llihP

It seems like the Brave built-in adblocker is breaking the site, not uBlock. Strangely, it seems like jQuery is being disabled for some reason. The error that seems to be repeated in console is: Uncaught ReferenceError: $ is not defined This is a common error when jQuery is using the $ symbol, but jQuery cannot be found. Which makes sense, as everything that is suddenly no longer working would be linked to JS. If uBlock is disabled, it's still broken. If you disable Brave's built in Adblocker by clicking this icon: https://i.imgur.com/mvF0SZC.png Then it works again. Edit: Submitted a report, it seems to be working now

Hey there. I'm not sure if a mod like this exists already, I did try searching. One thing I find odd about combat with essential characters around, is that no matter what, they will always eventually win. There could be 200 super mutants armed to the teeth, but they all have finite HP, and so one essential character (eg: Kessler in Bunker hill) will eventually win no matter what. This is due to the fact that she continually falls down and gets back up to fight. Mod request: Is there a way to make it so knocked down characters are forced to stay knocked down until combat has finished? It'd be great in conjunction with survival / realism mods. Thanks Edit: Nevermind, found one: Essential KO at Fallout 4 Nexus - Mods and community (nexusmods.com)

In response to post #81916563. #81983618, #81987858, #81991703, #82015728, #82059653, #82072108 are all replies on the same post. I literally coded the button you just used to reply to me. I also created games in the early 2000s, for free, totaling over 40 million downloads (combined). They were 'stolen' many times over the years, particularly by ad-driven websites and Android developers. I made nothing. I don't care. Don't presume to know who people are because you checked a profile. Nothing you said refutes your lack of understanding. The people in question offer a valuable service and are more than entitled to compensation if that's the way they want to do things.

In response to post #81916563. #81983618, #81987858, #81991703, #82015728 are all replies on the same post. 'Packing them together'. An oversimplification if I ever saw one. The time and effort required to create functioning most lists still seems to escape you for some reason. They aren't packaging mods as they are and selling them. They aren't simply packaging them together and calling it a day either. They are packaging mods in conjunction with custom patches (patches that can be classified as mods of their own) and load orders to ensure an automated experience that is hassle free. There are issues associated with maintaining these modpacks as well. Did the game just get an official update? There's more work they have to do. A mod in the list has been updated? Even more. A mod is updated with various new features that conflict with mod X, Y and Z? There's a tonne of additional work. If 'packing them together' is the grand sum of your understanding, then clearly you don't understand what these people are doing at all.

In response to post #81916563. #81983618, #81991703, #82015728 are all replies on the same post. You make it sound as if making a bunch of mods work properly requires no effort. Creating a functioning mod list on Wabbajack is a mammoth task when you incorporate multiple, complex mods. I know because I've tried. There's no easy way to do it. If this person isn't taking credit for creating the mods, then there's nothing wrong with putting a price on the time it takes to create a functioning mod pack. People are free to charge for their mods in the same way if they like, nothing's stopping them. In fact I recall paying Chesko years ago when he originally set up a patreon to help fund his mod development (before he had to take it down). I would also happily pay for working mod packs regardless of who is setting them up.

In response to post #73693328. It's the mobile/tablet media query kicking in WAY too early

In response to post #68428951. #68515796, #68516156 are all replies on the same post. @dloader not just that. There are some PNG images (600x337) that are over 100kb (compressed, but still far too large). That could be 3 decently compressed JPGs. Display 100 of them on a page and it all adds up. There are much more efficient ways to be loading & displaying images for quicker page loads, less server load and less resources being used by users browsers. There is also a fair bit of 'concept code' that was made for prototype purposes that was never replaced. I don't want to sound rude (well, not too rude, though these things have been bugging me for a while and they don't seem to change) - but there is actually a lot of stuff that was never addressed that was supposed to have been sorted pre-launch. There are the new pages (and Vortex, the mother offender) that don't seem to be consistent with the current design in the least - fonts, colours, padding, margins, sizes, broken grids etc. The styling code is still a giant mess (should have been SASS'd). The JS (in various areas) isn't as efficient as it could be and needs addressing. I could go on about it at length, but yes the site definitely has a lot of unresolved issues. On another note - the best people for the job aren't going to be locals. I know it's a long standing requirement in these posts but you're essentially cutting out the vast majority of people who would be able to handle all of this and maintain it properly. I'm not trying to put my name up in any way shape or form - I don't even do this sort of work anymore - but with the amount of times it has been advertised now it seems like at the very least there's going to be some sort of compromise with candidates who are actually able to meet all of those requirements (including being able to work there locally).

