arcane

(1) Unused assets is a somewhat likely assumption but nevertheless an assumption. Will you and others step up, be honest, stop beating around the bush, and plainly state “I do want to see *some* names ‘stolen’ from players that will return if it means access to the genuinely unused assets.” (2) The “limit” on names is almost incomprehensibly large. We’ll still be working on claiming the first 1% of possible names for a long time, in fact.

Everyone needs endurance reduction. Only work in endmod if thebasics are covered. And even then, I’d rather do acc/dam/endred/procs (elec procs can do some fun things in particular!).

All of the EAT’s are down there for a perfectly legitimate reason completely unrelated to balance. You need a grand total of one of each EAT to experience everything possible within that EAT. You need hundreds of other AT’s to do the same. If you broke this down to powerset combos instead of AT, EATs would actually be at the top of the list, but again, that would mean absolutely nothing relevant to balance. TL;DR graph literally does not support your point.

Seems a little exaggerated

Well they may be plenty good as is (my experience says they’re awesome as is, yes) but IMO it would even still look better if they just moved something VEAT’s can already do into their inherent and call it a day - because the people like inherents. Doesn’t even need more recovery/regeneration, just ANYTHING that makes its inherent even NOTICEABLE.

This is hilarious (because it’s clearly satire at this point right?)

Sonic Blast should really just get the whole orchestra

No thanks, personally. Those sets (like all blasters) completely trivialize endurance and I think that should stay a pro/con item rather than a global power creep item. It gives a little extra character to the different sets too. For instance, someone was recently observing how weak Ice’s DDR is, and I pointed out how things even out when you account for my Ice armor being able to use Ageless Radial while my SR and Shield are stuck with Ageless Core. Likewise, sets that would normally be overpowered, like Storm Summoning, are brought in line by their dependence in on great recovery. IOW endurance is relevant to the balance conversation, and we shouldn’t arbitrarily throw recovery all over the place. Unless you are ready to accept nerfs to all the sets you give new recovery tools to now. Like Dark Armor. Endurance is the only thing keeping that one in check. All this being said, VEATS should get a boost to their inherent in some form because it’s currently the most negligible and pointless inherent.

Would you hurry up and rock my world 😀

+1 to guitar blast.

Read again

How gracious of you to design a policy to benefit yourself at the expense of others and then *gasp* agree to it. Very noble.

You need more than a “strong possibility that lots of wanted names are sitting in [currently] inactive accounts” to justify just seizing all the stuff on their accounts. Just be grateful some of us care about your claims to your own stuff more than you care about a single one of us. Such principles might wind up working in your favor one day.

There’s a vast world of words between the simplicity of “Super Boy” and the gobbledygook of “QZ3#%7G” you seem to be neglecting. I suggest speaking to the Name Assistance Brigade. TBH the fact you got a name like “Metal Ninja” on any of the 5 servers is evidence to me that we’ve barely begun to scratch the surface as far as available names go.

Yep, I find most names I try (surely >90%) aren’t taken as long as I put on my anti-obvious cap (don’t waste time trying “Lady Fire” or “Ice Man”).

If you’re implying we should consider taking names from level 50’s, you’re going far beyond the proposed policy we know about. A little too far to negotiate with.

Eh, I was more getting at “no evidence the people with a problem will even be appeased”.

We would probably still get threads asking to expand the policy for as long as some people don’t get every name they want.

Munitions Mastery is pretty good tbh. Body Armor is what it is. Cryo Freeze Ray can be a proc bomb attack. Surveillance is awesome. LRM is fine as a filler nuke if you proc bomb it. Skip Sleep. I have it on at least two of my blasters and enjoy it.

I would personally rather stick +Res where it’s reliable (Jab’s proc rate is way too low). I try to put that where it’s going to have a 90% proc rate. It’s more valuable and reliable as a proc than the absorb one, so I usually don’t bother trying to get the absorb off at all unless I can just put both procs in a damage aura. At 6 PPM and with added recharge enhancement, the absorb may not even go off at 90% in KO Blow. For the most part, I wouldn’t even use my T1 as a Tanker.

Yes, this is the crux of the debate. I just happen to lean far towards the side of something like “current ownership probably trumps the possibility of future ownership as far as rights and stuff are concerned”.

I’m not saying you can’t pick a rule of thumb time period like that. I’m only saying you’re just plain lying if you think you’re going to avoid doing harm with a rule like that. People WILL come back outside of those bounds, and if you create that rule, you WILL seize names of players that aren’t actually gone for good. I couldn’t care less what the exact time period you pick is. One year, two years, it won’t change a thing. I prefer the “Never” solution because it is the only “Do No Harm” solution available at this point.

If you think you’re innocent of belittling people in this thread, we aren’t going to be capable of communicating any further, I’m afraid.

No time period would be allow you to declare that officially, unless the party in question dies or something. Therefore, you have two options: (1) leave people alone or (2) go ahead and step on some toes. The option I don’t like is (3) go ahead and step on some toes but gaslight people about it by claiming there’s nothing selfish or potentially harmful to that.

Absolutely. What proof have you provided that a player has no intention of utilizing something though? As I already mentioned, time away from the game does not reliably constitute proof that the player will never play again.