Toggle buffs

When you don't seem to be comprehending what is being said, then no, it's a fair point to bring up.
Really... strange, as I'm not the one claiming anyone's "jumping down my throat."

And the idea in the OP and elsewhere in the thread is a bad one, and I'm going to point out why it's bad. Something I've done in a non-hostile way - at least, non-hostile seeming to everyone but you.
See, there you go again.

And again I have to question your own comprehension - this time of what you wrote - or wonder if English is perhaps not your first language, as *my* doing any jumping would hardly be exercise for *you.* The statement makes no sense.
There are *very* few times that one thing is given without another being rebalanced or taken away. Hide losing its END cost is a rarity in dev actions, for instance, and that was solely because that power is so *integral* to Stalkers, a cornerstone of the AT. Inherent fitness, in a way, is balanced by *not* giving in to requests for extra slots. When Dominators were buffed, some powers were brought *down* (and IIRC END cost was increased in general) as a point of balance.

All you need to do is pay the *slightest* bit of attention to prior dev actions, and apply a bit of common sense instead of "well, they'd just give me this."
Unless, oh, I have *most of the history of the game's various power changes* to back up that point.

Let's see. As suggested, it's a toggle. It's a toggle that brings benefit to the *entire team,* and removes the prior balance (have to track down that dev quote) of time and duration.

Now, do you *really* think that would cost no END? Or an unnoticable amount, when putting them on *now* can cost a chunk of END? Then just imagine putting it on a team of 8. 7 other people. Likely your own pet, if you're a controller. And maintaining that while trying to run OTHER toggles (Dispersion bubble, for instance) or apply other buffs, AND attack/use controls/etc.

Apply a little common sense.
You seem to be pushing your own by assuming hostility where there is none.
Your actions don't support this.
I replied to it. There was some back and forth. I'm not convinced there's a problem *now* that anyone else's solution wouldn't be *worse* than.

I'm "taking away your buffers?" What odd twist of pseudologic brought you to that conclusion? People play buffers now. People ENJOY playing buffers now. Maintaining the status quo, logically, would mean there would STILL be people playing and *enjoying* playing buffers. Making any of the changes mentioned here, with the issues brought up *against* them, WOULD reduce the number of buffers. I can say that by fact, because if (a) I'm unable to use my attacks/controls to the fullest because of the new END drain of maintaining 2-14 buffs (2 shields per teammate, 1-7 teammates,) or (b) I'm getting told not to play (given prior PUG experience, I'm HIGHLY confident this would not be an unusual occurence,) my buffers would be shelved, or reworked in some instances to solo-only builds.

See my Guides and Tutorials

Do you mean creating a separate power for every single target buff in the game that can be used as affecting multiple targets? Cause I don't think that they can simply add that function to all single target buffs. (But I could be wrong).

If it can be done (let's not get into how long that would actually take to implement. . . I'd guess issue 25 or 26 at the earliest if the devs were convinced that it was necessary . . . I personally I'm still not but would not be mad if they went that way) that way I would not object . . . provided that: NOTHING HAPPENS to the CURRENT single target buffs at all.

I simply wouldn't use the multi target ones. I think from what you describe it would be simply unfun to have to use rest or wait for my end to come back up, every time I used it. (like many MMs have to now after they multi buff their pets) And I don't think the rest of the team would stay in range (it'd have to have a range, I don't see the devs allowing you to buff teammates in other parts of the map--like another room---EVER) as that would becoming annoying quickly on a fast moving team. (Basically nearly every team currently in game). To me it would make playing a buffer worse and UNFUN.

Besides the caveats I stated I can get behind that IF the devs want to give it as an OPTION.

Yep this is the part many folks don't seem to get. MANY FOLKS LIKE the way buffing CURRENTLY works.

Playing a buffer/debuffer/healer (in any game, not just this) is something that's a personally preference. You have to realize that a drawback to playing such toons is that they won't be attacking nearly as much as the toons that don't have to manage the rest of the team.

It's not for everyone, just like playing a tank is not for everyone.

Brings up a whole *other* issue.

Either the current buffing sets would be changed (which I'm quite obviously against,) or you'd essentially have to create completely new sets that duplicate the *same* functionality (and are rebalanced however they'd need to be) just for the new buff styles.

Alternately, going through and creating an entirely new system - and I'd imagine it'd have to be even more in depth (not to mention complex) than just alternate animations - to allow alternate *powers* to be selected would have to be created. If such a system could even be supported by the game.

