justicebeliever

This...I know it's unpopular to say, but I agree...Ideally, no set should be able to solo at that level, and if they can, either the baddies need to be more difficult (better option) or the sets should have powers toned down... I know people are going to say, "why are you telling me how to play", but unfortunately, this is one area where your playstyle and mine overlap and can't be separated. If the game is too easy, it's not fun. If I can solo all the content at +4/x8 and still get that AV at the end...it's not fun. (I'm not quite there though).

Since there is no policy that this forum is for coders only your "replies" are unnecessarily dismissive and a good example of why many people avoid video game forums. I don't think he was being dismissive...It comes across that way, but PK loves to slap that flowchart in every time someone suggests something is easy to change. More of a community "in-joke", but sometimes he will also then +1 the idea...

[quote author=madpoet67 link=topic=4698.msg36788#msg36788 date=1560519369 Er... what is the MA? Mission Architect. It’s player made content. You can find it by going to the AE locations on your map https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Architect_Entertainment_Buildings

This is me...

It can't be done, as a macro...But thanks to Adeon Hawkwood for a bind assist the other day, it can be done as a bind.. /bind [key] "powexec_name [second power]$$powexec_name [first power]" doesn't work because it keeps queuing the last power in the bind, but /bind [key] "powexec_toggleon [second power]$$powexec_toggleon [first power]" only evaluates powers that are in an "off state" and ignores powers that are firing or in cooldown. So for this bind, it will go to the last power in the command that is off (not in cooldown or firing). So the 2nd power being last will fire. When pressed again, now that the 2nd power is on cooldown it will fire the first power. I did test this just now and sadly it only works for 2 powers, not 3...

bump, because I would like to know the answer as well...

I agree this could use some looking at. Having to street sweep council in IP sometimes means i am going from the north monorail all the way to the NW corner of IP to find enough council. If the mission was to arrest 5th column, i would be done wihin 20 yards of the monorail.

From our very own Blondeshell, and right here on the forums: Vidiotmaps for Issue 24 and beyond

No, powexec_auto in a macro is the same as ctrl-click manually. That bind sets Healing Aura to auto-fire (like jack said, you can do the same with ctrl-click), then it starts to actually fire Healing Aura, then it cancels Healing Aura. You would get 100% the same effect with just: /bind rshift+numpad7 "powexec_auto Healing Aura” Not really sure why whoever created that bind added the extra 2 functions to it.

Maybe his goal was a more subtle Nemesis style plot...To have the whole community pause, come together, and realize that truly we share more in common then separates us... Nah...just a jerk signing off...

You sir, said almost the same thing as the OP, but did it casually, without malice, and constructively...Thank you!

Let's break down your explanation. So, by your explanation, you are "rendering a vote of no change from not any change." At best it's an incredibly confusing double negative. If I wanted to insult you, which I don't, I'd say something to the effect of how trying to use overly complicated wording to be as vague as possible when trying to argue over semantics only makes you look pompous and idiotic. But I'm saying that, I only pointed out how confusing your word choice is. If you choose to be insulted by that, I can't stop you from doing so. But you could also choose different wording to convey the same intended message. Which no one is stopping you from doing either. Switchfade, I think Rylas is repeating what I said as well...you are not making yourself understood here. If you wish to be understood, then rephrase what you are saying. If you are unable or do not wish to, please refrain from posting, as it damages your own credibility elsewhere in the forums, and causing unnecessary angst in this thread. And I think for discussion purposes, we are trying to propose a course of action...Think of it like Robert's Rules of Order... For a decision to be made there are 3 options 1.) Vote Yes - Make the change 2.) Vote No - Do not make the change 3.) Abstain - this can be explicit or implicit. You don't have to say "I abstain" to abstain, but by failing to choose 1 or 2, you are abstaining nonetheless. I really don't care at this point how you want to say it, phrase it, feel it, opine on it...But regardless of whether you care but don't want to decide, can't decide for lack of information, or truly don't care...You still will fall into one of these 3 buckets... A filibuster, is still a No Vote...

But if you hadn’t learned about the game, however would you have been able to take time away from those other games and write an unnecessary snarky, mean spirited, insulting post. Bye Bye

I love guides like this. Thanks for putting it together... +1 Inf

And it depends on the map...Some will never show you the final objective...sigh...

I'm going to apologize for being insulting. I clearly was, and I'm going take this response as an attempt to reproach it. 1.) You said you oppose the change...Please pick a side...You are for the change? Your are against the change? It's confusing and impossible to engage if you are saying but then say 2.) English is English, but your use of terminology and jargon is not clear to me. So I'm assuming you know what you are talking about, but please don't insult me by saying that it's clear. It clearly isn't to me (that's why I have asked you to rephrase), and English is my first language, and I do have a college degree from an accredited US university. 3.) I'll exclude you from this statement, since I clearly have no idea where you stand...But the only people I have seen, that I can understand what they are saying, that have suggested a slippery slope, are people opposed to the change. 4.) In attempting to understand your viewpoint, I asked you to a.) rephrase and b.) provide a quote from the OP support slippery slope. You've responded each time I've asked, by repeating what you've already said. If it wasn't clear to me the first time, it won't be clear to me no matter how many times you say it the same way over and over again. So where are we at? I would truly, like to understand your viewpoint. I've asked twice as such. If you truly, want me to understand your viewpoint (this is your choice, not mine), then please respond with different words (pretend I am a high schooler with no background in philosophy) to explain your viewpoint. If you are going to call out the OP, that's fine, but please use quotes to do so, so we can all follow your reasoning. Like I said, this is the 2nd thread we've engaged in where I've asked for more information, and you've left me hanging...It's fine if you don't want to engage me...Then please don't respond to the comments I make. If you do want to engage, you'll have to pull me up to your level, but you won't do that with jargon. You've asked for time before responding...that's fine...If you aren't in a good position to engage fully than just wait until you are. I know mobile devices are CRAP for long threads like this in this particular forum.

