Rudra

I never understood that claim seeing as Masterminds were extremely vulnerable before Bodyguard Mode was active. Most of the time, mobs simply ignored the pets and went for the MM directly. Yes, the idea was that the mobs would spend most of their focus on the pets, but that never happened in my experience. And I have to assume that was also the case in testing before CoV launched considering how many comments I about the same thing I saw before BG Mode was added. The Brute always seemed the red side Tanker to me. It was a direct reflection of Tankers after all.

I have to say, I still have no idea what you are talking about. I have Ionic on a lot of my characters. My currently being played on a duo is an elec'/elec'/Mu Dominator with Ionic. And even when my partner and I use our Ionics almost on top of each other, I have not seen what you are describing. Not saying it doesn't happen, just that I have never seen it happen. On the rare occasions I join a larger team (for an ITF usually), I see Ionic being spammed pretty relentlessly. And still haven't witnessed it when I used my Ionic.

I specifically avoid Discord for a reason. Never had a pleasant experience with it. I feel for your situation, but it hasn't changed my mind. I've seen too often what happens when punishments are made public, even if "public" in this case is just to notify the other party. If the player that reported the problem to the GMs turns around and tells everyone else what the GMs did as punishment to the offending player then that player should be punished too? That's a great sentiment and I used to believe that would prevent the issue. The problem is, it never did. I have personally seen too where an aggrieved person is told what punishment was given to the offending person and then the aggrieved person turned around and told others about it. The aggrieved person didn't care what consequences he would face for doing so. I was tasked with being present when the individual reporting the problem had his face-to-face with his supervisor to discuss the situation. I was required to attend as third-party witness to avoid any he said, she said issues. I watched as the offender admitted to his actions and gave his reasons why he did them. (No, his reasons were not acceptable.) I listened as punishment was meted out. I was there for the followup with the aggrieved person when he was told what the punishment was and watched as the aggrieved person angrily responded that the punishment was not fair and should have been worse. (Which I disagreed with given the infraction.) And I was witness to the aggrieved individual being told the matter was resolved and he was not to discuss what had transpired. And later I was called to give my side of how those meetings went and instructions were given to both individuals because the aggrieved individual had run around telling everyone how unfair the situation had been and how lightly the offender had gotten off (in his opinion). Yeah, he was punished for running around and telling everyone what had happened, but he wasn't the least bit remorseful about it. He either didn't care or understand that his own actions were worse than the original complaint. And the harm had already been done. Others rallied to the aggrieved person, saying the punishment should have been more severe than what was issued to the offender while also decrying the aggrieved individual's corresponding punishment as malicious. Others also rallied to the offending individual's cause, saying his punishment had been too severe and that the aggrieved individual's punishment should have been worse for violating a given order and telling others about it. The entire situation sucked. It took us months for things to settle down. (And it only actually settled down because the original offender got orders.) So no, I cannot support a request for punishments to be made public. Even if only on a limited basis to the reporting individual. Because inevitably, word is going to get out on one thing or another and things are going to escalate. If the GMs decide they are willing though? Kudos to them. They don't answer to me and I hope they can deal with the situation better. I won't ever support the request for punishments to be reported though.

If the targets are still alive, then your Judgement should be going off and doing damage. If the targets are defeated by someone else, and the timing is close, then your Judgement should be going off anyway. And here is the part where I think you are confused. If the damage numbers you see are orange? Those are your damage numbers. Every time I team with anyone else, the damage that other person/those other people do is shown in grey numbers. Not orange. That tells me your Judgement is firing and doing damage. If your Judgement is not doing damage and your teammates' damage is in orange? Then please please PLEASE upload a video showing it. Because what you are saying is not making any sense. They do stack.

Less interesting and more biased to me.

You are further convincing me that the sole reason you want punitive actions shared from the GMs to the reporter is in the hopes (or for the sake of?) being able to argue about it. Which to me is a prime reason to not disclose such information. No one is arguing against accountability. The argument is against publicizing punitive actions and it leading to arguments (and bad blood) over said actions. Accountability does not require public notice. (Edit: For instance, when someone screws up at work, that person is accountable for that screw up. The actions taken to make said person accountable is not and should not be publicly shared unless the screw up is something those applying disciplinary measures fear may occur further without such notice. In which case, notice of the action and its results may be shared, but not who was involved. Because sharing who was involved and what was done to said individual too often leads to continued shaming by others even after the screw up has been corrected.) Edit again: In the case of the OP, the offender may be temporarily banned or suffer other retributive measures and so may change his/her/their ways. Making the incident public means that even if said individual stops the offending behavior, others may no longer be willing to play with said individual because of the previous actions the said individual no longer engages in. The problem with public punishment even in video games. (Edit yet again: Which is why my recommendation for dealing with bad actors is to develop an evidence library of activity and provide that to the GMs for action. Then continue building an evidence library if the offending action continues to submit to the GMs as proof of failure to adjust behavior so further actions can be taken. If necessary, ask the GMs to work with the victim to protect the victim as needed such as by non-announced account name and global name changes to make it difficult for the offender to continue said actions if other measures are insufficient as deterrence.) (By which I mean generation of a new account and all data from old account transferred to new account. Renaming characters would be up to the player, but with a new account, tracking the victim becomes problematic unless that player's characters are all being individually tracked by the offender.) Yet another edit: You keep harping about accountability, but what I find odd is you seem to be talking about dev/GM accountability. When the accountability is for the player engaging in bad behavior. The accountability of said player's behavior is on that player and his/her/their actions. The GM himself/herself/themselves is not accountable to us for the incident(s). The offending player is the one that needs to have accountability. And if your intent is to have accountability over the responding GM(s) for the situation? Then I have to ask: who are you that the GMs are accountable to you for something you aren't even involved in. And as far as the reporting player, the accountability is still on the reported bad behavior, not the GMs and their taken actions. So the fact the GMs don't report on their actions is not the issue. It is the continued bad behavior (if it does continue) and how to stop it. THAT is the accountability in question. And continued bad behavior calls for escalation of punitive measures. Such escalation requires proof it is called for. That means keeping track of how many times such behavior is reported, what specific behavior is reported, what evidence of behavior is provided, and evidence of previous reports and what they included to justify taking more extreme measures against the offending player.

