7 Binary Options – Guaranteed Money System

Guaranteed Profits Review 2015 - Is Guaranteed Profits System SCAM Or LEGIT? Best Binary Options Trading Software. The Truth About Guaranteed Profits App By James And Roger Hargreaves Review

Guaranteed Profits Review 2015 - GUARANTEED PROFITS?? Learn the Secrets about Guaranteed Profits in this Guaranteed Profits review! So What is Guaranteed Profits Software all about? Is Guaranteed Profits System scam or does it really work?
To find answers to these concerns continue reading my in depth and honest Guaranteed Profits Review below.
Guaranteed Profits Description:
Name: Guaranteed Profits
Niche: Binary Options.
This is a complete game changer, and I GUARANTEE the second you see it you'll understand immediately that this is going to make a massive difference in your life.
This is gonna blow your mind...
Official Website: Access The NEW Guaranteed Profits System!! CLICK HERE NOW!!!
Exactly what is Guaranteed Profits?
Guaranteed Profits is essentially a binary options trading software application that is designed to assistance traders win and forecast the market trends with binary options. The software application also provides evaluations of the market conditions so that traders can know exactly what should be your next step. It offers different secret techniques and a little know loophole that will help traders without utilizing any complex trading indications or having to use any charts.
Guaranteed Profits Binary Options Trading Technique
Base the Guaranteed Profits trading method. After you see it working, you can begin to execute your method with routine sized lots. This technique will certainly pay off with time. Every Forex binary options trader should select an account type that is in accordance with their needs and expectations. A bigger account does not indicate a bigger revenue potential so it is a terrific idea to start little and quickly add to your account as your returns increase based upon the winning trading choices the software will make.
Binary Options Trading
To assist you trade binary options effectively, it is essential to have an understanding behind the fundamentals of Binary Options Trading. Currency Trading, or foreign exchange, is based on the perceived value of 2 currencies pairs to one another, and is influenced by the political stability of the country, inflation and interest rates to name a few things. Keep this in mind as you trade and learn more about binary options to optimize your learning experience.
Guaranteed Profits Summary
In summary, there are some evident concepts that have actually been tested in time, along with some newer strategies. that you might not have actually considered. Hopefully, as long as you follow what we recommend in this short article you can either get started with trading with Guaranteed Profits or enhance on what you have already done.
This amazing software let's you generate a autopilot income using this binary options trading system.
These secrets are exclusive. You won't find a million and one binary traders using it.
There Is Only A Very Limited Spaces Available
So Act Now Before It's Too Late
Click Here To Claim Your Exclusive VIP Guaranteed Profits Software LIFETIME User License!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tags: Guaranteed Profits app, Guaranteed Profits information, Guaranteed Profits url, Guaranteed Profits website, Guaranteed Profits youtube video, Guaranteed Profits trading software, get Guaranteed Profits, article about Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits computer program, Guaranteed Profits the truth, Guaranteed Profits support, Guaranteed Profits support email address, Guaranteed Profits help desk, similar than Guaranteed Profits, better than Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits contact, Guaranteed Profits demo, Guaranteed Profits video tutorial, how does Guaranteed Profits work, is Guaranteed Profits the best online is Guaranteed Profits a scam, does Guaranteed Profits really work, does Guaranteed Profits actually work, Guaranteed Profits members area, Guaranteed Profits login page, Guaranteed Profits verification, Guaranteed Profits software reviews, Guaranteed Profits no fake review, Guaranteed Profits Live Broadcast, is Guaranteed Profits real, Guaranteed Profits forex trading, Guaranteed Profits binary options trading, Guaranteed Profits automated app, the Guaranteed Profits review, Guaranteed Profits signals, Guaranteed Profits mac os x, Guaranteed Profits broker sign up, Guaranteed Profits free download, reviews of Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits live results, Guaranteed Profits bonus, Guaranteed Profits honest review, Guaranteed Profits 2015, is Guaranteed Profits worth the risk, Guaranteed Profits pc desktop, Guaranteed Profits By James Review, Guaranteed Profits App By Roger Hargreaves Reviews, Guaranteed Profits free trial,Guaranteed Profits testimonial, Guaranteed Profits scam watch dog, Guaranteed Profits warrior forum, Guaranteed Profits web version, Guaranteed Profits open a account, Guaranteed Profits laptop, Guaranteed Profits revised Method 2015, Guaranteed Profits Unbiased review, is Guaranteed Profits all hype?, real people invested in Guaranteed Profits, is Guaranteed Profits a shame, Guaranteed Profits discount, Guaranteed Profits binary option watch dog review, Guaranteed Profits youtube, seriously will Guaranteed Profits work, Guaranteed Profits facebook, Guaranteed Profits activation code, Guaranteed Profits 2015 Working, Guaranteed Profits twitter, Guaranteed Profits currency trading, Guaranteed Profits real person review, Guaranteed Profits example trade, will Guaranteed Profits work on mobile phone, Completely New Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits customer service, new Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits webinar, Guaranteed Profits webinar replay, Guaranteed Profits anybody using this, Guaranteed Profits real or fake, is Guaranteed Profits live trades real, Guaranteed Profits is this a scam, is Guaranteed Profits reliable?, Guaranteed Profits honest reviews, Guaranteed Profits is it a scam, Guaranteed Profits download software, Guaranteed Profits app review, Guaranteed Profits software download, Guaranteed Profits forum, Guaranteed Profits signals, Guaranteed Profits download page, Guaranteed Profits software demo somebody using it, Guaranteed Profits binary software, guaranteedprofits.co, guaranteedprofits.co review, guaranteedprofits.co reviews, guaranteedprofitssystem.co/login, guaranteedprofitssystem.co review, Guaranteed Profits binary options review, Guaranteed Profits members, Guaranteed Profits scam or legit,Guaranteed Profits comments, minimum deposit for Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits reviews, Guaranteed Profits binary today, Guaranteed Profits pro review, Guaranteed Profits windows 7, Guaranteed Profits windows 8 and windows XP, Guaranteed Profits scam or real, Guaranteed Profits login, Guaranteed Profits has anybody out there made any money out of it?, Guaranteed Profits vip membership pass, does Guaranteed Profits work on autopilot?, Guaranteed Profits price, is Guaranteed Profits a scam or not, will Guaranteed Profits help me, real truth about Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits System, Guaranteed Profits inside members page, Guaranteed Profits software downloads, how to download Guaranteed Profits, how to access Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits Robot, how to use Guaranteed Profits, how to trade with Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits NEWS Update and details, Guaranteed Profits sign in, the Guaranteed Profits trading options, Guaranteed Profits info, Guaranteed Profits information, Guaranteed Profits searching for new winning trades, Guaranteed Profits today, Guaranteed Profits feedback, Guaranteed Profits real user review, Guaranteed Profits customer reviews, Guaranteed Profits consumer review, Guaranteed Profits Review 2015, insider john Guaranteed Profits review, george s Guaranteed Profits review, Guaranteed Profits doesn't work, is Guaranteed Profits another scam or legit, Guaranteed Profits refund, Activate Guaranteed Profits, review of Guaranteed Profits, log on to Guaranteed Profits, is Guaranteed Profits manual binary trading, Guaranteed Profits bot review, Guaranteed Profits test, Guaranteed Profits explanation, what brokers work with Guaranteed Profits software, what is Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits news, new version of Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits fan Page, Guaranteed Profits breaking news, Guaranteed Profits Register, Guaranteed Profits sign up, Guaranteed Profits broker sign up, Guaranteed Profits real proof, how to activate auto trading on Guaranteed Profits,Guaranteed Profits robot, Guaranteed Profits members area, Guaranteed Profits sign in, web version Guaranteed Profits, should i use Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits yes or no, do i need trading experience, Guaranteed Profits create account, Guaranteed Profits instructions, how to get a Guaranteed Profits demo, Guaranteed Profits special, desktop Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits Secret method, Join Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits ea trading app, Guaranteed Profits limited time, Guaranteed Profits pros and cons, Guaranteed Profits bad reviews, is Guaranteed Profits software automatic binary trading, Guaranteed Profits negative and positive review, Guaranteed Profits Author, Guaranteed Profits creator, who made Guaranteed Profits, what is the Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits real review, automated Guaranteed Profits app program, Guaranteed Profits broker, Guaranteed Profits sign up broker, Guaranteed Profits sign up broker review, Guaranteed Profits fund broker, Guaranteed Profits how to fund broker,Guaranteed Profits deposit funds into broker, how does Guaranteed Profits trade, Guaranteed Profits trading bot, what is Guaranteed Profits and cost?, Guaranteed Profits strategy, Guaranteed Profits password reset, Guaranteed Profits beta tester, Guaranteed Profits comparison, Guaranteed Profits questions and answers, rate & review Guaranteed Profits, rate and reviews Guaranteed Profits, is Guaranteed Profits site legit?, Guaranteed Profits reviews online, is Guaranteed Profits for real, Guaranteed Profits login page, Guaranteed Profits results, Guaranteed Profits winning and losing trades, Guaranteed Profits overview, Guaranteed Profits training, how to setup Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits home, real testimonial on Guaranteed Profits system, Guaranteed Profits real time trading, start trading with Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits proof, Guaranteed Profits the truth, Get Guaranteed Profits, Guaranteed Profits Review
You see, this system works with such cutting edge technology that it's going to change everything.
Click Here To Download Guaranteed Profits App Right NOW!
submitted by JasonDravis to JasonDravis [link] [comments]

RESULTS of the State of the Game Survey: September 2020

Hi all,

It’s time for the results!

Thank you to everyone who took the time to respond - we had over 1,750 responses, which is great! These insights wouldn’t be possible without your time and support.

As always, neither myself nor this survey are associated with Intelligent Systems or Nintendo in any way. Please direct feedback about the game itself to the official channels.

Now let’s get into it!
 
Previous Survey Results:
April_2020_State_of_the_Game_Survey

~ Demographics ~

53.8% began playing FE:H in February 2017, with 20.0% more joining during the first year of the game. 12.0% of respondents joined during the second year, 8.7% joined during the third, and 4.0% joined during the fourth year (the last ~7 months).

The age range breakdown of respondents is as follows:

75.8% of respondents identified as Male, 18.4% as Female, and 3.0% as Non-binary.

24.6% of respondents have never missed a daily login, while a further 38.8% have missed less than a month’s worth of logins, 11.7% missed 1-2 months, 9.9% missed 3-6 months, 5.8% missed 7-12 months, and 4.7% missed over a year’s worth.

33.5% report being F2P, while 28.7% have spent less than $100, 18.3% spent between $100 - $499, 7.3% spent between $500 - $999, and 8.7% have spent over $1000.

46.6% last spent money on FE:H during the fourth year of the game (the last 3 months), while 6.6% last spent money during the third year of the game, 5.8% last spent during the second year of the game, and 5.1% last spent money during the first year of the game.

~ Summoning ~

“Which of the following banners have you used orbs on at least once?”
  • (86.8%) A New Future (CYL 4)
  • (60.2%) Overseas Memories (3H Summer)
  • (59.8%) Dark Burdens (Fallen Heroes)
  • (57.9%) Legendary Heroes: Edelgard
  • (55.2%) Legendary Heroes: Corrin
  • (53.1%) Book IV Mid: Mirabilis and More
  • (52.9%) Hero Fest
  • (52.2%) Pirate’s Pride
  • (44.5%) Mythic Heroes: Hel
  • (44.2%) Mythic Heroes: Mila
  • (43.7%) Bridal Beloveds
  • (39.6%) Summer Passing (Sacred Stones Summer (mostly))
  • (37.5%) Legendary Heroes: Seliph
  • (31.1%) Light and Shadow (New Mystery)

“Which of the following banners did you use the most orbs on?”
  • (44.8%) A New Future (CYL 4)
  • (8.6%) Overseas Memories (3H Summer)
  • (5.9%) Legendary Heroes: Corrin
  • (5.8%) Dark Burdens (Fallen Heroes)
  • (5.5%) Pirate’s Pride
  • (4.9%) Legendary Heroes: Edelgard
  • (4.5%) Hero Fest
  • (3.5%) Mythic Heroes: Hel
  • (3.0%) Bridal Beloveds
  • (2.8%) Book IV Mid: Mirabilis and More
  • (2.5%) Summer Passing (Sacred Stones Summer (mostly))
  • (2.5%) Legendary Heroes: Seliph
  • (2.3%) Mythic Heroes: Mila
  • (1.7%) Light and Shadow (New Mystery)

“What was your favorite banner?”
  • (37.4%) A New Future (CYL 4)
  • (10.9%) Dark Burdens (Fallen Heroes)
  • (8.9%) Pirate’s Pride
  • (8.5%) Overseas Memories (3H Summer)
  • (5.7%) Hero Fest
  • (5.4%) Legendary Heroes: Corrin
  • (3.3%) Legendary Heroes: Edelgard
  • (2.9%) Legendary Heroes: Seliph
  • (2.6%) Book IV Mid: Mirabilis and More
  • (2.6%) Bridal Beloveds
  • (2.5%) Summer Passing (Sacred Stones Summer (mostly))
  • (2.3%) Light and Shadow (New Mystery)
  • (1.5%) Mythic Heroes: Hel
  • (1.4%) Mythic Heroes: Mila

“Did you spend money specifically to summon on any of the banners below?”
  • (17.6%) A New Future (CYL 4)
  • (10.3%) Overseas Memories (3H Summer)
  • (8.9%) Legendary Heroes: Corrin
  • (6.8%) Dark Burdens (Fallen Heroes)
  • (6.6%) Pirate’s Pride
  • (6.5%) Legendary Heroes: Edelgard
  • (5.8%) Hero Fest
  • (5.1%) Bridal Beloveds
  • (4.9%) Mythic Heroes: Hel
  • (4.8%) Book IV Mid: Mirabilis and More
  • (4.8%) Mythic Heroes: Mila
  • (4.8%) Summer Passing (Sacred Stones Summer (mostly))
  • (3.4%) Light and Shadow (New Mystery)
  • (3.3%) Legendary Heroes: Seliph

~ Summoning Mechanics ~

33.7% spent orbs on the Hero Fest banner AFTER Intelligent Systems announced how they would be compensating players for the Hero Fest banner glitch, compared to 61.7% who did not.

30.5% say that knowing about the compensation for the Hero Fest banner glitch caused them to spend more orbs on the banner than they would have otherwise, compared to 41.5% who say it did not. 28.0% did not spend orbs on the Hero Fest banner.

34.3% feel positively or very positively about the quality of 4* focuses on regular banners, compared to 26.9% who feel negatively or very negatively.

69.7% feel positively or very positively about the quality of 4* focuses on seasonal banners, compared to 7.8% who feel negatively or very negatively.

53.8% report that the system guaranteeing a free 5* after 40 summons generally makes them summon more, while 5.4% report that it generally makes them summon less and 36.1% report no change in their summoning habits on New Heroes banners.

“If all New Heroes Banners used the permanent 40-summons-for-a-guaranteed-5* system that CYL4 used, how would your orb-spending habits on New Heroes banners change?”
  • (1.8%) I would spend fewer orbs than I did before
  • (22.3%) I would spend the same amount of orbs I usually do
  • (10.3%) I would spend more orbs than I did before
  • (62.2%) My spending would depend more on the Heroes offered

~ Choose Your Legends IV ~

“Which CYL4 Brave Heroes have you summoned, whether from the guaranteed choice banner or the regular banner?”
  • (78.0%) Dimitri
  • (73.4%) Claude
  • (65.7%) Edelgard
  • (56.6%) Lysithea

Of the summoning milestones on the CYL4 banner:
  • (20.2%) did not reach any of these summoning milestones
  • (79.7%) reached 40 summons
  • (41.0%) reached 80 summons
  • (19.8%) reached 120 summons
  • (11.1%) reached 160 summons

45.7% say that the free 5* hero at 40, 80, 120 and 160 summons caused them to spend more on CYL4 than they would have otherwise, while 50.3% say it did not.

