Excraft

I always thought she'd fit right in with an Armor Wars project and pairing her up with Rhodey. Maybe that's the obvious thing to do so Marvel tried for something different. Shame that the whole Rhodey revelation was done in Secret Invasion. I agree with you that overall the show isn't horrible. I think Secret Invasion was a lot worse. I do like Dominque Thorne in the role.

I don't "scorn" the writers or the show. You'll note I've said the show wasn't all that bad and there's just one or two parts I find badly written. I just don't find the writers work on parts of this series well done and fleshed out. Is that ok with you? That's not me. That's the dialogue from Wakanda Forever and Ironheart. I'm not offended, nor do I dislike that she's making poor choices. Most superheroes do at one point or another. That's part of her journey. I'm offering my opinion on an aspect of the story that I don't find particularly well conceived that makes the character unrelatable for me. Again, is this ok with you? You'll note Pym, Stark, Gates and Tesla didn't need to turn to a life of crime to achieve what they did. But ok, let's set those few examples aside. Here are a few more from the real world. Mozart wrote his first concerto at 17. Blaise Pascal wrote a treatise on vibrating bodies at age 9. Enrico Fermi published his first scientific papers at age 19 and earned his doctorate at 21. Isaac Newton wrote his paper on the Binomial Theorem at age 22. Albert Einstein published his Annus Mirabilis at age 26. Alan Turing became a fellow at Cambridge at 24 and published his "On Computable Numbers" paper at age 24. Surely Riri Williams - super genius - is at least on par with some of them? I can list many more if you like. By the way, none of those examples needed to turn to crime either. Also, I'm not "miffed" she hasn't already made millions. I find it poorly written that someone of her talents and intellect decides to waste her opportunities, of which there would be many open to her... many that wouldn't be available to anyone else. Yes, I don't like to see people waste their potential and blow their opportunities. So what? How did his money help him when he created his first armor? Stark built the miniature arc reactor and that armor in cave from literal scraps. His money had nothing to do with it and was of no help to him there. It was the answer that was dumb and evasive. I already know the answer - you don't like other people offering criticisms of things that you like, and it's very clear that no amount of criticism, no matter how minor, is acceptable for you.

I completely disagree. You can't get much worse than what these "writers" came up with for that part of her story. All of which is irrelevant to the story of Ironheart. Riri is supposed to be a super genius who's smarter than Stark, Pym, Gates and Tesla. People less smart than her could come up with technologies they could sell for big money to fund their personal projects, but Riri can't? I guess you're just going to continue to evade the question. No problem.

Come on, this isn't rocket science. Riri invented a Vibranium detector. She can't sell it or the patent to it to some company for big money? What do you think something like that would be worth? She created an all new AI system on the show. She can't sell that for money to an AI firm? She can't develop other technologies or devices that she can turn around and sell to large corporations for huge sums of money and use those funds to finance her personal armor project? What's the difficulty in understanding that? Tesla sold all kinds of inventions to make money. Riri Williams super genius can't? I understand that these aren't your forums. It's not what I asked you.

That's not always universally true. She also could, you know, negotiate like intelligent people do. "Sorry, you can't have my armor, but I'll build you this instead which would be just as profitable for you"... like the Vibranium detector. You didn't answer the question. Is there anything that people are allowed to question or criticize or dislike with this stuff? I'm not asking Mods.

You didn't answer the question. Is there anything that people are allowed to question or criticize or dislike with this stuff? Exactly this. It seems more and more people are too fragile to have their opinions challenged. For me, I just found parts of the story poorly contrived and would've liked to have seen something better. That's all. I'm not saying the entire series sucks or the actress sucks or anything of the sort. Unfortunately, that gets treated like bashing here by a select few. Her turning to crime is really the only objection I have and would've liked to have seen something different. Tony Stark built his first arc reactor and armor out of scraps with almost no tools. Peter Parker built stuff by dumpster diving and using his school chemistry set. Riri Williams - who we've been told over and over is smarter than all of them - can't at least do the same? Crime was her only alternative?

There is a difference between illegal and immoral/dumb.

Why didn't Thanos use the Infinity stones to create limitless self-replicating resources instead of wiping out half the population of the universe? Is there anything that people are allowed to question or criticize or dislike with this stuff?

