Feedback talk:User/Tennessee Ernie Ford/Hard mode indicator 2.0

Check the wiki
Or you could just check the wiki ahead of time before you try and vq somewhere--Elemental Phantom 21:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Why force people to look for information that can be easily presented in-game? Also, the wiki cannot help to give you a numerical indication of how many foes remain; it's very demoralizing to think you are at 428/429 when you are really at 428/430 and need to find two groups of missing red dots.


 * Is this the biggest issue in the game? Not at all. But it is one of the easiest to address and effects everyone going after VQ titles. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to comment (I apologize for not saying that in the first place.) 22:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your gigantic flaw
NPCs don't spawn until you get into party range of them (just over radar range). Therefore, the icon wouldn't know the actual number until you spawn everything - including pop ups. It's how the exploits to kill far fewer NPCs than actually "exist" in the region work. Also, if you vanquish, you'll notice that occasionally your bar will shrink even if you kill more enemies - know why? Your spawning enemies. In other words, your suggestion can be done, but that "out of x enemies" number won't be accurate until you go through the whole map. So in reality, the only use it'll have is seeing how many you have left when you have <20 enemies left... which isn't helpful. -- Konig / talk 04:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The exploits work when there are pops or triggered foes (those don't count until exposed); that's why there aren't any exploits in certain areas, even though you can be out of compass range of all foes at times. That's also why you can completely VQ...and get pops after (that won't count).


 * And perhaps I've phrased the idea imprecisely: the VQ icon already represents the X:Y ratio, but ANet only tells us X, even though the game is aware of what Y is. And sure, both numbers are going to change; I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.


 * And even if it's only 100% accurate when there's only a few foes remaining, that would be extremely helpful to me...and lots of people with whom I've spoken about VQs. Those last few red dots are really annoying...and it would be a lot less annoying to know that, when you see a group of 5 more...that there's still one more some place hiding from you. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 07:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a difference between knowing there are 5 enemies left or just 1. What would really help would he knowing where the last ones are. This suggestion, small and simple, didn't as helpful as other possible changes to vanquishes.-- Konig / talk 16:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * knowing where there are is, of course more helpful...but that takes an additional coding. Simply publishing the number of foes the game thinks are needed is a minor cosmetic change. It will be helpful to other players (although perhaps not yourself); I find it very useful to know if there are 5 or 2 foes remaining, if only psychologically &mdash; it helps sets my expectations for how long I might have to be searching. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 17:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Will this factor in quests?
Will this idea factor in quests that alter the spawning field? --Falconeye 01:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. All this idea does is suggest that ANet publish the numbers that are already used to create the display. We see x defeated; we could also see y, the number the game thinks are needed in total (which can go up and, left often, down). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Bar lengths might might controlled on the server...
That'd be a really cool thing to have, although I worry that it wasn't implemented because buff "durations" or at least the bar lengths might be controlled on the server, or even partially rendered/given form. If the client does this though, and the servers do send the "total" it thinks there are, then it should be really really easy to implement this. ~Farlo Talk 02:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears to be something easy to reverse engineer, so ... I hope it's easy to program. Of course, ANet might have had other reasons for not doing this...


 * Thanks for taking the time to post your comments. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 04:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)