I went through SS hundreds of times (or it seems so) as of some months ago without any notable issues. Did it again last night for the daily and yeah, Lightning Pull now acts like I’m hitting an invisible wall near, but not at the end of what should be the drop point—every time. I fell short of the little platforms over and over before I started jumping off the very leading edge of whatever I’m standing on to compensate and was only able to barely manage to catch my toenails on the edge of the next platform (the majority of the time).
I agree. I find it odd (and less representative) that actual in-game readied-weapon stances aren’t used especially seeing as that’s the point of viewing the item drawn. You can still see the item proportions in proper stance, so that shouldn’t be the reason for using a lazy stance. Relatedly, some minipet previews don’t reflect actual in-game animations accurately (storm imp, for instance, flaps its winds wildly in-game, but the preview shows it flapping fairly slowly).
No assuming required. At the bottom it tells you the message was sent by another player and not from the GW2 staff.
I got the meta last year with little issue doing mostly dailies and Tixx, and nothing else that I can recall. This year I managed the meta without Snowball Mayhem or the JP, neither of which I’m interested in, which means I had to do the Bell Choir (seemed the “best” option for me). Turns out it’s pretty easy after you let some muscle memory kick in after several rounds. I managed the achieve and a few perfect 600s over several days. While I didn’t have an issue with it, I didn’t want to do it, as I don’t care much for any of the mini-game activities outside of Sanctum Sprint. It became very monotonous and I only do it now for the W. daily and some extra rounds for easy prezzies. But I wouldn’t do it just because I enjoy it. I’m not a Guitar Hero baby and wouldn’t touch those games with a thousand foot pole unless someone was paying or forcing me ( which is kinda the case here ;-) ).
I MUCH prefer more latitude to complete the metas (there was just enough this year, but more options would be far better). I prefer to be able to repeat things that I like doing (and have them count) rather than being railroaded into things I don’t want or like to do just to accomplish the meta (which is usually a nice toy everyone wants). Essentially, if I like doing Snowball Mayhem, I feel I should just be able to do that for the entire event and eventually achieve the meta if that’s what I enjoy most and want to go that route. How I get there doesn’t adversely affect anyone else’s enjoyment, but it does affect mine. And isn’t maximizing fun, which is entirely objective, the point of a game?
Perhaps ANet thinks they need to direct players this much so as not to feel they’ve wasted their time on certain content. Or perhaps it’s a means of creating a forced illusion that you’ve got a lot more to do. That some of it isn’t what you want to do is less important. I expect they’re following some sort of pyschology research that shows that more strict guidance of players to “expand their horizons” results in a better long term result for the business/game, if not for every player.
(edited by Kruhljak.2705)
Grawnk Munch is in the Festival category which probably means you’ll have to finish that part before the end of Wintersday, but the OP asked about the collection which is in the Basic Collections category. That implies it will be doable year-round, with the ornament box dropping only for those who still have the collection incomplete, but available. Collections are new thing since last time around, so hopefully ANet understands people will want to fill them in on their own schedule/whim not under a calendar-shaped gun. But….
Doesn’t help that a large number (if not the majority) of so-called “Elite” skills don’t even work under water.
I’m somewhat ambivalent about the changes to the dailies.
My biggest gripe is the same as many others: we need more, NOT FEWER, options to satisfy dailies. And that applies to all three main segments of gameplay. I don’t indulge in PvP at all outside a smattering of WvW, and being functionally restricted to just four PvE options on a given day—some of which I don’t care to do because I’ve already decided for myself—is very annoying.
One of the most irritating issues I have, though, is this business with having a single world boss as a daily option. Oh, it definitely brings people together, but to say it engenders a greater sense of community is patently absurd. A zerg does not equal community. Instead, it severely ramps up lag (even at 2AM on a weekday) and increases the incidences of crash outs (which was my case today for the first time in months).
Please consider making this sort of daily an option to participate in one of a subset of boss events across the world. A subset that covers multiple zone level ranges so even new players have a decent chance to get to at least one of them. This will still increase the number of players in each of the events, but because only one of the subset is required for the daily, it won’t create nearly the same enormous deluge of players all converging on the same place at the same time we now have because we’ve only been given ONE option.