In response to post #64794606. #64795211, #64795461, #64799211, #65095691, #65145656 are all replies on the same post. The Gray Quarter, obviously!

Congrats on the release But there are lots of issues and things that haven't been fixed or addressed that need attention. Old and new. I can't figure out why quite a few things that were sorted are now broken... odd. And prototype JS still being used when it needed to be rewritten :/

Congrats!

In response to post #46973515. #46981800 is also a reply to the same post. Agreed! The version they cancelled (the one that looked more like MGS4 and was slow paced) looked much more interesting. I felt like I needed to neck a case of energy drinks before starting MG: Rising.

In response to post #35105540. #35181295 is also a reply to the same post. All of those things are on different pages, this is the index page for the selected game and you're getting an overview of everything this child site contains. If you're here 'just for the news', you'd click 'news' and be taken to the news index where all you will see is news items.

In response to post #35138655. #35148170 is also a reply to the same post. Tags have been added

In response to post #34986585. Hello The tracking system has been revamped Things are now divided into categories (or not, you'll be able to turn them off) and can be sorted via names, versions, update date and a few other things. Being that you're a user with over 1k files tracked, do you mind if I get you to PM me some contact details? Perhaps your email, Steam ID or something? I've been wanting to talk to someone who tracks a large amount of files. Thanks

In response to post #34807265. #34809035, #34815305, #34840105 are all replies on the same post. As as ex-ad creator ( boooo! ) it's usually the lack of decent ad creation guidelines that lead to resource hogging ads. For example, some ad publishers have requirements such as "the ad must never use more than 5% of the CPU". ..what CPU? My watch CPU or my 5930k? It's arbitrary requirements such as this that lead to a lot of feral ads being let into the wild. It's been pretty bad for over a decade now, but it's definitely getting better, especially in the past 12 months or so with the shift from Flash driven ads to CSS based ads.

In response to post #34788035. For search result pages, yes, you can toggle between both block and flat views

In response to post #34721635. #34724495, #34739595, #34739755, #34746780, #34755530, #34757050, #34758760, #34770470, #34772730 are all replies on the same post. Hostility already, nice :) "with no knowledge of what our end displays it with" Apart from the usage data provided by the Nexus and google analytics. Before the project progressed to design, there was well over 100hrs of time spent studying and discussing the current site and making wireframes for the new one, which included discussion around max-widths. You can probably imagine how hard it is to have a serious conversation with those who glance at 1 layout (1 of over 30 layouts), with no other knowledge, and assume they know how it can all fit within an unlimited width browser window that needs to handle 7 different screen configurations. Each. In relation to what you're asking for, I'll request this again: At this point, since it seems like I'm repeating myself (^^^literally), I'll leave you with some sensible design advice to consider. You should also consider why other popular sites with millions of users cap their widths at one point or another, and why bootstrap (and the other most used frameworks) have capped layouts when it's quite easy to uncap them and go 100% width. Readability, usability, common sense. http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/14928/why-do-websites-not-use-entire-width-of-browser http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/3618/ideal-column-width-for-paragraphs-online http://blog.teamtreehouse.com/which-page-layout http://webdesign.tutsplus.com/articles/life-beyond-960px-designing-for-large-screens--webdesign-7348 "The empty areas of a screen lend focus to areas of content and help direct the user's eye. Don't eagerly fill whitespace just because you can." Feel free to provide anything to the contrary that cite relevant examples that could apply to the Nexus.

