Ventriloquist

With Issue 21, players were given the ability to toggle between windowed and fullscreen modes using Alt+Enter (the "correct" behavior) on Windows.

Unfortunately, the responsible developer(s) also mapped Alt+Numpadenter to do the same thing, and it is interfering with keybinds for players.

The client is capable of differentiating between Enter and Numpadenter (hence Numpadenter not opening chat input, etc) and Alt+Numpadenter toggling window modes is not consistent with expected behavior in other applications, so this needs to be remedied.

Upkeep is now based on the number of storage objects.

Plot size, coalition status, etc do not play a role in the calculation of upkeep.

Check the roster for the SG that is in debt. Is it under 15 members? You get a 20k prestige bonus for the first 15 toons to join a roster. If you've been deleting toons, and the roster is under 15, you lost 20k prestige for each of those removals.

I haven't seen any posts from RAZER users that suggest they have the problem.

It appears to only be "core" Microsoft models with high precision scrolling.

I was amused when they implemented scrolling for the chat windows, and that exhibited no problems. It's like scrolling chat interprets the polling event from the mouse correctly (up/down, ignore velocity), but the scrolling the camera doesn't.

I've been submitting this as a bug for a few years now, to no avail.

The only reliable method I've found for getting camera scrolling to work reliably in City on affected systems is documented here.

Unfortunately, using the documented registry keys to resolve the problem amounts to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, because you lose the "correct" scrolling behavior in everything else to accommodate City.

I've never gotten a response, or requests for additional information, from Paragon. I assume they're taking the position that it's Microsofts problem despite the fact that players have access to hundreds of other games that don't demonstrate the behavior.

And guess which other two games I've played in the last few years that have the same problem? CO and ST:O. It's like Paragon has "inherited" something from Cryptic legacy code.

EDIT: To clarify, using the VScrollHighResolutionDisable key documented in the linked discussion is what worked for me.

[ QUOTE ]
(and that it only demotes the leader? Where does it say that?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be unsympathetic, but it's called "Inactive Leaders Demotion" right on the SG configuration panel.

I have it working, ES, see me in game.

<ul type="square">[*] Group Name: Ars Heroica[*] Server: Virtue[*] Side: Heroes[*] Approximate Size/Cost: 16x16 ~22M[*] Anything else peritnent: The base is a good example of what you risk breaking for your customers when you take away "unsanctioned" features (magic $FOO) before providing a viable alternative.[/list]

[ QUOTE ]

Base Repricing
1) How will the repricing of bases affect you personally?

[/ QUOTE ]

Until we are given a wider array of design options that allow us to leverage the prestige being liberated, the repricing doesn't impact our active supergroups. It will make it easier for us to generate individual "private" supergroups for personal storage, but we shouldn't have to rely on such a mechanism to begin with.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Will you dismantle your base to gain the additional prestige from the repricing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the developers have broken the use of "magic doors" with the current implementation of Issue 13, many of our live bases cannot be recreated with the tools provided. As a result, we are going to have to leave our expensive rooms in place until we are given new tools that allow us to match and go beyond our current layouts. For now, we're going to limit ourselves to "upgrading" our plots to regain that prestige, and replace a few high-prestige objects like Turbine Generators, Mega Monitors, AES, et cetera.

[ QUOTE ]
3) How long would this process take you if you were to engage in this practice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because we're handicapped by the "nerfing" of magic doors, we won't be able to leverage the base changes to their fullest potential. As such, it won't take much time for us to make "safe" changes until we get a real base editor overhaul.

[ QUOTE ]
4) What are the positive and negative concerns regarding repricing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rent has been rendered irrelevant. It should simply be eliminated for the sake of simplification.

[ QUOTE ]
5) How will this feature affect you long term and short term?

[/ QUOTE ]

Until we're given a wider array of room sizes in each category and recover the ability to do wide doorways, we're locked in. What remains to be seen is if NCNC can get us a "real" base update before some of us lose interest and jump ship to other titles. (Not a petulant threat or troll, some of us simply feel we aren't getting what we need from that aspect of the game.)

[ QUOTE ]
Base Salvage Exchange to Invention Salvage
1) What is the negative effect on your base for this feature implementation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Limiting us to 30 salvage per rack is overkill. A large supergroup should not have to rely on multiple racks just to stock crafting components. Cut your losses and make storage objects carry 100 items each, regardless of object type. (100 each: Racks, bins, tables.)

[ QUOTE ]
2) What is the positive effect on your base for this feature implementation?

[/ QUOTE ]

After the transition (burning legacy salvage and components into brainstorms), the resulting system will be easier to comprehend. There would, however, be value in implementing some sort of "Base Architect Tutorial" for new arrivals to run through a la the Invetion Tutorial.

[ QUOTE ]
3) How long will it take you to adjust to learning this new system?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already done so.

[ QUOTE ]
4) What side effects to this system do you currently see from transitioning the old to new system?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than burning through Brainstorms willy-nilly to create random invention salvage, we're probably going to have to choose select members of our supergroups to spread the Brainstorms out amongst for future use. The actual conversion process will be simple, but tedious. Some thought should have been given to convenience for users who need to convert hundreds (if not thousands) of salvage/components one at time. It takes too long to do so now.

[ QUOTE ]
5) What security concerns do you have regarding this change?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, the lack of ranked storage permissions is going to become even more important now than it was before. This is another half-implementation on the part of NCNC, and we're left to deal with the consequences while you "sympathize with our concerns" rather than addressing them.

Can someone with the necessary badge on Test check the workbench and give us the Tier 1 / Tier 2 / Tier 3 salvage requirements for the Autonomous Expert System? I don't have the badge in my Test SG.

I've looked for a developer comment on the subject, and struck out, so:

Are you prepared to let us know if the new zones will be accessed by beacon? If so, I'd imagine quite a few SG/VG will be running into teleportation limits in their existing layouts that would require rejiggering / plot expansion to correct. It would be helpful if we knew in advance so we can do the necessary prestige buildup to meet the goal before the Issue releases.

The tangential question would be: Do you anticipate increasing the existing beacon counts from 21 and 8, respectively, at any point? If so, do you intend on changing the numerical relationship between beacons/pads, or pads/room sizes, to give us breathing room?

(a) Remove e-mail, or, better yet, remove e-mail access from trial accounts.
(b) Throttle trial accounts so they can only send $FOO tells per $BAR interval, unless the tells are sent to a member of their global friends list, SG, etc. Throttling would apply to public channels to prevent the abuse of broadcast / etc by the RMT agents.

Until NCSoft takes these steps, the problem will persist. Whether NCSoft sees the use of development time for these goals as being financially worthwhile is another matter entirely. Undoubtedly, if and when they make changes, players will complain about the restrictions. C'est la vie. As it stands, I can't get worked up over the issue: The volume of spam I receive in CoX is trivial compared to what I see in EVE and WoW. Given the size of the playerbase, I suppose it's relatively poor target for RMT agencies, dark blessing though that may be.