I wish they’d flush and refund all those ancient underbids already. This confuses so many people.
I’ve said this auto-verification should be saved until the List / Bid button is clicked, but on thinking about it, I think the best way would be to have the auto-v kick in only when you’ve exited the cell (quantity) or cell group (the three pricing cells) either by shifting to one or the other or otherwise clicking outside any cells. In other words, when I’m done entering data into either of those two areas.
This would allow for automatic post-entry correction while also keeping the GUI from arguing with me while I’m in the act of entering/modifying cell data. Don’t underestimate just how obnoxious that is from a user’s standpoint.
Oh, and revert the hover cell activation change. It was good the way it was.
Please.
Edit: Noticed they fixed the “Total Price” line so it isn’t sensitive to the new hover change (i.e. it won’t clear highlighted data or shift the cursor to the end of the data in quantity/price cells). Thanks. Now go just a little further and revert the whole change.
(edited by Kruhljak.2705)
Malediktus: Dunno if you’re being sarcastic or not, but meh.
Anyway, here’s another example how this pro-active verification is a bad idea (or poorly implemented…or both):
Take an item that has a minimum bid of, say, 15c with a current high buy order price of 28c. Enter buy mode, click on the highest buy order line to ensure you’re placing a buy order and not a straight buy. Set the quantity, then tab to get to the gold field, tab again to get to the silver, then again to the copper, and try to enter 29c to overbid by 1c. What happens? The on-the-fly verification makes it impossible. As soon as you hit the “2” key it reverts the cell to “15”, the min possible. It doesn’t even allow you to enter the second number before jumping in and getting in the way. Yes, I could use the mouse wheel or up-arrow key to increment the value by 1, but as a touch typist I prefer to just use the usual number keys which is much faster for me and I’m sure a great number of players.
It’s fine to provide extra functionality that some might find more convenient, but not when it disables more standard, intuitive functionality in the process. It doesn’t matter that this scenario may not occur all the time. The fact that it does at all shows a failing in the current implementation.
I repeat my mantra on this topic Keep the GUI out of the way.
After a full day using this new version, I can say I thoroughly despise it. It’s become the most obnoxious input device I can recall ever using. This mouse hover activated cell selection is an incredibly poorly thought out change. I can’t imagine anyone actually testing it and finding the fact you have to carefully husband your mouse pointer in order to avoid completely fubar-ing your input to be a good thing.
In addition the functional inability to simply click in a cell and just backspace/delete clear it and type in what you want, or even just to correct a typo, without the GUI preventing it or auto-changing data, is patently absurd.
Why inject all this unnecessary and interfering baggage into what should be nothing more than a simple set of data input cells like any other form? Click in cell-> use keyboard/mouse to enter/edit data. Period.
As I said in at least a couple other posts: get the GUI out of our way. We don’t need on-the-fly verification. Do it on submit like most other easy to use forms. We can correct errors at that point. Right now it’s taking me vastly longer to use the TP interface because I have to slow to crawl to ensure the numbers I tried to enter didn’t get changed or prevented (and this happens A LOT) for one reason or another by the little gremlins infesting the thing.
The adage, “Keep it Simple, Stupid” is truly applicable here.
edit: typo fix
(edited by Kruhljak.2705)
They should have changed forum software a long time ago. A broken search engine on a forum this active is grounds for immediate change. With this upcoming consolidation of sub-forums threads will be cycling out of view even faster than they are now. Without a functional search engine, we’ll probably also see a huge uptick in the amount of redundant threads in the newly fattened groups.
I really do hope this group doesn’t get lumped in with a more generalized group. The TP is a very specific entity and has many issues that are almost if not entirely relevant to it and nothing else.
Backspacing in any of the three value fields on the “Min. Price” line (even one with a zero already present) causes all three cells (as a group) to change to the min possible list/bid value. This means you cannot simply click/activate one of the cells, backspace to clear and enter your new data without the GUI erroneously changing values you don’t want changed.
