Rudra

This is the only part I care about. I'm fine with after the event going in and deleting temp powers, but the keep adding icons to more trays part is very annoying.

Enhancements not slotted in powers or held in the enhancement trays at the end of a respec are not sold. They are deleted.

In that case, the player is best served by backing out of the respec, it won't consume the respec token if (s)he/they do, and selling off the enhancements in their trays they don't need before doing the respec. Otherwise, that player is likely going lose enhancements via deletion. I appreciate you trying to cover worst case scenarios, but that one just needs to be resolved differently than by simply doing a respec as is. Edit: For clarification, please note that I am not opposing the OP or the other suggestions provided in this thread.

True, it does reach a point where the scroll bar is removed. (Edit: Though at the point at which the scroll bar went away, I didn't need it any more.) However, if it is removed for certain resolutions, then that is a bug that needs to be reported and fixed. I just went into the game and respec'ed a level 50 (which I then backed out of when I was done checking), and on my screen, there was a scroll bar and it did scroll the enhancement storage window so I could peruse and select any enhancements I wanted. Edit again: Huh, you edited in the time it took me to log back in to respond, so I have your edited post as my quote rather than the post I was responding to.... (Edit yet again: Sorry, I'm delusional and failed to read that part of your post that I was responding to when I re-read it. The part I was responding to is still there.) However, again, if the game is erroneously detecting it no longer needs the scroll bar when it still does, that is a bug that should be reported and fixed.

You can see 48 enhancements in the window during a respec. And there is a scroll bar on the right side.

Which is unfortunate. I liked Kitsulot a great deal, but that's one more lost from this Great Community. Author was asked to give it a rest for a while, not go away. Author agreed to give it a rest for a while, didn't say was going away. I think you are misreading the situation.

You can just download the game code and run it. There have been multiple threads that included instructions on how to do so.

There was a comment about the time when CoV was released about MMs being intended as villain side tanks because it was expected the enemies would spend all their time fighting the pets rather than going after the MM, but that comment never made sense and it never came from a dev as best I can remember. I heard it from players trying to explain the (at the time) new ATs. I have never heard of MMs being considered Scrapper equivalents, because that was held for Stalkers. (And was a large complaint at the time about Stalkers for their planned crits rather than just getting crits.) The only official comment I ever saw about MMs was that MMs were the villain pet class. Not the Tanker equivalent or the Scrapper equivalent, but a whole new concept that focused exclusively on pets. And the way the AT worked, that comment made sense. MMs never worked as off-tanks or pseudo-Scrappers, at least not until after Bodyguard Mode was added, and I only ever heard players claim that was their purpose, never the devs. And yes, Bodyguard Mode was added after, but that was in response to players complaining that mobs would consistently ignore their pets and just rapidly kill them, making them feel like the AT wasn't really playable except with a team to protect them. (Edit: So Bodyguard Mode wasn't added to fix MMs failing to be tanks as designed, but to fix that for too many players MMs struggled with basic survival because mobs preferred to ignore the pets.) Edit again: Oh, and as far as MMs originally being designed to be Tankers or their equivalent? That runs face first into the fact that not a single MM pet has any means of taunting enemies. And without the ability to taunt, until Bodyguard Mode was added, the pets had zero ability to actually protect the MM, let alone anyone else with the MM. And that should have been evident even in beta testing. (Especially when you see just how much squishier MM pets are compared to Controllers and Dominators.)

Once you get a contact, that contact stays active until you complete that contact's content or you out-level that contact. So if you get Dr. Steffard as a contact and then you go do Interrogator Kang's Cutter Cain arc, Dr. Steffard is removed from the zone via phasing for your character because you had him arrested, but you did not complete Dr. Steffard's arc or out-level him, so he remains an active contact. Just an active contact you can't do anything with because you had him removed. (Edit: Dr. Steffard is still standing there ready and waiting to give you his missions. He is simply phased out for your character for having completed the Cutter Cain arc.)

