biostem
-
Posts
7772 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
94
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by biostem
-
-
1 minute ago, Vaylenisme said:
That may explain why when the Assult bot spins its upper torso, the waist twists into a pretzil instead of just spinning!
Funnily enough, IIRC, the larger Banished Pantheon Lore pet also does that "360 degree waist rotation" animation...
-
8 minutes ago, kkslidermight said:
I have to question how much of that population is unique players.
You sow that FUD! I'm sure it'll help things out, just like how eliminating multi-boxing will suddenly get those people to team with you...
And for the record, I myself do not dual-box.
-
14 minutes ago, kkslidermight said:
multiboxing is a blight and a pox ESPECIALLY when low-pop. it rewards players for being antisocial in an mmo, and punished players who want to find other players to group with. now that I know it's permitted here I don't think I'll keep playing.
Forced teaming will not foster camaraderie, and CoH has always been a stand-out with how it is mostly solo-friendly...
-
14 hours ago, BasiliskXVIII said:
I do think some are easier than others
FWIW, the issue seems to be, (from what little I know), that MMs were kind of kludged together to get them to work on whatever timetable the OG devs had to add the AT, so the issue isn't necessarily about whether you're using 4-legged models or humanoid ones; It's not that your or the OP's suggestion doesn't have merit - it's that it'd be a huge undertaking...
-
31 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
By the way, I have to ask. What does that microphone looking response mean? I keep getting them on my posts all the time too.
I interpret it as meaning that your points should be amplified...
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
I could see a place for a positional defense armor toggle, but maybe in another, new APP - like perhaps a "Ninja Mastery" APP that gives a shuriken throw, a couple katana attacks, danger sense, etc...
-
16 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
However, as I've had to point out to many people on this forum, I am not responsible for the "tone of voice" that you hear in your head when you read my posts.
To add to this, I actually find it more offensive when someone tries to sugar-coat what they actually want to say, instead of just being upfront and honest...
-
2
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:
It's not a "us vs. them" thing. Everyone is responsible for their own posts.
But this should be a fun place. A lot of people could relax and not take everything personally.
In general, I agree, but the issue, IMHO, arises due to one person's tolerance for "shenanigans" vs that of others, and whether we should be lowering the age-appropriateness of discussion to their desired level, or whether a more mature one should be fostered...
-
1
-
-
It's funny how none of the discussion wants to place the onus on those starting new threads/topics to do any due diligence on their part; It's always about not liking someone else's response to said threads. How about this: If you don't want to face or just can't handle possible push-back or criticism of your ideas, don't post them online, and that goes double if you aren't prepared to defend your ideas besides "I want X"...
-
1
-
1
-
6
-
-
17 minutes ago, BasiliskXVIII said:
Intent matters. If I were to call someone a 'cup of flat diet Coke' with intent to denigrate, it’s still an insult—even if the phrase itself isn’t on a list of bannable terms or even particularly rude. Whether you personally find it offensive isn’t the point. The goal of moderation should be to set expectations for respectful interaction.
Intent does matter, and once there is an objective, independently verifiable way of determining what is mean spirited vs what is tongue-in-cheek or just banter, then a certain level of "thick skin" is to be expected from anyone conversing online. You are fully within your right to block/ignore someone whom you personally do not like or just don't want to hear from - empower yourself!
-
1
-
1
-
3
-
-
13 hours ago, PoptartsNinja said:
I've brought this up before, but I'm still hoping it gets acted on because it seems like such an easy win. I would absolutely love it if we could get both 'normal human arms' and 'tights' upper arm options for Robotic Arms 1, 2, and 3. Robotic Arms 1 and 2 can already take bare skin options on their forearms, so--why not give us the upper arm options as well?
This would be a great way to achieve a non-tech asymmetrical look! Regarding the tights option - how would you hand that? Would you draw from the existing torso patterns and somehow clip out the section only for that 1 upper arm, or do you mean extending the pattern from the already selected torso option/pattern?
-
A few AI-enhanced versions of "RadActor":
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, Healix said:
Och... tá brón orm! 😁
Bless you!
-
1 hour ago, El D said:
kettle of catgirls
Should... should we be concerned? Still, you raise good points!
-
There are some face options that don't exhibit this behavior, but those generally aren't skin, either. I could be misremembering, but doesn't this have to do with how colors on skin are treated as an addition of the color, instead of being applied over/on top of, the skin? Conjecture aside, yes, I'd like my chosen face color to actually reflect, y'know, the actual color I selected, so agreed!?
-
1
-
-
I don't know how feasible this would be to implement, but I was thinking it'd be really cool if there was an optional setting that would replace the defeat animation for human/living enemies, where they go into some generic "Apprehended" pose, then a "teleported out" animation would play instead of the normal fading away. Mechanically, nothing would change, so powers that target defeated enemies would work just like they do now; This would be a purely aesthetic change...
