Excraft

2025-09-17T16:21:48Z

3 hours ago, Troo said:

I am not aware of any big pvp renaissance going on. If asked, would folks say there are more or less pvp players now than when fake-accolades were introduced?

This is the important part. The Temporal Warriors HC added didn't result in a mass influx of new PvP players. Making Accolades purchasable from the P2W Vendor isn't going to lead to a mass influx of new PvE players either. As others have mentioned, it just makes it easier for those with the means to buy the accolades. At some point, people do need to interact with the game, so I don't think we need to make these accolades easier to get.

September 4

3 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

How do you feel this was handled in the new Superman?

That's an interesting question. For the new Superman in specific, I think the falafel guy coming to help Superman got the point across. I do agree it is something they could build upon more. It's as you said though, how much or how little this kind of scene showing ordinary people inspired to do good is dependent on what the story calls for. You do see it in other films. The passengers on the train stepping in to protect Spider-Man from Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2 comes to mind.

It's an interesting topic for discussion. Might make for an interesting thread.

September 4

4 hours ago, ZacKing said:

Their actions promote empathy toward others, provides hope, motivates others to be more altruistic and motivating us toward making ourselves better. They show us how we can overcome challenges and help others.

Heroes inspire us through their acts, which are qualities to admire. They show us how we can overcome all types of challenges and help others. The idea of a superhero and their actions is to inspire us to create a better world. One doesn't need to have god like super powers to be a hero.

Couldn't agree more. Their actions inspire and they lead by example to inspire others to be better people. They're not generals or politicians barking out orders from on high, they're walking the walk. Hell, in the case of Superman, his symbol from the House of El literally translates to "hope" on Krypton and represents being a force for good and an ideal for people to strive toward. Superman isn't telling everyone to sit back, relax, put their feet up and sip a cocktail because he's got this, he's using his powers for good and to inspire others to do good and make a better world. He does his best to help make the world a better place, and in doing so inspires others to do the same.

4 hours ago, ZacKing said:

Suggesting that Superman and other heroes aren't meant to be inspiring figures and to encourage others to be empathetic and do good through their actions is completely and utterly wrong.

^ 100%.

September 3

46 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

This just seems like a reading comprehension fail. I said his actions involve flying etc. You're just reiterating what I said.

If you say so.

46 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

He's inspirational in that he decides to act to do good things.

Correct and no one here has suggested otherwise.

47 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

That's not leadership, particularly in the sense of Jor-el telling him to guide humanity.

I take it you aren't familiar with the phrase "lead by example"? Either that or you're trolling. I suspect I know which.

48 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Supes fights crime and helps people caught up in disasters.

And how many ordinary people are doing that? I guess you missed the crowds of people standing around doing nothing while Superman was doing his thing. Only that falafel stepped in to help Superman when he was down.

September 3

1 hour ago, Ghost said:

Did Lex really fake it, or is the Daily Planet trying to squash fear and distrust in Superman?

I would say the latter.

September 3

39 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

His actions involve flying, lifting heavy objects, heat vision, etc.

Well no, his abilities are flying, lifting heavy objects, heat vision etc. He uses those abilities to fight crime and help people, not lord over them.

43 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Superman is inspirational, but I don't see any real indication of him leading anything other than maybe coordinated crime fighting efforts.

He's inspirational through his actions. He doesn't need to act. He could let Luthor or Brainiac or any other bad guy take over the world. He doesn't. He decides to act and use his abilities to inspire others to do good deeds.

September 2

46 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

Do you two think you can take your squabbling to private messages before a mod shuts the thread down again? It would be great if this thread could be left open for people actually discuss Ironheart the series.

Thank you.

Fair enough. You're right. Thanks.

September 2

2 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

To anyone trying to understand why things happen, circumstances are always relevant.

The circumstances are it did not bring in enough viewers to warrant further development. If the show were a huge success and became a watercooler show that everyone was talking about and advertisers were making a lot of money on, then it would have been renewed.

3 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Despite a lot of questioning on your part , all I've seen here is that the streaming numbers for Ironheart, despite the show being dropped with little promotion, beat everything else on Disney+ at the time. This suggests that the show outperformed expectations.

What were the "expectations" and "expected" numbers for it to hit?

5 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Ok, show me some data that shows advertisers pulling their ads because of the show's performance.

