Talk:Power Set Proliferation

Future Possibilities

Should these be here? Back on Issue 13's Talk page, we were told to remove speculation from that article, unless there was some type of souce. SaintNicster 19:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't mind shortening it down. I could consolidate a lot of space by removing the input by some of the sets. If you really feel it should be done, I have no problem putting time in to do it. Bluebeetle27 20:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Revamp

At the moment, the article looks like one of the definition pages. Should this page be revamped with the instory background Dr. Brainstorm and his Resonance Manipulator device being the one responsible for powerset proliferation in a similiar manner to Mission Architect and Architect Entertainment? Sera404 22:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• That sounds like a better plan. SaintNicster 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Revamp Part 2

I've revamped the article to clean up the presentation a bit. The "future possibilities" part is retained minus the rampant parenthetical speculation, though I didn't add the information about Dr. Brainstorm and his shennanigans. I like the way the article functions currently, so adding the story side of things would be a welcome addition. --GuyPerfect 23:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Question - why do we even have the possible future proliferations at all? All of that is speculation without a drop of proof and doesn't belong here. -- -- Agge _(talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Aggelakis. I don't like idle speculation. Will Scrappers get battle axes? Will Dominators get Illusion Control? Who knows, we might as well just make up a matrix of every single archetype/powerset combination. If something has been said by a dev that indicates that something is more likely than other things, I don't mind referencing that, but I really would rather stick to credible information. --TonyV 00:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Powerset Proliferation

As I noted at Talk:Power Set, the devs have shown a very strong tendency to spell this "Powerset Proliferation". Consider: overview for Powerset Proliferation, Issue 12 (Powerset Proliferation introduced), Issue 16 (another around of proliferation). Searching google on site:na.cityofheroes.com, there are 25 results for "powerset proliferation" but only a mere 5 results for "power set proliferation". Has someone contacted the devs to confirm that the official spelling for this term is actually "Power Set Proliferation"? Inconsistent though it may be, it's not unfeasible for "Power Set" to become "Powerset" when used within another official term. Sometimes two-word nouns (or more accurately, adjective-noun pairs of words) merge into a single word when used as an adjective. In any case, since the strong majority of times where the term is used it is spelled "Powerset Proliferation", I strongly object to changing the spelling of the term unless a dev tells us otherwise. We should be reflecting the prevalent official spelling of these words, regardless of how inconsistent that may be. -- Sekoia 03:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The devs didn't even have an official preference before I brought it up. Since then, all new material has been "Power Set". Any case of "Powerset" in the future will amount to copypasta, but don't let that stop you from fishing for an answer from Paragon. --GuyPerfect 03:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Have they been consistently using "Power Set Proliferation" in new material as well? -- Sekoia 05:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Everything that they've posted since July, 2011, regarding proliferation has been "Power Set." — talk / contribs 10:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I retract my objections. :) -- Sekoia 17:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)