22.8% say that the potential use of a new Brave Hero in future F2P Guides for content such as Hero Battles influenced their Brave Heroes summons, compared to 74.0% who say it did not.

“If you could only get ONE of the new Brave Heroes, which one would you choose?”
  • (36.8%) Dimitri
  • (28.9%) Edelgard
  • (22.9%) Claude
  • (7.8%) Lysithea

“Which Brave Hero do you believe is the overall strongest?”
  • (60.7%) Edelgard
  • (21.9%) Dimitri
  • (7.9%) Claude
  • (1.2%) Lysithea

“Which Brave Hero do you believe is the overall weakest?”
  • (61.2%) Lysithea
  • (13.7%) Claude
  • (7.0%) Dimitri
  • (1.7%) Edelgard

“Which Brave Hero do you believe has the best art?”
  • (32.9%) Claude
  • (27.3%) Dimitri
  • (20.1%) Lysithea
  • (13.3%) Edelgard

“Which set of Brave Heroes is your favorite overall?”
  • (24.2%) 1st CYL (Ike, Lucina, Lyn, Roy)
  • (19.4%) 2nd CYL (Ephraim, Celica, Hector, Veronica)
  • (11.2%) 3rd CYL (Alm, Camilla, Eliwood, Micaiah)
  • (39.9%) 4th CYL (Claude, Dimitri, Edelgard, Lysithea)

23.6% feel positively or very positively about the addition of Jorge as the CYL4 GHB hero, compared to 33.0% who feel negatively or very negatively.

86.3% believe CYL5 should add further protections against vote botting, compared to 4.4% who do not.

70.1% believe CYL5 should require Nintendo Account sign-in to vote, compared to 12.6% who do not.

~ Feh Pass and Resplendent Heroes ~

41.2% feel negatively about the addition of the Feh Pass (down 15.8% from the last survey), compared to 11.6% who feel positively (up 1.5% from the last survey). 46.1% are neutral (up 14.3% from the last survey).

40.2% have purchased the Feh Pass, compared to 59.8% who have not. This is a 9.5% increase compared to the last survey, following a 6.7% increase before that.

Of those who have subscribed to Feh Pass, 17.4% have purchased Resplendent Heroes separately (up 12.9% from the last survey), compared to 82.6% who have not.

“Which Resplendent Hero has your favorite art?”
  • (13.4%) Cordelia
  • (12.8%) Eliwood
  • (8.7%) Eirika
  • (8.4%) Olwen
  • (7.5%) Sophia
  • (7.3%) Minerva
  • (6.0%) Azura
  • (5.7%) Lyn
  • (5.2%) Ike
  • (4.1%) Sanaki
  • (4.0%) Roy
  • (3.7%) M!Robin
  • (2.3%) Hector
  • (1.6%) Linde
  • (1.3%) Alm

“Which Resplendent outfit theme is your favorite?”
  • (16.3%) Muspell
  • (15.0%) Askr
  • (14.8%) Nifl
  • (11.5%) Embla
  • (11.5%) Hel
  • (10.3%) Ljosalfheimr

~ Miscellaneous ~

15.8% feel positively about the introduction of Harmonized Heroes, compared to 31.3% who feel negatively.

29.5% have a Harmonized Hero, compared to 70.1% who do not.

14.6% feel positively or very positively about the Resonant Battles game mode, compared to 51.5% who feel negatively or very negatively.

4.6% say that the Resonant Battles game mode influenced them to pull for Harmonized Heroes, compared to 94.5% who say it has not.

34.8% believe the new Arena maps are better than the maps they replaced, while 7.4% believe they are worse, and 36.7% believe they are about the same.

“How often do you use Auto Dispatch in Aether Raids?”
  • (34.3%) All of them, always
  • (0.2%) All of them, in Light Season
  • (3.6%) All of them, in Astra season
  • (24.3%) Only sometimes
  • (37.6%) I never use it

“IV Mango” is the preferred term for Trait Fruit according to 32.2% of respondents, followed by “IVcado” at 28.9%, “Fruit” at 7.6%, and “Dragonfruit” at 6.6%. The remaining 24.7% prefer to just call them Trait Fruit.

39.3% say they will use their first Trait Fruits on a Heroic Grails unit, while 32.9% say they will use them on a Summonable unit, and 1.3% say they will use them on an Askr unit.

58.7% prefer Stat Boosts for Legendary Heroes, compared to 26.3% who prefer Pair-Up.

56.5% generally prefer Regular Duo Heroes, compared to 8.8% who prefer Harmonized Duo Heroes.

1.8% say that the update that raised the minimum hardware/software required to play the game affected their ability to play FE:H, compared to 95.8% who say it did not.

~ Recurring Miscellaneous ~

“Which game do you want a New Heroes banner from the most?”
  • (26.0%) Three Houses (-1.9%)
  • (9.7%) Radiant Dawn (+0.5%)
  • (7.7%) Sacred Stones (+0.2%)
  • (7.5%) Awakening (-3.1%)
  • (6.4%) Genealogy of the Holy War (-1.3%)
  • (6.1%) Path of Radiance (-0.9%)
  • (6.0%) Gaiden / Shadows of Valentia (+2.7%)
  • (5.9%) TMS #FE (+1.9%)
  • (5.4%) Blazing Blade (+1.3%)
  • (5.0%) Fates (+1.0%)
  • (4.2%) Thracia 776 (+0.8%)
  • (2.4%) Binding Blade (+0.6%)
  • (0.8%) Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light / Shadow Dragon (-1.0%)
  • (0.8%) Mystery of the Emblem / New Mystery of the Emblem (-1.1%)

“How much do you care about your rank in the following modes?”
  • (2.90/5.00 average) Arena
  • (2.82/5.00 average) Aether Raids
  • (2.48/5.00 average) PvE game modes with player ranking boards
  • (1.82/5.00 average) Arena Assault

“How have recent changes to FE:H changed your opinion on the game as a whole?”
  • (39.3%) My opinion was positive and has stayed positive
  • (5.7%) My opinion used to be negative, but has turned positive
  • (40.1%) Neutral
  • (9.9%) My opinion used to be positive, but has turned negative
  • (5.1%) My opinion was negative and has stayed negative

~ Intelligent Systems Approval Ratings ~

The approval ratings are calculated by the proportion of Approve responses compared to the number of both Approve and Disapprove responses.

Percent who approve of the way Intelligent Systems is handling:
  • 74.6% - The addition of new heroes / characters to the game (+11.9)
  • 69.4% - The gacha mechanics and summoning banners (+5.5)
  • 59.2% - The story/plot (+9.4)
  • 85.2% - Unranked PvE game modes (Hero Battles, Forging Bonds, Tactics Drills, Lost Lore, Hall of Forms) (-1.2)
  • 50.7% - Ranked PvE game modes (Voting Gauntlets, Tempest Trials, Grand Conquest, Allegiance Battles, Rokkr Sieges, Mjolnir's Strike) (-2.6)
  • 34.6% - Arena (-6.2)
  • 48.0% - Arena Assault (+6.7)
  • 45.8% - Aether Raids (+12.7)

40.5% believe Intelligent Systems cares about its Free to Play userbase (up 10.1% from the last survey), while 34.7% do not. This continues the upward trend from the previous survey, bringing us to 8.8% down from where we were before the February drop).

42.9% approve of the way Intelligent Systems is handling Fire Emblem: Heroes as a whole (up 14.8% from the last survey), while 16.9% disapprove. This continues the upward trend from the previous survey, bringing us to only 2.5% down from where we were before the February drop).

A NOTE ABOUT METHODOLOGY: The overall approval ratings question above has traditionally been the exact percent of Approve responses, as a proportion with both Neutral and Disapprove responses. Note that this is different than the way approval is calculated for individual modes (the proportion of Approve responses compared to the number of both Approve and Disapprove responses), where Neutral responses are excluded. The difference in calculation has continued this way in order to maintain comparability with previous survey results.
For comparisons sake, the overall approval rating trend going by raw Approval percentage over the last 4 surveys is: 50.6% (Dec) -> 22.9% (Feb) -> 28.1% (Apr) -> 42.9% (Sept)
Whereas the overall approval rating trend going by proportion of Approve/Disapprove with the Neutrals excluded over the last 4 surveys is: 82.2% (Dec) -> 41.0% (Feb) -> 51.3% (Apr) -> 71.7% (Sept).

~ Bonus Questions ~

“Who is your Favorite Hero added since the last survey?”
  • Dimitri (Brave) is the winner, followed by Edelgard (Brave), then Claude (Brave).
  • Full results here: [Graph]

“Who is your Most Wanted Hero added since the last survey?”
  • Tibarn (Pirate) is the winner, followed by Corrin (F, Legendary), then Micaiah (Duo, Bridal).
  • Full results here: [Graph].

“What would be the best Harmonized Hero (a pair of two heroes from different games) and why?”:

Rather than selecting a subset of responses this time, the link below is to a google sheet of almost all unique responses. I cleaned it up a little bit to remove “idk” type answers, duplicates, and partial string duplicates, so don’t worry if you don’t see your exact response in it.

[Full Responses].

~ Feedback ~

As always, I received lots of great feedback, both in your survey responses and in the thread itself. A heartfelt thank you to all participants for your encouragements and criticisms - these surveys wouldn’t be where they are without your feedback. But it’s not all serious; feedback messages also included:

  • #FloofMomGang #GiveLeoAGoodFuckingAltForOnce #NowiRefineWhen #TelliusNewHeroesPlz #ElinciaResplendentWhen #JusticeForDedue #PleaseRemoveLChromInstysIAmBeggingYouICantLiveLikeThisAnymore
  • “There once was a CYL4 banner / That hit my orbs hard like a hammer / The very next day / FloomMom Duo came our way / Now I'm stuck bartering with a loan planner”
  • bonk, go to survey jail”
  • “Am I also allowed to put in "Norne and Azura" for a Harmonized Hero pair? No reason.”
  • “Brace yourself. Winter (armours) are coming!” “Brave Hector's refine has made me so very happy with it's inclusion. Go shove your bow up your butt Legendary Chrom.”
  • “Give me villager alts or give me death”
  • “I expect the next survey to come with +12 to attack, null follow up, and special cooldown reduction.”
  • “The true best Harmonized Hero would be Azura and Roy since it would make me uninstall the game and never want to play a gacha ever again”
  • “My headcanon for the dream storyline is that the evil fairies have the Summoner off picking up pebbles that look like orbs. Fredrickson would be proud.”
  • “Where's the most wanted unit to add to the game question so I can shout my want for Seteth into the void?”
  • “I no longer dab, for Legendary Seliph has finally appeared.”
  • And greetings from Argentina, the Bahamas, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Russia, South Korea, Sweden, the UK, Vietnam, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, Toronto, and St. Louis, as well as from many fictional locations!
And some personal/meta comments:
  • “Any chance we end up seeing another Super Serious Survey in the not-so-distant future?” -> I could not believe it’s been over a year since the last one! We’ll have to do one soon!
  • “Feels like the end of an era, not having to count all my five stars” -> I know, right? I may have it return in a side survey for the most hardcore of respondents at some point, since some people are asking about it and it would be good to get data on it every once in a while.
  • “I was looking through your Nornes skills and saw you haven't given her live for bounty yet! It's the best skill for her, what are you doing!?” -> I am a fraud :( I have given her Live for Honor though :P
  • “What do you hope for in FEH?” -> Norne alt, Resplendent Jaffar, and Shamir
  • Multiple people mentioned that they had returned after a long break and were surprised to see Norne instead of Azura! Welcome back!
  • I also missed a bunch of other possible Trait Fruit nicknames, which I knew would inevitably happen. Sorry!

Note: Please don’t ask me to feature your feedback comment; it’s the only guaranteed way to not have your comment added!

Finally, the suggestion to have separate options for serious vs non-serious feedback was a good idea, I’ll try that out on the next survey!

~ Closing Remarks ~

If you missed out on responding to this survey when it was available, consider subscribing to FEHSurveys. This subreddit serves as a place to organize FE:H-related surveys, make new releases more visible, and make it easier for users to see when surveys are active.

Thanks again to everyone who participated! I hope you find the results interesting, and if there’s anything else you think can be discovered from the data, let me know and I’ll do my best to oblige!
 
 
Weekly/Important Megathreads:
Weekly Discussion Megathread
Tempest Trials+: Dancing Affinity Megathread
Forging Bonds: Beyond Blood Rebout Megathread
Limited Hero Battles Megathread
submitted by ShiningSolarSword to FireEmblemHeroes [link] [comments]

The Challenges of Designing a Modern Skill, Part 3

Okay, Wendy’s or Walgreens or whoever, I don’t care who you are, you’re listening to the rest.

Introduction to Part 3

Welcome back one last time to “The Challenges of Designing a Modern Skill,” a series where we discuss all aspects of skill design and development. In Part 1, we talked about OSRS’s history with skills, and started the lengthy conversation on Skill Design Philosophy, including the concepts of Core, Expansion, and Integration. This latter topic consumed the entirety of Part 2 as well, which covered Rewards and Motivations, Progression, Buyables, as well as Unconstructive Arguments.
Which brings us to today, the final part of our discussion. In this Part 3, we’ll finish up Section 3 – Skill Design Philosophy, then move on to chat about the design and blog process. One last time, this discussion was intended to be a single post, but its length outgrew the post character limit twice. Therefore, it may be important to look at the previous two parts for clarity and context with certain terms. The final product, in its purest, aesthetic, and unbroken form, can be found here.

3-C – Skill Design Philosophy, Continued

3-12 - Balancing

What follows from the discussion about XP and costs, of course, is balancing: the bane of every developer. A company like Riot knows better than anyone that having too many factors to account for makes good balance impossible. Balancing new ideas appropriately is extremely challenging and requires a great respect for current content as discussed in Section 3-5 – Integration. Thankfully, in OSRS we only have three major balancing factors: Profit, XP Rate, and Intensity, and two minor factors: Risk and Leniency. These metrics must amount to some sense of balance (besides Leniency, which as we’ll see is the definition of anti-balance) in order for a piece of content to feel like it’s not breaking the system or rendering all your previous efforts meaningless. It’s also worthy to note that there is usually a skill-specific limit to the numerical values of these metrics. For example, Runecrafting will never receive a training method that grants 200k xp/hr, while for Construction that’s easily on the lower end of the scale.
A basic model works better than words to describe these factors, and therefore, being the phenomenal artist that I am, I have constructed one, which I’ve dubbed “The Guthix Scale.” But I’ll be cruel and use words anyway.
  • Profit: how much you gain from a task, or how much you lose. Gain or loss can include resources, cosmetics, specialized currencies, good old gold pieces, or anything on that line.
  • XP Rate: how fast you gain XP.
  • Intensity: how much effort (click intensity), attention (reaction intensity), and thought (planning intensity) you need to put into the activity to perform it well.
  • Risk: how likely is the loss of your revenue and/or resource investment into the activity. Note that one must be careful with risk, as players are very good at abusing systems intended to encourage higher risk levels to minimize how much they’re actually risking.
  • Leniency: a measure for how imbalanced a piece of content can be before the public and/or Jagex nerfs it. Leniency serves as a simple modulator to help comprehend when the model breaks or bends in unnatural ways, and is usually determined by how enjoyable and abusable an activity is, such that players don’t want to cause an outrage over it. For example, Slayer has a high level of Leniency; people don’t mind that some Slayer tasks grant amazing XP Rates, great Profits, have middling Intensity, and low Risk. On the other hand, Runecrafting has low levels of Leniency; despite low Risk, many Runecrafting activities demand high Intensity for poor XP Rates and middling Profits.
In the end, don’t worry about applying specific numbers during the conceptual phase of your skill design. However, when describing an activity to your reader, it’s always useful if you give approximations, such as “high intensity” or “low risk,” so that they get an idea of the activity’s design goals as well as to guide the actual development of that activity. Don’t comment on the activity’s Leniency though, as that would be pretty pretentious and isn’t for you to determine anyway.