If the devs agree, then sure, sounds interesting. I'm against taking taunts away from Brutes. I don't enjoy playing Tankers. I do enjoy playing Brutes. And a Brute's taunt is an AoE effect that forces mobs to move closer to my Brute and that I can use nearly at will to yank enemies off my friends when we play together. Nerfing Brute taunts so that you can only use it when you have 80% or higher Fury, even as a damaging ranged attack, takes that away. Worse, you are adding an attack that can only be used when the character has 80% or higher Fury. And every time you finally get to use it, it drops your Fury. This would just put Brutes into the unfortunate position of being compared to Scrappers, Tankers, and Blasters Sentinels, rather than just Scrappers and Tankers.

All hat options have a single attached hair for them. Regardless of whether male, female, or huge model character. Because each hat comes with its own specific hair. We can't mix and match hair and hats because of how hats and hair in the game works. Each hat has a single assigned hair choice to make sure our hats aren't floating somewhere over our heads or have parts of the hair's model jutting out of the hat in weird ways. When you make a selection on the menu, such as choosing face 22 on the Standard head choices, it is not applied to any other menu choice. So when you then change over to say Hats for the head choices, you have not made any selections yet on that menu, so everything is still at default.

So long as they either all share the same cooldown so getting more than 1 choice doesn't give added uses between recharges or the character can only have 1 version, I'm fine with multiple versions being available if the devs are willing to make them for us.

Treating other members of the community like literal children is part of the problem. Adults engage in bad behavior too. And if the community rewards them for it, the adults engage in more of it. Treating people like children has nothing to do with my comment.

Never reward bad behavior. It just encourages it more.

They did not respond to my response, and I consider that unsatisfactory. They explained their points and I countered them. If you think that there's nothing more to be said then you're probably better off doing anything else with your time than posting to tell me I'm wasting my time when it's probably pretty clear that's not going to sway me. The devs have zero obligation to respond to anything. You actually got a response. Most of us never do. You even got a reason behind that response. From multiple individuals with "dev" or "council" in their name displays. Of those that get dev responses, that is pretty much unheard of. The devs don't come into the forums looking to debate us. They come into the forums to see what we are debating and only if there is no other recourse do they directly involve themselves. The devs have given their response and even given you more of a response than they normally give when they do respond. It doesn't matter if you find them not responding to your response to their response to be unsatisfactory. They don't even usually respond on the threads they start unless there is a definitive need to. And telling others to move on rather than stay involved tells the devs that even your comment that you will discuss the topic with them cordially and respectfully if only they would just engage with you in private messages or other discourse isn't meant.

Except the devs did give you a response and the devs explained why. Your incapability or unwillingness to accept the response, denying it addresses the underlying issues it was obviously meant to address, comes across as "That was the wrong answer, devs. Now give me the correct one."

@Kistulot, at this point, my recommendation to you is to take a step back and give yourself time to grieve. You can always re-engage after.

Then please let me ask you this without you getting offended. How is anyone supposed to know what anyone else knows? There have been many instances where someone made a post/suggestion without knowing that what was being asked for already exists. For instance, I didn't even know there was a "Fallen but not Forgotten" forum until the first time a memorial discussion came up simply because I don't bother exploring the forums. Or the number of times players ask for things to be added to the game itself that already are in the game, but they needed to be shown where it was or how to make it using what is available in the game for the purpose of making that request and others that use those elements. I can't speak for others, but while there seems to be a trend of others viewing my approach to posts as being insulting, my approach to dealing with someone and their request is to do so from the perspective that the individual may either not know such a thing exists or is unaware that something is/was being done about it or that it has already been ruled out for various reasons. Add to that for when alternate options are suggested for the request but the author and his/her/their allies refuse to accept such alternatives because it is not specifically what the author and his/her/their allies want. And how often those alternatives are suggested specifically to be as all-encompassing as possible and not alienate or step on others, simply to see responses that insist on stepping on others because only what the author and his/her/their allies want matters regardless of how it may affect others.