As far as your "multi-buff," it still has the issues involved with AOE buffs (catching people who don't want it, missing those who do, something I can take care of with single buffs,) and if I'm recalling discussions back when MM pets got THEIR buff changed to one, there's not a way of tracking how many pets/players/etc are getting the buff applied to them. If there were, I'd imagine it would have been applied to the MM AOE upgrades already (as it would make sense to - lower cost for low-level masterminds with only 1-3 pets, higher cost for those with six but who are better equipped, through powers, slotting, and larger enhancement trays, to deal with the END cost.)

See my Guides and Tutorials

Yeah, that coming from Sharker_Q...

But the only remotely confrontational comment I made involved a soap box and I've already said it was probably an incorrect gesture and putting words in other's mouths.

I've gone back through every post of mine (and most of the thread) and no, I really haven't been confrontational. Persistent? Yes. Honestly, why I've lapsed in my habit of responding to every little annoying tidbit, I do not know.

And I've said my suggestion changes no aspect of the power. It costs the same endurance, it does not stack the same effect, no numbers on any buffs would be changed, the recharge would still remain. The only difference would be the choice of refreshing deflection shield in 4 minutes after you cast it, or cast it twice and it last longer. You're paying the same opportunity cost. No values are changed.

By the by, none of this was brought up or discussed when I suggested it. I would *like* to have a discussion on how this would impact the play of certain characters or how it'd upset game balance if it does...


Fine, how about I accuse you of not knowing how to read.

Sounds to me like the OP is more open minded than a lot of you are being, which is sad for posters with such high reputations (well, not Shark_Q ).

Summary: I have read the thread. The OP's idea is unfinished (which they admitted) and most likely unfeasible (I won't say completely because absolutes will end up making me wrong). The situation that the OP and others have brought up could have some thought put into it to resolve it without upsetting game balance. However, there are others unwilling to put forth their mind power *unless* they get some other fix out of this.

And yes, this was actually said. I've pinpointed the post for you:

So that means, the only way we'd get people to collaborate for this idea to soothe some of the 'buff tedium' is if it came gift wrapped with a means to block unwanted buffs.

I don't know how more cut and dry that could be laid out for you.

The OP definitely comes across as more open minded than you. At this point I'm starting to wonder if your just doing this to derail his thread.

Is 'you're jumping down my throat' an insult to you? Is that not what you're doing? If not, then just simply refrain from bringing other's ability to read into the conversation. Simple as that.

Off topic: Like Sharker_Q said, I apparently come off as confrontational. If you think there's any anger in any of these posts, you're mistaken. I'm simply responding. The exercise comes from *not* typing when I feel confronted. Because then, my fingers travel 200+ WPM (that's fast for me >_>) and I don't bother editing my posts nicer when I do that.

If I feel confronted, I'll go read a few other threads or do something else before coming back to comment. However, I don't feel confronted because I've been working not to. So you jumping at me on not understanding English or how to write and read is good exercise on managing that impulse. Understand?


Actually, all of those are examples why a stacking duration buff mechanic might be viable without altering any numbers. And Doms weren't brought down (IIRC, their base damage was increased and lots of powers had their damage improved. Some powers were 'balanced' because they weren't previously, not because domination was changed).

Yes, it's possible that changes to the power would be made but I'm hard pressed to believe we'd be looking at reduced buff numbers for it. Maybe an increased endurance cost, but even as is, the buffs we're primarily talking about don't cost that much and would just be more reason to slot some endurance redux.

Fix'd. Just so you understand the perspective I'm in. All you've said is 'because other powers were balanced or nerfed or buffed or changed, don't expect this change without heavy nerfs. It kinda makes no sense (although I can squint really hard and it make a little sense....in a wrong, round-about way).


Please don't imply I'm not. If you're not 'jumping down my throat' then you wouldn't, right? I'm trying to be helpful here. What are you doing?

Slippery slope fallacy.

But what brought up the conclusion I made was your solutions: Use binds or don't play such characters.

Even if just the OP herself quit her Kinetics, it flies in the face of your status quo.

So, you want the ability to buff someone for upwards of 30+mins so you can change toons to something different and then keep switching back and forth when buffing is needed again? Yeah, NOT going to happpen. If you(both you and the generic you) don't like the way buffers play then don't play them.

With multiple statements like you've made, yes, I *do* question if you're reading this correctly, or if English isn't your first language. That isn't an insult. For instance, it isn't Samuel_Tow's, so if he seems to misunderstand something or phrase something oddly, I *know* that and will phrase it differently. There are some here who are dyslexic. They get cut some slack.