3-13 - Skill Bloat

What do the arts of weaving, tanning, sowing, spinning, pottery, glassmaking, jewellery, engraving, carving, chiselling, carpentry, and even painting have in common? In real life, there’s only so much crossover between these arts, but in Runescape they’re all simply Crafting.
The distinction between what deserves to be its own skill or instead tagged along to a current skill is often arbitrary; this is the great challenge of skill bloat. The fundamental question for many skill concepts is: does this skill have enough depth to stand on its own? The developers of 2006 felt that there was sufficient depth in Construction to make it something separate from Crafting, even if the latter could have covered the former. While there’s often no clean cut between these skills (why does making birdhouses use Crafting instead of Construction?), it is easy to see that Construction has found its own solid niche that would’ve been much too big to act as yet another Expansion of Crafting.
On the other hand, a skill with extremely limited scope and value perhaps should be thrown under the umbrella of a larger skill. Take Firemaking: it’s often asked why it deserves to be its own skill given how limited its uses are. This is one of those ideas that probably should have just been thrown under Crafting or even Woodcutting. But again, the developers who made early Runescape did not battle with the same ideas as the modern player; they simply felt like Firemaking was a good idea for a skill. Similarly, the number of topics that the Magic skill covers is so often broken down in other games, like Morrowind’s separation between Illusion, Conjuration, Alteration, Destruction, Mysticism, Restoration, Enchant, Alchemy (closer to Herblore), and Unarmored (closer to Strength and Defense). Why does Runescape not break Magic into more skills? The answer is simple: Magic was created with a much more limited scope in Runescape, and there has not been enough content in any specific magical category to justify another skill being born. But perhaps your skill concept seeks to address this; maybe your Enchantment skill takes the enchanting aspects of Magic away, expands the idea to include current imbues and newer content, and fully fleshes the idea out such that the Magic skill alone cannot contain it. Somewhat ironically, Magic used to be separated into Good and Evil Magic skills in Runescape Classic, but that is another topic.
So instead of arguments about what could be thrown under another skill’s umbrella, perhaps we should be asking: is there enough substance to this skill concept for it to stand on its own, outside of its current skill categorization? Of course, this leads to a whole other debate about how much content is enough for a skill idea to deserve individuality, but that would get too deep into specifics and is outside the scope of this discussion.

3-14 - Skill Endgame

Runescape has always been a sandbox MMO, but the original Runescape experience was built more or less with a specific endgame in mind: killing players and monsters. Take the Runescape Classic of 2001: you had all your regular combat skills, but even every other skill had an endgame whose goal was helping combat out. Fishing, Firemaking, and Cooking would provide necessary healing. Smithing and Crafting, along with their associated Gathering skill partners, served to gear you up. Combat was the simple endgame and most mechanics existed to serve that end.
However, since those first days, the changing endgame goals of players have promoted a vast expansion of the endgame goals of new content. For example, hitting a 99 in any non-combat skill is an endgame goal in itself for many players, completely separate from that skill’s combat relationship (if any). These goals have increased to aspects like cosmetic collections, pets, maxed stats, all quests completed, all diaries completed, all music tracks unlocked, a wealthy bank, the collection log, boss killcounts, and more. Whereas skills used to have a distinct part of a system that ultimately served combat, we now have a vast variety of endgame goals that a skill can be directed towards. You can even see a growth in this perspective as new skills were released up to 2007: Thieving mainly nets you valuable (or once valuable) items which have extremely flexible uses, and Construction has a strong emphasis on cosmetics for your POH.
So when designing your new skill, contemplate what the endgame of your skill looks like. For example, if you are proposing a Gathering skill, what is the Production skill tie-in, and what is the endgame goal of that Production skill? Maybe your new skill Spelunking has an endgame in gathering rare collectibles that can be shown off in your POH. Maybe your new skill Necromancy functions like a Support skill, giving you followers that help speed along resource gathering, and letting you move faster to the endgame goal of the respective Production skill. Whatever it is, a proper, clear, and unified view of an endgame goal helps a skill feel like it serves a distinct and valuable purpose. Note that this could mean that you require multiple skills to be released simultaneously for each to feed into each other and form an appropriate endgame. In that case, go for it – don’t make it a repeat of RS3’s Divination, a Gathering skill left hanging without the appropriate Production skill partner of Invention for over 2 years.
A good example of a skill with a direct endgame is… most of them. Combat is a well-accepted endgame, and traditionally, most skills are intended to lend a hand in combat whether by supplies or gear. A skill with a poor endgame would be Hunter: Hunter is so scattered in its ultimate endgame goals, trying to touch on small aspects of everything like combat gear, weight reduction, production, niche skilling tools, and food. There’s a very poor sense of identity to Hunter’s endgame, and it doesn’t help that very few of these rewards are actually viable or interesting in the current day. Similarly, while Slayer has a strong endgame goal it is terrible in its methodology, overshadowing other Production skills in their explicit purpose. A better design for Slayer’s endgame would have been to treat it as a secondary Gathering skill, to work almost like a catalyst for other Gathering-Production skill relationships. In this mindset, Slayer is where you gather valuable monster drops, combine it with traditional Gathering resources like ores from Mining, then use a Production skill like Smithing to meld them into the powerful gear that is present today. This would have kept other Gathering and Production skills at the forefront of their specialities, in contrast to today’s situation where Slayer will give fully assembled gear that’s better than anything you could receive from the appropriate skills (barring a few items that need a Production skill to piece together).

3-15 - Alternate Goals

From a game design perspective, skills are so far reaching that it can be tempting to use them to shift major game mechanics to a more favourable position. Construction is an example of this idea in action: Construction was very intentionally designed to be a massive gold sink to help a hyperinflating economy. Everything about it takes gold out of the game, whether through using a sawmill, buying expensive supplies from stores, adding rooms, or a shameless piece of furniture costing 100m that is skinned as, well, 100m on a shameless piece of furniture.
If you’re clever about it, skills are a legitimately good opportunity for such change. Sure, the gold sink is definitely a controversial feature of Construction, but for the most part it’s organic and makes sense; fancy houses and fancy cosmetics are justifiably expensive. It is notable that the controversy over Construction’s gold sink mechanism is probably levied more against the cost of training, rather than the cost of all its wonderful aesthetics. Perhaps that should have been better accounted for in its design phase, but now it is quite set in stone.
To emphasize that previous point: making large scale changes to the game through a new skill can work, but it must feel organic and secondary to the skill’s main purpose. Some people really disliked Warding because they felt it tried too hard to fix real, underlying game issues with mechanics that didn’t thematically fit or were overshadowing the skill’s Core. While this may or may not be true, if your new skill can improve the game’s integrity without sacrificing its own identity, you could avoid this argument entirely. If your skill Regency has a Core of managing global politics, but also happens to serve as a resource sink to help your failing citizens, then you’ve created a strong Core design while simultaneously improving the profitability of Gathering skills.

3-16 - The Combat No-Touch Rule

So, let’s take a moment to examine the great benefits and rationale of RS2’s Evolution of Combat:
This space has been reserved for unintelligible squabbling.
With that over, it’s obvious that the OSRS playerbase is not a big fan of making major changes to the combat system. If there’s anything that defines the OSRS experience, it has to be the janky and abusable combat system that we love. So, in the past 7 years of OSRS, how many times have you heard someone pitch a new combat skill? Practically no one ever has; a new combat skill, no matter how miniscule, would feel obtrusive to most players, and likely would not even receive 25% of votes in a poll. This goes right back to Section 3-5 – Integration, and the importance of preserving the fundamentals of OSRS’s design.
I know that my intention with this discussion was to be as definitive about skill design as possible, and in that spirit I should be delving into the design philosophy specifically behind combat skills, but I simply don’t see the benefit of me trying, and the conversation really doesn’t interest me that much. It goes without saying that as expansive as this discussion is, it does not cover every facet of skill design, which is a limitation both of my capabilities and desire to do so.

3-17 - Aesthetics

I don’t do aesthetics well. I like them, I want them, but I do not understand them; there are others much better equipped to discuss this topic than I. Nonetheless, here we go.
Since the dawn of OSRS, debates over art style and aesthetics have raged across Gielinor. After all, the OSRS Team is filled with modern day artists while OSRS is an ancient game. What were they supposed to do? Keep making dated graphics? Make content with a modernized and easily digestible style? Something in-between?
While many players shouted for more dated graphics, they were approached by an interesting predicament: which dated graphics did they want? We had a great selection present right from the start of OSRS: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. People hungry for nostalgia chose the era that they grew up in, leading to frequent requests for older models like the dragon or imp, most of which were denied by Jagex (except the old Mining rock models). But which era was OSRS supposed to follow?
Jagex elected to carve their own path, but not without heavy criticism especially closer to OSRS’s conception. However, they adapted to player requests and have since gone back and fixed many of the blatant early offenders (like the Kingdom of Kourend) and adopted a more consistent flavour, one that generally respects the art style of 2007. Even though it doesn’t always hit the mark, one has to appreciate the OSRS artists for making their best attempt and listening to feedback, and here’s to hoping that their art style examination mentioned in June 2020’s Gazette bears fruit.
But what exactly is the old school art style? There are simple systems by which most players judge it in OSRS, usually by asking questions like, “Would you believe if this existed in 2007?” More informed artists will start pointing out distinct features that permeated most content from back in the day, such as low quality textures, low poly models, low FPS animations, a “low fantasy” or grounded profile that appeals somewhat to realism, reducing cartoonish exaggerations, and keeping within the lore. Compiled with this, music and sound design help that art style come to life; it can be very hard on immersion when these don’t fit. An AGS would sound jarring if its special attack sounded like a weak dagger stab, and having to endure Country Jig while roaming Hosidius suddenly sweeps you off into a different universe.
But coming back to skill design, the art, models, and sound design tend to be some of the last features, mostly because the design phase doesn’t demand such a complete picture of a skill. However, simple concept art and models can vastly improve how a skill concept is communicated and comfort players who are concerned about maintaining that “old school feel.” This will be touched on again later in this discussion under Section 5-2 – Presentation and Beta Testing.

3-18 - Afterword

Now we’ve set down the modern standards for a new skill, but the statements that started this section bear repeating: the formula we’ve established does not automatically make a good or interesting skill, as hard as we might have tried. Once again, harken back to the First Great Irony: that we are trying to inject the modern interpretation of what defines a skill upon a game that was not necessarily built to contain it. Therefore, one could just as easily deny each of the components described above, as popular or unpopular as the act might be, and their opinion could be equally valid and all this effort meaningless. Don’t take these guidelines with such stringency as to disregard all other views.

5-0 - The OSRS Team and the Design Process

If you’ve followed me all the way here, you’re likely A) exhausted and fed up of any conversation concerning new skills, or B) excited, because you’ve just struck an incredible skill idea (or perhaps one that’s always hung around your head) that happens to tick off all the above checkboxes. But unfortunately for you B types, it’s about to get pretty grim, because we’re going to go through every aspect of skill design that’s exterior to the game itself. We’ll be touching on larger topics like democracy, presentation, player mindsets, effort, and resource consumption. It’ll induce a fantastic bout of depression, so don’t get left behind.

5-1 - Designing a Skill

Thus far, Jagex has offered three potential skills to OSRS, each of which has been denied. This gives us the advantage of understanding how the skill design process works behind the scenes and lets us examine some of the issues Jagex has faced with presenting a skill to the players.
The first problem is the “one strike and you’re out” phenomenon. Simply put, players don’t like applying much effort into reading and learning. They’ll look at a developer blog highlighting a new skill idea, and if you’re lucky they’ll even read the whole thing, but how about the second developer blog? The third? Fourth? Even I find it hard to get that far. In general, people don’t like long detail-heavy essays or blogs, which is why I can invoke the ancient proverb “Ban Emily” into this post and it’ll go (almost) completely unnoticed. No matter how many improvements you make between developer blogs, you will quickly lose players with each new iteration. Similarly, developer blogs don’t have the time to talk about skill design philosophy or meta-analyse their ideas – players would get lost far too fast. This is the Second Great Irony of skill design: the more iterations you have of a lengthy idea, the less players will keep up with you.
This was particularly prominent with Warding: Battle Wards were offered in an early developer blog but were quickly cut when Jagex realized how bad the idea was. Yet people would still cite Battle Wards as the reason they voted against Warding, despite the idea having been dropped several blogs before. Similarly, people would often comment that they hated that Warding was being polled multiple times; it felt to them like Jagex was trying to brute-force it into the game. But Warding was only ever polled once, and only after the fourth developer blog - the confusion was drawn from how many times the skill was reiterated and from the length of the public design process. Sure, there are people for whom this runs the opposite way; they keep a close eye on updates and judge a piece of content on the merits of the latest iteration, but this is much less common. You could argue that one should simply disregard the ignorant people as blind comments don't contribute to the overall discussion, but you should remember that these players are also the ones voting for the respective piece of content. You could also suggest re-educating them, which is exactly what Jagex attempts with each developer blog, and still people won’t get the memo. And when it comes to the players themselves, can the playerbase really be relied on to re-educate itself?
Overall, the Second Great irony really hurts the development process and is practically an unavoidable issue. What’s the alternative? To remove the developer-player interface that leads to valuable reiterations, or does you simply have to get the skill perfect in the first developer blog?
It’s not an optimal idea, but it could help: have a small team of “delegates” – larger names that players can trust, or player influencers – come in to review a new, unannounced skill idea under NDA. If they like it, chances are that other players will too. If they don’t, reiterate or toss out the skill before it’s public. That way, you’ve had a board of experienced players who are willing to share their opinions to the public helping to determine the meat and potatoes of the skill before it is introduced to the casual eye. Now, a more polished and well-accepted product can be presented on the first run of selling a skill to the public, resulting in less reiterations being required, and demanding less effort from the average player to be fully informed over the skill’s final design.

