SwitchFade

Agreed and +1 /Signed!

Just found this power when trying martial combat as a new set, and found this thread. /Signed!

As always, thus is provisional on difficulty, Dev time, and priority. That said... +1

This was already discussed in another thread (or two?) I vote no, and I'm sorry, this thread should be merged/closed with the other threads.

It is not cancellable from icons under health and end meters. It is deletable from the powers tray

Devs, please close this thread, there exist several others.

What if brutes being OP was the cause of tanker superfluousness?

*Snicker* Jab from the SS set should please you. On a tanker. It's low, it's slow and rage was kicked in the mivonks. Every minute you play SS you'll feel dirty and cheap, because it's the bastard child of tanking according to the forums. ;D

Due to the extremely unnecessary and frivolous nature of such a request, I vote no. Dev time is Pro Bono, and limited.

Erm, the only reason dfb is popular at all is the xp. It's completely shallow and unengsging, due to the fact it's lvl 1-15 content.

Sounds great, just assure that the xp is identical to radio missions.

/signed

Thank the gods.

You just sideways argued for a reduction in brute power.

I must, in all good conscience, emphatically vote no 8 days a week and three times on Sunday. I am whole heatedly against this change. One game tried to do this, and it was helmed by a person named Jack E. And it was not just bad, it was terrible. It was terribad.

Philotic is absolutely correct. I have IT departments that report to me, and have learned over years of being the interface between user and programmer, that what a user thinks is easy, never is. One of the primary functions I serve is to be a wall between both user and programmer, to interpret the user wants, translate this into action parameters, and then allow programmers to create the tool that fits the need, with proper guidance. It is never easy, it always requires significant effort and it is always complex. And this is just working with Oracle and Netsuite, among other programs. I can't even imagine the complexity when GUI use increases to Mmo levels. Yeah.

Energy melee - revamp, it's just.... Cringe. Claws - my God are the animations horrendous. Super strength - see revamp SS thread. Also, please add back old animations as an option Difficulty - scale difficulty up, making it more challenging, post lvl 41 where toons have io's and incarnate. Nothing crazy, just a bit more. Tank gauntlet - add utility unique effects Keldians - turn cysts back in, they were too cool. Other keldian balances... Please be careful. Katana - right handed animation

Boom! That's the one! Devs, can we have this costume?

/signed & +100 for all costume toggles!

I kind of like the fact that they killed Jack Emmert in game. The skullduggerous knaive he was. The fiendish ne'er-do-well.

You said you hadn't insulted me and asked I return the favor - heavily implying that I had been insulting. I never assigned anything to you, and you never directly asked me not to. For the rest of you talking points: Your direct statement that my normal dialect is "Word Salad" could be viewed as ever-so-slightly disrespectful. So, you actually did, even though I didn't say you did. Also, this pointless image is also disrespectful. Do you speak Japanese? I do. do you understand it? if you don't, am I word salad'ing you?

OP, if you move something like this it may help 1. is it befitting in the game that does not have us "Kill" foes, but "arrest them," that there exists player content that would have us participate in killing? <------------ Good argument 2. NPC villains in this game kill, yes. we, even villains, do not arbitrarily do so form the outset. Should this arc be considered within the realm of normal in that spirit? no, it is too far out in the woods, and the death portion should be amended. <----- solid argument 3. If we are truly to participate in killing as villain players in this game, is there any other content like this? if so, is it at least a large minority, or the majority? if not, this is an aberration, and should probably be rectified. MUSH like if we found an instance where a slave was being used, we would be rightfully outraged, UNLESS this was the norm of the game. So, if this mission is not the norm, and not holding to the theme and spirit, change it. <----- sound argument These are just examples. Perhaps this helps on the road to convincing others?

ok, OP, so here's why I can't consider a change at this point based on what you've posted: Please remember this is not what you said, and not meant to sound rude, I was just cutting out the short facts so they strong together. -Man asks woman out, woman says no. man must take down longbow. because man is crazy. or an asshole. (maybe the woman abused him and was co-dependent?). This is arbitrary and assumptive. but only slightly down the slope. she is not his GF. He says so. she is not, but he says so. how can this be? ----> because he thinks so, regardless of reality. further down the slope. -Man kills woman. man regrets it. woman must die to enable man to undergo change. man is entitled. man is misogynist. ----> assumptive, but not much further down the slope. maybe she's crazy too? -People will protest that arc is fine. But No slavery. But no pedophiles. But no boston bomb. Arc is bad. --------> whoa. so, if I think this arc is fine I think slavery, pedophilia and bombs are fine? way down the slope -Woman should be awesome. man went mad. woman should be awesome. she is not awesome. she is footnote. not believable. he is mad, she must be awesome. -----> ok just moderately further down again, maybe she's really not special, he's just superbly jacked up? -Woman must live. Woman must escape. Why? because that's the right thing. ---------------> off the slope. Why? because, hero? People die. Things happen. Nemesis kills all. Mender Silo regrets it. The slope: I think arc is fine --------------------------> I'm a miscreant and I don't think she should live, because I am bad and an entitled male. So one step leads to the next without real concrete reasoning and much of it is a bit multidirectional. Because of this there's not much coherent reasoning with data or facts but there's much emotion and desire due to feeling. I feel you, and I get that. But I can't consider them basis for change in this instance. so, I'm not AGAINST it, but... try again? I'm listening. EDIT: I EDITED THIS!