Just pulled this from the wiki: Traded diamond for bracers, violence against the auctioneer You convinced her to trade her magical bracers for the diamond. She refused and attacked you. Naturally you beat her back, then took her bracers before the mediporter whisked her off. Arc Flash still had the diamond, but you can put the bracers to your own ends and you've eliminated a hero from possibly foiling you in the future. The Miller will be searching for a buyer, but until then you're holding onto the bracers. (Edit: So yes, beating up the auctioneer is supposed to make her just giving you her bracers not a valid outcome. So if you beat up the auctioneer and she willingly gave you her bracers, that part bugged. The souvenir notice you got after though, other than the "convinced' statement being a poor choice of words, is correct. She was supposed to refuse you for you having beaten up the auctioneer. You were supposed to beat her down in response and take her bracers. And she is supposed to escape via mediporter with the diamond still in her possession, but not her bracers.)

Running off memory, if you beat up the auctioneer, Arc Flash is supposed to be hostile to you regardless. So I'm going to guess the bug is that you were able to convince her to hand over the bracers despite beating up a (relatively) innocent civilian. (Edit: Not that she will flat out attack you after her initial defeat like if you killed her brother, but that she should refuse to hand over the bracers and you beat them off of her because you proved to her you can't be trusted.)

There is also the question of who was doing how much damage and how quickly. For instance, I was fighting Jurassik as part of a small league (two or three teams) and we had three Tankers. Those Tankers were doing en excellent job of keeping Jurassik's attention on them rather than everyone else except in my case. The fight was a constant Jurassik attacks me, Jurassik attacks Tanker A, Jurassik attacks me, Jurassik attacks Tanker B, Jurassik attacks me, Jurassik attacks Tanker C, Jurassik attacks me... over and over through out the fight. I wasn't even using Confront and they were spamming Taunt. Because when a PC hits the mob hard enough, the mob goes for that PC.

Considering what Diabolique had become, it was either deal with her right then and there or let her recover and mop the floor with anyone you try to hand her over to and escape. Those situations arise a lot in the epic stories in comics and novels. The most BBEG of all BBEGs is defeated, and must be dealt with immediately or else.

You can run them solo out of Ouroboros too. Read all the text boxes you want that way. The TFs in Ouroboros apply difficulty settings though?! Edit: Okay, yeah, level adjustments for the TFs in Ouroboros apply in full as opposed to active TFs that only apply the positive level shifts. Just tested Sister Psyche and Positron 1 at -1 and +4 for both.

Heh. Reminds me of a Binder of Beasts run back on Live. The technician was in the Hell Room. Worse, the player he latched onto died and he then latched on to another Longbow Warden. Problem was the ambushes from freeing him were piling up, Hell Room was now a sea of Longbow, and we were dropping too fast for any of us to keep any of the rest of us alive. (We got wiped out.) So after we all got back to the mission, Eviella was making plans for how we could salvage the situation and not have to reset. Another party member commented to her trying to get her attention as she stared at the room. Finally she asked "what" and turned to look at the rest of us. I had a Shivan, an HVAS, a pair of Wailer Queens, an Arachnobot Mini-Blaster, a Tsoo Sorcerer, some Clockwork, Amy Johnson, a Warwolf, and a few other pets I can't remember lined up behind my ninjas. She didn't react for a minute, then said "That'll work". It was great. Unfortunately, Amy and the queens are not possible to get more than once, so I was loathe to use them, but the situation needed them. So it would be really nice to be able to replace them when depleted.

Even uninstalling and re-installing the game didn't work? In that case, I recommend you check to make sure your video card drivers are up to date and check what background programs you have running.