Because he did not want the weapons he was creating to fall into the wrong hands. He didn't stop because what he was doing was illegal, he did it because he saw innocent people were getting hurt by his weapons. You're confusing morality and ethics with legality. And in doing so, to quote Obadiah Stane - I don't think anyone has suggested she's irredeemable. At least to me, I just don't think having her go the route of being a common criminal to steal from others was a good idea. That's all.

I understood this just fine. The issue you're either not seeing or willfully ignoring just to be argumentative is that none of what Tony Stark did was illegal. Riri Williams turning to actually committing crimes is illegal. Going by that alone, why aren't you criticizing her for not only committing actual crimes, but in doing so she's actually unethical? To further another point, if she's half as smart as we keep getting reminded she is, she's certainly quite stupid from not learning from the mistakes others have already made. This doesn't seem right to me either. We keep getting reminded how smart she is and how much smarter she is than Stark... but she needs "funding" to build her armor. Well, as you pointed out, Stark built his first suit in a cave with barely any equipment out of scraps. His billions that Riri is so envious of didn't mean anything to him in that cave and didn't help him at all. So she's how smart again? Can't she accomplish at least the same thing with scraps?

The problem here is that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can't. You're saying weapons manufacturers are evil people while at the same time saying weapons are ok. Warplanes can be used to defend ones resources, land and people too, just like a handgun can protect an individual in their home. It's abundantly clear you've lost the point. Tony Stark selling weapons did not do anything criminal or illegal with his legitimate business. Riri Williams committing crimes to steal things that don't belong to her is illegal. That's the difference. It doesn't matter if she's stealing a candy bar from a Becker's. Stealing is stealing. That is what makes her unrelatable. Her intentions may be good, but that doesn't justify turning to crime as a means to an end. You're trying to have your cake and eat it as well. You've said weapons manufacturers are evil people, but now you're saying that weapons are acceptable. Are they good or are they bad? Which is it? Pick one.

And how did that turn out? Oh right... Ultron tried to destroy all of humanity. Good going Stark! So what? He still built weapons. He could have withheld his repulsor tech from S.H.I.E.L.D. for use on their next generation of helicarriers. He could have taken the War Machine armor back if he were so morally against weapons being in "the wrong hands". Here is the funny part - you're on one hand saying weapons are bad and anyone manufacturing them for any reason is morally evil, but then suggesting now that since Tony Stark was a nice guy trying to protect the world, it was ok for him to create weapons of mass destruction. Are all weapons offensive? Or can they be defensive in application? How are you going to defend yourself against an aggressor without weapons? Like I said above, you're picking and choosing where it is or isn't acceptable to produce a weapon.

Yeah good luck with that.

Actually, thinking about this more, Stark DID continue making weapons. The Iron Legion, Ultron, his various other suits of purpose designed suits of armor... those are all weapons. Stark Industries may have stopped manufacturing weapons, but Stark himself went on making a whole lot more of them. One of which nearly destroyed all life on Earth.

Yeah that's magical fantasy world though. In the real world, there are very bad, very evil people out there, and not having weapons to defend yourself leads to bad consequences for you. Thinking that if the world magically stops manufacturing weapons that conflict will disappear is wishful thinking. Even in the fantasy world of the MCU, the world still builds more and more weapons despite Stark ending his manufacturing of them. Anyway, if Stark was smart enough to know to keep his Iron Man tech out of the hands of everyone, Riri - who is supposedly smarter - should be able to understand that much.

I guess things like GoFundMe or Patreon don't exist in the MCU, or you know, getting a job. I agree with @BrandX there are a lot of other options open to her other than crime. Resorting to become a criminal really makes the character dislikable and is a big turn off. I mean, maybe they're trying to put a Robin Hood spin on it, but it didn't work. Dominique Thorne does well with the material she's been handed. I think I'd have liked it better with a much better story. Outside of that, the visuals are well done, although I still think the wrap around armor thing is repetitive.

You seem very confused. This isn't what I said at all. I made no such claims regarding "unhinged rants" and whether they are or are not useful.

Thank you for very eloquently proving my point.

