GM_GooglyMoogly

I certainly don't mean to discourage you. You are one of the few players that take the time to do comprehensive tests and shares that knowledge. That's very helpful to me as a player, and I think it's also persuasive to the devs. But your charts will always have one on top and one on the bottom. The hope is that the difference between them is not too great.

I'm sorry, but I think there is a HUGE between 75% resistance and 90% resistance. A brute pummels things, same as all other melee ATs. I understand that you are speaking from your perspective, which I assume is high-end fully built characters. But there are players that don't play that way for whatever reason.

I really don't like to hide posts or stifle debates. But when folks prefer to poke each other instead of discussing the game, I have to. I also don't like closing threads . . . There's definitely a desire among some folks to improve brutes as an AT and others that think everything is fine as is. Those are both opinions and you are free to state them and substantiate them, if you can. But insinuating that people having a different opinion are stupid just won't cut it. "But GooglyMoogly, it's obvious that brutes are bad and saying otherwise makes you wrong." That too, is an opinion. Prove it. Why are brutes worse? "Because they do less damage than stalkers and scrappers" That's also an opinion as it will depend on the powersets, the build and the player. But let's pretend that's a fact. Does the presumed fact automatically make the entire AT bad? Don't other ATs also do less damage than stalkers and scrappers and even brutes? Does that make them bad too? "Well, they also aren't as tanky as tanks." OK, let's accept that as true. But aren't brutes, on average, sturdier than stalkers and scrappers? One thing I will certainly grant is that scrappers and stalkers won the ATO lottery and brutes got one of the least noticeable special ATOs.

Because. I don't make the rules, just abide by them and enforce them. And this naming policy is not even a rule that has been placed into effect; Nothing to abide or enforce. When the naming policy does come into effect, it will give players a greater chance than they have now to get the name they want. Noted. OK. OK, noted. But again, I don't make those decisions.

There is no scuttlebutt on name purging. In fact, there will be no "purging." When the naming policy is instituted everyone will have advance notice. At this time there is no set date of when that will be, or at least not that I am aware of. The names don't automatically become available. Level 50s will always be protected and then there is a sliding scale down -- the lower the level, the less time a name is protected. You can log in characters to keep them protected, or better yet, level them and gain more time . . . or immortality at 50. But if you have an unprotected name due to lack of use, it may become available IF someone else tries it when creating a new character.

He may be a loving Doggie Daddy and a scrumptious baked good, but Crumpet will nuke a nest of copyrighted characters while cackling maniacally.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Please argue the merits of the proposal, not the merits of other players.

GM Tock is on the job!

Timing is important. Guys, be nice to each other. Please?

Hello and happy Monday. Players are allowed to post agreement or disagreement with suggestions and proposals, as long as they do so respectfully and within the CoC. But sometimes discussions reach a point where two players, or two factions of players, are just going back and forth stating the same thing. We are awfully close to that if not already beyond it.

Hi guys. Let's keep the commentary on the game, not on current politics. Thanks!

Please be excellent to each other. Argue the merits, or not, of the proposal without attacking the merits of the players posting.

Your wish is granted. Please stop insulting each other. Argue the points, not the personalities.

I am trying not to moderate and let people have discussions and even arguments. But if folks make it personal, that makes it hard for me to ignore. Please be excellent to each other.

Hi guys! Spirited debates about the game are OK. Great even. But let's argue the points and not each other with ad hominems. Please and thank you.

POOF! A GM appears. A request has been made, support for the idea has been shown by some and lack of support for others. It seems that this has run its course.

Hello! I trimmed* a bunch of posts that were getting increasingly heated. Some innocent bystanders may have been caught in the trimming if they quoted other parts. Be excellent to each other! *And by trimmed I mean hid

Speak for yourself!

Or the KD of those powers is stacking with another source of KD (yours, another players, certain IOs). When you combine 0.67+0.67 = 1.34 and that's kncockBACK.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but your supposition is wrong. The devs are happy to hear criticism as well as praise. But they don't want to see arguments back and forth between a few passionate people. It becomes a lot of noise and makes it difficult the find the bugs and other problems. Most of all, they want people to try the new stuff out under as many different scenarios as possible to see if it works or it doesn't. If it doesn't work, they change it. You don't get punished for being critical, although we'll both get our posts moved as being neither focused nor feedback on arsenal control. Oops.

Hello friends and neighbors! I have moved some posts over to a new thread created just for you: "What I wish Arsenal Control looked like." There you can discuss to your hearts content how you would have made it. Please keep the feedback threads to actual feedback on what is on the Beta test server. For example, I like X because . . . or I hate X because . . . or even better, I did this test on X and found . . . Thanks!