Just because you don't like what a person has to say does not mean that person is being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative or that the person is arguing in bad faith or that the person's arguments are wrong.

Depending on the tools they have, it may as well be making a new animation. Not going to argue against alternate animations for things though.

What does the number of posts a player has made have to do with anything?

Sure, sounds good to me. The only problem is that the animation times don't line up. For instance, Boxing has a 1.07 second cast time and Storm Kick has a 0.83 second cast time. And I'm not seeing anything where the times line up for any of them. However, if the devs are willing to make alternate animations for the Fighting pool, I would welcome it.

The GMs don't keep track of everything the devs or the players post. So if you were directed on Discord to submit a ticket in game, and the ticket is something the responding GM cannot handle himself/herself/themselves, the GM will direct the player to post a bug report or a suggestion on the forums. It isn't their job to keep abreast of everything the devs have decided or implemented. Most GMs are just other players that have been granted greater in game permissions to help resolve in game issues we may encounter. On the forums, the GMs try to stay out of our discussions as much as possible unless someone is engaging in troll behavior, our disputes get out of hand, or some other activity requires their intervention. The discussions themselves are left to us players. If a GM or a player knows a dev/game policy that may be relevant to the discussion, we will normally provide that data. The devs do their best to stay out of our discussions, though they do read the forum posts, unless they feel they need to be involved. This lets them get a feel for how their policies are being received and see how the player base active on the forums approach whatever the topic of discussion is. That is not the devs choosing to ignore us.

That's what the "Fallen but not Forgotten" forum is for. Is to be a memorial to our fallen players and let others be able to read up about them.

Players making memorial bases is fine. Pretty sure no one is going to oppose that. The concern comes up in a more game established memorial. People are going to be left out. That is inevitable. Just like I'm sure, but have no proof, that there are players that passed that didn't make it to the "Fallen but not Forgotten" forum. Then there is the consideration that people are going to want their memorials for others to be in specific locations and done specific ways. There is going to be a push for more well known players to be more prominently featured. And all those come together in a massive problem. The memorial request thread that prompted this thread involves a player on a server I play on pretty exclusively, and I still have no clue who that person was. (To @Kistulot, that isn't something that should hurt. I'm sorry for your loss, but no one can be known by everyone. It isn't a comment against the person that passed, it's simply a statement of how big the community itself is.) Adding a memorial NPC or plaque to the game will show up on all the servers, and what are the players on those other servers going to think? Unless those players are privy to what is going, they won't have a clue who this new NPC is, but they will be wondering why this new NPC isn't doing anything for them in the game. And in the very slim chance that they also have someone they lost in the game on their server that they wanted immortalized in the same place, what should they get told? Adding a plaque is less confusing, but is more work and still leaves the question on those other servers of "who are they talking about, is there some game lore I missed or will be released soon?". There is a reason why real life memorials tend to be family and friends only, not open invitation to the city. And as our aging player base progresses, there are going to be more and more such memorial NPC/plaque requests. How do we deal with all those too? Say players get plaques instead of NPCs. Will those plaques be consolidated in a mausoleum? How would those plaques be arranged? What about less known players getting memorial plaques first due to unfortunate events and now better known players are hidden away further back in the mausoleum? How big would this mausoleum need to be to house all the players that will find themselves being requested to be memorialized within over time and what happens when you reach or near capacity? How would those plaques even be arranged within the mausoleum and how much information will they have? How will that information be accessed? Popups take up less space because you can just use a generic plaque with maybe the player's name as the interface to open the popup, but fitting more information on the plaque will become progressively more cumbersome. What information would even be included as part of the memorial plaque? How would that information be presented so that it means something to the reader? Would each server have its own wing in the mausoleum since every server will have the exact same mausoleum, or will the mausoleum simply mix all the names regardless of server played on? And all this is just with something as simple and space-saving as plaques. Using NPCs is so much more complicated and takes up so much more space in the game. And on top of that, who would be responsible for keeping the memorials up to date for those that have fallen?