There’s far too much pro-active GUI intervention going on in this input device. Let me key in my data, then verify it when I tell you I’m done: when I hit the List/Bid button. Stay out of my face while I’m inputting data.
(edited by Kruhljak.2705)
I don’t like the way this new mouse pointer hover function works as it cancels the value I have highlighted with intention to overwrite to enter a new value. I can adapt there, I guess. But I do think the Total Price field/bar/line should be entirely disabled as it can’t be edited anyway, and is an easy accidental target for your mouse pointer to slide over when moving it out of your way after selecting an input field to edit.
Just as the patch notice popped up on my screen, I noticed the TP GUI used for placing bids or selling items has some new annoyances.
1. I can no longer use my DELETE or BACKSPACE key to clear and type in a new value into the Quantity box. I can only manually highlight with the mouse then type a new number, use the slider, or use the arrow keys to change. Umm…this is ridiculous.
2. When I key in a price at which to sell an item, the Current Sellers price listing flips so it shows the highest to lowest prices, then flips back to normal after listing the item. I have no clue how this could be perceived as desired, so it’s gotta be a bug.
Edit: The Seller’s List is also initially flipped high-to-low when trying to sell an item from inventory that has no valid buy orders (or only old orders that are below the minimum possible). Have seen this twice now, so I assume it’s consistent.
This also happens sometimes when trying to sell an item from inventory, apparently when the item has no valid buy orders (or only old orders below the new minimum).
(edited by Kruhljak.2705)
Edit to issue #2 above: This is worse than I thought. The number of erroneous duplicate entries that appear when using “load more” on my Sold Items list is variable. I’ve noticed as many as 18 duplicate entries showing before previously undisplayed entries appear.
This thread is slowing down, I guess since there’s been virtually no feedback from the devs on all these complaints/suggestions since the last small update was added. All the same, I have more to add:
1. The “up arrow” on the buy order list slider is dead—it doesn’t work. I may have mentioned this before.
2. The “load more” function, at least when loading more items in my sold list, includes 2 duplicates. That is, the bottom two items shown before I click the button to load another batch are duplicated at the top of the new batch (also there’s a gap between the bottom old and top new listing).
3. The “load more” function is great, but I’d really like to see some indication of how far back I’ve gone in my history. Right now, I can just keep hitting the button until my mouse breaks, and I still don’t know if I’ve gone back far enough to actually reach an item I’m thinking is there to be found. Showing how many days back the last block has reached would be very useful. For example, when I click the “load more” button, I’d like to see to the right, perhaps, “27 days” or similar to let me know I’ve just loaded data from 27 days ago. This is important when you get no returns from a particular batch (and even more so when items that would match are far apart chronologically).
Even better, especially when I’m searching for a specific thing, have the “load more” actually go and fetch what I’m looking for up to X number of results. So if I’m searching for “sunstone” rather than letting/having me click “load more” 25 times to find a listing, just go and find the next, say 5, matches and show them regardless of how far back they are. If there’s no more, just return that info so I don’t go wasting my time and your CPU’s cycles requesting data that may not even exist.
4. When setting the level range in the drop down search box, we have no way to limit to just level 0 items. Yes, I can set the range from 0 to 1, but that’s just a workaround.
5. Aside from making all of the search functions consistent from one list to the next (for instance, partial word matching is still inconsistent between searching on the main TP and searching your own transactions), we need a means of performing exact matches, which is a standard search engine function. For example, I want to search for ore, just ore. We can’t now. We get ores, cores, etc. Standard isolation in most engines is via quoted search criteria: “ore” gets me “ore” as a full word. We need that functionality, at least.
CustServ response was just canned advice to submit an in-game bug report which would do me no good as I want to know if this is a bug or some intended special case, and those reports are non-responsive. That and a suggestion to post in the bug report forum.
Meh.
Lost track of this post…
No, none of the items were bought with karma nor were they level-up rewards, etc. They were just normal L20 masterwork trinkets bought off the TP.
What happens is I can put three of them (any mix of rings, earrings, and amulet), and the first two go in ok, but when I put the third in the others in my inventory become ghosted.
