Rudra

Agreed. If I see something being weakened, then to me, it is a nerf. That a bandaid is also being provided to undo that means nothing to me. Especially when I have high confidence that said bandaid can't even exist. So I'll drop this. Coercive Persuasion's proc adds its own AoE confuse effect that has a chance to trigger. It does not change the slotted confusion power from ST to AoE, it adds its own AoE effect to the power. While adding an AoE taunt effect as a proc can actually happen in the game as opposed to changing a ST attack to AoE, you still run into the Scrappers now do everything a Brute can do just with slightly lower damage resist caps if powers that are intended to be ST can now be AoE even if only via added chance for AoE taunt effect on top of standard taunt effect. Especially if the ToHit/Accuracy is cranked as high as possible.

No, it is a nerf in that you are specifically asking to take away a function a power currently has. That you are also proposing an enhancement that most likely can't work in the game that will give that function back has nothing to do with the fact you are requesting a power be nerfed. And you still are not giving a reason why it even needs to be nerfed. Scrappers get a ST taunt effect because they need to be able to draw aggro to them as a melee AT and they also need to not be competing with Brutes and Tankers for that. We already have threads talking about how Brutes don't have a role and need to find one that doesn't have them stepping on either Scrapper or Tanker toes. And now you want to add an enhancement that lets Scrappers taunt groups of enemies like they are Brutes and Tankers, except with a much better recharge time on their taunt. You know what the difference between Brute Taunt and Scrapper Confront is if there is an enhancement to make Scrapper Confront AoE? Scrapper Confront will still have a base 3 second recharge to the Brute's 10 second recharge. That's it. Why bother playing a Brute any more since Scrappers can now even taunt like Brutes. And that is on the assumption that somehow your proposed enhancement can be made to turn a ST attack into an AoE since not even KB to KD procs actually change how the power works but instead reduce the effect of a function of that power low enough to act like another effect. And then the inevitable: we can turn one attack power, even if it does 0 damage on its own, into an AoE, so why can't we do the same to the other ST attack powers?

Exactly. Challenge and Provoke both used to be in the Presence pool. Challenge was a weaker version of Provoke. So effectively turning Provoke into Challenge makes it weaker. And that is a nerf. And you already know this because in your post you also say: And players complain about the Sudden Acceleration proc as is, decrying it as an enhancement tax. Which it isn't if players bother to slot more of the set. And here you are specifically proposing an enhancement tax to get back a power's current functionality in the name of applying a nerf you have already admitted you understand is one without giving any reason why the power should be nerfed in the first place. Oof. Fair point. Tell that to Challenge, which Pacify very specifically did that exact thing to. When Challenge was removed, players still had Provoke, which was a better version of the same power for all intents and purposes. Removing Pacify gives players like me what to have that power's function? (Edit: And please don't say a theoretical enhancement from a set that does not exist to change a taunt to a pacify that we both know given how the game works most likely can't even be made with that function anyway.)

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't necessarily see AOE taunt as objectively superior to single-target. What makes the ST Confront superior to Provoke is that when you use it against an enemy that enemy will then move towards your character for the next 12 seconds unless rooted by attack animations, you can use it every 3 seconds before any recharge considerations, and it is guaranteed to hit the target unless the target is a PC. Provoke gets target mobs' attention for 8.24 seconds so it has a shorter duration than Confront (let alone Taunt with its 20 second duration), does not get them to move towards you, and can miss the target even if you have a 1x1078% chance to hit because of the hit chance cap. The current advantage of Invoke Panic is that when you use it, for the next 8.344 seconds, every enemy within 20 feet (up to 10 targets) is too busy spending their time cowering in your presence to kill you. Handy for those times when you find yourself inside a building with no room to hover out of reach and the mobs are swarming you. So you are still talking about nerfing a power and not giving a reason why it needs to be nerfed. Edit again: I'm willing to bet you will never see these sets as presented because of how the final enhancements in them work. Even Contagious Confusion does not change a power from ST to AoE. It adds an AoE effect, but the power itself is not changed. How is an enhancement supposed to change how a power itself works? Procs add effects, they don't change the power itself. That added effect can be a global buff, an added damage effect, or other added effect, but it cannot change how the power itself works. That doesn't seem to be something the game engine can do.

Of course, number tweaking would be involved. I did also recognize that Challenge used to be part of this pool, so if the changes are so substantial that it should be renamed/replaced back to that power, by all means. Definitely don't just remove the AOE component, nerfing it. I'll edit that into the OP. Why though? Why do you want to nerf a power that is already not as good as the Primary/Secondary AT equivalents? Intimidate already is a ST power.

As someone who takes powers from the Presence pool and uses Pacify (mostly on Blasters), I oppose the request to take away a power I am using. Provoke lacks the move to power user effect that Confront and Taunt have, has less range than Confront or Taunt, requires a ToHit check even for mobs rather than just players like Confront and Taunt, and takes 3 times longer to recharge than the ST Confront (being equal to the Tanker's Taunt for recharge). If Provoke is made into a ST power, absolutely no one will take it. (And I would respec out of it for it now being worthless to me.) (Edit: I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the reason why Challenge was replaced with Pacify was because given the choice of a ST taunt effect and an AoE taunt effect, no one took the ST version.)

Because MMs were never the red side tanks. Just like Brutes were not the red side Scrappers. And your own comment shows that MMs were never meant as a tanking class. However, that is still a tangential discussion to the thread.

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.