Rudra

Careful. There are some seriously anti-pop-up tray peeps out here. If you see torches and pitchforks? Hide.

You want it to stay an intangible effect? Then make it a toggle. Then it lasts for as long as you need it to or have the endurance to power it.

They never seem to miss me anyway, so, sure!

What inspiration has a longer duration than Tactics?!

I will never understand why so many games cling to the critical fail rule. Example: Target is helpless. (Affected by hold effect.) Your fire blaster puts his/her hand to the target's head to finish the target. Your fire blaster somehow fails to ignite his/her hand or suddenly decides to turn around and fire blast the wall behind him/her. (Congratulations, you rolled a 1. Or in game terms, the mandatory 5% miss chance got you.) You try again. You fail to ignite your hand again or you project the fire blast somewhere off to your right. Completely missing the helpless, utterly immobile target you literally put your hand on. (That pesky mandatory 5% miss chance triggered again.) After failing to ignite your hand or throwing your fire blast in a random direction away from the completely helpless target you are standing next to, you finally connect. (Streakbreaker kicked in.) Why?! Edit: That said, I am indifferent to the proposed change. I could see it on Aim since its purpose is to aim. Not so much on Build Up since its purpose is to build up power and unleash it. Just running off the power's names and primary effects. I would much rather that if you put in the effort to have a high accuracy, you get it. That is, take out the mandatory 5% miss chance. Edit again: That said, I no more see the miss chance going away than I see Aim being allowed to break it. Sorry. Just not going to happen.

Sure. This saves me the trouble of going back and respec'ing my characters. I'm fine with it staying skippably useless.

If Black Hole sucked targets towards it instead of making them untouchable, that would so be worth me taking it. As is, I always skip Black Hole as a power choice. (Besides, it makes sense. What does a black hole do? It sucks everything in its vicinity into itself.)

*tries to picture a pick axe used in the dual blades set* ... ... ... ... ... ... Uhm... how would you use an impaling weapon to perform the set's (highly unrealistic) slashing attacks? You can't perform the maneuvers in the set with an impaling weapon. Even the hook sword in the set can be used for slashing, and was actually. Every other weapon in the set is at least sword-like. The apocalyptic pruner may not be a slashing weapon, but it's design does lend itself to the animations. Maybe suggest a similar set based on impaling weapons instead? One that focuses on impaling animations like the Scrapyarders use?

Silliness abounds. Make it a spectral pirate MM set, and give the MM dark blast attacks. (Bear with me. Haven't slept in a while.)

Wouldn't it make more sense for the MM's personal attacks to use a revolver or cutlass?

Sure, but the very few tanks I've run also used their secondary's T1 as part of their attack chain at all levels. Edit: Hells, pretty much all my characters take their primary's T1 and T2 attacks, and keep them in the attack chain even at full incarnate. I don't get why people drop them. Whatevs. This is ancillary or not relevant to the topic, depending on how it is taken.

I must run some weird characters or need someone to guide me on proper play. If I choose a non-power pool attack, I use it in my attack chain. Even at God Level Incarnate.

Seriously? The player's enhancement gives the enemy a boost? So the proc is an anti-enhancement?

I agree with @TheZag. If I take a power because I have to in order to get access to another power I actually want, that requisite power only gets its initial enhancement slot. Why waste enhancement slots on something I will not use when I need those slots elsewhere?

Fixed. Definitely. That would solve probably half the problems with trying to fit a bio in the given space.

Don't know why you are /jranger'ing this. It doesn't change anything in game, it just gives more room for text in the character bio. And as someone who has written shortened bios, at less than 1,000 characters including spaces and punctuation to be safe in Word, and then copied/pasted it over to CoX only to find out I'm some number of characters past the 1,023 character limit because of how special characters like apostrophe are coded, this suggestion makes a LOT of sense to me. Especially since just typing in the bio window, you can watch the character count jump all over the place by as much as 5 when you add or delete a single character as you rewrite the bio to make it fit somehow. Edit: Change short to shortened.

Was going to add this as an edit... but I'll add it as a new post. If you want an event for Mercy, it makes more sense for the players to stop a Longbow invasion to take back Fort Darwin. The player took Fort Darwin back for Arachnos, but unwilling to give up any of their footholds in the Isles, Longbow launches another surprise invasion like they were described as doing to capture Fort Darwin in the first place. Now the villains have to rally to stop the invasion before all their low level work is undone. Edit: Especially since Longbow is likely to have learned from the player's actions and not be so easily dislodged if successful this time.

Mercy's arc has you drive Longbow out. Don't need an event to do what the story already does.