/bind NUMPAD1 ""powexec_altslot 1" /bind NUMPAD2 ""powexec_altslot 2" etc...

Except that you do oppose the change, regardless of the reasons... I'm assuming, like most people, you are able to alter your speech as needed depending on your audience. Perhaps I am wrong, but if I am not, please rephrase everything you said after this, and please include a quote from the OP that supports your slippery slope? Ok, I'll retype the same thing. I am not opposed to a change or this one. I am opposed to illogic and fallacy. Change based on illogic highlights that the change from null state is neither reasonable, or good. So, your statement is false. I've asked twice for more context and both times you've just repeated yourself. This is the 2nd time you've done this to me in a thread where I've asked you to provide more information, but have been unwilling to (or more likely, incapable of) engage in a more productive conversation...This is not an argument, it's trolling at it's most basic level... So that's fine...we are done...please respond as you like...I won't be responding to anything you say going forward...

Except that you do oppose the change, regardless of the reasons... I'm assuming, like most people, you are able to alter your speech as needed depending on your audience. Perhaps I am wrong, but if I am not, please rephrase everything you said after this, and please include a quote from the OP that supports your slippery slope?

I would view this similar to the "fix the clamp" suggestion. The change ultimately wouldn't be all that impactful, no. But I prefer changes to be made for good reasoning, not just because how it's going to appeal to how someone feels about something. That's just a preference I hold for implementing change. And the reasoning provided by OP falls faulty. Well, my reasoning for not changing the clamp was that is wasn't worth the development effort given the small impact. That holds true here for me as well...I don't think this change should be made by the developers. That's why I suggested what's below. But unlike the clamp, which was very mechanical, this is pure creativity that's being debated. On those grounds, if I am not invested in the current product, why fight change. I mean I'm not for change for the sake of change, but I'm also not opposed to trying new things just because they are different. A whole new story line that replaces the current one, or just additional to the current one of topic? I'm all for more content creation, especially community driven since these devs have enough work already (I'm assuming). And I'm all for arcs that have better writing for female characters (and all characters, of course). And if the aim is to empower, that's fine. I just hope it avoids infantilizing the audience in the process of doing so. I think of Ripley in Alien when I think of good writing. I don't have a stake here, so I'm open to whatever/whoever wants to rewrite it and to the extent they feel comfortable/capable. I would hope that it would replace bad writing with good writing, or I think we need to revisit the whole discussion again... Good, measured comments Rylas, thanks!

This is patently false because you do not speak for me. And I'm part of "everyone." <SNIP - overly wordy and not constructive> In essence, while I see the OP has an opinion, so do others. Both are valid. Each vote has merit. Opinions are not facts. Fallacy of logic is not syllogistic reasoning. 1.) Never used the word "everyone". I said the only people who are suggesting that future content would be changed are those opposed to the change. It's not a line of reasoning, it's a fact. 2.) The OP never made any such argument...Maybe you want to use the quote feature and help me out 3.) This is all opinion. Except for the FACT that the only people bringing up changing additional content are people who are opposed to the change. However opinions lead to actions (hence a suggestion board), and actions have consequences. So we get to debate consequences here... Much of your wording is over my head, which I believe you intended, rather than stay on topic. But if not, please rephrase your points so that the lay person might have a better understanding?

There are not 2 sides to the slippery slope. It is a logical fallacy used to generate fear. That's it. Slippery Slope assumes that once one change is made there will be no stopping future changes. But the fallacy is that you (or the Dev's or whoever is invoked in the discussion) is powerless against future changes. But that's not how life works. It's a series of decisions one by one... Erm, the colloquial meaning of slippery slope, or the formal meaning as proposed in arguementation theory, is that a fringe argument can be used to validate another, this pushing the argument so far from syllogistic reasoning that it is absurd. As an example, ice cream makes you fat. Fat people are lazy. Lazy people are a drain on society. Draining society is evil. Evil people kill people. Thus, ice cream causes people to commit murder. So, my statement about a slippery slope is accurate. I have no idea what you are saying here...So maybe you can clarify what you are saying or say it in a different way, because you lost me...

I did...It just so happens that the thread I referenced - https://forums.homecomingservers.com/index.php/topic,4021.0.html has the updated Vidiotmaps, like you asked, that are not found in Paragon Wiki... Paragon Wiki is a snapshot of how the game was when it was sunsetted, not how it is now. The content there is 90% correct, but in some cases out of date compared to HC. The thread I just linked has the most up to date maps

Well, your viewpoint is the minority in this case. Right or wrong, society has to judge the level of criminality so as to assign appropriate punishments. And intent is absolutely part of criminality. An example would be straight up murder - Murder in the First degree, requires pre-meditation, as well as intent. Murder in the second, requires just intent. And manslaughter does not have intent. In all 3 cases your loved one is dead. But in all 3 cases the criminal is treated differently, based on intent. And when a class of people are poorly or underrepresented in the justice system, society owes it to that class to provide additional resources.