(10-09-2016, 12:28 PM)Mr. Anderson Wrote:(10-09-2016, 12:22 PM)CatMan Wrote:(10-09-2016, 12:16 PM)Weichi Wrote:(10-09-2016, 11:45 AM)CatMan Wrote: It's strange to see such resistance to healing modules, especially since they are short circuiting in nature when not needed, so they literally aren't impeding you in any way. This could all just be them trying to resist dealing with whatever they have buried underneath, though.
Unless those modules don't short circuiting and Shannon want to check that.
Then V2.3 would've been a step forward in results, but it wasn't. So it seems the test was already done and feedback showed they weren't in the way. And the reason V2.2 failed was because of a discovered script error, not the healing modules. They were red herrings. So I just feel this test would be redundant, and am hesitant to go off the healing benefits of V2.4 due to that is all.
There are two points which would make 2.5 interesting. First, the advanced technology in comparison to 2.3, which might help with reaching the goal even with some things to clear left. Second, most users did run 2.4 for about a month (and more than a month until release). So this could have been enough healing for some to see at least some kind of results.
But if there has been enough healing taking place for V2.4 to work, then it would be working, negating the need for V2.5. And again, the healing modules short circuit when not needed, so they aren't impeding progress towards the goal. If they were getting in the way, then V2.3 would have been shown as a big step forward in performance, from V2.4, but it wasn't.
I don't know, no matter how you slice it, especially since the no healing modules version was already made and shown to not be a step forward, I'm not sure what the benefit is here. Seems to make more sense in making sure V3.0.1 is lights out, and a major step forward, rather than rehashing an already done test. Maybe another month of V2.4 will show more at this point.
