Hopeling

Bolded the problematic part for you. This is exactly the kind of situation the Standard Code Rant applies to.
Currently, when damage is calculated, it's very straightforward. To make this work would require adding a conditional test, referring to a variable passed from an earlier calculation, neither of which it currently does. Is that possible? Probably, yeah. Is it easy? No one in this thread is qualified to say.

Toxic attacks have positional flags. [Poisonous Ray] and [Bile Spray], for example. There's no such thing as toxic typed defense, but the relevant positional defense works normally against them. Presumably, toxic attacks would be subject to the relevant positional resist here.

Most DoT damage also has an attack type. The only exceptions I can think of is damage fields like Caltrops, since those are just autohit.

The names in the ignore list being blue does not mean they're online. Like you said, they're just all always blue. You can check that they're not online easily with a /getlocalname. Odds are most or all of them have been banned now. AFAIK, reporting spammers ignores them immediately, and if enough people report them, they're chat-squelched and flagged for a GM to investigate.

The Fiery Embrace change had to be added individually to every power used by the relevant archetypes. That's a large list, but still a much smaller list than EVERY power in the game. Of course, rather than hand-coding the check into every power, it would make more sense to change the underlying mechanic, so that it happens at some point during the hit roll or something. But at that point you're changing something that many other things rely on, giving you many possible ways to introduce bugs.

It's no less valid*. But as you yourself called it a "vote", and a very large fraction of feedback on the issue has been in the "stop giving us cheesecake to the exclusion of other options" camp, it would appear that despite both opinions being valid, one is winning.

*Unless you want to get into RL gender issues, objectification, etc. Personally, I don't.

Only if you assume that every problem Stalkers have is also a problem for Tankers, but exactly reversed. Which is not true. WHY are these Stalker changes being made? There's 2 things here, the HP cap and the AS/Focus changes.

First, the current Stalker HP cap is too low. A Stalker with accolades can cap their HP with IOs, without even particularly trying, using any power sets. Even with no accolades, no IOs, and no enhancements at all, a Stalker runs over the HP cap by using Dull Pain. The HP cap is an issue for every Stalker set, and especially severe for /Regen, /Ice, /WP, and /EA.
By comparison, only one Tanker secondary can (barely) reach the damage cap under its own power, and to do so requires a high-end IO build specialized in recharge, along with a Musculature alpha, some set bonuses, and fully slotted attacks.

Second, on a team, Scrappers outperform Stalkers even at the one thing Stalkers are supposed to be good at: putting down a single hard target. AS changes will presumably bring Stalker ST DPS up to a level that makes them competitive with, if not slightly ahead of Scrappers.
But Tankers are NOT outperformed at surviving. They're at least slightly ahead of Brutes in that regard. So again, it isn't a valid comparison.

Do you have any data to back that up? Tankers are clearly not the MOST popular AT, true. They're also clearly not an UNpopular AT: I see at least two Tankers on almost every trial I run. And it isn't just people playing their old 50s due to attachment, I've seen plenty of Tankers while leveling my latest character too.

You've brought up the Stalker changes comparison again, so let's look at what those changes are doing:
-Making Stalkers better at single target, which is already their niche
-Allowing them to take full advantage of the +hp powers they've always had
And let's look at what those changes are not doing:
-Making them tougher than Scrappers
-Giving them better AoE

So no, Stalkers aren't becoming more invisible, but they ARE getting better at what they're already good at, and NOT getting much better at the things they aren't already good at. Extending that philosophy to Tankers will get you better aggro management, maybe some new ways to protect your team besides aggro, but little or no change to damage.

If you count Vengeance, sure. It's not realistic to assume you'll have Vengeance up all the time, though.

Yes, it does depend on the individual. There's a 44-page thread right now, with many individuals stating they would prefer a more balanced approach. Starting a new thread over this really makes it look like you're trying to spin the issue into "they want to take away my attractive costumes", which isn't actually what anyone is asking for. Note that Noble Savage is all over that thread, so if you want a red name to see and reply to your opinion, post it there.

That said, I rather agree with your basic sentiment from the first post:
The choice that has been presented is "we can have female-only pieces, or we can share the men's pieces, but we can't have both because that's more work." This presents what I think is a false dilemma. I would rather take the third option and pay 100 points extra for the set if it meant women get both groups of pieces.

Have you played Titan Weapons on a large, steamrolling team yet? I have. Corpse blasting didn't seem any more common that it is with most already-existing power sets.

Yeah, but the Vigilante -> Villain tips to get you there are not mild at all.

There are three basic ways (that I can think of, at least) to justify a hero going redside without "really" being a villain. Two have already been mentioned:
-Do it OOC: for a few days, you're not getting into your character, you're just playing a video game.
-Pull a Manticore: You're going undercover or something until you accomplish what you need (in this case, gaining some redside powers).
-Pull a Malaise: Due to mind control, possession, or whatever other reason you like, your character is not in control of his own actions for a while, so although you clearly did some bad things, it wasn't because you're evil.

It's worth noting that res debuff resistance already exists. Specifically, res debuffs are resisted by normal damage resistance. So your set already has res debuff resist.

Do note that Musculature does NOT give endurance reduction. It gives endurance MOD, as in the stuff you slot in Stamina. If you want endurance reduction, you can do Cardiac or Vigor.

Yeah, but so will the Kin and SoA. Do their caps also need raising? You say Kinetics isn't the only support set that can cap damage, but of the support sets that even HAVE damage buffs, all except Kin are relatively small (the highest is Forge, at 50% for defenders) and often single-target. With 95% damage slotted, and let's even assume a t4 core musculature for another 30%, tankers need +95% in damage buffs to even reach the cap during Build Up. That is not an all-the-time or even most-of-the-time occurrence, even in leagues.
Frequently running into the damage cap is not an issue unless you're playing Super Strength, and I don't see why /SS Raging to the damage cap is any different, or any more of an issue, than a Kin Fulcrum Shifting themself to the cap.

A brick isn't a CoH tank, though. Brick, as I've seen it used, refers to superhuman physical strength and durability. Tanks certainly CAN be bricks, but many combos like a Fire/Fire share little in common with the comic book definition of brick. And Hulk is clearly a brick, but also clearly a brute. So bricks and tanks are two different categories that only partially overlap.
This is because the story characters tend to be classified by their power types, while in-game we classify them by their group role (which may be poorly defined in the comic, if it exists at all). This is true for other common classifications as well, like speedster (MA/SR scrapper or Kinetics defender, to name just two possibilities), psychic (blaster/corr/defender/troller/dom/widow), and so on.

...and I don't know about you, but it drives me nuts when they do. Especially if they classify themselves/each other into categories that don't make any sense in-character, like the example we're discussing. "Tank" is an MMO concept which, as you've pointed out earlier, doesn't even make much sense in a comic book world. It wouldn't have bothered me if they'd just said outright that Hawkman was good at drawing attention, and that can be an asset. But instead they chose a silly MMO term that the characters probably wouldn't use or even be aware of. I half-expected them to follow up with describing how adding the Flash would really raise the team's average APM, or how they would advise the candidates they deemed unqualified to l2p.