5-2 - Presentation and Beta Testing

So you’ve got a great idea, but how are you going to sell it to the public? Looking at how the OSRS Team has handled it throughout the years, there’s a very obvious learning curve occurring. Artisan had almost nothing but text blogs being thrown to the players, Sailing started introducing some concept art and even a trailer with terrible audio recording, and Warding had concept art, in game models, gifs, and a much fancier trailer with in-game animations. A picture or video is worth a thousand words, and often the only words that players will take out of a developer blog.
You might say that presentation is everything, and that would be more true in OSRS than most games. Most activities in OSRS are extremely basic, involve minimal thought, and are incredibly grindy. Take Fishing: you click every 20 seconds on a fishing spot that is randomly placed along a section of water, get rid of your fish, then keep clicking those fishing spots. Boiling it down further, you click several arbitrary parts of your computer screen every 20 seconds. It’s hardly considered engaging, so why do some people enjoy it? Simply put: presentation. You’re given a peaceful riverside environment to chill in, you’re collecting a bunch of pixels shaped like fish, and a number tracking your xp keeps ticking up and telling you that it matters.
Now imagine coming to the players with a radical new skill idea: Mining. You describe that Mining is where you gather ores that will feed into Smithing and help create gear for players to use. The audience ponders momentarily, but they’re not quite sure it feels right and ask for a demonstration. You show them some gameplay, but your development resources were thin and instead of rocks, you put trees as placeholders. Instead of ores in your inventory, you put logs as placeholders. Instead of a pickaxe, your character is swinging a woodcutting axe as a placeholder. Sure, the mechanics might act like mining instead of woodcutting, but how well is the skill going to sell if you haven’t presented it correctly or respected it contextually?
Again, presentation is everything. Players need to be able to see the task they are to perform, see the tools they’ll use, and see the expected outcomes; otherwise, whatever you’re trying to sell will feel bland and unoriginal. And this leads to the next level of skill presentation that has yet to be employed: Beta Worlds.
Part of getting the feel of an activity is not just watching, it but acting it out as well - you’ll never understand the thrill of skydiving unless you’ve actually been skydiving. Beta Worlds are that chance for players to act out a concept without risking the real game’s health. A successful Beta can inspire confidence in players that the skill has a solid Core and interesting Expansions, while a failed Beta will make them glad that they got to try it and be fully informed before putting the skill to a poll (although that might be a little too optimistic for rage culture). Unfortunately, Betas are not without major disadvantages, the most prominent of which we shall investigate next.

5-3 - Development Effort

If you thought that the previous section on Skill Design Philosophy was lengthy and exhausting, imagine having to know all that information and then put it into practice. Mentally designing a skill in your head can be fun, but putting all that down on paper and making it actually work together, feel fully fleshed out, and following all the modern standards that players expect is extremely heavy work, especially when it’s not guaranteed to pay off in the polls like Quest or Slayer content. That’s not even taking into account the potentially immense cost of developing a new skill should it pass a poll.
Whenever people complain that Jagex is wasting their resources trying to make that specific skill work, Jagex has been very explicit about the costs to pull together a design blog being pretty minimal. Looking at the previous blogs, Jagex is probably telling the truth. It’s all just a bunch of words, a couple art sketches, and maybe a basic in-game model or gif. Not to downplay the time it takes to write well, design good models, or generate concept art, but it’s nothing like the scale of resources that some players make it out to be. Of course, if a Beta was attempted as suggested last section, this conversation would take a completely new turn, and the level of risk to invested resources would exponentially increase. But this conversation calls to mind an important question: how much effort and resources do skills require to feel complete?
Once upon a time, you could release a skill which was more or less unfinished. Take Slayer: it was released in 2005 with a pretty barebones structure. The fundamentals were all there, but the endgame was essentially a couple cool best-in-slot weapons and that was it. Since then, OSRS has updated the skill to include a huge Reward Shop system, feature 50% more monsters to slay, and to become an extremely competitive money-maker. Skills naturally undergo development over time, but it so often comes up during the designing of an OSRS skill that it "doesn't have enough to justify its existence." This was touched on deeply in Section 3-13 – Skill Bloat, but deserves reiterating here. While people recognize that skills continually evolve, the modern standard expects a new skill, upon release, to be fully preassembled before purchase. Whereas once you could get away with releasing just a skill's Core and working on Expansions down the line, that is no longer the case. But perhaps a skill might stand a better chance now than it did last year, given that the OSRS Team has doubled in number since that time.
However, judging from the skill design phases that have previously been attempted (as we’ve yet to see a skill development phase), the heaviest cost has been paid in developer mentality and motivational loss. When a developer is passionate about an idea, they spend their every waking hour pouring their mind into how that idea is going to function, especially while they’re not at work. And then they’re obligated to take player feedback and adapt their ideas, sometimes starting from scratch, particularly over something as controversial as a skill. Even if they have tough enough skin to take the heavy criticism that comes with skill design, having to write and rewrite repeatedly over the same idea to make it “perfect” is mentally exhausting. Eventually, their motivation drains as their labour bears little fruit with the audience, and they simply want to push it to the poll and be done with it. Even once all their cards are down, there’s still no guarantee that their efforts will be rewarded, even less so when it comes to skills.
With such a high mental cost with a low rate of success, you have to ask, “Was it worth it?” And that’s why new skill proposals are far and few between. A new skill used to be exciting for the development team in the actual days of 2007, as they had the developmental freedom to do whatever they wanted, but in the modern day that is not so much the case.

5-4 - The Problems of Democracy

Ever since the conceptualization of democracy in the real world, people have been very aware of its disadvantages. And while I don’t have the talent, knowledge, or time to discuss every one of these factors, there are a few that are very relevant when it comes to the OSRS Team and the polling process.
But first we should recognize the OSRS Team’s relationship with the players. More and more, the Team acts like a government to its citizens, the players, and although this situation was intentionally instated with OSRS’s release, it’s even more prominent now. The Team decides the type of content that gets to go into a poll, and the players get their input over whether that particular piece makes it in. Similarly, players make suggestions to the Team that, in many cases, the Team hadn’t thought of themselves. This synergy is phenomenal and almost unheard of among video games, but the polling system changes the mechanics of this relationship.
Polls were introduced to the burned and scarred population of players at OSRS’s release in 2013. Many of these players had just freshly come off RS2 after a series of disastrous updates or had quit long before from other controversies. The Squeal of Fortune, the Evolution of Combat, even the original Wilderness Removal had forced numerous players out and murdered their trust in Jagex. To try and get players to recommit to Runescape, Jagex offered OSRS a polling system by which the players would determine what went into the game, where the players got to hold all the cards. They also asked the players what threshold should be required for polled items to pass, and among the odd 50% or 55% being shouted out, the vast majority of players wanted 70%, 75%, 80%, or even 85%. There was a massive population in favour of a conservative game that would mostly remain untouched, and therefore kept pure from the corruption RS2 had previously endured.
Right from the start, players started noticing holes in this system. After all, the OSRS Team was still the sole decider of what would actually be polled in the first place. Long-requested changes took forever to be polled (if ever polled at all) if the OSRS Team didn’t want to deal with that particular problem or didn’t like that idea. Similarly, the Team essentially had desk jobs with a noose kept around their neck – they could perform almost nothing without the players, their slave masters, seeing, criticizing, and tearing out every inch of developmental or visionary freedom they had. Ever hear about the controversy of Erin the duck? Take a look at the wiki or do a search through the subreddit history. It’s pretty fantastic, and a good window into the minds of the early OSRS playerbase.
But as the years have gone on, the perspective of the players has shifted. There is now a much healthier and more trusting relationship between them and the Team, much more flexibility in what the players allow the Team to handle, and a much greater tolerance and even love of change.
But the challenges of democracy haven’t just fallen away. Everyone having the right to vote is a fundamental tenet of the democratic system, but unfortunately that also means that everyone has the right to vote. For OSRS, that means that every member, whether it’s their first day in game, their ten thousandth hour played, those who have no idea about what the poll’s about, those who haven’t read a single quest (the worst group), those who RWT and bot, those who scam and lure, and every professional armchair developer like myself get to vote. In short, no one will ever be perfectly informed on every aspect of the game, or at least know when to skip when they should. Similarly, people will almost never vote in favour of making their game harder, even at the cost of game integrity, or at least not enough people would vote in such a fashion to reach a 75% majority.
These issues are well recognized. The adoption of the controversial “integrity updates” was Jagex’s solution to these problems. In this way, Jagex has become even more like a government to the players. The average citizen of a democratic country cannot and will not make major decisions that favour everyone around themselves if it comes at a personal cost. Rather, that’s one of the major roles of a government: to make decisions for changes for the common good that an individual can’t or won’t make on their own. No one’s going to willingly hand over cash to help repave a road on the opposite side of the city – that’s why taxes are a necessary evil. It’s easy to see that the players don’t always know what’s best for their game and sometimes need to rely on that parent to decide for them, even if it results in some personal loss.
But players still generally like the polls, and Jagex still appears to respect them for the most part. Being the government of the game, Jagex could very well choose to ignore them, but would risk the loss of their citizens to other lands. And there are some very strong reasons to keep them: the players still like having at least one hand on the wheel when it comes to new content or ideas. Also, it acts as a nice veto card should Jagex try to push RS3’s abusive tactics on OSRS and therefore prevent such potential damage.
But now we come to the topic of today: the introduction of a new skill. Essentially, a new skill must pass a poll in order to enter the game. While it’s easy to say, “If a skill idea is good enough, it’ll pass the threshold,” that’s not entirely true. The only skill that could really pass the 75% mark is not necessarily a well-designed skill, but rather a crowd-pleasing skill. While the two aren’t mutually exclusive, the latter is far easier to make than the former. Take Dungeoneering: if you were to poll it today as an exact replica of RS2’s version, it would likely be the highest scoring skill yet, perhaps even passing, despite every criticism that’s been previously emphasized describing why it has no respect for the current definition of “skill.” Furthermore, a crowd-pleasing skill can easily fall prey to deindividualization of vision and result in a bland “studio skill” (in the same vein as a “studio film”), one that feels manufactured by a board of soulless machines rather than a director’s unique creation. This draws straight back to the afore-mentioned issues with democracy: that people A) don’t always understand what they’re voting for or against, and B) people will never vote for something that makes their game tougher or results in no benefit to oneself. Again, these were not issues in the old days of RS2, but are the problems we face with our modern standards and decision making systems.
The reality that must be faced is that the polling system is not an engine of creation nor is it a means of constructive feedback – it’s a system of judgement, binary and oversimplified in its methodology. It’s easy to interact with and requires no more than 10 seconds of a player’s time, a mere mindless moment, to decide the fate of an idea made by an individual or team, regardless of their deep or shallow knowledge of game mechanics, strong or weak vision of design philosophy, great or terrible understanding of the game’s history, and their awareness of blindness towards the modern community. It’s a system which disproportionately boils down the quality of discussion that is necessitated by a skill, which gives it the same significance as the question “Should we allow players to recolour the Rocky pet by feeding it berries?” with the only available answers being a dualistic “This idea is perfect and should be implemented exactly as outlined” or “This idea is terrible and should never be spoken of again.”
So what do you do? Let Jagex throw in whatever they want? Reduce the threshold, or reduce it just for skills? Make a poll that lists a bunch of skills and forces the players to choose one of them to enter the game? Simply poll the question, “Should we have a new skill?” then let Jagex decide what it is? Put more options on the scale of “yes” to “no” and weigh each appropriately? All these options sound distasteful because there are obvious weaknesses to each. But that is the Third Great Irony we face: an immense desire for a new skill, but no realistic means to ever get one.

6-0 - Conclusion

I can only imagine that if you’ve truly read everything up to this point, it’s taken you through quite the rollercoaster. We’ve walked through the history of OSRS skill attempts, unconstructive arguments, various aspects of modern skill design philosophy, and the OSRS Team and skill design process. When you take it all together, it’s easy to get overwhelmed by all the thought that needs to go into a modern skill and all the issues that might prevent its success. Complexity, naming conventions, categorizations, integration, rewards and motivations, bankstanding and buyables, the difficulties of skill bloat, balancing, and skill endgames, aesthetics, the design process, public presentation, development effort, democracy and polling - these are the challenges of designing and introducing modern skills. To have to cope with it all is draining and maybe even impossible, and therefore it begs the question: is trying to get a new skill even worth it?
Maybe.
Thanks for reading.
Tl;dr: Designing a modern skill requires acknowledging the vast history of Runescape, understanding why players make certain criticisms and what exactly they’re saying in terms of game mechanics, before finally developing solutions. Only then can you subject your ideas to a polling system that is built to oversimplify them.
submitted by ScreteMonge to 2007scape [link] [comments]