Since I can use any three of them with any random other masterwork item (armor/weapon), it’s not that they can’t be used in the forge it’s as if it’s designed so that I can’t use all four to get a fresh un-bound masterwork (or better at appropriate item level + luck) trinket. Gonna have to check with fresh ones next time I buy a set. I’d wager those will work fine.
No mention of such exception/restriction on the wiki, as far as I see.
edit: Decided to bother CustServ with this, as it could be a bug. I’ll post back with an answer if I get one.
(edited by Kruhljak.2705)
I’m not all that familiar with the forge’s quirks, so need to ask why I can’t forge 4 soulbound trinkets (all same level and all masterwork in this case), but I can forge 3 of them with any other masterwork weapon or piece of armor (soulbound or not).
Anyone know what’s up here?
Target nearest enemy should do exactly that…..
Target the enemy closest to you.
I have not had any issues since they changed the way the system works.
It is wonderful.
Before they implemented changes, I would have kitten like this happen.
Can’t target the closest Ettin because he is “hiding” behind the tree.
Really? That was a problem for you?
Why not use mouse-targeting as you advocated elsewhere?
Rather weak example of an issue.
Now, if that were a Moa that was out of LoS behind a wall through which neither of you could reach/affect the other, THEN you have a viable example of an issue. One that just happens to exist now, thanks to this expertly crafted obfuscation (not fix) of an actual bug.
And…
Crying about not being able to target the enemy you want because it is not the one closest to you is a l2p issue. You can select creatures easily enough in pve with the mouse.
Accurate mouse selection is nearly impossible in many situations, or have you even tried it amongst many players/mobs?
As an aside, characterizing dislike for this change as “crying” and saying adapting to this change is a “l2p” issue is nothing more than thinly veiled insults. It’s also hypocritical as anyone could just as accurately say the same thing about you not being able to adapt to the previous targeting method.
Play PvP for a week and you would never support the absurd notion of wanting the “target nearest enemy” button to target what’s directly in front of you… because you will be targeting things you don’t want to attack at that moment 90% of the time.
I don’t play PvP and neither do thousands of others. By saying this you’re basically admitting you’re in the same group as those you’ve denigrated as crying about a revert. You’re clearly, and entirely concerned about the targeting in PvP and don’t give a flip about anyone else’s issues. Take your blinders off and instead of trying to force your preferred idea down everyone’s throats, try advocating something useful like encouraging the devs to give EVERYONE—not just you or I—options so they can manage targeting the way THEY want to, not the way you or I want it. The two basic functionalities already exist, one just happens to be turned off. Simple filtering options as mentioned above are possible, and probably not even that diffictul to implement. Instead of screwing one half to satisfy the other, we need actual, useful options.
I don’t think the way your camera is rotated should have ANYTHING to do with how the targeting system works.
While the terminology “Target Nearest Enemy” might logically imply it should just target literally the nearest target, it isn’t a sensible default application in a significant portion of actual play. Common sense dictates that in the vast majority of cases you’re going to want to target something you can actually see. Targeting things you can’t see doesn’t make sense, anyway, and worse is targeting things you may or may not be able to actually see but to which you have no line of sight and hence CANNOT HIT ANYWAY. The game can easily determine line of sight almost instantly when I actualy do attack, so it should be able to apply the same functionality to this targeting option rather than lazy “as the crow flies” methodology which can—and often does—cause far more problems than not.
There are hundreds of examples of why its annoying to not be able to target the closest enemy just because it is off screen or not directly in your field of view, especially in PvP.
Hundreds, eh? I doubt you could describe even 5 distinct cases. But it’s irrelevant anyway. The issue is that players have no control over how this targeting system works which is egregiously silly since targeting is one of the absolute most basic needs for what is essentially a combat-centric game. Why can I—me—the player—not decide FOR MYSELF that I don’t want my targeting system to include yellow mobs, or non-threatening inanimate objects, or things I can’t actually attack/reach due to lack of LoS? Hey, if you want to jump around at random, possibly ramming into walls, or attacking boxes with reckless abandon, I say go right ahead, but the devs don’t seem at all willing to give US the option to pick and choose how WE manage this aspect of the game.