I don't care what Mythbusters tests. I swear at or near the end of season 1, they declared there were not enough myths for them to check and so would check whatever they found and thought would be interesting. Your insistence on using a TV show as justification baffles me. If the report declares they are known to number more than 100, but the minions' info panel says they are rumored to number 100, I'm going with the report. "Myth" already busted. You want a badge for the KoA? Then I recommend the names from the original thread @Chrono-Bot was responding to. Probably the Shinobi/Kunoichi one. You want a Mythbuster badge? Ask for one for a group or group sub-set that makes sense. I'm a badger too, but I'm *expletive deleted* tired of chasing badges that feel like they are just being thrown in for the sake of more badges. Yes, I wholly admit the inspiration reject and recipe reject badges are what put me in this mind set. Forgive my angry opinion, but those badges are pure, absolute, unadulterated, *expletives deleted*. For crying out loud, the Circle of Thorns have FIVE defeat badges. I'm certain no one pulls out a dictionary when they come up with badge titles. Just like apparently no one bothers checking lore, as in the root mythologies, when coming up with enemy groups like the Talons of Vengeance in this game. Some things however, are pretty obvious. Like what a myth is, for example. Or at least I thought it was until this discussion.... ... ... ... And I said I was done, yet here I am still arguing. *throws hands up*

You are really trying to find a way to justify the word "myth" in here. Instead of going: "I would like to suggest a new badge: Mythbuster No matter how deadly or unknown the myth, you stand ready to take it down. You have defeated 50 (or 100, or pick a number) Keres, the most dangerous and (edit: possibly) least known creatures of Greek mythology. Defeat 50 (pick appropriate number) Keres. Why Keres? Because I doubt anyone that did not dig into Greek mythology on their own would even know what a Ker was outside of the game. And as precedence, the family have 2 badges. One for Family in general, and one for Family bosses." Nope. Instead you insist on twisting and re-defining words. In your example, "it's rumored that there are only two copies of the recipe of the 11 secret herbs and spices" is exactly that. A rumor. Now, in the follow up example "his story that there are only two copies of the recipe of the 11 secret herbs and spices" is an invention. The unspecified male in your example fabricated the story. So in THAT example, yes, it is a myth. Notice the difference between the two examples you give? In the first one you say, there is no attribution. It is an unknown. The statement would be circulated with a degree of doubt and cannot be declared an invented story, idea, or concept. It is a questioned statement that is being spread. In the second one, the statement is directly attributed to an individual that is implied by the example to be the originator of the invented story. A story that has no backing in data for its inception. So yes, that would meet the definition of a myth. Rumor: uncertain statement. Myth: Certain, but false, statement lacking foundation; an invention. Now apply that to the KoA bio. It is a rumor, not a myth. There is implied evidence to back up the reasoned guess. The FBSA or other groups that have had interactions with the KoA, and are presumably the ones providing the bio information to the character, are basing their guess on the KoA's size based on what they know. It is not an invented story, idea, or concept. It is a reasoned guess. (Edit: Based on available data at the time, rather than a fabrication.) Now, follow that up with the current data on the KoA: "When the Knives of Artemis were first encountered, it was suspected that they were a small group of only 70, or perhaps 100 individuals. Obviously their ranks have expanded since the Rikti War as more broken or disillusioned women were adopted into their ranks and hardened." Again, the statement shows that the group's numbers were a reasoned guess, not an invented accounting. ... Also... it completely kills the reason for this discussion in the first place. *sigh* I'm tired of arguing what words mean with someone who apparently is more interested in making a definition that does not apply work for something he wants rather than finding something else it actually works for. Especially since they are not "rumored to number 100". I'm done.

This statement is false. The rumor that there are only 100 of them is false, not a myth. The rumor is based on the perception that the KoA are a small group. This is due to the fact they prefer to keep a low profile since they are ostensibly a covert ops group. Neither Malta nor the KoA are out there telling anyone that the KoA number less than 100. They likely would prefer no one knew they even existed. The fact those outside of Malta or the KoA who know the KoA exist are unsure of their size means they question the group's size. Hence, they are rumored to number no more than 100. That implies doubt. A reasoned guess that should hold true based on known data and perceptions but cannot be verified either way. (Hence, "they are rumored to number..." as opposed to "they are known to number..." or "they number....") The example given: "any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.", shows intention. The account the unspecified individual in the example gave was invented, so it is myth. The rumor of the group's size is not an invented story, idea, or concept. It is a reasoned guess. Not the same thing. Edit: There you go. New badge title: Guessing Bane.

If you want to stick with nouns rather than what do I call a rumor that has been verified untrue? Then I still call it a rumor. Like you said, false is a descriptor. (It is also an answer.) That descriptor however, is applied to the word "rumor" which is implied in this sense. Or specified as per my examples. So that would change the title to Rumor Buster if you want to go that route. Because they are still not myths. Myth: 1) a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. (This part has already been discussed.) 2) stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth. (This part has also already been discussed.) 3) any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth. (We know they're real. [In-game.] That rules this out.) 4) an imaginary or fictitious thing or person. (We know they're real. [In-game.] That also rules this out.) 5) an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution. (This is the only argument that could work. Except they are not a collective belief nor are they used to justify any social institutions.) Per their own bio, they are rumored to only number 100 at most. So you proved the rumor wrong. You successfully investigated and disproved the rumor. The rumor is false. Here's your "Rumor Investigator" or "Rumor Buster" badge.

"This is false." Edit: Or "This rumor is false." if you prefer. Maybe "This rumor has been proven to be false." if you really want to dig into it. Edit again: Or simply "False."

False. I call a rumor that has been verified untrue "false". Or a lie if there was malicious intent behind it. And until it has been verified? I call it a rumor. Edit: And what do I call the investigation of a rumor? An investigation.

At least he fared better than the administrator overseeing the construction. He went to complain about the time table for construction, took a number at the complaint box, and hasn't been heard from since. 🤪