype, character class, level, powers, nothing. Don't care. One player recently told me they can go get their tank if we need it, and I replied OK. Then apparently they sent me team chat about switching and I pretty much ignored it unintentionally. If they want to switch, then switch. They don't need my permission. Besides I already said OK. Anyway, they got mad because they died "too many times" and I never replied to them (I was constantly fighting for my life, so didn't have a lot of time to read chat), and they quit the mission literally one battle before it was completed, missing out on the mission bonus XP. I mean I died about 4 times in that mission, but that's nothing. I was playing a blaster. It's to be expected, especially since we were playing on +4X8 at level 37. We still blasted our way through it, were getting lots of XP, and the debt was burned off real fast. So really... there was no real issue. I guess they were upset that I didn't say anything, which is the opposite of what people typically do... get upset at what I do say! LOL The kicker is that at the end of the mission two of the teammates remarked how utterly fun the mission was! Said it was a BLAST! And thanked me profusely. Really unusual, cuz I didn't do anything. Just invited people who wanted to join and I guess set the difficulty level. It's nice to be thanked I guess. That said, I enjoyed the mission too. I enjoy challenge. If there is not a struggle of some sort, it's a bit dull for me. I'll say this for that PUG team, when they were focused as a group on the imminent threat, they were a force to be reckoned with! We took down 30 +5s with a warshade as our only tank, all in one big battle. All of us left that battle unscathed. And my toon only had standard SOs for enhancements, no enhancement sets (which is usual for me). Players were shocked that we made it through that battle. I wasn't. I knew we could do it if the team had the will. For trials and task forces, I do offer directions on what to do next and where to go, but my leadership ends there. Either players decide to follow or they don't. They do what they do and there's nothing I can do about it... assuming I want to keep things polite and pleasant that is.... which I do. I don't attempt to herd cats. I don't attempt to control others or make the playing experience as I think it should be. I go with the flow, and try to adapt to whatever situation I find myself in. Now, if another player happens to suggest a course of action, I listen and reply. We have a discussion, and most times that ends well. But if they don't initiate it, I stay silent. I guess you could say, I just do me as much as PUGs do PUGs. In the 20 years I've played this game, this is the morsel of wisdom that I have gained.

wow

I have always felt PVP is boring. Specific power sets, builds, and tactics perform far better than others. Once you have those specific builds, tactics, etc, defeating other players is as easy as a couple clicks. No challenge. Dull and boring. A long time ago I played a James Bond game on Playstation with my nephew. He killed me about 4 times before I caught on and found an ambush spot where other players could only approach me from one direction. Made a bunch of grenades, and as soon as he appeared in the doorway I blew him up. Yay. So fun. He couldn't win. We did this about 10 times before he started getting frustrated and upset. At that point we left then game and went outside to play catch. I've dipped my toes into PVP every so often since then, but honestly my experience has been the same. If it's not a specific undefeatable tactic, it's a specific unbeatable power, enhancement, or build. Boring. Then add to that the ability for some players to employ hacks to make the situation even more unfair, and PVP becomes downright intolerable. I remember a time a friend and I were playing Red Dead Redemption Online. Now, we're peaceful folk who concentrate on progressing through the game. Once, several seconds after we zoned in, some player sniped and killed us. Once is fine. Just a minute or so to respawn and continue on. A small inconvenience. Twice sniped. Getting annoying. Three times and we had enough. So we located the position he was sniping from, the rooftops, and the next time he killed us we respawned and positioned ourselves on opposite sides of the town and sniped his ass. We did this about 8-10 times. With two of us looking out for the dude and sniping him from opposite locations, it really didn't matter where he spawned into. He was simply dead. Nothing he could do. Yes, this was revenge pure and simple. However, the dude then restarted his game and loaded in a hack that would teleport him to where ever a designated player would spawn in. A quick shot to the head before we could even move did the trick. After about 4 times, we realized it was a hack, and were faced with a choice... employ our own hacks to counter his, or leave PVP. Heck, we could have used the same hack he was using. We googled it, and there it was. We could have used it to zone in at the same time, and while the dude was busy teleporting and killing one of us, the other would teleport to the dude and kill him. Again, there's no way he could have won... but, what's the point? Yeah, we were even more pissed, and as a result we almost left the game. Instead we altered the game settings a little to create a private instance, and continued playing only with friends. It's a great game, by the way. Gorgeous graphics. Fun missions. Stunning vistas. And the old west environment is just pleasant. So to answer your question, whenever you set foot inside a PVP zone in any game, you're stepping into an inherently unfair environment that can almost always thwart whatever you're trying to do. Consider it highly dangerous. And yes, you're fair game. However, in this game, I almost never encounter anyone in any PVP zone. It's kinda empty here. Maybe it's just Homecoming, or maybe it's just the time of the day that I went into the PVP zones, who knows?

