As noted, the characters with DCA stats were being reviewed and adjusted – this is now done.
Most of the entries received small changes – point costs fixes, more standard descriptors, standard formatting, adding a Feature to people who carry several copies of a piece of equipment, etc.
Some did get more substantial reorganisation of the data to reflect the statting conventions that are emerging at writeups.org (since our stats tend to be more detailed than the official ones). The main trend is sharper delineation of what does what – to build cleaner objects when statting up. The changes to Battlestar (with the Shieldsman “power”) or to Black Lotus (with the Fangirl “power”) are typical of this, as they more crisply detail what stems from skill, what stems from equipment, and what stems from specialised skill in using this equipment. Standardising Thump to align with the approach that has emerged to describe large characters is also part of this. Standardising whether armoured costumes are Subtle or Noticeable, and why. This sort of things.
Reviewing a relatively small pool of characters over and again is not the best approach for those who’d like to see an explosion in the population of DCA writeups, but the idea remains to develop skill and system mastery over months of hard work – quality before quantity. Iterating over a pool of characters for a while is almost as good for experience as tackling many characters, and it avoids leaving us with a large set of poor writeups that then have to be upgraded as we realise what we were doing wrong as we learned. Given the amount of work that already goes into upgrading terrible things we wrote many years ago… that’s a big big plus.
The review has raised a few more points (Perception benchmarks, Enhanced Attributes notation, Limited Protection standards, etc.) that are getting discussed in our cool, welcoming Atomic Think Tank thread. Which means that the next step is probably going to be… a quick review to align the existing material with the conclusions. Again.