2.9.3 Stable update!

2.9.3 Stable update!
What is up Depthians!
We are back with another monstrous update as this one incorporates five beta test builds, so we have a lot to cover.
If you want to dive straight into the massive changelog/dissertation Click
We should probably start with the biggest change to From The Depths in this update and that is the change of fuel and ammo storage.
Quoting Nick, our lead developer
The change is quite simple: "remove ammo and fuel as separate resources. Weapons will consume materials directly, fuel engines and CJEs will burn materials directly".
Before I dig into why I think this is the right thing for FtD, I'd like to explain a few details.
Energy, fuel and ammo are still needed for your constructs.
We have changed the "ammo barrels (etc)" and "fuel tanks" so they are just alternative material storage containers, but with the following properties:
--"ammo barrels" now increase the maximum possible rate of usage of materials as "ammo" for reloading guns. They still explode.
--"fuel tanks" increase the maximum possible rate of use of materials as "fuel" for fuel engines and CJEs, with the future stretch goal of fuel tanks being flammable.
--So ammo racking is going to remain a feature of the game- vehicles that need to reload a large amount of materials may need additional ammo barrels
Ammo and oil processors are replaced ship-wide with existing material storage containers of the same size. They'll be made decorative blocks so you can still use them decoratively in future if you want to.
The oil refinery will be repurposed (described later in the patch notes)
There are two main reasons why I think this is the right move. Why it's right for the business and why it's right for the player.
Let's start with why I think it's right for the player:
Ammo and fuel containers are currently purchasable as either "empty or full". This is confusing when considered in the context of the campaign, story missions, custom battles, multiplayer matches...how do empty and full tanks behave in these modes? I'd need an hour to study the code and a small essay to explain it. That's not good game design.
Localised resources, when considering just the moving of material (and energy, if you want), becomes infinitely more manageable. The supply group system and the transit fleet system are not intuitive and for a lot of situations, their usage becomes fiddly and too complicated. We've replaced these systems with a new supply system that is much more intuitive for moving materials and energy around.
The UI is less cluttered now that ammo and fuel bars are not shown. This is not a minor point...it'll reduce the amount of data on screen by about 40% in a lot of the different views. It'll be so much easier to know at a glance if a particular fleet is running low on "materials" or doing fine. Is a transport ready to leave, or does it need to pick up more materials? Will a set of vehicles have enough materials for the next fight...this is so much easier with just one main resource type per vehicle.
When you or an enemy run out of ammo or fuel in a battle it's just frustrating. By combining fuel, ammo and materials for repairing you can guarantee that if someone runs out, the fight is going to be over quickly.
I imagine that deep down the majority of players would rather not have to create, stock and resupply fuel and ammo. I know that personally, the requirement to do this puts me off playing the campaign. By using a single material it still focuses the game on making efficient war machines, maintaining supply lines and growing your economy, but without the extra confusion of mat->ammo and mat-> fuel conversion.
Being able to assess weapons, engines and vehicles in terms of material cost and running cost is elegant.
Most grand strategy games and RTS games don't have localised resources, and many don't have more than 2 resource types to handle. Very few combine localised materials with multiple types.
Why it's right for the business:
The ammo and oil processors were created about 8 years ago. Boring single blocks that don't add much to the game. It's been our intention to add something similar to the oil refinery but for ammo creation. That's a lot of work and adds to the complexity of the logistical part of the game, which we feel is already a burden.
Making the localised resource supply system more user friendly to make it easy/natural/pleasant to move ammo, fuel and material around the map would require a lot of effort and, quite frankly, I'm not sure we'd ever manage it.
The complexity of the UI scares off a lot of our customers. The barriers to getting a gun firing or a boat moving will be lowered if a single material container can theoretically get everything working.
Running out of ammo/fuel in combat is a problem for our players. We want to find a solution to that, but it would take a lot of effort to do so. We also want the strategic AI to always enter a battle with enough ammo and fuel for the fight- that's another massive bunch of work.
The campaign's strategic AI has to work hard to get materials where it wants them. It's a bundle of work and added complexity to get NPC fleets to restock ammo and fuel as well.
We had proposed work to make resource dumps (from dead ships) contain ammo and fuel...again, that's more work, more bugs, more testing.
Certain game modes such as story missions, tournament mode, and multiplayer maps should theoretically allow the player to choose the amount of ammo or fuel stocked into their vehicles before the match begins. That's another bundle of work and added complexity we'd like to avoid.
Currently out of play units on the map can run out of fuel and will still continue to move "for free". It's exploitable and we don't have a solution to that...but if all the different out of play movement calculations are burning material, there will be no avoiding the cost.
The development effort can be much better spent polishing up other features that I actually believe in, rather than flogging the dead horse of logistical complexity in an attempt to make it interesting, approachable and fun for everyone (which I fundamentally don't think it would ever be).
Fundamentally I think that by winding back this feature we tie up a large number of loose ends and it results in a far more finished and enjoyable product.
And what's-more everyone on the development team agrees that we enjoy the game for fighting, looting and creating...not staring blankly at dozens of resource bars trying to figure out who needs to head back for more fuel and how long we need to wait for ammunition to process.
We've also simplified the resource transfer system. "Supply groups" and "Transit Fleets" have been replaced with a simple but comprehensive three-tier system. You can mark a vehicle as a "Creator", a "Cargo" or a "User". Creators fill up Cargos (and Users), Cargos give to Users (up to procurement levels). Users equalise their material with their neighbours, so do Creators, and there are a few handy transfers from Users back to Cargo and Creator to make sure they maintain their procurement levels as well. This system covers 95% of the way people were using the resource system and does it all semi-automatically. This simplification is much more possible now that materials are the only resource, as they invariably just need to flow from the resource zones to the front line, with everyone (Creators and Cargo) keeping what they need and passing the rest on. This new resource system also facilitates the long-range transport of materials from refinery to refinery, which is neat. The system also has an option, for Creator and Cargo types, to set their "supply chain index", so if you want to relay materials from output to output in order to accumulate them at a central location you can set the supply chain index to determine which way along the chain the materials will flow. It's all explained in the game.
After spending a lot of time with this new system from adventure to campaign and designer mode, the gameplay feels a little faster to get going and a little simpler for fleet management. As if you didn’t already know, you can shift+right click (with your supply construct selected) on the target construct / flagship of a fleet to keep supplied, keep holding down shift and right-click where you want to pick the resources up from and once again while not letting go of shift, shift+right click on the target construct/flag ship to finish the loop.
This would be done of course after setting up the settings Creator, Cargo and User.
Creator as an example is the harvesting construct, Cargo which would be the supply ship, User which would be a single target construct that uses the mats.
This will keep the supply ship target waypoint updated and therefore your supply ship will always head to the target construct no matter where it has moved to after setting up the loop.
You still need ammo and fuel boxes on your constructs, as these are governing the transfer rate / the speed that stock your turrets and fuel engine with the materials needed for them to run. You can run a construct without fuel or ammo boxes, however, once your APS clips are empty you will see a drop in your rate of fire as the material is not being transferred fast enough, this is the same for fuel engines and CJE.
Another change that goes hand in hand with resource management is the changes to fuel refineries.
In short:
Refineries on a force with greater than 1 million materials on it will begin refining the material into 'commodities' that are stored centrally. Commodities (AKA centralised materials) can be added by the player to any vehicle in allied territory, at any time.
Resource zones have a new feature too, and that is the ability to deactivate a resource zone on your owned tiles and if you own enough territory as you can see from the UI when double-clicking on the resource zone “Zone Deactivation”.
https://preview.redd.it/284w9khtt9t51.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9dd61b06b2b6d0431bbb35c44a4d54563b81fbf0
Custom Jet Engines, have had some additional parts and new features.
We have the new ducted air intakes which as you can see have different attachment points
https://preview.redd.it/qaqeplmwt9t51.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2ac2019d4b0c908019bf0ef0d53ad3a718fc4f4d
These ducted intakes allow you to have your CJE enclosed inside your construct enabling you to pass ducting through to access airflow outside.
https://preview.redd.it/pge1x43yt9t51.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f2ee0cf35276f45feeb7320b29d844fa54776cdf
https://preview.redd.it/scych37zt9t51.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1bf7559bc2379b692b7a318ba8f43708f5bba81e
And as you can see in the pic below they are enclosed and making use of the air duct intakes.
https://preview.redd.it/ucidv351u9t51.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7d93e0c08d381fcaea2bcfc315c7b676f4006b51
You can also funnel the exhaust of your CJE's that would be under the waterline by using the two new connector blocks, a 90-degree corner and an extension piece which allows them to work as long as you funnel the exhaust out above the waterline.
https://preview.redd.it/aiofdee2u9t51.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=72c1dd2023195ef2337704d0547904031ad97e6c
PACs have also had a rework and new additions.
We now have the long-range lens which has a circular 10° field of fire, the close-range lens which has a circular 35° field of fire, the scatter lens which has a circular 30° field of fire, and the vertical lens which has a 10° horizontal / 60° vertical field of fire (good for AA). The other differences between them is the percentage of damage drop off at certain ranges, which is marked in their UI.
https://preview.redd.it/zvg2u0c5u9t51.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=567a2c4e092ea5fef62e67b051a74151e48b58d4
https://preview.redd.it/mboi63c5u9t51.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=78690d46df1466844cc38ff6b6623a30d910b726
One other awesome change to the PAC system is that melee lenses do not need to be hooked up to the now called long-range lens. Simply setup your melee head and snakey noodle PAC tubes with a terminator on the end, then link up to your other melee lens via Q in the drop-down menu. The scatter lens also deserves some attention here, as it can double up the number of beams if we increase the charge time max x4 at 30 seconds. The PAC system has had many tweaks which you should check up on in the changelogs.
Shields have also had some love. Projector shields reflect and laser scatter modes are now merged and have also had a slight buff to ricochet chance. Ring shields armour bonus has also increased by 50%.
We also have some new additions to APS in terms of coolers.
From left to right we now have an L shape, 4 way and a 5 way cooler.
https://preview.redd.it/lfi937e7u9t51.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ff99ceae914777137262754baa017300c2f4c1f
We now have some new wide wheel additions too for all you land vehicle lovers.
https://preview.redd.it/1ysi7u68u9t51.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0760606aa3aebbde24a44fcb7319477453ee3b99
The next biggest change would be steam engines even though other changes will be implemented in this update. We are once again rehashing the whole system, which will be released in the following updates.
I had asked Weng a number of questions as to why the change was needed, why are the parts expensive, when and why would you use steam over fuel, and this is what he had to say:
Reason why steam changes are needed:
  • Steam was previously totally unbalanced and arbitrary. For example, 9 small boilers with 1 small piston was the optimal steam setup, which was more efficient and denser than almost all other engines; and turbine power generation only depended on its pressure, so compact turbines were always optimal.
  • It lacked many critical info in its UI.
  • It was hard to control the usage of steam

What's good with new steam:
  • A bit more of realism and complexity
  • Larger steam now generally have better efficiency and density than equivalent smaller steam
  • More useful info such as total power production, performance over time
  • Possibility to regulate steam usage with valves

Pros of steam compared to injector fuel:
  • Denser and more efficient
  • Even denser with turbines
  • Easier to fit into irregular space
  • Provides a buffer with flywheels or steam tanks
  • More efficient when used for propellers
  • Doesn't require fuel containers, uses material directly from any type of storage
  • Computationally less intensive
Cons of steam compared to fuel:

  • Still hard to regulate, so it's only useful when the power usage is constant or there's a buffer energy storage
  • Turbines waste energy when batteries are full
  • Crankshafts waste energy when reaching speed limit
  • More susceptible to damage (injector engines can often still run fine even when half of it is gone, steam can stop working when a single pipe is destroyed)
Why cost of parts is hilariously high: Steam engines have better efficiency and density (many players seem to forget that one) than injector engines. So a higher initial costs makes it less overpowered.
(In my opinion, the potential waste of energy is a major drawback of steam and justifies for its high potential power. But iirc Draba said that injector engines would be useless on designs that require a lot of power if steam doesn't have higher initial cost, which also makes sense.)
Problem with new steam that can't be fixed:
  • Many old designs are broken due to low power output
  • More complexity
Problems that can probably be fixed but I don't have a solution:
  • Inefficient steam engines are ridiculously bad (a bad steam engine is like 30 PPM and 50 PPV, while a good one is around 600 PPM and 110 PPV) (I tried to fix this and spent like 40 hours on that, but I only managed to make it easier to build a mediocre engine)
  • Cannot be simulated to calculate a stable power output, like fuel engines do (actually it's easy but would take a lot of time to do and I don't think it's necessary)

Another massive change is the detection rework which I also left a few questions for Ian AKA Blothorn to explain the system and how it works.
Why a change was warranted:
  • Different types of detection weren't well balanced--for instance, visual components had better accuracy than IR and vastly better range.
  • Detection autoadjust used an incorrect formula, so optimizing adjustment was both mechanical and tedious.
  • Trackers having much better detection ranges than search sensors meant that detection was very binary--if you could see something at all you could usually get a precise lock (barring ECM, which was only counterable by large numbers of components).
  • Needing both sensors and munitions warners made reactive missile defence difficult on small vehicles.
  • There were a number of other inconsistencies/imbalances, e.g. some visual/IR sensors working through water, steam engines producing no heat, etc.
Overview of the new system:
On the offensive side, each sensor type now has a role in which it is optimal, and large vehicles are best using a variety to cover their weaknesses. Visual probably remains the default for above-water detection--it remains impossible to reduce visual signature other than reducing size. IR is better against fast vehicles, as they have trouble avoiding high IR signatures from thrust and drag. Both visual and IR are weak in rangefinding (although coincidence rangefinders are adequate for most purposes); radar is correspondingly strong in range and weak in bearing, although it often offers better detection chances against vehicles that don't pay attention to radar stealth.
On the defensive side, there are two approaches. Most obvious is signature reduction--while it is deliberately difficult to avoid detection entirely, reducing signature reduces detection chances and thus degrades opposing accuracy. At short ranges, however, this doesn't work well--detection chances are likely high regardless, and low errors at short range mean even sparse detections can give a good fix. Smoke and chaff can be useful here: they increase detection chance while adding a distance-independent error to opponent's visual and radar sensors, respectively.
ECM, buoys, and radar guidance have also been reworked. Buoys are more powerful, becoming more accurate as they get closer to the target. While their base error is high, at long ranges a buoy at close range can beat the accuracy of any onboard sensor. If you worry about opponents’ buoys, ECM can now intermittently jam them--except if they are connected to their parent vehicle by a harpoon cable, in which case they don't need the vulnerable wireless connection.
Most blueprints should need no modifications under the new system, although a few may want a few more or less GPP cards. The one exception is water interactions--IR cameras, laser rangefinders, and retroreflection sensors can no longer work through water, so submarines that used them underwater or vehicles that used them to detect submarines will need to replace them (likely with buoys). Vehicles that predominantly used visual detection should also consider adding a greater variety of sensors--in particular, visual camera trackers tied to AA mainframes should likely be replaced with IR cameras. Also, radars and cameras can take over missile and projectile detection (radar is required for projectile detection), so munitions warners can be removed/replaced with additional sensors.
Last but not least a sweet little addition to our build menu prefabs.
https://preview.redd.it/iqw1ymabu9t51.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=aa1e3cdba6e1d62e07aef83caf0acad2a39249ed
Please do make sure you go through the changelog as a hell of a lot has changed!
submitted by BaconsTV to FromTheDepths [link] [comments]

Reproducible offline Haskell builds

I'm doing artifact evaluation for VMCAI these days, and one constraint is that the research artifacts must be delivered as a self-contained archive that can be run within a designated virtual machine without internet access. This is not because it's important that the artifacts have to work on an aeroplane, but because there is no guarantee that any internet resources will stay permanently available, and the artifact may stop working if it depends on resources that go away.
Unfortunately, many build systems, such as cabal and stack for Haskell, seem to be based around being able to contact remote servers to download dependencies. Is there a convenient way to download all the (transitive) dependencies of my Haskell program, in such a way that cabal or stack could then build it without going online? The nuclear option is to bundle all of Hackage and then run a local Hackage mirror in the virtual machine, but that's not really practical. The most pragmatic choice at the moment is to simply include binaries as well in the research artifact, so that even if Hackage disappears in twenty years (or simply becomes incompatible with the bundled version of cabal-install), at least the binaries will continue to run within the VM.
I realise that this is a relatively niche issue, but I don't think there are any fundamental technical obstacles, so I wonder if anyone has looked at it before.
Nix might be a solution to this, if we just include a Nix store of precompiled dependencies, but I wonder if anyone has put together the pieces already.
submitted by Athas to haskell [link] [comments]

gdbstub 0.4: An ergonomic, #![no_std] implementation of the GDB Remote Serial Protocol in Rust

crates.io | docs | repo
An ergonomic and easy-to-integrate implementation of the GDB Remote Serial Protocol in Rust, with full #![no_std] support. gdbstub makes extensive use of Rust's powerful type system + generics to enforce protocol invariants at compile time, minimizing the number of tricky protocol details end users have to worry about.
A lot has changed since my last post announcing gdbstub 0.2!
Version 0.4 includes a major API overhaul, tons of internal optimizations, and a slew of new GDB protocol features, making it the fastest, leanest, and most featureful release of gdbstub yet!
It's been absolutely incredible having so many people contribute to the library, and seeing gdbstub being used in all sorts of cool projects. Thank you for all the support!
By the way, if you're taking part in Hacktoberfest this year, there are plenty of ways to contribute to gdbstub. There's a whole laundry list of protocol extensions and new architectures to support, so check out the issue tracker and consider lending a hand!
Cheers!
submitted by daniel5151 to rust [link] [comments]

The Division 2 - Title Update 10 - Patch Notes

Title Update 10 - Patch Notes

*These are preliminary Patch Notes and changes may still happen until the launch of Title Update 10.
 

New Season – Keener’s Legacy

A new season is almost upon us! Starting on June 23rd, Keener’s Legacy offers 12 weeks of in-game activities and unique rewards. Season 2 brings a new Seasonal Manhunt, new Leagues, a new Global event and new unique rewards, as well as an Apparel Event.
 

New Raid - Operation Iron Horse

The True Sons have taken over a Foundry to develop new weapons and threaten to destroy everything the Division has worked for.
  • New bosses, puzzles and rewards!
  • Level 40 version available on June 30th, followed the next week by the level 30 version.
  • Discovery mode will become available at a later date.
  • Unique Rewards
    • 2 new Exotics
    • 2 new Gear Sets
    • New cosmetic rewards
  • Further details will become available closer to the raid’s release in late June.
 

Balance and Bug Fixes

Title Update 10 is bringing our first large balance pass following the release of Warlords of New York. Beyond the addition of new content, the update focuses on three main aspects mainly game health through bug fixes and balancing, generosity by increasing your chances to receive a high-quality item as loot and increasing overall player power. Scroll down for a full list of bug fixes, balancing changes and gameplay tweaks.
 

Missing Localized Audio

We wanted to inform you about an issue with localized audio that will be present when we launch Title Update 10 and Season 2. While the team was able to work from home to get this update ready, with your help testing the content on the PTS, we unfortunately were not able to record all localized audio content for TU10. With everything going on in the world, our top priority is the well-being of our teams, including our voice actors. Of course, we will start working on recording the missing audio with our partners when it is safe to do so and, in some cases, we were able to get things started already. Adding the localized files to the game as soon as we can in one of our next updates is an absolute priority for the team. This only affects Seasonal content. Operation Iron Horse audio is fully localized.
If you are currently playing with a non-English client, you don’t have to change anything going into Title Update 10. When localized audio is missing you will just hear the English audio instead. Subtitles have been localized and can be activated in the ingame options.
As work continues, we will update you on the progress of the integration here on the forums and on State of the Game.
Thank you and stay safe!
 