You're making weird statements, odd phrasing choices, and seem to be having issues with following what's being said. Therefore, yes, I *will* say that to bring up that you don't seem to be reading what's being said.

And no, "You're jumping down my throat" is not an insult. It does, however, imply I'm attacking you in some way, which I haven't been. You take quite a few things as attacks that aren't. Leading, again, to wondering if you're actually reading what's being read or if there's a language or cultural difference.

See above.

And those powers were brought down. Also, yes, damage was *generally* increased to change the "Jeckyl and Hyde" feeling of Domination being up or down. however, if you go back and read the patch notes, you'll see mulitple powers had recharge times and/or endurance cost INcreased to compensate. (I hardly think anyone will call Zapp overpowered, for instance, yet its recharge time and END cost were incrased.)

Thus, "You don't just get one thing without something else being affected."

You *don't* believe that - using your suggestion, stacking your buff (say) six times for twenty-four minutes of END FREE, MAINTENANCE FREE defense or resistance (most shielding sets) - which would last if the caster died, the target ran out of END, etc. - would NOT result in a reduction of buff strength?

It's things like that that make me ask if you've actually thought these through.

You're asking for something for nothing. A change of this nature would just flat out not happen that way. You're saying that makes "no sense?" Really? Go back, read patch notes, and take into consideration WHY certain changes were made.

Pointing out that, like above, you're NOT using common sense when you say "oh, there'd be no reason for a nerf to these powers with this change."
Perhaps you should look up what that means.
And yet you're saying "Don't take away my buffers." Which, given the status quo shows people willingly and happily PLAYING such characters, would not happen if no change were made. Making the changes suggested in this thread now presents the negatives brought up throughout the discussion. Do you *really* think that there'd suddenly be an *influx* of people wanting to play buffers, or that people would just ignore the nerf (which is what would be included for this change in ability) that gets applied to their characters?

Prior experience (see: EM characters getting shelved post-Energy Transfer change, PVP builds getting dropped, PVP based characters being rerolled/deleted after I13, just for a few references) tends to indicate there would be fewer buffers AFTERWARD, given commonsense expectations of what the devs would likely do to balance those changes, than there are now. Thus, the OP's changes or your changes would be the ones "taking away your buffers." (That, I can guarantee, as my *many* buffers would be shelved or moved to solo-only builds where I don't have to worry about it.)

How is that difficult to understand?

If the OP quit playing Kinetics, it would be under normal "try and liked/didn't like" circumstances, the same as has been true from the game's beginning. I've never said "Nobody who plays a buffer has ever quit because they didn't like/get the playstyle." Just like people try Blasters and don't like them, or play Stalkers and don't like them, or play Masterminds and don't like them, or don't like specific powersets after trying them. There's no great revelation that people quit playing some characters after some experience with them. Don't try to play that off like it's some new phenomenon, or even a semi-realistic counterpoint to what I said. Some people not liking it and quitting is *still* a part of the status quo. Making a change that nerfs characters and makes more people shelve them? That is NOT.

See my Guides and Tutorials

Simple. Place restrictions as well as diminishing returns on stacking durations. Non-teammates can't boost duration, only refresh. Pets can only refresh. 2 deflection shields would last 6 min (base duration of the shields is 4 I believe). Further diminish to whatever wouldn't be ridiculous (is 10 mins too much for you? How about 8?).

Well, no. I don't suffer from any of those (although what weird phrasing you're talking about I don't know. It wouldn't be averse to point them out. It could just be typos/missing words I failed to type) and English is my first language. Pushing the phrase of reading comprehension and the lack thereof, or any inability to understand my own language is an insult even if unintentional. It's not a huge leap to take that as a personal attack so don't pretend it is.


Thus, "You don't just get one thing without something else being affected." [/quote]

And Zapp's damage was also increased for the endurance cost and recharge increase. That's how the game works. Higher damage attacks cost more endurance and recharge slower. In fact, an equation is usually used to come about the value of each of those attributes in relation to each other. But the adjustment of those didn't really have anything to do with the 'give and take' mantra. The assault sets were simply being normalized (case in point, Fiery Assault and Psi Assault). And the change to domination to remove the damage buff, while in the same update, was not the cause for the normalization. Devs simply work whole issues together and Domination and Assault Sets happen to be lumped on the agenda of 'Revisit Dominators'.


What you point out isn't related to not thinking things through but of lack of discussion. I could go on and write a 'full' proposal of the idea, but what I originally typed was more of a 'what if this? would it help?' to which I got a couple of 'that might a bit if done right'.

