thunderforce

Either the approachability is a bug or the dialogue is; _something_ wants fixed.

Then her dialogue could be adjusted to not assume you've done the introductory arcs; but I suspect it would be easier to flip the bit that says whether you can approach her.

Heather Townshend can be approached directly rather than being introduced by Captain Nolan or the threatening Arachnos message. This seems unintentional both because she has "prior to introduction" dialogue and because her later mission dialogue refers back to the events of those arcs happening to the player. Reported in Discord by another user and confirmed personally on the beta server.

The latter is certainly true; we have multiple humans in our supergroup, and if A opens a rack then closes the window, B still can't access it - being told A is still interacting - until A moves away from it. Every single time, AFAICT.

We tried it on Wednesday (grav-thermal controller and grav-stone dominator), got our arses kicked; Thursday, same dominator, a grav-ice dominator, and a staff-WP tanker; a desperate struggle with waves coming in from behind, many deaths and one complete wipe. It's really challenging now, and not in a way that just depends on the interface screw of having no map or having to click all eight eggs at the same time. Thanks.

There's a pretty persistent problem that the "bucketing" of arcs in Ouro doesn't always correspond to the challenge badges in the way that you would expect. We had a lengthy discussion with Faultline on Discord about this where it turned out this is not trivially correctable for a variety of reasons.

1) After EU release, so in early 2005. A friend was playing it and sent me a buddy code. We only played together a handful of times, but now because of the damned plague he's part of my regular Thursday evening team - and he's playing the same toon as in 2005. 2) I had barely touched it for a while before the shutdown, and I was surprised by how upset I was when I learned it was going away. On the last day I got a Praetorian to level 20 and left, then stood with my first character in Atlas Park holding a torch. 3) That's a complicated question because there was a lot of drama going around at the time; some idiot got 4chan involved, which never helps. 4) I went out into Atlas Park to kill 5 Hellions, complicated by the way hundreds of other people were trying to kill 5 Hellions and so there were none to be found. In the less immediate sense, I remade a BS/Invul scrapper from live as a Praetorian BS/WP brute and soloed everything I could, up to and including all four SSTFs. 5) The characters I directly remade from live early on have mostly gathered dust; I've had more fun where I've messed around with the original concept, costume, and/or powers. A Fire/FF controller has become a Fire/energy dominator, a FF/Psi defender a DP/Sonic corruptor. 6) I've a soft spot for the Arachnos Widow; I never played one on live.

I can't think it would ever be supposed to be the case that you can slot an enhancement that doesn't have any effect.

Banhammer swung. Thanks.

My feeling is generally to remove it unless it is something I'm aware is a persistent source of confusion for returning players, in which case I'll try and leave some mention to the effect that things have changed (which implies, in general, mentioning how things were on live).

When Blind Makwa passes you onto Cerulean, he says "Trust Master Midnight if you wish, but I warn you, he will betray you as he did me". This is odd because he's talking about Cerulean, the idea of trusting Master Midnight hasn't been mooted, and Master Midnight didn't (as far as we know) betray Blind Makwa.

I do think it's a pity that Homecoming isn't in a position to just get one or two of us pedantic gits to go through fixing these. In particular, there's a huge amount of low-hanging fruit which can be found very quickly just by grepping the strings in the game for common typos.

There's a fair bit of its/it's confusion in First Ward. Also, Blind Makwa: Midnight siezed the Midnight Mansion and all the artifacts and sorcery the Midnighters had accumulated over the decades. That sorcery includes The Book of Binding and The Dust of Chains, and I need your help to get it. "siezed" is definitely wrong. It also seems at least odd that this doesn't say "Those artifacts include ...".

I wouldn't go that far! I, and I'm sure many of us, have sat at the keyboard contemplating the following: such-and-such can't happen, I am absolutely sure of it nevertheless, such-and-such has happened. I think we're mostly missing #2 here.

I am absolutely not saying this has happened, or is likely, but surely it is theoretically possible that something on the rewards side looks at what badges you have got and happens to do something inappropriate if you have the level 99 vet badge? (Again, I am absolutely not saying this happened. I expect the answer, if Faultline indulges my curiousity, is that the reward side doesn't look at what badges you have got at all, or in very limited ways).

I think the most obvious way to make this work would be if, combining two patterns, if either the primary colour trumped the secondary, or vice versa.

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).

Thanks.

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, say so. But we should surely be consistent in any event.

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.

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 duration ones first (so Clear Mind (90s) appears before Fortitude (120s)), then AoE buffs like Deflection Shield, then Leadership auras... It doesn't matter so much what the ordering _is_ (although I think "ally buffs that run out" should be right at one end of the list) as long as it's constant. I don't care if Deflection Shield sorts before or after Sonic Barrier, but what I do want is that any time an ally has both, they appear the same way around. This might be a relatively modest amount of work. It doesn't need every buff classified, it works off the buffs' existing properties; the "tie-breaker" for identical type and duration (like the 4-minute FF and Sonic shields) could be anything (eg alphabetical order) just as long as it's consistent.

"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.

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".

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".

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...)