And if they don’t, I will continue to scream obsceneties at them (in the comfort of my own home, where they—probably—can’t hear them) whenever I inadvertently leap backwards into a wall in a vain attempt to attack a wandering pig rather than the Veteran Risen that’s a nanometer farther away, but directly in front of me and actively slamming me with attacks. If you want to try and rationalize that scenario as better functionality than the way it was before (where what you could see was all you’d potentially target), be my guest. I’m sure it would be exceedingly amusing.
The “Target Nearest Enemy” function is not a “Target the enemy that’s in front of me” button.
Well, it had been for over a year and a half and it was fine outside of some wonkiness with it targeting things a mile away because they were in more perfect ‘directly ahead LoS’ than nearer targets. It was essentially fine and sensible; now it’s not just unpredictable but often directly problematic. I don’t have time during combat to stop and determine whether or not I can actually see/reach what’s just been targeted, much less determine if that target is actually not just a different one with the exact same name but behind a wall.
This was changed because hundreds and hundreds of people complained about the way you want the targeting system to work. Now that it has been changed, a small handful are complaining about how it works asking for a revert.
Where do you get all these grandiose numbers? Hundreds and hundreds? Really? I didn’t see any complaining outside of the bug that caused things to be targeted that were miles away.
You would be fighting something, and just because of the way your camera was rotated, you would target something way off in the distance.
Yes, again, that was a problem that should have been RESOLVED, not obscured by a change that simply says, “I will target the nearest thing no matter what it is, no matter if it’s aggressive to me, no matter if I can see it, no matter if I can actually reach or affect it.” Had they fixed the actual bug this targeting mechanism would have been all but perfect, IMO. Now it’s just chaotic and unpredictable at best in all too many cases.
They, for all intensive purposes, completely fixed this issue with the patch.
Above.
I can say that since launch I’ve had virtually no issues with DCs, outside of one span after a particularly sloppy patch/update, but I’ve been randomly DCd at least ten times in the last few days while in the Lab, LA, Rata Sum, hanging out in a map that was telling me it wanted to close, etc.
I can say SUBjectively (and can apparently concur objectively), that it’s far more unstable now than it was even just prior to the initial Halloween patch.
This was the biggest issue still lingering for me. But we still have one thing missing that I gauge the vast majority of players still want to see: The “Last Listing” info and functionality to quickly add new items at that price.
The rest is relatively minor, but could/should be addressed eventually.
For example:
Data in the search box(es) is lost when switching between various target lists.
There is still no tab support for gadget boxes in the drop down search box.
The search function for transactions still doesn’t fully support partial word (“migh appr” won’t get you anything in transactions, but it will when searching in the main TP section).
When using the Sell Items tab, identical items aren’t aggregated like they used to be in the old TP. This is a matter of managements convenience for the player as it can make for much smaller lists when you have lots of bag space filled up.
We have no options to choose whether selling/buying an item defaults to activating lowest price or buy order, nor whether the count defaults to max or 1.
And we still don’t have actual MAX or MIN buttons available when selling items, despite the far ends of the slider doing that job, but inobviously and it’s rather tricky to easily hit the right spot(s).
These are thing I personally have gripes about, and I know there are other things some players have issues with. Despite that, and with the new Load More option, I’d say the new TP now has enough there to make most of us finally forget about the old version.
Perhaps with blue minis, I suppose, as blue equipment remains tradeable. But the fact that you’d get get both unlocked minis and another mini through forging makes it seem unlikely it will happen.
What’s next Dungeon and WvW badges/tokens for gold?
Of course, you can already get (some) dungeon rewards without ever setting foot in a dungeon (WvW reward tracks). So, really, the lines are already blurred. Using gold gained from doing anything in the game isn’t all that different from doing some completely unrelated other thing and getting the “uniquely related” rewards normally associated with something else (i.e. doing WvW to get dungeon armor).
Is it really so different to murder a million open world mobs to get your dungeon armor (via gold gained), than to murder a million WvW invaders to get your dungeon armor (via WvW reward tracks)?
Hilarious. ANet has Q/A, right?