The constant insinuations that I'm not reading or lack comprehension just seem unneeded, especially when its in regard to just a one-shot proposal. No one put down numbers, AFAIK. You're so quick to dismiss the ideas with an exaggeration and a fallacy rather than simply pointing out the flaws.


Nah. While I have read all the patch notes for any new issues once released, I'm not going to bother rereading them. I feel no motivation to do so for someone that keeps jumping down my throat

Don't have to. I've experienced it and was educated of what it is and how it impacts a debate right here on these forums. The textbook definition is what you're saying unless you come up with a specific example that supports the conclusion you're jumping to.


Just to sum up what you just said:
Change = nerf. Nerf = Less players. Presented evidence: EM change to Energy Transfer resulted in fewer players of the set. This idea leads to the same end.

Slippery Slope

Simply establish how these chain of events are linked logically and you may have an argument or at least a means to relook at the idea to revise it.

And a change could increase player retention of these characters as well. And if the change were introduced in a manner to not upset balance or alter the established style of play? Or is that not a feasible outcome in your head?

...

You're *not* seriously saying that. Yes, the overall goal was "revisit dominators" - specifically to remove the (again, Castle's description among others) "Jeckyll and Hyde" play of being in vs being out of Domination.

Without removing the damage buff from Domination, the powers that *did* get damage boosts would not have. Nor would the damage scales overall have been adjusted. Some powers (such as Psychic Shockwave) would have been looked at anyway - actually, the entire Psy set would have been due to be looked at, from the experience of "The set sucks until 38, then it's a monster" that it used to have.

They wouldn't have done all they did and left that damage boost in Domination, short of a massive bout of self-inflicted head trauma.

"A" change perhaps could. Your change and the OP's proposals, however, don't lead me to believe that they would. Something you seem to refuse to believe.

I've shown prior examples of changes impacting set popularity. You seem to think saying "Or it could go better!" is somehow an appropriate rebuttal while giving *nothing* to back that up. This change isn't even one needed by an underperforming set or AT (such as Blaster "Defiance 2.0," Electric and Energy auras getting a heal added, or Stalkers getting an END-cost-free Hide,) just one of *some* people not liking buffing.

Oh, and as for your "DR" answer - all that does is (a) put off rebuffing, and (b) exacerbate the problem for those that don't like the current buff mechanics, as now every 10 minutes they "have" to rebuff *even more,* burning *even more* END for less of a result (with your example numbers, 10 minutes at 3 stacked, versus 12 minutes applied currently, assuming they drop that way and don't require MORE buff "rounds" to get there - and with less END to attack/control immediately after a buffing "round.") Doesn't sound like an improvement. Given that the point of this is "Buffing less often," you end up buffing *even more often* instead, and if you want the team to wait for you, you slow everyone down as you apply these 3-4 times... increasing the mission length and possibly leading to *yet another* buffing round. And breaking it so pets can't get increased duration "breaks" that buffing cycle, as well as being unfair to Controllers and Masterminds (especially Masterminds, or have you forgotten them?)

I'm sure you'll put this off as another attack, or "jumping down your throat," but all the ideas you and Jordan have put out there have problems that make them *less* than optimal compared to the status quo.

See my Guides and Tutorials

Then why was the damage of some attacks decreased yet their endurance and recharges increased (Flares and Combustion; Ice Sword Circle's damage was decreased and its endurance/recharge increased but could be due to the improvement to its radius. Power Push just had a plain damage increase without touching any other values)? Because it was a normalization of the assault sets to make their performance closer to each other. You *could* proceed to the conclusion that the normalization was set into play for the changes to domination but then you'd have to admit the level of difference between pre-change Energy Assault and Fiery Assault/Psi Assault/Elec Assault was satisfactory. I'm simply saying, even if the devs didn't change domination from what it was, the normalization would be needed. The way domination once was was simply a problem with how players wanted to build/play their doms. They didn't want ups and downs (as was apparent by the reactions to the dev's suggestions to change domination).

Apparently, that issue with the playstyle was enough for a change that didn't come with a nerf. Doms now have a damage scale that simulates domination's former damage buff that is constant and doesn't go away.

I suppose you can believe what you want to believe, but I don't sway to blind faith. I seek that '"A" change' you speak of, primarily because I enjoy discussion of suggestions/ideas that could use work to make feasible. I'm not putting blind faith behind the suggestion because I'm some ****** that wants to ruffle your feathers. I just want that less-appreciated buffer to have even more fun than they do now and for some buffers, they just have a smidgen less fun than the buffer enthusiasts that love nothing more than to refresh shields on their team.