Let's break down your explanation. So, by your explanation, you are "rendering a vote of no change from not any change." At best it's an incredibly confusing double negative. If I wanted to insult you, which I don't, I'd say something to the effect of how trying to use overly complicated wording to be as vague as possible when trying to argue over semantics only makes you look pompous and idiotic. But I'm saying that, I only pointed out how confusing your word choice is. If you choose to be insulted by that, I can't stop you from doing so. But you could also choose different wording to convey the same intended message. Which no one is stopping you from doing either. Switchfade, I think Rylas is repeating what I said as well...you are not making yourself understood here. If you wish to be understood, then rephrase what you are saying. If you are unable or do not wish to, please refrain from posting, as it damages your own credibility elsewhere in the forums, and causing unnecessary angst in this thread. And I think for discussion purposes, we are trying to propose a course of action...Think of it like Robert's Rules of Order... For a decision to be made there are 3 options 1.) Vote Yes - Make the change 2.) Vote No - Do not make the change 3.) Abstain - this can be explicit or implicit. You don't have to say "I abstain" to abstain, but by failing to choose 1 or 2, you are abstaining nonetheless. I really don't care at this point how you want to say it, phrase it, feel it, opine on it...But regardless of whether you care but don't want to decide, can't decide for lack of information, or truly don't care...You still will fall into one of these 3 buckets... A filibuster, is still a No Vote... 4th bucket: I can't consider a change to anything that makes no sense. IF a change is to be considered, a logical argument for that change may be made, whereupon the person recieveing may consider then the change. So, there you go. 4th bucket.

You're either for changing it, against changing it, or don't care. You are against changing it, based on your statement. Your reason for being against changing it is that you don't like the reasons presented to support changing it. This is an entirely valid position to take. It's very simple. This isn't computer science. There's no need to add in a Null State for this one. I am not for or against this specific change. I am not for or against change in general. I am against changes to null state that are presented with flawed logic. I will only consider a change that is presented syllogistically. These statements are incongruous. This is not a subroutine. This is not a program. There is no Null State, here. You're not coming back with no data and not changing the program. You are making a Value Judgement to the strength of the argument that the OP initially provided. This is not a Null State result. This is a rejection of input data in order to determine a decision. Your penchant for obfuscating noncomplex logical conclusions through superflous circumlocution is positively exasperating. Syllogistic Logic? Really? For those who don't know what Syllogism is, it's a situation where you have two statements and based on those two statements create a third, whether it's true or not is irrelevant. "All dogs are animals. All animals have four legs. Thus all dogs have four legs." The first statement is true, the last statement is true barring deformity or injury, but the middle statement? Not true. Syllogistic reasoning is why Diogenes ran into Socrates' classroom holding up a plucked chicken screaming "Behold a Man!" when Socrates described men as Featherless Bipeds. You misunderstand syllogistic reasoning, and have engaged in traps in syllogism. Here is a clear definition A syllogism (Greek; syllogismos, "conclusion, inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true. I perceive a misconception of null state. Here is the basis of null, and it's use in argumentation Adjective English borrowed "null" from the Anglo-French nul, meaning "not any." That word, in turn, traces to the Latin word nullus, from ne-, meaning "not," and ullus, meaning "any." Null state, not any change. Colloquially, current state. Used in statistics, argumentation and analytical fields. Again, you do not tell me how I think, and I do not make value judgements on things that have irrational suppositions. I do not even consider them, rendering a vote of no change from null state. YET. SO. I thank you for your perspective, I respect your feelings about the subject, I ask you to stop assigning things to me. Fade, I'm sitting here citing incidents in which Di freaking Ogenes the dog-life philosopher countered a syllogistic argument with simple (hilarious) proof that it was wrong. I don't need a lesson in the etymology for you to provide semantic clarity. I will reiterate that your position is ridiculous. It's like you're trying to surround the arguments being provided by being on no side while simultaneously declaring that there should be no change 'cause 'Null State". In the context of people discussing whether there should be a change or not, stating things should remain as they are? S'not nothing. If you're not going to contribute to the actual discussion, say by countering the provided arguments with some of your own or choosing a side in the debate to offer your support or even to simply abstain from said debate declaring that it has no effect on you whether it changes or not..? It might be best to exclude yourself from continuing discussion. As it is you've only added confusion and digression. This was hard to digest due to lack of punctuation, so please forgive me if I misrepresent the content of your text, as there is great ambiguity in what may or may not be an indirect object, a preposition or a modifying verb in this. Diogenes the Cynic was mentally ill, argued from a point of syllogistic entrapment, misunderstand logical inference and concluded much of his thought process on the premise that human conduct and behavior was reprehensible. I would as much accept the council of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Tammerlane, or many other notable historical scoundrels, as I would his. He did not understand logical and data based reasoning, preferring to debate his own point of view. This is a trap. Facts are facts, data is data. Effectively spin-doctoring things does not change facts. Null state is common colloquial English in many professional fields. Now. I have entertained the explanation, I have attempted factual reasoning. I have provided proof. You are materially wrong in your assertations, and I do not need to dig further than I have, as that can be done by any audience who is reading, by simply using a search tool. Thank you for your input, I digress.