New Exotics

SRS Sniper Rifle: Mantis

  • Your scoped view displays additional information about enemies not targeting you
  • Your scoped view highlights enemy weakpoints
  • Headshot and weak point damage against enemies not targeting you amplified by 50%
  • Headshot kills reset the cooldown of the Decoy skill. This bonus will wait until the Decoy goes on cooldown if currently active
 

Mask: Vile

  • Status effects also apply a damage over time debuff for 10s
  • Total damage dealt is equal to 50% of your concussion grenade damage and increased by your status effect attributes
 

Double Barrel Rifle: The Ravenous (Operation Iron Horse)

  • On trigger-pull, fire both barrels at once
  • When fired from the right shoulder, hits add offensive primers, and defensive primers when fired from the left shoulder
  • Hits from one shoulder will detonate all of the opposite shoulder's primers when present
  • When detonated or affected enemy is killed, each offensive primer deals 100% weapon damage, while each defensive primer grants +4% bonus armor and +10% amplified damage to armor plates for 5s
  • Primer effectiveness is doubled at 10 stacks
 

Magnum Pistol: Regulus (Operation Iron Horse)

  • Headshot kills create a 5m explosion, dealing 400% weapon damage and applying bleed to all enemies hit.
  • High accuracy and base damage
 

New Gear Sets

Eclipse Protocol (Season 2)

  • Core: Skill Tier (Yellow)
  • 2: +15% Status Effects
  • 3: +15% Skill Haste and +30% Hazard Protection
  • 4: "Indirect Transmission" Your status effects now spread on kill to all enemies within 15m and refresh 50% of the duration.
  • Chest talent: "Proliferation" Increases Indirect Transmission range from 15m to 20m and refresh percentage from 50% to 75%
  • Backpack talent: "Symptom Aggravator" Amplifies all damage you deal to status affected targets by 15%
 

Foundry Bulwark (Operation Iron Horse)

  • Core: Armor (Blue)
  • 2: +10% Armor
  • 3: +3% Armor Regeneration
  • 4: "Makeshift Repairs" Whenever you or your shield take damage, 20% of that amount is repaired to both over 15s
  • Chest talent: "Process Refinery" Increases Makeshift Repairs from 20% to 30% over 15s
  • Backpack talent: "Improved Materials" Increases Makeshift Repairs speed from 15s to 10s
 

Future Initiative (Operation Iron Horse)

  • Core: Skill Tier (Yellow)
  • 2: +30% Repair Skills
  • 3: +30% Skill Duration and +15% Skill Haste
  • 4: "Ground Control" Increases you and your allies' total weapon and skill damage by 15% when at full armor
  • When you repair an ally, you and all allies within 5m of you are also repaired for 60% of that amount
  • Chest talent: "Tactical Superiority" Increases Ground Control damage bonus from +15% to +25%
  • Backpack talent: "Advanced Combat Tactics" Increases Ground Control proximity repair from 60% to 120%
 

New Gear Brand

Walker, Harris & Co.

  • Core: Weapon Damage (Red)
  • 1: +5.0% Weapon Damage
  • 2: +5.0% Damage to Armor
  • 3: +5.0% Damage to Health
 

New Named Weapons

  • Mechanical Animal (SIG 556) with Future Perfection
    • Weapon kills grant +1 skill tier for 19s. Stacks up to 3 times.
    • Weapon kills at skill tier 6 grant overcharge for 15s.
    • Overcharge Cooldown: 90s
  • Harmony (Resolute MK47) with Perfectly In Sync
    • Hitting an enemy grants +20% skill damage for 5s.
    • Using a skill or damaging an enemy with a skill grants +20% weapon damage for 5s.
    • Damage increases are doubled while both buffs are active at the same time.
 

New Named Gear

  • Matador (Walker, Harris & Co. backpack) with Perfect Adrenaline Rush
    • When you are within 10m of an enemy, gain 23% bonus armor for 5s. Stacks up to 3 times.
    • Cooldown: 5s
    • Chainkiller (Walker, Harris & Co. chest) with Perfect Headhunter. After killing an enemy with a headshot, your next weapon hit within 30s deals 150% of that killing blow’s damage in addition to it.
    • Damage is capped to 800% of your weapon damage. This is raised to 1250% if your headshot damage is greater than 150%.
 

New Skill Variant

  • Repair Trap
    • The Repair Trap deploys a line of small devices capable of repairing friendlies in their proximity.
    • Note: The Repair Trap will not be available in-game until the Seasonal prime target unlocks in August.
 

New Talents

Weapon Talent: Future Perfect
  • Weapon kills grant +1 skill tier for 15s. Stacks up to 3 times.
  • Weapon kills at skill tier 6 grant overcharge for 15s.
  • Overcharge Cooldown: 90s
 
Weapon Talent: In Sync
  • Hitting an enemy grants +15% skill damage for 5s.
  • Using a skill or damaging an enemy with a skill grants +15% weapon damage for 5s.
  • Damage increases are doubled while both buffs are active at the same time.
 
Backpack Talent: Adrenaline Rush
  • When you are within 10m of an enemy, gain 20% bonus armor for 5s. Stacks up to 3 times.
  • Cooldown: 5s
 
Chest Talent: Headhunter
  • After killing an enemy with a headshot, your next weapon hit within 30s deals 125% of that killing blow’s damage in addition to it.
  • Damage is capped to 800% of your weapon damage. This is raised to 1250% if your headshot damage is greater than 150%.
 

Gameplay Changes

Missions

  • Reduced how many elites will spawn in the following mission:
    • Manning National Zoo
    • Coney Island Ballpark
    • Coney Island Amusement Park
    • Camp White Oak
    • Space Administration HQ
    • Federal Emergency Bunker
    • Wall Street
    • Liberty Island
    • Pathway Park
    • Stranded Tanker
    • The Tombs
 

Loot

  • General
    • Added all new season 2 weapons/gear to general loot pools
  • Item Power
    • Updated item power distribution to have a better spread between minimum and maximum for all difficulties
    • Increased minimum rolled item power for Field Proficiency/DZ caches, Clan caches and Season caches.
  • Difficulty Scaling
    • Regular loot from loot containers in Missions now scale with mission difficulty
    • Targeted loot from loot containers in Missions now scales with mission difficulty
    • Loot containers part of living world activities now scale with global difficulty
  • Targeted loot
    • Increased targeted loot drop chances for all mission and Control Point difficulties
    • Added new season 2 brand to targeted loot rotation
    • Warlords of New York brands can now also show up as targeted loot in DC, including Dark Zones
  • Named Items
    • Increased named item drop chance in regular Dark Zone loot
    • Increased named item drop chance in targeted loot everywhere
  • Exotics
    • Added Warlords of New York/Season 1 Exotics (excluding The Bighorn) to targeted loot
    • Added Warlords of New York/Season 1 Exotics (excluding The Bighorn) to general Exotic loot pools (Heroic/Legendary/Raid/Exotic Cache)
    • Coyote's Mask drop from Coyote no longer has a minimum season level requirement
  • Control Points
    • Removed regular weapon/gear loot containers not scaling with difficulty from Control Points
    • Increased the amount of scaling loot from the big Control Point reward container
  • Legendary
    • Increased NPC loot drop chance for Veterans and Elites on Legendary difficulty
 

Crafting

  • Crafting will now guarantee a higher minimum item power, resulting in higher overall stat rolls. An increased maximum item power also allows for better crafted items than before. The added weighting between the minimum and maximum power results in a more balanced average outcome for crafted and reconfigured items
  • Removed final World Tier 5 crafting bench upgrade, as its power increase is now redundant
 

Vendors

  • Added Named Items to both Open World and Dark Zone vendors
  • Increased prices for Named Items
  • Increased item power for all vendors
  • Vendors no longer sell Superior quality items at maximum level
 

SHD Levels

  • Added Field Proficiency cache to SHD level-up after reaching the maximum season level
  • Increased crafting material rewards for spending SHD level points in the Scavenging category
 

Conflict

  • Added Season/SHD experience gain on Conflict level-up
 

Rogue Agent Encounters

  • Every Rogue Agent killed will now drop loot
  • Rogue Agent encounters no longer occur during time trials
 

Control Point Officers

  • Players revived by a Control Point Officer will now have 80% of their armor restored (Previously 0%)
  • Reduced the likelihood of Control Point Officers being downed in combat
 

Bounties

  • Bounties acquired by speaking to characters in the open world will always be set to the difficulty at time of acquisition or higher.
  • This affects the Snitch and civilians rescued during the Public Execution or Rescue Living World Activities.
  • Scheduled bounties, such as daily and clan bounties, are unaffected.
Developer comment: Bounties acquired in the open world should always provide challenge and loot appropriate to the world they were acquired in. Upping your global difficulty now has the added benefit of improving all bounties you acquire within it.
 

Projects

  • New Season Pass Holder Project Slot.
    • Season Pass holders now have access to an exclusive daily mission which provides a large bonus to XP.
  • Weekly SHD Requisition Project Slot
    • Endgame players at World Tier 5 and Level 40 now have a weekly supplies donation project which rewards them with an exotic cache. (For World Tier 5 players, this replaces the previous daily SHD Requisition project.)
  • Legendary Mission Project
    • After TU10, completing any legendary mission will grant you the Weekly Legendary Mission project slot.
    • Completing the designated legendary mission will reward you with an exotic cache.
Developer comment: With the addition of "re-rolls" to exotics available through crafting, we created the new Weekly projects to provide a reliable supply of exotic components or exotic items.
 

RPG Balance

 

Incoming Repairs

  • Incoming Repairs no longer increases the amount of armor repaired by armor kits, talents or gear set effects.
Developer comment: Incoming Repairs was always meant to be the defensive attribute equivalent to Repair Skills, so that players could further enhance the amount of healing they receive from their skills, or the group's healer. Unfortunately, the underlying code prevented us from differentiating between alternate sources of armor repair, such as those from talents and gear sets like Foundry Bulwark, or Firewall's unique armor kit effect. We wanted to address this during the development of Warlords of New York, but chose to post-pone the fix in order to deal with higher priority issues at the time. We underestimated the extent to which this attribute would affect the new Warlords meta, and failed to predict the severity of degenerate gameplay it would cause when combined with certain talents or gear sets. It's important to stress that this is not a PvP-only issue, or an instance of the PvP environment affecting PvE balance. Incoming Repairs was compromising both aspects of the game, and needed to be addressed, especially considering this update coincides with the release of a new raid. Not addressing the issue would mean forcing ourselves to balance all existing and future gear and talents around the knowledge that players could potentially (read: very likely) double the amount of repairs they receive, which stifles creativity and effectively limits player choice.
 

Weapon Handling

  • 1% Weapon Handling now gives 1% Weapon Accuracy, Stability, Reload Speed, and Swap Speed, up from 0.25%.
  • Reduced the maximum amount of Weapon Handling rolled on gear by 6%, to a maximum of 8% at level 40.
Developer comment: In the current meta, Weapon Handling on gear is considered a dead stat with no significant benefit. In TU10, equipping a piece of gear with +8% Weapon Handling will now give you:
  • +8% Accuracy
  • +8% Stability
  • +8% Swap Speed
  • +8% Reload Speed
This should hopefully make Weapon Handling a strong complimentary attribute for players looking to increase their overall accuracy/stability (bloom + recoil) and/or reload/swap speed. Making the % amount of Weapon Accuracy/Stability/Swap Speed/Reload Speed gained from Weapon Handling 1:1 will also remove another element of arcane knowledge from the game and reduce the need for additional mental math when determining whether the bonus is an upgrade or not.
 

Talent Changes:

  • Leadership: Bonus Armor increased to 15% from 12%
  • Spike: Skill Damage Duration increased to 15s from 8s
  • Reformation: Skill Repair Duration increased to 15s from 8s
  • Creeping Death: No Longer goes on cooldown if there are no valid nearby enemies to apply a status effect to. Status effects applied now properly copy the source status effect’s damage and duration.
 

PvP

  • Global Damage Modifiers
    • Reduced all PvP weapon damage by -20%
  • Additional Damage Modifiers
    • Increased MMR PvP weapon damage by 12.5%
    • Reduced Assault Rifle PvP weapon damage by -15%
    • Reduced Shotgun PvP damage by -12.5%
    • Reduced SMG PvP damage by -10%
    • Reduced Pistol PvP damage by -10%
    • Reduced Rifle PvP damage by -5%
 
_Developer comment: With TU10, there have been significant buffs made to the base damage of assault rifles, SMGs, and shotguns in particular. In order to prevent those weapons from becoming overly powerful in PvP, we’ve had to lower their PvP damage modifiers to compensate.
Note: Assault rifles are still tuned to be 10% stronger than normal in PvP in order to compensate for their innate Damage to Health bonus being less useful against other players when compared to other weapon archetypes._
 
  • Specific Damage Modifiers
    • Increased Double Barrel Shotgun PvP damage by 16.6%
    • Reduced Pestilence PvP damage by -10%
    • Reduced Classic M1A damage by -5%
  • Exotic Modifiers
    • Merciless/Ruthless: “Binary Trigger” amplified weapon damage and explosion damage reduced by -50% in PvP
    • Dodge City Gunslinger’s Holster: “Quick Draw” damage bonus gained per stack in PvP lowered from +2% to +1%
      • Stacks gained per second in PvP now match the PvE value (0.5s to 0.3s)
    • Imperial Dynasty:
      • No longer automatically applies burn status effect to the nearest enemy in range.
      • Now requires maintaining range and LOS (line-of-sight) for 3 seconds between the holster bearer and nearest enemy before applying the burn status effect.
      • Added visual UI feedback to reveal the radius of effect in PvP and an indicator for LOS between the holster bearer and nearest enemy.
Developer comment: This should help address the lack of contextual feedback in PvP, and add a much needed window of opportunity for counterplay, or potential to avoid the incoming effect entirely.
 
  • * Pestilence * Plague of the Outcast damage-over-time effect no longer triggers True Patriot’s white debuff armor repair effect. (PvP and PvE)
Developer comment: While we like to embrace emergent or unintended mechanics when the end result is unique and fun gameplay, True Patriot’s white debuff explicitly states it requires shooting the debuffed target in order to receive the armor repair effect. Pestilence’s DoT managed to bypass this restriction, making it and True Patriot (especially when combined with Incoming Repairs) scale to disproportionate levels of power when used together.
 
  • Gear Set Modifiers
    • Negotiator’s Dilemma
      • Reduced the range at which marked targets can damage each other when critically hit to 15m (PvP only).
      • Added visual UI feedback when in range of another marked target.
  • Talent Modifiers
    • Efficient: Reduced specialization armor kit bonus from 100% to 50%
    • Versatile: Reduced the amplified weapon damage bonus for SMGs and shotguns from 35% to 25%
    • Vanguard: Reduced the duration of shield invulnerability from 5s to 2s
      • Note: UI will still show the old duration, but will be fixed in a later update.
    Specialization Modifiers * Firewall * Extracellular Matrix Mesh armor kit regen strength reduced by -50%, from 200% to 150%
  • Skill Modifiers
    • Pulse now correctly reveals and highlights all players in the DZ, not just hostiles/rogues
    • Increased Striker Drone damage by 30%
    • Increased Assault Turret damage by 55%
    • Reduced Firestarter Chem Launcher PvP damage by -20%
    • Reduced Bleed damage from Stinger Hive, Mortar Turret and Explosive Seeker Mine by 75%
    • Increased Stinger Hive damage by 20%, scaling up to 55% at skill tier 6
 
Developer commentary: We want dedicated skill builds to have multiple, powerful defensive tools for area denial/control. However, the strength of bleed effects meant being hit by just 1 stinger drone, mortar, or seeker mine was nearly a death sentence for most builds. The stinger hive should now better punish players who remain within its area of effect, rather than needing to rely entirely on the excessive damage of a single bleed DoT, while allowing the hive’s drone damage to scale higher for dedicated skill builds.
 