I really don't see this flying. The AT, unless some sort of EAT, will have 9 selectable powers in the primary and secondary. The only free attack you will see is the inherent Brawl. So I refuse to count those. Even party-based ATs with their party-focused power sets Like Force Field give the player options for combat other than "someone come defeat things for me because I can't even take down +0/x1 minion spawns". All ATs have at minimum the ability to play solo. Your proposed one really doesn't, it only gives lip service to being able to do so. Which of course leads to another issue if you were to add the missing attacks. Or even if your proposed AT were to be given inherent attacks no one else gets. Now the AT is an omni-AT. It would have heals (for self and others), it would have buffs (or debuffs), it would have armor, and it would have sufficient attacks to not have to team. And a do-everything AT is something I will never support. So that leaves me in the position of I oppose your proposed AT for not being able to even fight as well as an intentionally gimped build of an existing AT or for being a do everything AT. Every AT is supposed to have their weaknesses to encourage team play, but not to the point where team play is basically the only option for them. And no AT (outside of possibly EATs) is supposed to be a bastion of everything all in one either. So either your proposed AT is not viable (because I refuse to count your added inherent attacks) or it does too much. Either way, I oppose it and recommend taking a different approach to finding a new niche for AT to fill.

No, I would consider that your choice on how to employ a viable AT. What makes the MM viable is pets and the MM's ability to support those pets. You chose to take your fastest recharge pets and your strongest pet, and supplement them with an attack of your own. Perfectly viable. For players that chose to play petless MMs? They are foregoing the bulk of their damage output, but that is their choice. Not something imposed upon them by the game. Your proposed AT however very much imposes the petless MM style without even having access to the full range of integral attacks the MM gets while also limiting the proposed AT's damage to minor, something not even MM attacks do. So your proposed AT won't even be able to keep up with a petless MM in combat.

A Mastermind has six pets each with their own array of attacks plus the three attacks the MM gets from their chosen set. Your proposal has even less native attacks with just two minor damage attacks that you fit into the buff/heal set with nothing else providing damage. MM pets have very fast recharges, so even if the MM's pets keep dying, replacing them to maintain a constant stream of damage on your foes is easy. Anyone playing the proposed AT solo is going to find himself/herself/themselves struggling to defeat enemies due to lack of attacks built into the AT and the bottom end damage the two attacks they get possess. This all but forces the character to take power pool attacks to generate an attack chain that doesn't leave the player frustrated with the game. With armor sets as primary, you will be able to take hits better than other healers, but your combat ability is in the toilet. And armor will only keep you alive for so long until you can slot the IO sets to pump it up enough.

Not viable. Lacking attacks and relying on power pools to get attacks isn't making an AT with holes you can plug with power pools, it's making an AT you HAVE to go outside the AT to make viable.

Right, I forgot to comment on this. Sorry. Anyway, at least part of the reason why Lord Recluse and the patrons help you in the fight against Darrin Wade as he progresses his plan to become Rula-Wade and why they go with you (if you let them) to help fight Rula-Wade is because Lord Recluse very much wants to tear down Darrin Wade for having killed Statesman. (It's not the only reason, but it is a strong reason.) To the point that you can let Lord Recluse and the patrons handle a lot of the fighting with Rula-Wade. No effort to protect themselves from his power, just 'there he is! ATTACK!!!' feeling dedication. So no, there won't be a reunion gift from Red Widow of Darrin Wade to Lord Recluse. He pretty much already got his mad on taken care of. As long as Darrin Wade rots in Vanguard's care, Lord Recluse is probably content with letting him live having helped topple him at the height of his power. (Which as far as Recluse is concerned, shows he is superior to Statesman, and Darrin Wade's victory over Statesman was a lucky fluke rather than Wade having accomplished something Recluse had not in all the time he and Statesman knew each other.)

Ikol would like to have a word with you. Don't worry though. I hear he is the most stick in the mud, no pranks allowed deity ever.

Are you Thor, God of Hammers? ... Or are you Thor, God of THUNDER. - Odin, to Thor when dealing with Hela.

Except it isn't a hanging thread. Darrin Wade is captured at the end of the series. You, the player, capture him. That SSA arc culminates with a visual of the captured Darrin Wade facing Lady Grey who makes clear in no uncertain terms the lengths she is willing to go to pry everything Wade has out of him. She and Vanguard get him because of you, the player. When you defeat him in his empowered semi-Rularuu Rula-Wade form.

He's not the only dev character that was killed. I see no reason to bring him back unless the Live dev plan for Tyrant to become the new Statesman is put in play. (Edit: Besides, I rather enjoy the tip mission where you pose as Statesman and the NPCs are all "WAIT! You're ALIVE?!".)

Yeah, that should work fine as an AE arc. I don't see it being how Paragon City actually works though. Because it sure seems to e that the War Walls break up the city by zone, not by voter ethnicity.

If you are going to break up my comment, kindly do so in a way that makes sense. You are so eager to "Whoops!" or 'Whoopsie!" other posters that you didn't even bother to realize I did not say @Laucianna is giving three options, but that those are the three options that I see available.

Dammit GM2! Now I want Kheldian... I mean... calamari....