Here's a good article I found on Understanding the Angry Gamer. It makes some good points and, even though it's target audience is developers, it would be worthwhile for players to take to heart if they ever resemble anything that is described in this article. https://askagamedev.tumblr.com/post/96091066151/understanding-the-angry-gamer At minimum, it shows how utterly complicated and difficult the relationship between players and developers is, and where love of a game can go astray, dip into obsession, and make one irrational... both developers and players. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't feel grateful that I am not a game developer. And it only bolsters my appreciation of the developers and GMs here at Homecoming.

I like the idea of having a a command that sends a message that appears on screen that says something like "The team leader is attempting to contact you. Please read chat." Put some spam controls on it, maybe only able to be used once every 10 minutes, or maybe twice while inside a mission... or something like that. Have a little beep accompany the message. If targeting a specific individual is an issue, a general message could be sent to the whole team. Something like "The team leader is issuing instructions. Please read chat." Also with spam controls, of course.

Yeah, the old spines/fire brutes aren’t the best for AFK farming anymore. They’re still good for active farming, you just have to be aware of when your defense is being overwhelmed by a horde of mobs and jump out of combat for a few seconds to let the debuffs wear off. Then jump right back in. /monitorattribute helps a lot with this by watching your Base Defense. that said, finding a good mission or two is key these days.

Ah OK, so maybe this weighting thing is a leftover from back then. Cool. Thanks.

I just wanted to let y'all know that I'm getting ready to completely rewrite the Experience page. https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Experience I've been working on figuring out all the variables involved in calculating XP gain from critters, and I'm pretty sure I've figured out the formula which includes additional reference tables. It might not be right away as I want to sit down and verify the method for awarding mission completion XP rewards first. In the past when I've edited pre-existing pages, I've tried to make as few changes as possible, going so far as to keep even the formatting, organization, and wording in the page. That's my homage to the previous Paragon Wiki editors that came before me. However, there's enough new information about experience that it might be worth rewriting the entire page. I can say the information that's there now will be retained, more or less, but a lot more will be added and the organization of the page might need to be revamped. I won't be entirely sure until I actually do it and see what really needs to be done. My question is, would anyone like me to write up the new experience page and post it at the HC forums for you to look over before I edit the page? Or would you like me to do that on the page's talk page? or just edit the page with the option to revert it? This last option is easiest, but I'm open to alternatives.

I just went ahead and added a link to the Community Base Directory spreadsheet at the bottom of the Supergroup Base page https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Supergroup_Base. So now we're covered. If that's all you want to do @Dacy, I completely understand. I'm actually tempted to add another link to the Base Builders Cheat Sheet post at the Homecoming forum It's been THE most important base editing information that I've encountered. Although... a-hem! ... I haven't read any base building guides. Maybe that would be a good idea! LOL