Well yes. That's the idea. You can 'put off rebuffing' until you need to...but not in the way you're thinking. I guess it's allowing you to put off rebuffing until you 'need to' or 'want to' depending how you approach it. As is, there's only the 'need to' option.

Look at it from this perspective: If you just got through a tough fight and one or more of your teammates is holding to recover/resettle for whatever reason, you can apply your buffs now to take advantage of the free time. It will put off needing to buff them again and if that fight truly was tough and it went on longer than 5 minutes, you'd have had to reapply your shields mid-fight so they're still fresh at the end. Refreshing them *again* is kind of pointless but necessary. Stacking duration would at least make that somewhat more worth the effort.

Another scenario, if your team is *about* to get into a tough fight they *know* about and are discussing it, reapplying your buffs then or before the [censored!] hits the fan just means you'll have less to worry about during that time if you decided to preemptively extend recharge vs preemptively refresh mid-fight.

Other scenario, if you're dead-set on stacking 3 durations on everyone, you can spread this out during a mission. I.e. buff up everyone at the start (would take a good deal longer tho) and for the remainder of the mission, stagger the buffs so you only need to get 1 or 2 every other fight rather than everyone every few fights.

It's basically opening up the rebuff refresh window.

After explaining, do you see it more from my perspective?

Anyway, I don't think it'd be possible to make a suggestion that results in 'buffing less often', not upset balance *AND* preserve current playstyles, only because if a suggestion were put forth, you'd harp on another facet of the change damaging the status quo. Rather than seeing it like "well, I could do *that* or I can keep doing what I'm doing if I don't mind"...but I could see how it'd give yourself more busy work if you wanted it to.

And I didn't mean pets can't get increased duration, I meant pets can't *offer* increased durations. So a Protector Bot sitting there casting its shield isn't going to give the MM and all its pets long duration shields.

Well, you didn't accuse me of not being able to read, having a mental disorder or say I lack common sense again, so no I don't consider it jumping down my throat (or is it at my throat...slashing at my throat? it feels different typing it compared to just having a conversation and simply saying it).

There's prioritizing and - believe it or not - completely skipping buffs (depending on what they are) on some people. The people who complain about "having such a chore rebuffing" typically paint it like you have to give *everyone* every single buff every single time it comes up and that there's no time to do anything else. And that's just not true.

However, I'm backing off on this line of argument, as what I have in mind isn't something easily coded around (but see the "list" later.) Namely that some people are going to "have to" keep buffs up at full strength (duration) all the time, and enough potential teammates that are going to freak at them not being up - but that's player psychology more than code or power related. That will still be a minus for some, especially as they'll be burning the END more frequently (which likely won't endear them all that much more to the buffing sets.)

Right. You go on believing that. I don't defend the status quo just for the sake of doing so. I argue from the standpoint of it being known, and bring up the downsides (and, on occasion, reinforce the upsides or offer refinements) compared to *what we have now.* Those may *be* concerns related to how the devs have handled prior adjustments (again, "you don't get something for nothing" in most instances.) And I *am* going to bring those up, as a caution if nothing else.

Ahh. OK. Mea culpa there. Which eases a couple of concerns.

And with what you said earlier in this particular reply, that makes me lean a bit more toward the duration stacking - with "DR" in. I would, however, want to see two things (with a repeated call for a third: )

1. A warning as you get close to the DR limit. Let's call it, using FF, 3 bubbles, 10 minutes. I'd think of it with a color change on the buff icons, or a ring or something letting you know just where along the duration line you are.

2. Applying (for instance) a fourth bubble behaves just like trying to apply a second Mystic Fortune to someone - "Invalid," the power isn't fired off, END is not used until there's a "duration space" available. (This actually covers one of *my* concerns of END use, which is more a player psychology issue.)

3. Being able to see *only* the buffs you're giving - so you're not trying to reapply on someone else's buffs. That's been asked for for years.

Of course, all this brings another issue (at least if 3 isn't handled) of the UI clutter the game's had growing - but that's a whole other subject.

