biostem

Didn't notice this one before. Great design!

For me, the hardest part is not revisiting the same color schemes that I find to "work" best in the CoH engine, but it can be difficult at times, (particularly if you want to use lighter colors without looking like some 2 year old's attempt at decorating Easter eggs)...

I know tankers get better defense/resist values from their armors, but does that extend to regeneration and/or healing? Maybe give them a variation of the old instant healing toggle power?

Funnily enough, IIRC, the larger Banished Pantheon Lore pet also does that "360 degree waist rotation" animation...

You sow that FUD! I'm sure it'll help things out, just like how eliminating multi-boxing will suddenly get those people to team with you... And for the record, I myself do not dual-box.

Forced teaming will not foster camaraderie, and CoH has always been a stand-out with how it is mostly solo-friendly...

FWIW, the issue seems to be, (from what little I know), that MMs were kind of kludged together to get them to work on whatever timetable the OG devs had to add the AT, so the issue isn't necessarily about whether you're using 4-legged models or humanoid ones; It's not that your or the OP's suggestion doesn't have merit - it's that it'd be a huge undertaking...

I interpret it as meaning that your points should be amplified...

I could see a place for a positional defense armor toggle, but maybe in another, new APP - like perhaps a "Ninja Mastery" APP that gives a shuriken throw, a couple katana attacks, danger sense, etc...

To add to this, I actually find it more offensive when someone tries to sugar-coat what they actually want to say, instead of just being upfront and honest...

In general, I agree, but the issue, IMHO, arises due to one person's tolerance for "shenanigans" vs that of others, and whether we should be lowering the age-appropriateness of discussion to their desired level, or whether a more mature one should be fostered...

It's funny how none of the discussion wants to place the onus on those starting new threads/topics to do any due diligence on their part; It's always about not liking someone else's response to said threads. How about this: If you don't want to face or just can't handle possible push-back or criticism of your ideas, don't post them online, and that goes double if you aren't prepared to defend your ideas besides "I want X"...

Intent does matter, and once there is an objective, independently verifiable way of determining what is mean spirited vs what is tongue-in-cheek or just banter, then a certain level of "thick skin" is to be expected from anyone conversing online. You are fully within your right to block/ignore someone whom you personally do not like or just don't want to hear from - empower yourself!

This would be a great way to achieve a non-tech asymmetrical look! Regarding the tights option - how would you hand that? Would you draw from the existing torso patterns and somehow clip out the section only for that 1 upper arm, or do you mean extending the pattern from the already selected torso option/pattern?

A few AI-enhanced versions of "RadActor":

Bless you!

Should... should we be concerned? Still, you raise good points!

There are some face options that don't exhibit this behavior, but those generally aren't skin, either. I could be misremembering, but doesn't this have to do with how colors on skin are treated as an addition of the color, instead of being applied over/on top of, the skin? Conjecture aside, yes, I'd like my chosen face color to actually reflect, y'know, the actual color I selected, so agreed!?

I don't know how feasible this would be to implement, but I was thinking it'd be really cool if there was an optional setting that would replace the defeat animation for human/living enemies, where they go into some generic "Apprehended" pose, then a "teleported out" animation would play instead of the normal fading away. Mechanically, nothing would change, so powers that target defeated enemies would work just like they do now; This would be a purely aesthetic change...

And in a formal setting, with real-time moderation, I'd agree that absolutely no name calling should be permitted. That being said, this is an internet forum for a video game, where trash-talking and playful banter are to be expected. We are, supposedly, all adults here, so if someone cannot handle the potential for some less-than-neighborly recourse, then maybe their ideas can't stand the scrutiny. It criticism of one's idea(s) can so easily be refuted, then do that when presented with "Your idea is dumb because of reason X". If you present a bad idea, how that is called out shouldn't be as important as why it's dumb, and if that "why" is presented in a coherent manner, then that's where the discussion should stop. It's like a driver of a car being upset because they didn't like how you pointed out to them that they were going the wrong way or something... if they hadn't gone the wrong way, there wouldn't have been a reason for you to yell at them in the first place.

So you don't think an idea could be dumb, even if the person isn't? Can't it be said that even the smartest of people do stupid things at least once in their life? You are literally critiquing someone's character while complaining about others critiquing someone's character. Just responding with "this is dumb" or "you are dumb", without anything additional is, I agree, rather fruitless. Saying "This idea is dumb and here's why", is perfectly valid.

Whenever you designate an "us vs them" dichotomy, you, by necessity, "other" that other group. My point isn't so much that it is always a bad thing, more where the line is, and when do we say, for instance, "OP, your point has been refuted. Let's close this thread". My reasoning is that some topics that get posted are also just met with indifference while others repeatedly spark heated debate, so perhaps it isn't a matter of "othering", but rather that certain topics have been beaten to death, so instead of triggering another forum battle, just say "It's already been discussed ad nauseum, so check out those other threads instead of riling folks up"...

Isn't this antagonizing and othering those that disagree with you, though? Just how thickly or thinly veiled are we going to get, here?

Indeed. Not giving useful feedback for a moderation action doesn't help that person to learn or adjust their behavior. Along with that is clear limits or boundaries; Is calling an idea dumb the same as calling the person who suggested it, dumb? If someone thinks they have a really good idea, but reasons are provided as to why said idea can't or won't be implemented enough to end that discussion? If not, just how many times must it be restated and countermanded before the proverbial case is closed?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and what you define as bullying actually isn't.