The EG mode does, at least, double the number of possible results (evidenced by searching for “recipe” in both modes) when searching for items to buy from the TP.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t extend the depth to which your transactions lists are searched. Apparently, Evon is not as concerned with his own trades as he is with buying more stuff to lose track of.
Seera functionally ended this topic 10 or 11 posts above.
GW1 had a lot of players who spent lots of money buying/selling items with unusual skins, rare combos, or just rare drops that otherwise were entirely sub-par in actual play. Stands to reason there are a fair number of those wealthy collector types running around here, as well. Perhaps some of it is also speculation. Who knows what some of those useless junk items might be used for down the road…and how much they’ll shoot up in price? Remember heavy bags of coins from BLCs?
This new TP’s catchword is “limits”. Have fun, I know I am.
It’s there already. Use the sidebar to select “Crafting Materials” and type a relevant keyword into the search box.
The problem with this new drop system is that it is introduced directly into a greater system that is, at this time, massively uneven (why is irrelevant) in terms of mat values. So, no, it’s not the profession’s fault, it’s the game’s current and by now long-standing mat economy that’s the issue here.
The game’s loot mechanism, by the way, was balanced before this new addition. That is to say, every class type, and by consequence, every character had the same chances of getting X or Y armor type drop (presumably, anyway). Now that is no longer the case. Some classes will be generating more value over time for their drops than others, no matter how mat prices fluctuate.
The bottom line is this: If this change affects the class-based armor type drops significantly enough to be of any real purpose to a given character’s progress—which appears to be the intent—then by extrapolation light armor classes will to some degree measurably benefit coin-wise compared to the others. Further, medium armor classes will be the most adversely affected, being “gifted” with extra, relatively worthless, leather armors for their characters’ lifetimes.
The OP has a point. Will ANet rescind this system? Not a chance. Should they? I’d have to know the actual impact in terms of the drop tilt introduced by this to offer an opinion, and I’m not expecting that information to show up unless some very industrious players start keeping close track of every armor drop they collect by class type.
What would I suggest? I think scrapping the change to armor (and weapon) drops, and putting more emphasis on class-based level-up rewards would be as effective and more controllable. Of course, making these level-up items non-salvageable would be obvious. The intent would be served—and more reliably—and no one gets shafted or gains monetary benefits simply by virtue of their class.
Fairy dust and unicorns, but….
That’s what should be done since there is no way in hades they can pick a default that won’t irritate a large portion of TP users. Options are critical here. No idea how difficult it is to implement them, but it would be worth the effort as most of the complaints I see (and have) relate in some way to this issue.
Ditto on that. While useful in appropriate circumstances, I feel I’d like it defaulting to that about 1 in 200 times, and having to forever unselect it isn’t a happy thought.
We really need the filter selections to just stick until we hit reset or manually change elements, and to stick across TP usage sessions.
Yeah, well, I’d rather it be left at one with a min/max button pair instead. I don’t think you’re going to get away with not eventually providing these buttons. Just putting them at either end of the slider (since the extreme ends of the slider are essentially those buttons already, just not very obvious and too finicky) as actual buttons with “Min” and “Max” on them would be enough. Then let us set an option to decide whether we want default to be 1 item or max. Auto-max isn’t desired by all players. OPTIONS ARE KING, as I frequently like to say.
BUG NOTE: There is a dead gadget on the item Buy/Sell popup page. The scroll up arrow gadget on the Current Buyers list (just under the word “Unit”) is dead. Not sure this has been noted yet, and this thread is getting too big to reread.
Shufflepants: The issues people are witnessing are not indicative of typical human behavior. Bots are pretty easy to toy with and reveal. I’ve done so MANY times, primarily in the buy-to-salvage armor markets. They are, literally, everywhere there. Just try and bid on any white/blue light armor and see how long your bid stays on top. Rebid for the next 10 hours, checking every 10 minutes for an overbid; rinse/repeat, and you’ll soon see the telltale signs of botting. As I’ve said, I’ve done this test many times and it results in the same profile every time since all of these bots are fundamentally identical, if variable in details.
