Indystruck

ninshootsu, dp/nin blaster shogunner, ar/nin blaster

Hey man, I ate a 24 hour because some other person decided to dictate how my dead friend would've reacted to my posting to me. It is what it is.

I am pretty sure the implication of the proc working against the set implies that the KB values that are used in the formula for how much value an IO grants in terms of things like Attack/Def/Acc/Recharge/End Redux/KB/etc mean that by six slotting Sudden Acceleration, you are effectively nullifying the "value" granted in that set that is assigned to the Knockback.

Base importation via a code or demo record was absolutely doable in Paragon Chat and we know now that this existed because of the private server (Things like the START vendor being culled out but still occupying space). It's probably doable but I'd imagine it's more of a privacy issue? Things like bases getting 'stolen' or whatever other drama you could think of from people having such a tool.

Yeah, don't know why that'd be an unpopular opinion to make specifically in this thread. Also, they already said no, so, it was not only unpopular but unneeded, thank you. Frankly, might as well lock the topic, GMs, we've got the answer.

Don't forget, power customization at all was a never until it was a yes. I'll be open and realistic here: There's nothing on the forums that was going to make me feel better over the last few days, only either somewhat content or furious. I'll cop to flying off the handle for the "what would your friend have wanted" remark out in public here, yeah, but I also just felt like there was a very infuriating presence on the forums in regards to a topic being like "no thanks" to memorial NPCs when we had gone through the avenues to try and do it the right way, only for the response to not even be in that topic (which has already been addressed by the GMs as not being a good look, which I appreciate and I'm glad similar won't happen in the future). So, ultimately, that's what I want: similar to not happen in the future. That's basically what my advocacy here is for. No one bats 100 but you can take measures to do better in the future, concrete measures.

Cobalt? You're great. Don't let anyone tell you different. It pleases me to have you as a member of the Homecoming team. 100% hit rate as far as I'm concerned. I hope when you go off to do your other indie ventures you post about them here so I can find em and try them out.

I'm not sure the superhero video game forum is the place to make a stand about how the real world works, but I think we're just going to have to fundamentally accept we have differences of opinion here that will not be swayed by the other party.

Hell, realistically, this memorial topic also did not get an official response, the topic questioning the existence of memorial NPCs did.

Well... no. It hasn't only come up a day ago. There's been other memorial NPC request topics, they just sort of fell into the aether without a official response. Heraclea being the other one I remember most recently. In fact, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the only reason this one got a response is because there was a memorial topic, with a topic questioning memorials right above it on the same forum, and both were receiving a lot of activity. Which in of itself isn't great if the only way to get an answer is just having combative and inflammatory forum posts going back and forth.

I don't think it's a perfect world level ask to say, hey, this was in place four years ago. You should probably make sure your team has, internally, been aware of this. I'm not saying "whoa, you made this decision 3 hours ago on the US east coast, why doesn't the guy who lives in Finland know about it yet," four years is an awful lot of time.

Right, which they should at least know internally about.

I acknowledge it's impossible to have pre-emptive rules in place for everything, but this most recent example, Widower's response post mentioned it had already been internally decided since the last memorial NPCs went live (i27, which was four years ago). I'm not saying they need to have branching policies to acknowledge hypotheticals here, I'm saying that decisions they made that had been made for years? It's reasonable to assume that there'd be some internal policy list that they could point to and go 'hey, this is a no'.

S'alright. For clarity's sake in case someone else misread it: The GM team should know where they, internally, stand on issues, so we don't have, as the most recent example, a GM tell us to request a feature that the GMs have already internally decided will not be done. It just creates less work for everyone involved.

If you would read the post you'd see that is not what I took issue with.