Monos King

I don't like the Shadow Maul change, at all. People are talking about it "not having a place in attack rotations" but it was only a hair away from knockout blow (peak melee damage) and hit in a cone. If it wasn't being used in any chains already, I doubt many people would be using it now. Frankly, it would've been more appropriate to just increase it's damage more so it was more rewarding. That was my favorite crit burst, maybe the only real one for AoE. And now it's gone.

Why is this not a thing?

And if anyone has questions about obscure temporary powers NOT on those lists, worry not! I know all of them.

Does no one else play with the power icons enabled?

It wouldn't be an issue if limited to bank mission temps. Being able to quickly reacquire what you've earned doesn't trouble me even as a hunter. But it definitely wouldn't work for all temps for obvious reasons.

Bank mission temp powers? That could work. I had a similar suggestion with day jobs (although I'm not sure about the plausibility there).

@biostem would probably give you hell for this suggestion. I don't think we should go about putting random temporary powers that can be earned in game into p2w. If you need the bow for your character, you should probably just do what's available to get it. That's the reason people go out and do the missions to begin with; I myself am and always have been a temporary power hunter. I've always liked getting these things myself, as they are add ons that supplement where you might be lacking or simply a collection to show off, and that's how it should stay. I think you would be better off suggesting an epic or ordinary pool powerset that uses bow than trying to suggest partially neutralizing the nature of temporary powers.

Hahaha I cannot see how. It seems clear surveying the responses to your comments that your method has been inviting nothing but conflict. You shouldn't see it as an attack as much as an attempt at reproach, and I hope you don't actually see it so aggressively. I haven't made anything other than observations and suggestions. Come on now. I literally prefaced it by saying that the forums are used to evaluate the balance between enjoyment and challenge. I didn't leave that statement open to such a slippery slope. You called him selfish, you dismissed his opinion off of said accusations, and deemed it all juvenile. Your actual position would have been that of the impact argument, "Such choices shouldn't be made even less impactful to the character". I won't continue here because we clearly agree with each other, but all you do when executing points in this invidious manner is invite conflict, obfuscate your point, and weigh down consideration of said point. Me attending to you here is precisely because I could already see the unfavorable reactions, which halt persuasion and compromise. You can't get through to anyone like that. If you think it isn't my place to reprimand you so, that's fine, but if it inadvertently gets people riled up against your point you shouldn't be surprised.

Oh I'm not for the notion of the origin pool addition; if not for your comments I would've been here leaning against it. You aren't articulating your point, because the meaning is lost in your shaky accusations. It's pretty evident. I am addressing the nature and execution of your argument rather than the argument itself. Because it is counter productive. What is "impact to the character" if not an element of game design? That's just synonymous with consequences of selection, which you yourself said earlier. It's apart of game design to make certain limitations, and you are saying that process is automatically superior to the fun element of the game. I will remind you I am not supportive of this change, and that I am all about evaluating the balance between enjoyment and challenge, but this is no straw man. You really did say that. Of course not. It was an analogy. Addressing the nature of your argument . You suggested he was being selfish for his suggestion to make a change he thought would be beneficial, when you were being selfish by saying it wouldn't fly because it "restricted" you. I didn't realize you suggested a general increase to 5 pools, but you understand what my problem is here don't you?

"We shouldn't try to help anyone if we can't help everyone." "Having fun in a game is secondary to obediently accepting the game design, even if it makes things less fun for you." I don't like saying this, but I don't think anyone should pay you any mind. Your approach is aggressive and, more troublingly, accusatory and you can't seem to understand the inherent flaws in what your saying. Do you really think the OP is out to limit other players, or simply bypass the games design for his benefit alone? Is it limiting to one side to be given a new option, that they may or may not benefit from? "Let's give Mercenaries a new shield! I think that would be helpful!" "No guy, I don't want a shield, you're being selfish and narrow minded." That's you right now. The only one being self centered is you. You're dismissing the value it might have to various other people because it doesn't personally advantage yourself. He had an idea he thought would be cool, and suggested it as the forums are literally here for; because other players might agree. The reason the forums exist is to gather players that might agree. If people agree and discuss positively, it isn't a self-rewarding effort. Nothing here was juvenile. It's ok to disagree because you believe a suggestion will leave one side out, or effectively constrain them, but all you appear to be doing is undermining and reframing the point as an attempt at self-empowerment. That's clearly not what's going on. Show how this will be trouble. Counter someone's argument. And don't assign him the duty to consider the entire game scope just for a suggestion, that's part of the discussion process! Come on now.