In response to post #34721635. #34724495, #34739595, #34739755, #34746780, #34755530, #34757050 are all replies on the same post. "Sorry, but that's rubbish. Newspapers are designed in sections and subsections, blocks and sub-blocks, etc, but taken as a whole they do span across the entire page." Correct. And this would mean every iteration of the site beneath this super wide version would need to contain these blocks and sub-blocks, and since you can only currently see the homepage, you couldn't possibly have any idea how much this would affect other pages and how they've been divided up. How many good examples of sites can you find that have Nexus-like content that span the full width of the browser and work nicely across a multitude of templates, responsively? With content divided up like a newspaper? There's a reason you won't find many, if any. There are are many implications beneath the surface of what you are suggesting, but it's not very practical when it comes to dealing with real world content. The content varies greatly, it's nowhere near as simple as you make it sound.

In response to post #34721635. #34724495, #34739595 are all replies on the same post. Here's one of the other 'few' reasons, I was talking about this the other night. Let me quote myself: "...scanning left to right with a width of 1400px is a bit much when reading. It's why you'll never find a newspaper with text spanning across each page for the full width..." And that was said after having designed a page with such a large width. If there's no limit in place, you're effectively leaving articles, result pages etc to the width of the browser, and I wouldn't exactly call looking from one end of my 27" monitor to the other the greatest experience, especially for reading. My neck would definitely be getting a swivel-like workout. If you look at Steam stats you'll also see that the vast majority of gamers are on 1080p or below. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey Then there's the cost effectiveness, how much you'd benefit from such a design, how such a design would work across all the templates, how practical it'd be and so on. At the end of the day it's not up to me, but there's more to consider than just the fact that ads will make use of this space that would otherwise be empty anyway. As I previously mentioned, at least it's easier to build upon now.

In response to post #34723145. #34723880, #34726020, #34726205, #34726395, #34729495, #34730205, #34730905, #34732815, #34735345, #34735525, #34736795, #34737030, #34737250 are all replies on the same post. You're going to have to point out these similarities to Windows 10, because I'm not seeing it. The new blue is only slightly different to the current blue you see here (on the 'reply' button, for example). The greys are exactly the same in places, and are only slightly changed in others. The site is still fixed width, unlike the modern trend of going full width, as the background image remains in place. The buttons are no longer rounded because nothing else (thumbnails etc) are rounded either, now they're consistent. If you're suggesting that the removal of a simple border-radius on a few elements is somehow pandering to Microsoft, that's pretty laughable. Things are bigger now, more obvious, visible, image based, and they fit within a responsive grid. That's not pandering to anybody, it's a design to help users better interact with the site. It has already been pointed out that Microsoft in no way pioneered the trend you're alluding to, and regardless, their implementation has always been poor. I'd suggest looking at why these sort of designs are common on responsive sites as well as making some proper comparisons.

In response to post #34714565. #34718485, #34720180, #34724595, #34724720, #34725835, #34730065 are all replies on the same post. "I have no idea why you'd want to look at this site on a mobile." Think of everything you can do on the site, then take away the ability to download mods or install NMM.

In response to post #34723145. #34723880, #34726020, #34726205, #34726395 are all replies on the same post. Masonry layouts were 'square' and image based well before Windows 10 (or 8, originally) had come out. The most recognisable one from back before W8 was released (2011-2012) would probably have been Pinterest. http://www.webappers.com/2011/12/29/15-great-examples-of-websites-using-jquery-masonry/ Microsoft popularised the concept because they screwed it up so royally for desktop PCs, plus their implementation was poor as a lot of tiles weren't given any context and a lot of it seemed arbitrary. If you also consider that many of the design elements that currently exist on this site, like thumbnails, mod result lists etc are already image based, you'll see that the primary difference is a shift of where the content sits - it's mostly over the top of the thumbnail now, alongside data that wasn't previously exposed and required an extra click/page load to see. Considering how vocal I was about how bad I thought the Windows 8 UI/UX was for desktop PCs all those years ago, I couldn't be any more opposed to making it like W8/8.1/10.

In response to post #34714565. #34718485, #34720180, #34724595, #34724720 are all replies on the same post. They bring down menus, yes

In response to post #34714565. #34718485, #34720180 are all replies on the same post. As the new design stands, it's very mobile/tablet friendly.

In response to post #34721635. The sides of the page have been left open like that for a few reasons, one of those is a requirement for ads that need to run in a side skin format. Since the site is build in a modular way, it's easy to build upon it later on for even wider screens if the need arises.