Jump to content

thunderforce

Members
  • Content Count

    351
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

153 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

916 profile views
  1. Victory's quite friendly with Homecoming (you'll notice the Wiki is run off Victory's systems, and Victory runs the same version of the game).
  2. I've just seen Faultline on Discord complaining we can't quite decide if coordinates are x,y,z (as in the Coordinates page) or x,z,y (as in one Demo Editing page and the Location Header template). The two points of view seem to be that a triplet of coordinates should always be x,y,z (which I agree with, and from what Faultline is saying, seems to be the internal representation) versus an idea that the Z axis is always vertical. I've changed this since I hope a decade-old convention amongst demo editors might now be dead... but this is a pretty drastic move and if anyone hates it, s
  3. Well, only one. Odd; I thought I reviewed pretty well every new user edit. I fear I've been lax about proposed deletions, too; I've been through and cleaned the lot out.
  4. I remember a discussion about this a while ago with at least some HC developer participation. As I recall, that's not practical, but something that might be practical is to have buffs that you _can_ apply sorted to one end of the list, so (for example) if you're an FF defender you'd see anyone's Deflection Shield at the left-hand end whether you or another FF defender applied it to the target. Another way the ordering could be more useful is if they could be sorted by how they are applied - by which I mean, imagine that single-target ally buffs always appear on the left, shorter du
  5. "Most respecs don't fail" is... kind of what I've been saying all along; it seems to explain the observed facts (go away and change something and, hey presto, it works). But also "GMs shouldn't tell players things which are known not to be true" is not a major request. When I started, I would not have expected that anyone would disagree with it.
  6. I don't think I've asked that the devs do _anything_ (although now I think about it, it does seem like a bit of logging would very rapidly shed light on what the causes are, if it's anything but bad luck). Your proposal is obviously bad since it will only increase the confusion for VEATs. But that's not the same thing as telling players something which is known not to be true, is it? If the current guesswork is wrong, telling people to train is useless but harmless (other than confusing VEATs). But doing that doesn't have to involve saying it "always fails".
  7. Guilty as charged, but honestly when I swore I'd take that whale in tow, I anticipated a considerably shorter conversation along the lines of "it doesn't always fail, it probably doesn't often fail" "oh, we'd better not tell people it always fails".
  8. That seems a bit besides what I'm saying right now, which is that ideally that volunteer crew wouldn't tell players things that are definitely not true. (And not harmless; of course, it's pretty confusing for the VEAT player...)
  9. I mean that yesterday a GM said on Discord that it quote always unquote fails, I pointed out that wasn't true, and my remarks were removed from Discord while the untrue statement from a GM was left. Furthermore, said GM absolutely did "quibble" with that point. This ("always") just isn't true. Ideally, "GMs shouldn't say things that are known to be untrue" shouldn't be controversial. I've not quoted the quibble since I'm kind of torn between this apparently being a forbidden topic and the sheer absurdity of the situation.
  10. We've now reached the state where a GM can say on Discord it "always" fails with untrained levels, even though that is absolutely unequivocally known not to be true, and I can't point out that it isn't true. I despair.
  11. Not a typo; the briefing NPC simply doesn't know or care about the distinction, as many people do not.
  12. Well, again, most respecs work. Does a large and busy base matter, or is it just that if a player is in a base and has a respec fail, they are more likely to be in a large and busy one because more players are in busy bases than empty ones? We don't know. I had to think about this, but I see what you mean. No bad habit to be in if you like slotting patterns that would have been impossible on live. I mean, that doesn't seem implausible. (We could just as well be in the situation where everyone tells people to zone on a respec failure because we "know" that works, and I'm as
  13. We don't know that at all, both because "99%" is a number pulled out of nowhere and because, as detailed upthread, everything we see is consistent with the idea that respecs almost always work and so stopping whatever you were doing the first time will seem to be effective. Again, as detailed upthread, it's no surprise that when respecs fail, we tend to find things which you'd expect to be true anyway - being in a busy area is the obvious example. Most players are in busy areas; that what makes them busy areas. That seems as likely a scenario as any.
  14. Well, it's been a while, but today I tried "in a busy area" - ie, Excelsior, next to Ms Liberty, in the evening on Saturday. Four respecs in a row all succeeded. Hence, I suspect "busy area" is as much of a red herring as "untrained levels".
×
×
  • Create New...