I would really like this, but it's probably more trouble than it's worth for the homecoming team.

I don't understand this confounding conceptual conversation. Regeneration = you get more health. You heal/regenerate, I'm confused as to any argument here. Someone mentioned how invulnerability doesn't literally make you invulnerable; of course not. That wouldn't make sense in a game. It was clearly meant to give off the idea of being invulnerable though within the limitations of the game balance. Absorb was a newer mechanic that A LOT of powers would have used if it existed during the beginning, but it didn't. You can fashion absorb to act as healing, regen or even resistance if your creative with power descriptions, but each power has it's focus that effects will clearly stem from. The stats were designed with this in mind. Impartial to this thread, I don't understand how Willpower is fulfilling the idea of regenerating more than the set that focuses on getting health back up @Leogunner. Perhaps I am missing your point.

I think this is really weird because I was just about to suggest this as an obvious joke thread. I vote yes.

Lol we can agree to disagree there; even a matter such as this difference would ultimately be considered majority vs minority. A few more of people in your mindset could tip the scales to your favor, and I in the minority would see changes based on your preference. It's the same principle, but I don't mind if you don't see it that way.

I think that's pretty simple. People might have different findings. Certain data charts might have different considerations, or suggest underperformance in one situation where it would flourish in another. Sides would be considered, and at the end a democratic deliberation would take place which may result in a great majority. And, the devs would have true final say once all the commotion brings it to their attention.

In that case, we are of a similar mind. I don't think any of us here really disagree with that assessment either, so it was likely just a large misunderstanding. I could be wrong though.

I agree. I think regardless of the majority or minority opinion, if someone can bring evidence to the table the matter should be considered. And it shouldn't be immediately confirmed or declined based off majority opinion either. But because everyones opinion does matter, the amount of people in favor is significant too. A fine balance ultimately determined by the developers. I believe here we were simply discussing which of those leanings would be ideal for permitting the cottaging.

I would also like to note that you just accused Super of giving their own opinion too much weight, yet you are now speaking very dogmatically. Everyone wants their opinion to be heard; that's why we have these forums to begin with. Efficacy is ever-desired. You're sitting on the other side of the extreme, where you are obsessed with data and numbers and another might be obsessed with popular opinion. I think it's important to hear everyone out, and discuss why or why not you think changes should be made to the current meta and or paradigm. And let me introduce you to a fallacy. Argument from Fallacy. You really need to stop highlighting all these fallacies as if it immediately invalidates that person in questions opinion, because it doesn't. It would be better of you to just ask them to articulate their argument in a way thay you better understand.

I hate to insert myself, but your misunderstanding seems to be digressing the overlying point of this thread. It's really clear to me anyway that Super Atom is not presuming to speak for the community, and was instead positing an instance where complete community concurrence would warrant a change to a function of the game, as part of their argument. Atom just thinks that if everyone agrees to something game related, then that should happen. Whether or not you are of the belief player understanding of such matters should be the ultimate council and last word is another matter.

This seems rather silly; you are pretty much saying you don't like having multiple options that are useful enough that you have to decide between them. That's just indecisiveness, it doesn't hamper or remove an open build.

I was disagreeing with the idea that there should be throw away powers.

I disagree. I think every ability should have a purpose for a certain circumstance. The reason some abilities would end up as skippables would simply be that the circumstance of which you would use said ability is very specific, ordinarily impractical, or just not what you are personally going for. The other possibility is simply that a stronger version that does the same thing comes around later on, and you decide you only want the stronger version rather than both.

I actually really enjoy the animations and changes from upgrading pets. Feels like I'm the kingpin supplying the goods, or the master binding them to me. Can't get behind this one, not that inconvenient.

There is, but as you cannot obtain the associated salvages, it's useless.

@Super Atom I am also curious.