Nothing wrong with disagreement. I can read about a heart attack or being bitten by a great white shark. I'd rather not actually experience either. I can read about my salary being reduced by 10%. I'd rather not experience that. I've read in the local newspaper my property taxes are going up next year. I already know I won't like it, I don't need to experience it. I don't necessarily disagree that changes on BETA should be tested in their totality to see how they work overall. I merely suggested that dismissing an opinion outright over changes that are relatively straightforward in the patch notes without actually testing is dismissive, and many times used as a crutch to discount what can be valid criticism. Some things really can be gleaned just by reading. Again, I don't agree with the OP that these changes are the end of the world. As I've said, there is a lot of good stuff in this patch.

It sounds like you didn't read my post at all. I understand what the changes are and what the point of them is. I wasn't making a commentary on any individual changes or the patch in general beyond it's not the world ending update some are making it out to be. My comment was regarding dismissive replies.

Or they've tried anchovies before and know they don't like to eat them regardless if they're in a salad or on a pizza. I can't stand cilantro, doesn't matter what it's in or mixed with. If something has cilantro, I won't eat it. I can come up with many more examples too. Spot on. Couldn't agree more. I wish it were different too, but it is what it is.

I know most people mean well when they post this standard dismissive "did you try it?" response, but it's a pointless retort and over abused to dismiss/discount the feedback/opinion of someone else. Simply put, one doesn't need to taste food that's prepared from ingredients they already know they don't like. They can tell that just by reading ingredients. If one reads Dev notes that discuss "reduced damage" and such, there isn't much need to test things out to know it's a nerf. With that said, I don't think all of these changes being put forth in this update are world ending. There is quite a lot of good stuff in there. There isn't much anyone can do. HC will change what they feel is necessary as its their server and they can do whatever they like. I'm not at all saying that's a bad thing.

I made no mention whatsoever one way or the other about solo play and whether or not it has any worth in consideration. That's you attempting to inject that into my post. Why I don't know. For the record, it's poor form to inject things into other people's posts that isn't there. Seems clear that you're just interested in arguing, so good day to you.

I never said it wasn't or even suggested it wasn't. You've completely missed what I was saying. Thanks for the response and your understanding. It's appreciated. Don't get me wrong, I understand why these are used as test scenarios and that they provide data based on how individual characters with individual sets will perform. I just don't know that I really think that these results are what should be used to determine adjustments. Soloing one mission over and over or standing in one place punching a pylon isn't really standard activity in a game where people are teaming up for missions, TFs/SFs, iTrials, raids etc. Again, using my TW scrapper as example, it performs much better with much higher DPS when solo. That goes for any of my characters regardless of AT/set choices. If I go by those solo results, the TW set is way overpowered and vastly outperforms other sets, like my Kinetic Melee scrapper. With that said, put either one of them in a team setting and both aren't doing anywhere near the same DPS and performing poorly compared to soloing. How much DPS you're generating is highly dependent on what enemies are being fought as well. I guess the best way to describe is that tests like this seem to want to make adjustments/nerfs to "correct" spreadsheet numbers at the expense of team play and how the game actually flows. I personally do not care if Tankers do 2% better DPS than a brute in a solo mission or standing idle punching a pylon. I understand why you all want to use these as test cases. No need to change that. You all make whatever changes you like based on whatever spreadsheet criteria you like. Nothing I or anyone else here will say can change that. I just thought I'd offer my 2 inf on it. Thanks for all the work you all put into the game. It's appreciated, even if I disagree with some of the changes you all make.

Not only that, it doesn't represent actual team play where a tank isn't doing the highest DPS. In a team setting, Tank DPS is minimal, if any at all due to the overwhelming DPS coming from the damage dealers on a team. There are Hami raids running all the time on Excel where melee are discouraged in favor of bringing blasters or corruptors. Those kinds of things are an indication to me that tanks aren't doing too much DPS. My TW brutes and scrappers can do great DPS soloing. Those same toons on a team can struggle to keep Momentum going due to lack of targets unless I hotdog it and split off from the rest of the group to solo. I understand that Trapdoor and Pylons are used as a test. I just don't think that their results are all that meaningful.