I think adding a link to the directory a the bottom of a wiki page in the "See Also" section is perfectly fine. It would merely be a helpful link to a good off-wiki resource. Ah, OK. That totally makes sense. So really the main question you've been asking wiki peeps is whether or not it would be a good idea to have the wiki reflect what is on the spreadsheet. So my answer to that is whatever would be easiest to maintain. Frankly, the easiest thing would just be to add a link and be done with it. Other players can edit the wiki and add the information from your directory if desired, or you could tackle that project. Either way, once the information is at the wiki, you aren't required to monitor it. The rest of us can do that, especially now that we know that it's an issue. Exactly what I meant. When I think about maintaining 2 different sources that both change, it seems like too much work. And you're right, the amount of people that edit the base pages is small. So if you WANTED to maintain both spreadsheet and wiki, I'd have no objections but it would mean your attention would have to be split, and I know that can be a pain. I'm just trying to be helpful and positive, @Dacy. 🙂 Not that I think this would ever happen with you and @Easter Bunny, but what if the unthinkable happens and you both become unable or unwilling to continue to maintain your base directory? If the information is also at the wiki (or any wiki), at least players could still update it themselves and all the information wouldn't be lost. The converse is true as well, what if this wiki goes away? So having the same or similar information at 2 different places is not a bad idea. Personally, I think information about community bases that are useful to the general player population (such as the many teleport bases), is the most important base location information to host at this wiki. Information about personal bases that are accessible to other players to look at is nice as well, but not as important because it isn't immediately useful to as many players. Once in a while I do like going around to other people's bases to see what others have done, so it's not useless information in the least. And if you're a player who is interested in base building, then the open house bases are extremely useful as examples of what can be done! So I do think the base location information has a place at this wiki. I know @thunderforce is advocating removing the base information from the wiki, but I don't think that's necessary or desirable. I can live with it, though, as long as the information is available to players elsewhere and is easily accessible. So what do I recommend? Well, at MINIMUM, add a link to your directory at the bottom of the wiki page. If we do that, I think we're covered. If you want to rewrite or edit any of the base pages I think that's perfectly fine. I might say I even want you to do that! I couldn't ask for better people than you and @Easter Bunny to update the wiki's SG base pages. I trust your judgement @Dacy, especially when it comes to SG bases. You two are like THE SG base experts! I also think there's no reason for you to maintain the wiki info and provide oversight if you don't want to afterwards. As for automatic updates of the wiki pages from your directory, I really don't think that's necessary and it also makes things more complicated. Maybe just periodic updates done manually? That way we'd have a human looking at everything. Heck, I can even do that! It's a relatively simple task to convert a spreadsheet into a wiki table with the online tools that are available. I hope what I've said here is helpful to everyone. Warmest wishes from me to everyone involved. I appreciate your dedication, intelligence, and support. Glad to be in the same company with people the likes of y'all. 🙂

I think he meant what specifically in the content policy is significant? I looked through it myself and didn't see anything that conflicted, but my eyes are getting old. LOL

Is your Nvidia card an external card? Connected through USB-C? Is DirectX up to date? I assume you followed all of these steps? https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-set-an-external-graphics-card-as-a-main-card-NVIDIA-in-a-laptop I had a similar problem when I was setting up my old Intel NUC with a dedicated Radeon card (not external) and integrated graphics. The only way I could get it to work is to use the graphics drivers from the manufacturer's website. The drivers direct from AMD were not compatible with the NUC. You might try checking the Lenovo website for Nvidia drivers.

I've got the entire formula for XP figured out except for Team Weighting for XP distribution. What's worse is that the team weights factor has not yet come into play in any of my testing and calculations. I just keep it at 1 and everything has worked out so far. Either Homecoming has disabled Team Weighting or I just don't understand when and how to apply it. Anyone willing to take a stab at it or know how to use it? Here's the information I have about Team Weighting from dev comments in the definition file team_xp_weights.def: Here's is a sample from the definition file showing the bonus table. It's for "Stature 1" out of 10 statures, but all the statures have the same bonuses for the same levels. It's odd. Each stature is a spread of 4 levels, so stature 2 is min 4, max 8... and so on. There's an odd stature "2.5" inserted between 2 and 3, and then the last stature, 9, has a min/max level span of 10 levels instead of 4 (from 44-54). The only difference between the statures seems to be the "MinLevel" and "MaxLevel" span. { // Stature Level 1 // Levels specified in this file are ZERO-based. MinLevel 0 // inclusive MaxLevel 3 // inclusive // // The Above table is used when the character's combat level is above // or equal to the median of the team. Otherwise, the Below table is // used. (The first entry in each table should be the same; they are both // for when the player's combat level is the same as the median.) // // There should be an entry for each level in the game (50, for now). // same, +1, +2, +3, etc. Above 1.00, 1.05, 1.10, 1.15, 1.25, 1.50, 3.00, 6.00, 9.00, 12.00, 18.00, 25.00, 36.00, 52.00, 74.00, 105.00, 151.00, 216.00, 309.00, 442.00, 633.00, 906.00, 1296.00, 1855.00, 2654.00, 3797.00, 5434.00, 7776.00, 11127.00, 15923.00, 22785.00, 32604.00, 46656.00, 66763.00, 95536.00, 136709.00, 195627.00, 279936.00, 400580.00, 573217.00, 820256.00, 1173761.00, 1679616.00, 2403479.00, 3439304.00, 4921537.00, 7042567.00, 10077696.00, 14420871.00, 20635821.00, 29529222.00 // same, -1, -2, -3, etc. Below 1.00, 0.95, 0.85, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, } When I think of teaming, I know one of 2 things... everyone on the team is either the same level as the team leader or 1 level below due to sidekicking. That's a span of 1 level. So... the whole weighting thing doesn't make sense to me.