See my Guides and Tutorials

More than once you missed the point I and other have made about this issue. I don't think that changing some buffs to be a toggle is a bad idea, but buffs like Speed Boost that many players don't want would be forced on them just because there is a Kin on the team. The 'fix' to make buffs like this a toggle would create new problems that the devs would have to deal with. To say that this is unrelated to the OP is false. It would have to be looked at before any such change could be done. What is the point of bringing up an idea if we brush aside any talk of possible problems with the idea. I added a possible solution for a new problem the toggle idea would cause. I was not trying to mix other ideas in. I was adding my "mind power" to the idea to help iron it out so there wouldn't be need of many patches, nerfs, or extra re-balancing.

Now take a deep breath and don't act like anyone questioning something you say is trying to attack you. Reading through this thread shows me that there are many people trying to work together on this idea.

You make some good points, but I don't know what you mean about waiting. I slap buffs on pets and get rolling immediately. I only have one end reducer per buff too. I can always pop a blue if I'm down too low.

Realistically there are two problems:

1) Is there a need: I think so, some others don't.
2) Is it feasible? Maybe it would take too long and too much work to make any version of it work. I don't know the answer to that.

But an AOE one-time cast buff like RA works. Even on fast teams. They'll usually hold at the beginning of the mission or before big enemies. Otherwise, you can just wait till everyone's engaged on a big group and fire it in melee range

It's not that I don't like supporting and not attacking because I do. I've always played mostly defenders and then eventually controllers. What I don't like is having my sandcastle constantly washed away. Over and over and over.

I'd like it to be easier to build the castle or have it last longer.

That right there is one of the PROBLEMS I was stating. Currently on many teams people DON'T group up and wait for the buffer to fire. For most teams I've been on (fast moving teams) the buffer just hits everyone they can, because folks DON'T GATHER. EVER. I personally HATE that type of playstyle. It basically slows the speed of this game to a crawl when its often NOT necessary. I'd bet money I'm not the only one who feels that way.

I sure as hell know that what you describe DOES NOT happen on speed teams such as speed tfs and such.

For all buffs to work that way would be annoying as hell.

If it were an option I simply wouldn't use the multi ones.

You're right. There seem to be at least two other modifications that would be involved.

1) Refusing or disabling buffs (which many people already want).
2) A new power mechanic. However, I'm actually in support of extreme power modification (beyond the simple accuracy/damage/endurance/recharge/range etc.). Affecting cast time, cast AOE range, cast attributes etc. This would be on the order of power coloration I suppose, but I think it would be a great addition.

See THAT part I bolded right there would be another problem. I just don't see the devs allowing you to do that without a HEAVY "adjustment" to those powers. Even if they created separate AOE versions of them (the feasibility and how long that would take put aside for now) I'd bet money that the new AOE ones wouldn't be nearly as strong as the current single target (can't target yourself ones).

I've never personally had trouble buffing and attacking all at the same time. I just shift+1, buff, buff, shift+2, buff, buff and on till I hit all 7, then I get moving. I don't see an issue but again understand that that's not a playstyle that everyone would like.

I would like to respectfully ask that no one every say this. Ever.

There is another option besides "shut up and suck it up": discuss possible changes, evaluate the merits, work for change where practicable. Hence the point of the suggestions thread, no?

Agreed. As I said if they ever create OPTIONAL "toggle" versions of buffs I would not be mad, I simply wouldn't use them, as I don't see any way they could do it without making buffing an absolute HASSLE on the current typical COH teams.

Bill, I don't mean to be combative, but I agree with this statement and might have said something similar. It's great that you want to point out possible flaws, but suggestions for fixing it would be best. It's also not necessary to paint the absolute worst case scenario and present it as if it would absolutely happen and there are no other possibilities.

That particular approach is most likely to make many people just sit down, shut up, and stop making suggestions.

P.S. My only reason for bringing this up is because I'm under the impression that you aren't intending to be that way and I know from experience that it's hard to stop doing something that you don't notice you're doing.

I disagree. Completely. If you don't think a suggestion is needed, you ARE NOT required to make suggestions for improving it. You can simply point out WHY you don't think it's necessary and WHY you think it would make the current situation (that the suggestion is presumably tyring to "fix") WORSE.

THAT is a major portion of these forums. Always has been. Always will be. In fact many times it causes the Suggestion Onwer/original poster to go back and think of ways AROUND those objections. In many of these cases the suggestion was implemented with safegaurds by the devs in order to avoid the pitfalls people thought of.

It's NOT the job of those who think the suggesiton won't work/is unncessary/will make things WORSE to fix the original suggestion. It's the job of the SUGGESTION'S OWNER to offer things that work around those objections. Which by the way I think you'be been doing a very good job of.

I just don't want anyone to get confused that this forum does not allow complete disagreement with a suggestion. That's not the case at all.