Bear in mind that despite the player base being huge and the TP being merged, there are a great number of items that get no more than one or two bids a day (if that), other than from bots and whoever thinks they can outdo them. With these items it’s child’s play to detect a bot (24/7 routine overbids is an easy tell since last I checked most humans can’t manage this sort of thing).
Other players droning an item does, of course, happen. However, players that will do that are a trivial number vs the number of cases where items exhibit this situation. Humans can’t do this sort of thing hour after hour, and there aren’t enough players that will do this sort of thing for even a few minutes to explain it away.
Besides, botting the TP is functionally trivial. Don’t think every gold selling outfit, Chinese or otherwise, isn’t able to do so. We may hate them for it, but they aren’t incompetent and are capable of creating code to do this in a matter of hours, if that.
Were they big butts? Cuz I like big butts and I can not lie….
When items in my inventory are displayed (via “Sell Items”), only items that are stackable are listed in groups with a quantity greater than 1. With a full set of 8 20 slot bags, this often results in a longer than necessary list due to redundant entries, as compared to the old TP which conveniently stacked ALL identical items in the list which consequently condensed it making it much more efficient to sift through, manage, and scan.
Please bring this USEFUL detail back to us.
Problem1: We cannot use TAB to cycle forward to the next input cell in the Search options after setting the lower level range to search for. This standard Windows function does work as expected in the Buy/Sell panel.
Problem2: SHIFT-TAB cannot be used to cycle backward through input cells (anywhere) if that key-combo is currently bound to another purpose. Unless I changed it at some point, this key-combo defaults to Target Previous Enemy. When I unbound this key-combo, it worked as expected to cycle backwards through input cells on the Buy/Sell panel.
(edited by Kruhljak.2705)
Partial Word search function is not global.
The sidebar lists headed by Current Transactions and History (also reached via My Transactions) and searches for items in your inventory (Sell Items) do NOT support partial word matching like the search function applied to Buy Items which searches the TP item database.
I think it’s generally considered poor form to be inconsistent because it introduces erroneous or misleading information when users forget one search does support partial words and others don’t.
For example, if I search for “migh appr” in my Current/History lists, I won’t get any returns even if I have 100 bids/listings for “mighty apprentice” gear. Conversely, if I apply that search to the main database via Buy Items, it will return proper listings.
It’s easy to see how this inconsistency can cause problems for users.
Obvious fix is to make partial word search global to all lists. Please don’t just remove it entirely as it’s very useful.
Edit: A bit of a clarification on this issue. Partial search DOES work, partially. Hadn’t noticed earlier, but if you enter a single word fragment like “bers” it will find anything with that word fragment in it, but if you enter “bers mac” it will NOT find a “berserker’s mace” in your list. The latter usage does work in the main TP search.
(edited by Kruhljak.2705)
Those lists may not have a date depth but rather be limited to a bit over 200 entries. Hard to say judging by only my own lists since they both reach the same number of entries, but my Sold history goes up to 2 days, and my Bought history goes up to 6 hours.
(edited by Kruhljak.2705)
I’ve done two key runs since the patch. Both took me just a bit less than 90 minutes doing so casually—not the old rabid speed first method. By that measure, the run is roughly 3 times as “hard”.
Are the BLC drops 3 times as good? … No, but they seem slightly better in my small sample, and scraps appear much better at 1:2 chests as opposed to previous numbers in the 1:4-5 range. This could easily be some rare luck, though.
I held over 19 keys from pre-patch, and with the other two (plus 1 BLK from the first chest) I ended up with—ignoring the more trivial stuff:
1 black lion key
2 black lion salvage kits
1 dye pack
6 unidentified dyes (4 singles, 1 double)
1 lion’s arch survivor dye pack (out of which I got a normal rare, which is lucky enough)
1 mini marjory delaqua
1 mini mai trin
11 black lion ticket scraps
The sidebar lists headed by Current Transactions and History (also reached via My Transactions) and searches for items in your inventory (Sell Items) do NOT support partial word matching like the search function applied to Buy Items which searches the TP item database.
I think it’s considered poor form to be inconsistent because it introduces erroneous or misleading information when users forget one search does support partial words and others don’t.