Weapon Balance

 

Assault Rifles

  • AK-M – 15.8% damage increase
  • F2000 – 14.3% damage increase
  • Military AK-M – 13.2% damage increase
  • Black Market AK-M – 13.2% damage increase
  • FAL – 12.0% damage increase
  • FAL SA-58 – 12.0% damage increase
  • FAL SA-58 Para – 12.0% damage increase
  • SOCOM Mk 16 – 11.4% damage increase
  • Tactical Mk 16 – 11.4% damage increase
  • Mk 16 – 11.4% damage increase
  • AUG A3-CQC – 11.2% damage increase
  • Honey Badger – 10.9% damage increase
  • FAMAS 2010 – 10.6% damage increase
  • ACR – 9.7% damage increase
  • ACR-E – 9.7% damage increase
  • Military G36 – 9.5% damage increase
  • G36 C – 9.5% damage increase
  • G36 Enhanced – 9.5% damage increase
  • Carbine 7 – 8.7 % damage increase
  • Military P416 – 7.4% damage increase
  • Custom P416 G3 - 7.4% damage increase
  • Police M4 – 6.8% damage increase
  • CTAR 21 – 8.6% damage increase
 

LMG

  • Classic M60 – 12.5% damage increase
  • Classic RPK-74 – 12.4% damage increase
  • Military RPK-74 M – 12.4% damage increase
  • Black Market RPK-74 E – 12.4% damage increase
  • Military M60 E4 – 9.2% damage increase
  • Black Market M60 E6 – 9.2% damage increase
  • Military L86 LSW – 8.5% damage increase
  • Custom L86 A2 – 8.5% damage increase
  • IWI NEGEV – 2.6% damage increase
  • Stoner LMG – 2.0% damage increase
  • M249 B – No changes
  • Tactical M249 Para – No changes
  • Military MK46 – No changes
  • MG5 – No changes
  • Infantry MG5 – 3.2% damage decrease
 

MMR

  • Model 700 – 14.9% damage increase
  • Hunting M44 – 13.5% damage increase
  • Classic M44 Carbine – 12.5% damage increase
  • G28 – 11.4% damage increase
  • SOCOM Mk20 SSR – 9.3% damage increase
  • SR-1 - 8.6% damage increase
  • Custom M44 – 8.1% damage increase
  • M700 Tactical – 8.1% damage increase
  • M700 Carbon – 8.1% damage increase
  • Covert SRS – 6.0% damage increase
  • SRS A1 – 6.0% damage increase
  • Surplus SVD – 2.9% damage decrease
  • Paratrooper SVD – 2.9% damage decrease
 

Rifles

  • UIC15 MOD – 21.6% damage increase
  • 1886 – 21.3% damage increase
  • LVOA-C – 12.1% damage increase
  • M1A CQB – 10.7% damage increase
  • Lightweight M4 – 10.5% damage increase
  • G 716 CQB – 8.7% damage increase
  • SIG 716 – 6.7% damage increase
  • ACR SS – 3.7% damage increase
  • SOCOM M1A – No changes
  • M16A2 – No changes
  • USC .45 ACP - 2.8% damage decrease
  • Urban MDR – 5.5% damage decrease
  • Military Mk17 – 11.8% damage decrease
  • Police Mk17 - 11.8% damage decrease
  • Classic M1A - 12.6% damage decrease
 

SMG

  • Tommy Gun – 38.8% damage increase
  • PP-19 – 29.6% damage increase
  • Enhanced PP-19 – 29.6% damage increase
  • MP7 – 27.5% damage increase
  • MPX – 17.7% damage increase
  • M1928 – 20.0% damage increase
  • P90 – 15.6% damage increase
  • Converted SMG-9 – 15.8% damage increase
  • Black Market T821 – 15.4% damage increase
  • Police T821 – 15.4% damage increase
  • Vector SBR .45 ACP – 14.7% damage increase
  • CMMG Banshee – 12.5% damage increase
  • Police UMP-45 – 12.0% damage increase
  • Tactical UMP-45 – 12.0% damage increase
  • AUG A3 Para XS – 11.8% damage increase
  • Enhanced AUG A3P – 11.8 % damage increase
  • Tactical AUG A3P – 11.8% damage increase
  • Converted SMG-9 A2 – 11.6% damage increase
  • MP5A2 – 10.0% damage increase
  • MP5-N – 10.0% damage increase
  • MP5 ST – 10.0% damage increase
  • Tactical Vector SBR 9mm – 5.9% damage increase
 

Shotguns

  • M870 Express – 23.3% damage increase
  • Military M870 – 23.3% damage increase
  • Custom M870 MCS – 23.3% damage increase
  • Super 90 – 23.2% damage increase
  • Marine Super 90 – 23.2% damage increase
  • Tactical Super 90 SBS – 23.2% damage increase
  • SASG-12 – 21.3% damage increase
  • Tactical SASG-12 K – 21.3% damage increase
  • Black Market SASG-12 S – 21.3% damage increase
  • SPAS-12 – 18.6% damage increase
  • KSG Shotgun – 9.0% damage increase
 

Sidearms

  • Double Barrel Sawed Off Shotgun – Optimal Range reduced to 8m from 11m
  • 586 Magnum – 68.8% damage increase
  • Police 686 Magnum – 68.8% damage increase
  • Maxim 9 - 23.5% damage increase
  • D50 – 17.5% damage increase
  • First Wave PF45 – 13.5% damage increase
  • Custom PF45 – 9.7% damage increase
  • Military M9 – 8.7% damage increase
  • 93R - 7.7% damage increase
  • Snubnosed Diceros – 6.5% damage increase
  • Officer's M9 A1 – 6.3% damage increase
  • Diceros – 5.9% damage increase
  • M45A1 – 9.5% damage decrease
  • Tactical M1911 – 9.5% damage decrease
  • M1911 – 7.3% damage decrease
 

Exotics Changes

Developer comment: Along with the buffs to weapon damage, TU10's significant buff to weapon handling meant some exotic weapon mods no longer made sense or resulted in over tuned performance that no longer fit with the original design. We also took this opportunity to make improvements to underperforming exotic
 
The Bighorn
  • Damage increased by +11.2%
  • Increased optimal range from 27m to 40m
  • Optics mod bonus increased from +0% to +30% Headshot Damage
  • Magazine mod bonus changed from +7% Headshot Damage to +10% Reload Speed
  • Added functionality that provides additional headshot damage, full talent is now:
    • When scoped, switches to semi-automatic fire mode, dealing 450% weapon damage with each shot.
    • (New) Headshots grant +2% headshot damage. Stacks up to 50 times. Resets to 0 at full stacks.
 
Eagle Bearer
  • Damage increased by +7.8%
  • Underbarrel mod bonus changed from +10% Stability to +10% Weapon Handling
 
Chameleon
  • Damage increased by +32.8%
  • Optics mod bonus changed from +15% Accuracy to +15% Critical Hit Chance
  • Muzzle mod bonus changed from +5% Critical Hit Chance to +20% Accuracy
  • Underbarrel mod bonus changed from +10% Critical Hit Chance to +10% Stability
  • Optimal range increased by 33.3%, from 15m to 20m
  • Long range effectiveness increased by 19%, from 42m to 50m
  • Added functionality that retains your current buffs to the next combat encounter when combat ends, full talent is now:
    • Hitting 30 headshots grant +20% critical hit chance and +50% critical hit damage for 45s.
    • Hitting 75 body-shots grant +90% weapon damage for 45s.
    • Hitting 30 leg-shots grant +150% reload speed for 45s.
    • (New) Buffs refresh when out of combat.
 
Bullet King
  • Damage increased by +2.6%
 
Nemesis
  • Damage increased by +11.1%
  • Optics mod bonus increased from +35% to +45% Headshot Damage
  • Underbarrel mod bonus reduced from +15% to +5% Weapon Handling
 
Liberty
  • Optics mod bonus changed from +5% Critical Hit Chance to +5% Headshot Damage
  • Muzzle mod bonus changed from +15% Stability to +5% Critical Hit Chance
  • Magazine mod bonus changed from +15% Reload Speed to +15% Weapon Handling
  • Added functionality to provide extra damage if you're trying to keep stacks, full talent is now:
    • (New) Hits grant +2% weapon damage. Stacks up to 30.
    • Headshots consume all stacks, repairing your shield for 3% per stack.
  • No longer highlights enemy weakpoints when aiming.
 
Merciless/Ruthless
  • Damage increased by +12.5%
  • Muzzle mod bonus reduced from +20% to +10% Stability
  • Underbarrel mod bonus reduced from +20% to +10% Weapon Handling
  • Magazine mod bonus reduced from +15% to +10% Reload Speed
  • Added functionality to provide extra non-explosive damage as well, full talent is now:
    • This weapon fires on trigger pull and release.
    • If both bullets hit the same enemy, gain a stack.
    • (New) At 7 stacks, shooting an enemy deals 500% amplified damage and creates a 7m explosion dealing 500% weapon damage, consuming the stacks.
 
Developer Comment: Merciless was previously balanced for its very unwieldy handling and compensated with very high burst damage. With access to much higher accuracy and stability, Binary Trigger’s explosion strength has been toned down.
 
Diamondback
  • Damage increased by +7.7%
  • Text updated to clarify a new target isn’t marked until after the 5s buff.
 
Lullaby/Sweet Dreams
  • Damage increased by +11.0%
 
Lady Death
  • Damage increased by +18.9%
  • Optics mod bonus increased from +5% to +10% Critical Hit Chance
  • Muzzle mod bonus changed from +5% Critical Hit Chance to +5% Critical Hit Damage
  • Underbarrel mod changed from +5% Critical Hit Damage to +500% Melee Damage
  • Breathe Free: Lowered the amount of maximum stacks from 40 to 32, and increased the damage amplification per stack from 60% to 75%
 
The Chatterbox
  • Damage increased by +16.7%
  • Optics mod bonus increased from +5% to +15% Critical Hit Chance
  • Muzzle mod bonus changed from +10% Critical Hit Chance to +5% Critical Hit Damage
  • Underbarrel mod bonus reduced from +15% to +10% Weapon Handling
  • Magazine mod bonus changed from +10% Reload Speed to +10 Rounds
  • Magazine base capacity reduced from 60 to 50
 
Pestilence
  • Muzzle mod bonus changed from +10% Stability to +10% Accuracy
  • Underbarrel mod bonus changed from +10% Weapon Handling to +10% Stability
 
NinjaBike Messenger Kneepads
  • Added functionality to add bonus armor, full talent is now:
    • (New) Performing a cover to cover or vaulting reloads your drawn weapon and grants +25% bonus armor for 5s.
 
Dodge City Gunslinger Holster
  • Added functionality that makes your hit do headshot damage, full talent is now:
    • While your pistol is holstered, gain a stacking buff every 0.3s, up to 100. When you swap to it, your first shot consumes the buff and deals +10% damage per stack.
    • (New) This deals headshot damage to anywhere you hit.
 
BTSU Datagloves
  • Changed functionality to no longer grant group/raid-wide overcharge unless you are skill tier 6
  • Added functionality to provide hive skill haste, full talent is now:
    • (New) Grants +15% Hive skill haste per skill tier.
    • (Changed) Detonating a hive refreshes your skill cooldowns and grants overcharge for 15s.If at Skill Tier 6, this effect also applies to all allies.
    • Allies receiving this effect are unable to benefit from it again for 120s.
 
Sawyer's Kneeguards
  • Added functionality to continue to provide damage bonus move for a short duration, full talent is now:
    • Cannot be staggered by explosions.
    • Increases total weapon damage by 3% each second you are not moving. Stacks up to 10 until you start moving.
    • (New) All stacks lost 10s after moving.
 

Gear Set Changes

Hard Wired
  • Feedback Loop no longer fully refreshes the cooldown of a skill, but instead reduces it by up to 30s
 
Ongoing Directive
  • Main Talent
    • Hollow-Point Ammo is no longer dropped on kill, and instead automatically added to your active weapon when killing status afflicted enemies
    • Backpack Talent (New)
  • “Trauma Specialist”
    • Increases the duration of your bleed status effects by 50% and all bleed damage done by 100%
    • Increased 3-piece Reload Speed bonus from +20% to +30%
 
Tip of the Spear
  • Main Talent (PVE)
    • Aggressive Recon's weapon damage buff is now gained when dealing specialization weapon damage, instead of on specialization weapon kill
  • Main Talent (PVP)
    • Aggressive Recon's weapon damage buff is now gained when dealing grenade damage, instead of on grenade kill
  • Backpack Talent (New)
    • “Signature Moves”
    • Increases specialization weapon damage by 20%, and doubles the amount of specialization ammo generated by Aggressive Recon
 
Aces and Eights
  • Main Talent
    • "Poker Face" backpack talent is now a baseline effect:
    • Flip an additional card on headshots
  • Backpack Talent (New)
    • “Ace in the Sleeve”
    • Amplifies 1 extra shot when revealing your hand
    • 3-piece Headshot Damage bonus is now additive, rather than multiplicative
    • Increased 3-piece Headshot Damage bonus from +20% to +30%
 
System Corruption
  • Main Talent
    • Now repairs 20% of your armor in addition to granting 50% bonus armor
    • Increases total weapon damage by 1% per 5% bonus armor gained, up to 20%
 
Striker’s Battlegear
  • Main Talent
    • Reduced the number of stacks lost on missed shots from 3 to 2
  • Backpack Talent
    • No longer reduces number of stacks lost on missed shots
    • (New) Increases total weapon damage gained per stack of Striker's Gamble from 0.5% to 0.65%.
 
Negotiators Dilemma
  • Damage transfers on the initial bullet that marks a new target
 
Hard Wired
  • Increased 3-piece Repair Skills bonus from +15% to +30%
 
Brand Set Changes Alps Summit Armament
  • Increased 1-piece Repair Skills bonus from +15% to +20%
 
Murakami Industries
  • Increased 2-piece Repair Skills bonus from +15% to +20%
 
Richter & Kaiser
  • Increased 3-piece Repair Skills bonus from +15% to +20%
  • Incoming Repairs brand set bonus increased from +15% to +20%
 
Providence Defense
  • Increased 1-piece Headshot Damage bonus from +10% to +15%
 
Airaldi Holdings
  • Increased 2-piece Headshot Damage bonus from +10% to +15%
 
Grupo Sombra S.A
  • Increased 3-piece Headshot Damage bonus from +10% to +15%
 
Overlord Armaments
  • Increased 2-piece Accuracy bonus from +10% to +20%
 
Douglas & Harding
  • Increased 2-piece Stability bonus from +10% to +20%
  • Increased 3-piece Accuracy bonus from +10% to +20%
 
Fenris Group AB
  • Increased 2-piece Reload Speed bonus from +10% to +20%
  • Increased 3-piece Stability bonus from +10% to +20%
 

Specialization Changes

  • Gunner specialization's Emplacement talent Weapon Handling bonus reduced from +15% to +10%
    • Note: The UI will incorrectly say it still adds +15% Weapon Handling. This will be fixed in a future update.
 