-
3
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Stormwalker said:
think if you can logically refute someone's point, you don't need to say "this idea is dumb". You can just say, "Here are the problems I see with this idea," instead.
Telling someone "Your idea is stupid" will nearly always be read by that person as "You are stupid", whether that was the intent or not. It establishes a hostile tone for a discussion, and contributes to the digging in of heels I mentioned in my previous comment.
And in a formal setting, with real-time moderation, I'd agree that absolutely no name calling should be permitted. That being said, this is an internet forum for a video game, where trash-talking and playful banter are to be expected. We are, supposedly, all adults here, so if someone cannot handle the potential for some less-than-neighborly recourse, then maybe their ideas can't stand the scrutiny. It criticism of one's idea(s) can so easily be refuted, then do that when presented with "Your idea is dumb because of reason X". If you present a bad idea, how that is called out shouldn't be as important as why it's dumb, and if that "why" is presented in a coherent manner, then that's where the discussion should stop. It's like a driver of a car being upset because they didn't like how you pointed out to them that they were going the wrong way or something... if they hadn't gone the wrong way, there wouldn't have been a reason for you to yell at them in the first place.
-
6 minutes ago, Stormwalker said:
My opinion is that actively insulting someone's comments (calling them "dumb", "BS", "drivel", "garbage", etc.) is pretty much the same thing as insulting the person who posted it.
So you don't think an idea could be dumb, even if the person isn't? Can't it be said that even the smartest of people do stupid things at least once in their life?
6 minutes ago, Stormwalker said:If someone can't express why they disagree with someone else without resorting to name-calling, either they need to re-evaluate their viewpoint (because they're having trouble logically supporting it) or else they need to rein in their emotions (because they're interfering with their ability to make logical and polite arguments).
You are literally critiquing someone's character while complaining about others critiquing someone's character. Just responding with "this is dumb" or "you are dumb", without anything additional is, I agree, rather fruitless. Saying "This idea is dumb and here's why", is perfectly valid.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Parabola said:
Othering as I understand the term is the assignment of labels to people, I don't see how calling out such behaviour in the abstract can be considered the use of this? But I appreciate that all this is very much a matter of perspective which is what makes this such a tricky topic.
Whenever you designate an "us vs them" dichotomy, you, by necessity, "other" that other group. My point isn't so much that it is always a bad thing, more where the line is, and when do we say, for instance, "OP, your point has been refuted. Let's close this thread". My reasoning is that some topics that get posted are also just met with indifference while others repeatedly spark heated debate, so perhaps it isn't a matter of "othering", but rather that certain topics have been beaten to death, so instead of triggering another forum battle, just say "It's already been discussed ad nauseum, so check out those other threads instead of riling folks up"...
-
2 minutes ago, Parabola said:
Too much antagonism and 'othering' is being allowed
Isn't this antagonizing and othering those that disagree with you, though? Just how thickly or thinly veiled are we going to get, here?
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Stormwalker said:
Now, lenience in terms of corrective actions taken for first offenses (or even for those who haven't offended in a long time) is something I do agree with... but the offender should still be informed that they crossed the line
Indeed. Not giving useful feedback for a moderation action doesn't help that person to learn or adjust their behavior. Along with that is clear limits or boundaries; Is calling an idea dumb the same as calling the person who suggested it, dumb? If someone thinks they have a really good idea, but reasons are provided as to why said idea can't or won't be implemented enough to end that discussion? If not, just how many times must it be restated and countermanded before the proverbial case is closed?
-
4 minutes ago, Troo said:
I'd see bullying for bullying.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and what you define as bullying actually isn't.
-
3
-
-
6 minutes ago, Troo said:
Also, maybe hold those with more posts to a higher standard
Yeah... no. I'm not a fan of differential enforcement. Also, one person's "bullying" is another person's "I've seen this question asked dozens of times, have you read the FAQ or tried the search function"...
-
3
-
5
-
-
37 minutes ago, Uun said:
I stated multiple times that I don’t want the power changed. Please don’t assume I have other motives.
C'mon - you aren't stupid; I'm sure you know that they could have mode those powers cones or AoEs if they wanted to. Clearly, they didn't, so why bring it up? Were you just gazing at your navel, thinking, "Hey! Why's this thing that the devs could have made one way, a different way instead?" A quote comes to mind, (paraphrased): "Methinks thou doth protest too much"...
Regeneration for Tanks & Super Strength for Scrappers and Stalkers
in General Discussion
Posted
I know tankers get better defense/resist values from their armors, but does that extend to regeneration and/or healing? Maybe give them a variation of the old instant healing toggle power?