For example, if I search for “migh appr” in my Current/History lists, I won’t get any returns even if I have 100 bids/listings for “mighty apprentice” gear. Conversely, if I apply that search to the main database via Buy Items, it will return proper listings.
It’s easy to see how this inconsistency can cause problems for users.
Obvious fix is to make partial word search global to all lists.
Unfortunately, conditional expressions (+ * -, etc.) may be considered to be too much overhead, if not too difficult for average users to understand.
Perhaps less of a problem would be to add a tickbox to the right of or below the input field to select “exact matches only”, “all words must match”, “any word must match” and have it set so those choices STICK until changed by the user. At least this method would be easier/more obvious for users not familiar with conditional symbols and regexp style expressions.
No mention of a change to the “Target Nearest Enemy” hotkey function was noted in the release notes as far as I saw.
But it has been changed.
Now, I’m targeting things that are BEHIND me or otherwise out of line of sight rather than things that ARE visible. This means I often go into combat only to find myself shooting off to some other direction with a gap closer skill because something way off to one side I didn’t even know was there has now become slightly closer than the mob in front of me.
I didn’t think this function could get more wonky, but it has.
Why not just remove yellow (and white) mobs and inanimate objects from the possible targets list? THIS is something people have asked for for months, not the ability to attack targets they can’t even see.
Couple this with the current implementation of Autotarget that essentially causes you to target AND attack in one move if your current #1 skill is in range even with skills that have absolutely no offensive aspect, and the usual issues with click-targeting often being nearly impossible to manage, and since this patch I’m sometimes finding myself entirely out of control, wasting skills on passive inanimate objects, moas, and things I can see but sometimes can’t even reach taking priority over actual threats.
Alright, you dev type guys need to have a seat and think about this. Remove yellow and white mobs and passive inanimate objects as potential targets with the hotkey function. Players can target these at their leisure as they are not a threat. Better yet, let us select tickboxes in the options page to decide for ourselves whether we want moas, rats, and boxes of vegetables to be considered threat-worthy enough to be included in our valid targeting list.
You need to revert/remove this change that causes us to target things that are not in our field of view ESPECIALLY things that are behind us.
You need to detach the Autotarget function from ALL non-target-requiring skills. This is never required, and probably extremely rarely desired (some people may have figured out ways to use this funky effect, most only want to Autotarget something when they hit an offensive weapon/utility skill).
Now, some people probably think I should be using tab targeting. I don’t care for tab targeting except when dealing with champs. Autotargeting and Target Nearest are functions that are available but flat out just don’t work right and can be corrected, or at least reigned in so they’re more reliable/predictable.
Comments welcome of course, but I’d be highly interested in examples that can illustrate how these functionalities I advocate changing are of actual use/benefit.
tldr: Target Nearest now targets things out of field of view, including directly behind you. Inanimate objects and yellow/white mobs are still in the targeting options list. Autotarget option setting still autoATTACKS targets within range even when using entirely non-offensive skills. These things need to be fixed as quick targeting things has become even more unpredictable than before. Tab targeting is not under scrutiny here. Though yellow mobs/objects should be removed from all one-key targeting functions by tickbox option.
(edited by Kruhljak.2705)
This change is a good sign the devs are actually listening. Options are more work than a hard change, but despite my usual cynicism I’m confident we’ll see some form of options for the TP to tailor the experience—the favorite buzzword of the moment—for each user. It’s really the only way to satisfy the vast majority of people in one pass.
As always, OPTIONS ARE KING.
Btw, I don’t like this change. I prefer to undercut sell, not sell immediately to low buyer. More work for me, but still…at least there’s still motion with the TP development.
(edited by Kruhljak.2705)
Other missing QOL Features
- There is still no ability to pick-and-choose what items one wants to pick up from the dropbox: it remains all or nothing.
This is highly unlikely to change. I recall it being said by a dev that this limitation is, at least in part, to prevent people from using the Pick-Up Tab/Delivery Box as a temporary storage space.
If you can just pick and choose what to take, then you’re picking and choosing what to leave, as well. Guess how many people would be storing hundreds of stacks of mats (and any assortment of other stuff) for free until the prices shoot up.