Skill Changes

UI
  • Stinger Hive, Mortar Turret, and Explosive Seeker Mine now display its Bleed Damage and Duration
 
Seeker Mine
  • Cluster Seeker Mine targeting accuracy improved
Developer comment: The Cluster Seeker Mine is not intended to be as accurate as the Explosive variant. Once it is a certain distance from its target it locks the location it is aiming for and continues towards that regardless of where its original target agent has since moved to. This "bullcharge" behavior reflects the mini-mines' less advanced technology and balances the skill mod's effectiveness. This said, we have noticed that the Cluster Seeker's accuracy has been a source of frustration so we've shortened the distance until it activates its "bullcharge" and adjusted when it decides to explode. These adjustments should make the Cluster Seeker feel more accurate, but these are measured steps as we do not want the skill to return to its OP TU7-state.
 
Hive
  • Stinger Hive base damage reduced -20%
  • Stinger Hive damage bonus per skill tier increased from +10% to +20%
Developer comment: In order to make investing in skill tiers have a greater impact on the Stinger Hive's damage, we slightly reduced base drone damage, while doubling the amount of damage gained with each skill tier. These changes will result in a net buff for dedicated skill builds, with a 10% increase in Stinger Hive drone damage at skill tier 6.
  • Restorer hive gains +5% drone flight speed per skill tier
Developer comment: Increases to the Restorer Hive's radius had the unfortunate effect of increasing the time it took for repair drones to reach their target the further they were from the hive. Increasing drone flight speed with each skill tier should help offset that somewhat counter-intuitive behavior when taking advantage of the increased area of effect, and make the Restorer Hive a more reliable tool for healers.
 
Chem Launcher
  • Riot Foam Chem Launcher ensnare duration bonus per skill tier reduced from +20% to +10%
  • Reinforcer Chem Launcher: UI has been updated to clarify that the initial heal only affects allies and not the Skill user. The functionality has not changed.
 
Firefly
  • Blinder Firefly blind duration bonus per skill tier reduced from +20% to +10%
  • Blinder Firefly base blind duration reduced from 6s to 5s
 
Pulse
  • Banshee Pulse cooldown increased from 20s to 30s
  • Banshee Pulse base confuse duration reduced from 5s to 4s
  • Jammer Pulse base disrupt duration reduced from 4s to 3s
 
Shock Trap
  • Shock Trap base shock duration reduced from 5s to 3s (PvP duration remains unchanged)
  • Shock Trap base radius increased from 2m to 2.5m
  • When the active duration ends, its cooldown is refunded an equal number of seconds that it was active.
 

Further Bugfixes:

=> Source
submitted by JokerUnique to thedivision [link] [comments]

Best Practices for A C Programmer

Hi all,
Long time C programmer here, primarily working in the embedded industry (particularly involving safety-critical code). I've been a lurker on this sub for a while but I'm hoping to ask some questions regarding best practices. I've been trying to start using c++ on a lot of my work - particularly taking advantage of some of the code-reuse and power of C++ (particularly constexpr, some loose template programming, stronger type checking, RAII etc).
I would consider myself maybe an 8/10 C programmer but I would conservatively maybe rate myself as 3/10 in C++ (with 1/10 meaning the absolute minmum ability to write, google syntax errata, diagnose, and debug a program). Perhaps I should preface the post that I am more than aware that C is by no means a subset of C++ and there are many language constructs permitted in one that are not in the other.
In any case, I was hoping to get a few answers regarding best practices for c++. Keep in mind that the typical target device I work with does not have a heap of any sort and so a lot of the features that constitute "modern" C++ (non-initialization use of dynamic memory, STL meta-programming, hash-maps, lambdas (as I currently understand them) are a big no-no in terms of passing safety review.

When do I overload operators inside a class as opposed to outisde?

... And what are the arguments foagainst each paradigm? See below:
/* Overload example 1 (overloaded inside class) */ class myclass { private: unsigned int a; unsigned int b; public: myclass(void); unsigned int get_a(void) const; bool operator==(const myclass &rhs); }; bool myclass::operator==(const myclass &rhs) { if (this == &rhs) { return true; } else { if (this->a == rhs.a && this->b == rhs.b) { return true; } } return false; } 
As opposed to this:
/* Overload example 2 (overloaded outside of class) */ class CD { private: unsigned int c; unsigned int d; public: CD(unsigned int _c, unsigned int _d) : d(_d), c(_c) {}; /* CTOR */ unsigned int get_c(void) const; /* trival getters */ unsigned int get_d(void) const; /* trival getters */ }; /* In this implementation, If I don't make the getters (get_c, get_d) constant, * it won't compile despite their access specifiers being public. * * It seems like the const keyword in C++ really should be interpretted as * "read-only AND no side effects" rather than just read only as in C. * But my current understanding may just be flawed... * * My confusion is as follows: The function args are constant references * so why do I have to promise that the function methods have no side-effects on * the private object members? Is this something specific to the == operator? */ bool operator==(const CD & lhs, const CD & rhs) { if(&lhs == &rhs) return true; else if((lhs.get_c() == rhs.get_c()) && (lhs.get_d() == rhs.get_d())) return true; return false; } 
When should I use the example 1 style over the example 2 style? What are the pros and cons of 1 vs 2?

What's the deal with const member functions?

This is more of a subtle confusion but it seems like in C++ the const keyword means different things base on the context in which it is used. I'm trying to develop a relatively nuanced understanding of what's happening under the hood and I most certainly have misunderstood many language features, especially because C++ has likely changed greatly in the last ~6-8 years.

When should I use enum classes versus plain old enum?

To be honest I'm not entirely certain I fully understand the implications of using enum versus enum class in C++.
This is made more confusing by the fact that there are subtle differences between the way C and C++ treat or permit various language constructs (const, enum, typedef, struct, void*, pointer aliasing, type puning, tentative declarations).
In C, enums decay to integer values at compile time. But in C++, the way I currently understand it, enums are their own type. Thus, in C, the following code would be valid, but a C++ compiler would generate a warning (or an error, haven't actually tested it)
/* Example 3: (enums : Valid in C, invalid in C++ ) */ enum COLOR { RED, BLUE, GREY }; enum PET { CAT, DOG, FROG }; /* This is compatible with a C-style enum conception but not C++ */ enum SHAPE { BALL = RED, /* In C, these work because int = int is valid */ CUBE = DOG, }; 
If my understanding is indeed the case, do enums have an implicit namespace (language construct, not the C++ keyword) as in C? As an add-on to that, in C++, you can also declare enums as a sort of inherited type (below). What am I supposed to make of this? Should I just be using it to reduce code size when possible (similar to gcc option -fuse-packed-enums)? Since most processors are word based, would it be more performant to use the processor's word type than the syntax specified above?
/* Example 4: (Purely C++ style enums, use of enum class/ enum struct) */ /* C++ permits forward enum declaration with type specified */ enum FRUIT : int; enum VEGGIE : short; enum FRUIT /* As I understand it, these are ints */ { APPLE, ORANGE, }; enum VEGGIE /* As I understand it, these are shorts */ { CARROT, TURNIP, }; 
Complicating things even further, I've also seen the following syntax:
/* What the heck is an enum class anyway? When should I use them */ enum class THING { THING1, THING2, THING3 }; /* And if classes and structs are interchangable (minus assumptions * about default access specifiers), what does that mean for * the following definition? */ enum struct FOO /* Is this even valid syntax? */ { FOO1, FOO2, FOO3 }; 
Given that enumerated types greatly improve code readability, I've been trying to wrap my head around all this. When should I be using the various language constructs? Are there any pitfalls in a given method?

When to use POD structs (a-la C style) versus a class implementation?

If I had to take a stab at answering this question, my intuition would be to use POD structs for passing aggregate types (as in function arguments) and using classes for interface abstractions / object abstractions as in the example below:
struct aggregate { unsigned int related_stuff1; unsigned int related_stuff2; char name_of_the_related_stuff[20]; }; class abstraction { private: unsigned int private_member1; unsigned int private_member2; protected: unsigned int stuff_for_child_classes; public: /* big 3 */ abstraction(void); abstraction(const abstraction &other); ~abstraction(void); /* COPY semantic ( I have a better grasp on this abstraction than MOVE) */ abstraction &operator=(const abstraction &rhs); /* MOVE semantic (subtle semantics of which I don't full grasp yet) */ abstraction &operator=(abstraction &&rhs); /* * I've seen implentations of this that use a copy + swap design pattern * but that relies on std::move and I realllllly don't get what is * happening under the hood in std::move */ abstraction &operator=(abstraction rhs); void do_some_stuff(void); /* member function */ }; 
Is there an accepted best practice for thsi or is it entirely preference? Are there arguments for only using classes? What about vtables (where byte-wise alignment such as device register overlays and I have to guarantee placement of precise members)

Is there a best practice for integrating C code?

Typically (and up to this point), I've just done the following:
/* Example 5 : Linking a C library */ /* Disable name-mangling, and then give the C++ linker / * toolchain the compiled * binaries */ #ifdef __cplusplus extern "C" { #endif /* C linkage */ #include "device_driver_header_or_a_c_library.h" #ifdef __cplusplus } #endif /* C linkage */ /* C++ code goes here */ 
As far as I know, this is the only way to prevent the C++ compiler from generating different object symbols than those in the C header file. Again, this may just be ignorance of C++ standards on my part.

What is the proper way to selectively incorporate RTTI without code size bloat?

Is there even a way? I'm relatively fluent in CMake but I guess the underlying question is if binaries that incorporate RTTI are compatible with those that dont (and the pitfalls that may ensue when mixing the two).

What about compile time string formatting?

One of my biggest gripes about C (particularly regarding string manipulation) frequently (especially on embedded targets) variadic arguments get handled at runtime. This makes string manipulation via the C standard library (printf-style format strings) uncomputable at compile time in C.
This is sadly the case even when the ranges and values of paramers and formatting outputs is entirely known beforehand. C++ template programming seems to be a big thing in "modern" C++ and I've seen a few projects on this sub that use the turing-completeness of the template system to do some crazy things at compile time. Is there a way to bypass this ABI limitation using C++ features like constexpr, templates, and lambdas? My (somewhat pessimistic) suspicion is that since the generated assembly must be ABI-compliant this isn't possible. Is there a way around this? What about the std::format stuff I've been seeing on this sub periodically?

Is there a standard practice for namespaces and when to start incorporating them?

Is it from the start? Is it when the boundaries of a module become clearly defined? Or is it just personal preference / based on project scale and modularity?
If I had to make a guess it would be at the point that you get a "build group" for a project (group of source files that should be compiled together) as that would loosely define the boundaries of a series of abstractions APIs you may provide to other parts of a project.
--EDIT-- markdown formatting
submitted by aWildElectron to cpp [link] [comments]

85 90% guaranteed free strategy 2020 binary options Binary Options- Powerful Trend Following System The Best Binary Options Trading System With 90% ITM [GUARANTEED] - BinaryXray.com 100% Guaranteed 1 Minutes Binary Trading ADX Signal Binary ... Binary Options Software Review - YouTube Binary Options Strategy 2020  100% WIN GUARANTEED ... 60 Seconds binary options strategy 99 - 100% Winning (100% ... Binary Options Strategy 2018 - 99% WIN GUARANTEED - How to ...

For this reason, we do not trust Free Money Guaranteed as a reliable trading system. ... Binary option trading on margin involves high risk, and is not suitable for all investors. As a leveraged product losses are able to exceed initial deposits and capital is at risk. Before deciding to trade binary options or any other financial instrument you should carefully consider your investment ... MarketersMEDIA / Newsroom / Meet the first 100% fair binary options system with the guaranteed token growth! Meet the first 100% fair binary options system with the guaranteed token growth! Share This Press Release. BAEX is a 100% transparent, fair, self-balancing binary options trade platform. In this article you will know what the BAEX self-balancing pool of option liquidity, BAEX token and ... Guaranteed Outcome. Guaranteed outcome is another free binary options trading system. The team that put together this software claim that you can make $10,000 a week using their software which means you can make almost $500,000 a year. The system sends between 6 and 12 binary option signals per day. The sending is done by email and SMS and the success rate is 75%. The cost is 97 USD per month and has 60 days of guarantee or satisfaction of money. Visit the Binary Options Pro Signals website. 4 – Auto Binary Signals – This system also works through a software that sends binary option signals. This software uses 5 ... Guaranteed Money System is a scam binary options software that claims that you will earn millions of dollars in the very first month of using it. If you are thinking about getting into binary option trading, keep reading because I will tell you why you should absolutely avoid them. Everything Is Fake . I would just like to point out that literally everything about his program is completely ... Top binary option brokers like IQ Option often provide an intuitive dashboard that helps you trade with more informed decisions. Factors that Impact Trading Risk. While binary options trading is generally safe, it’s also important to consider various risk factors. With a volatile market, there are numerous issues that influence the movement of commodities and stock prices. If the safety of ... It is one of the best binary option brokers in South Africa. They claim to be one of the fastest growing online trading platforms, with over 25 million members to date. Their services include forex trading, stock trading, and ETF trading. There are binary options brokers too. They have over 10 million digital options on which you can trade. You engage in the binary options trade by speculating ... If using this system, the Binary Option Robot will decrease trading amounts after a losing trade and increase trading amounts after a successful trade. No matter which system the user chooses to have the Binary Option Robot use in placing its trades, they are all proven to be highly effective. The Binary Option Robot is also one of the only truly 100% automated trading software programs and it ... After a thorough investigation, we have concluded that Angela Stevens’ ’Guaranteed Money System’ software is a scam and below is the proof to validate our statement. Our intention of publishing this report is to help people avoid falling into a trap created by sleazy affiliate marketers specializing in financial fraud. The scam has worked for Guaranteed Profit Accurate Signal For Binary Option. From the example, you can see two signals. Franco’s Binary Options Trading Signals Binary options trading signals true binary option signals that are communicated to you via email with guaranteed profit accurate signal for binary option the aim of increasing your ability to profit from trades Mar 22, 2019 · A binary option is a financial ...

[index] [4375] [23438] [27096] [8965] [10442] [8454] [12128] [17645] [22615] [28125]

85 90% guaranteed free strategy 2020 binary options

Best trading platform: http://bit.ly/BINOMO_TRADING_PLATFORM Click the Link and get $1000 on demo account for free Use the promo code: PWT777 Indicator downl... The aim of this video is to teach you how to become profitable in Binary options and earn money without falling in the scam. It is No loss style. You will always make profit at the end of the day ... Check out my full report: https://1drv.ms/w/s!Ai1w6Y4I97CohABDiRDpQgIZuqIL Check out Binary Options Edge: http://www.binaryoptionsedge.com/index.php? Hey eve... Binary Options Software generates trading signals and automatically executes the trades direct to your linked broker account. robot binary option binary opti... The road to success through trading IQ option Best Bot Reviews Iq Option 2020 ,We make videos using this softwhere bot which aims to make it easier for you t... The road to success through trading IQ option Best Bot Reviews Iq Option 2020 ,We make videos using this softwhere bot which aims to make it easier for you t... Instagram of Apni Kaksha : https://www.instagram.com/apnikaksha/ Telegram of Apni Kaksha : https://t.me/apnikakshaofficial Notes of this video : https://driv... about binary options,about options trading,any option,best binary option,best binary options,binaries options,binary call option,binary option,binary option charts,binary option daily,binary ... 60 Seconds binary options strategy 99 - 100% Winning (100% profit guaranteed) 90 - 95% Winning Binary Options Strategy in case of correct prediction - 1 to 5...

http://binary-optiontrade.satihitsconderwver.ml