Genius! Great call guys! I was just about to update my post with "Actually, the team leader didn't get a penalty, but the alt got a boost!... somehow." Thanks guys. 🙂

So I've been slowly doing research on gaining experience, trying to figure out the formula, and I ran across something weird that I can't explain... At level 2 while SOLO against level 2 enemies I got these results: You have defeated Blood Brother Slammer You gain 10 experience and 7 influence. You have defeated Blood Brother Brawler You gain 10 experience and 7 influence. Then I dual boxed and added one of my alts to my team. The alt was level 2 also, and also was against level 2 enemies. The alt did not attack or do damage, and did nothing but follow me. I got these results: You have defeated Blood Brother Brawler You gain 7 experience and 5 influence. You have defeated Blood Brother Slammer You gain 7 experience and 5 influence. You have defeated Fallen Buckshot You gain 21 experience and 25 influence Notice that the XP gained from the minions is lower than when solo, and this toon was the team leader. Now let's look at the ALT's results for the same battle: Pat1 has defeated Blood Brother Brawler You gain 10 experience and 5 influence. Pat1 has defeated Blood Brother Slammer You gain 10 experience and 5 influence. Pat1 has defeated Fallen Buckshot You gain 31 experience and 25 influence. The ALT gained MORE experience while on the team than the leader... and did nothing in the battle. Does this strike anyone else as weird? It looks like there's a 32% XP penalty for being a team leader! UPDATE: I ran the test 3 more times and the 2 toons got the same XP on a team of 2. Very odd. I thought it might have been that the leader toon was in SG Mode, since that was the only difference, but it didn't pan out. I guess I'll just chalk it up to a glitch then.

My suggestion is to form a supergroup and recruit players who you enjoy playing with. PUGs (pick-up groups) or random teams have a tendency to be… random, unpredictable, and decidedly casual or indifferent. Nothing horrible about it. It’s just that different people behave differently and you can’t really change that. PUGs are like a box of chocolates… you never know what you’re going to get.

It should run fine on your Mac. is your ISP a cable company or using shared bandwidth with your community? Cable modems are decent but they are at the mercy of how many people are attempting to use the Internet at the same time. That may explain how at certain times in the day your Internet connection degrades.

I too have been mulling this over... The main problem as stated is oversight and management of the base data. Honestly, if @Dacy is willing to watch over and validate changes to the base info at the wiki, all problems are handled. An off site spreadsheet or document is not really needed at all, and will end up being yet another thing that needs to be managed. Conversely, the biggest problem with an off site spreadsheet is how difficult it will be for players to add or change their base info. Each step, each click matters. The wiki saves all information for every version of a page as it's edited over time. Restoring the page to a previous version is as easy as a few clicks. So even an off-site copy of the base data to safeguard it really isn't necessary. Having a copy of the data at the wiki and a copy of the data in an off-site spreadsheet effectively doubles the amount of work needed to maintain the information. But if an off-site spreadsheet is meant merely as a secure copy, I don't really have any problem with it other than it's extra work on the part of whoever is maintaining it. So overall, I do think the SG base data would be better to just be posted and maintained at the wiki without an off-site spreadsheet. This is not meant as a slight to anyone. It's just what I believe would be easiest for everyone.