thunderforce

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Easter_Bunny removed every base list to redirect stuff to a Google spreadsheet. I think this is obviously bad (and reverted it immediately) but (especially since they are a CR) I fear there may be some pushback.

{{now free}} versus newly added {{historical|reason=nopaid}} The Paragon Wiki import has a lot of "historical" for the booster packs that got folded into the Paragon Market, so that's why I started by editing that template. I like "now free" because it's concise and emphasises the fundamental point about Homecoming; but I like "nopaid" because it emphasises that the particular thing this page is about is still available. I think I'm overanalysing this and will just leave it be, modulo slapping one of them on any other pages that come to mind.

Of course after doing a few of these I found one that had the "now free" template, not "historical", and I'm analysis paralysing over which is more appropriate. So, er, that's out there too. I wonder who added that template oh wait it was me.

I did the merge. If people feel that's too drastic, yell at me or undo it.

Thank you. That was interesting to read, and I'm glad I didn't do the merge back in the day - another victory for Captain Procrastination. ETA: Hm, I can't decide now if I still want to merge them or not.

I've added a "nopaid" reason to the "historical" template and made an example edit to https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Animal_Pack to reflect how I think it should be used. I've done this because the old page did not clearly describe _what_ was obsolete about the information, and a new user without a knowledge of how Homecoming works might think the costume parts (etc) were no longer available. I've removed the sentence about the Paragon Market in Overview because I think documenting exactly how you could buy this stuff on Live is a job for the Paragon Wiki; it's more important to us to make it clear that anyone can have these parts. (It is still mentioned in History at the bottom). Before I go and make similar changes elsewhere I thought I'd check if anyone thinks this was a terrible idea.

I was proceeding on the assumption that you thought it was a typo, since you reported it in the "Report Typos here" thread; scrolling back I see that's not the case. If you don't think it's a typo, fine - but why then mention it? If it could be "dialect or a typo", and the dialect seems sensible for the speaker, it's not a typo. Prescriptivist arguments over what's "right" are pointless.

Dialogue is not a typo if it is a thing that people say, even if it is not "correct" from a prescriptivist point of view. We had this already with "could care less". There's no reason to think that Metal Swiper routinely consults usage guides.

I would be, yes, given the price per item means even if I had the hundreds of thousands of white salvage I'd need to make a respectable amount of money selling it, my arm would probably drop off before I'd got it all into the AH.

Common salvage could just be eliminated. It's cheap as dirt, there's always enough to go around, no-one's getting rich off selling it... (... and this is part of why OP is right that the system is overly complex; getting the right common salvage is just a speedbump of irritation, it serves no real purpose.)

https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Veteran_Levels#Costume_Change_Tokens_&_Respecs asserts that vet levels grant respecs not every 10 levels but on the schedule from the old Veteran Rewards program on live. I don't know this isn't true - I don't count my respecs and it seems like the kind of silly bug that might sneak in - but can anyone confirm that it's so? (And also, if it's instead of, not in addition to, one respec every ten levels).

I only don't wish it were an option because I cannot imagine who would choose not to throw presents.

During the previous winter events, Gravity/Propel has thrown presents. Now it doesn't, just the usual miscellaneous objects. This does not spark joy.

More usefully (albeit more useful than that reply is a low bar), Faultline writes on Discord: I think this thread can be closed since the suggestion is not practical to implement.

Currently, you can use SOs and DOs at very early levels. Great! Except that only a small fraction of the drops you get are useful, and vendors pay a modest fraction of the buy price, so you are unlikely to be able to take much advantage of this as a new character belonging to a new player. (Of course, you can just get 5 merits by exploring and sell them, but you have to know that; or get a bushel of cash from an alt, but you have to have one). If the origin of DO/SO drops was more likely to match the character, they would be more likely to be directly useful. I don't see this would have any significant economic impact - it means a fraction of people (if you can just send a million from an alt, why bother?), mostly at low levels (anyone slightly in the know will transition to IOs anyway around 25), vendor slightly fewer drops and buy slightly fewer DO/SOs from vendors.

Neither I nor Parabola seem to have experienced any confusion about what either of us wrote.

Errrr, you did notice I was _agreeing_ with the T1 change?

On reflection I think I agree with this. Taking a slow-cycling attack at level 1 is a problem there will be a very early opportunity to address.

That's a nontrivial downside - we still have a regular churn of new players - and perhaps something to add to the way this change discourages sampling the pool powers.

OK. However, those of us who do believe there's a problem can discuss potential solutions, and I think it is safe to say that "remove the 5-level exemplar grace" is feasible in a way that "rework every good T9 power" is not. Of course you do get new enemy groups, and Council are perhaps unusual in their very wide level range and lack of variety, but even if enemy groups didn't change at all, there's a pretty limited chunk of the game that isn't watching nukes (and Ion Judgements) pop off and it would be nice if it didn't shrink. The slots themselves scale down - it's possible the on-level toon who just six-slotted Power X actually gets better Acc/Dam/Rech etc than the one exemplared down - but as you note that doesn't apply to set bonuses and in the Homecoming all-attuned world that's huge. Remove the 5 level power grace. 🙂

That seems like it would require a much more wide-ranging change, nerfing many blaster nukes, than the more specific proposals advanced here would.

I think that is because the lower-level content where they are newly available will be more changed by the most effective T9s than the least effective.

Second the motion. The +5 level grace there is just bad, increasing the degree to which examplars overshadow on-level characters. It would always have been good to remove it, but if it was removed along with this change, we'd go from seeing T9s in level 27 content to T9s in level 26 content. While we're at it, the -1 level when sidekicking is bad for much the same reasons, doubly so when SKing to 50+1 makes you 49. You've already got fewer powers, fewer slots, and less powerful enhancements; a level shift is just gratutious.

I'd put myself somewhere between Grueller and, er, Fairy. Standard grumble about incarnate level shifts here. Not having the forced T1 secondary power pick: great. It is a buff to sets where the T1 secondary is terrible, but the player joy it should spark is well worth it. "Dead" levels: not actually, in my view, a problem. There are a lot of pool powers to take and there are some I've only tried out because of "dead" levels which I've then come to appreciate and enjoy. T9s earlier: highly undesirable. (I know, playtest don't theorycraft, but it is hard for me to test the dynamics of large PUGs in a highly specific level range...) However, if eliminating dead levels is felt to be necessary, also removing the five-level grace for power availability when exemplaring would considerably reduce the additional level range over which T9 powers are normally seen.

I really hope this pun was intentional.