Of course advertisers can and do withdraw from poorly performing shows. Their goal is to reach as large an audience as possible with their ads, especially in whatever key demographic they're targeting. Why do you think there are so many ads on broadcast and streaming? Television programs have been cancelled due to advertisers pulling out because of some controversy surrounding the show as well.

13 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

I guess Captain Marvel beating things like the first two Ironman movies and most of the Captain America movies is a reflection on the quality of those movies as well eh?

If you want to go strictly by box office, it means Captain Marvel was a good movie and people went to see it, so it was a financial success. Ironman had 2 sequels as did Captain America, which are 2 more than Ironheart got.

15 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

I dunno, have you seen what happens? I thought that Batman movie was great, but the development of the sequel has been tortured. It's now been pushed off until 2027, which is not good. Particularly since this was planned to be a trilogy. Weird example to bring up.

Yes, I've seen what happens when a studio releases a quality product. It sells tickets and makes a lot of money. As far as the Batman 2, from what I've read the script isn't finished yet and Pattinson may not be available yet due to other projects. I don't know if that's "tortured" or not. It did get a sequel greenlit, which is more than Ironheart has and also had The Penguin spinoff. What follow up series has Ironheart received?

September 2

15 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

You have so little to run on that you're arguing about a specific word choice. By all means, tell me how you really feel about this steaming turd.

I didn't care for the show and I didn't like the protagonist. There were some good parts, but overall not enough for me to rate this series very highly. I'd give it a 1 out of 5. I didn't "hate" it.

16 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Disney doesn't have to air that second season. They could scrap it and rework the series. Or write it off altogether. You know, the things people here suggested the studio do with Ironheart.

You have a double standard going here that you can't seem to acknowledge. Ironheart performed well, but didn't get renewed. Daredevil performed poorly but will still have the second season. Everything related to the production and release of these shows is contingent on a variety of business decisions and other factors.

There's no double standard at all. You're trying to backpedal because you're wrong and trying to compare apples to oranges. You tried to say that Daredevil didn't perform well, but still got a second season to claim quality doesn't matter. Daredevil is getting a second season because that's been the plan for it since very early on before filming began. Again, Disney already purchased 18 episodes and split that into 2 seasons. "Season 2" was already in production. That's not the same as Ironheart. A better comparison is to see whether Daredevil gets a third season. If it doesn't perform well, it probably won't.

21 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

When companies are making more profits, they spend more.

And when a program doesn't do well, regardless of the reasoning, and advertisers start pulling their money, the shows don't get renewed. Again, no way to spin it - Ironheart didn't do well enough to warrant a second season. Circumstances aren't really relevant.

22 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

A second season of Ironheart doesn't equate to a raging success, any more than a second season of Daredevil will. Times have changed. Superman and Fantastic Four, both well executed, well intentioned successful superhero movies have made less money respectively than Thor: Love and Thunder.

That's more a reflection on the quality of Fantastic Four and Superman than anything else. The Batman came out the same year as Thor: Love and Thunder, has good reviews from both critics and audiences and has a sequel in production. Not to mention it had a spinoff series on HBO Max. See what happens when a studio makes a good product?

September 2

59 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

I'm drawing a conclusion based on what you've said and your commitment to dragging this argument out.

Your conclusion is wrong and you're just making things up in order to argue. I never used the word hate to describe my opinion of the show.

59 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

It's exactly what I just said. It performed better than everything else on Disney+ at the time. It made the Nielsen top ten list when it debuted.

Ok but what else was released on D+ at the time? If there wasn't anything else and Ironheart was the only new content being released, it's understandable it would chart higher on D+ because it's the only new programming on at the time. As for Nielsen, it barely charted higher than Poop Cruise....

59 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Daredevil: Born Again was released a couple months earlier and failed to chart during the entire course of its run.

However, Daredevil will have will have a second season despite it's performance being the worst for Marvel streaming shows.

I think that alone pretty much guts your vision of how things work.

Disney originally purchased 18 episodes of Daredevil: Born Again. This was initially planned for 1 season, however it wound up getting split into two. There was enough content and story for 2 seasons, so season 2 wasn't contingent upon season 1 performance. I think that pretty much guts your vision of how things work.

59 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

No it's just your baseless speculation.

And your fantasizing that Ironheart would've been a raging success had it been released earlier isn't baseless speculation at all? Not even a little bit? You can't spin this - were Ironheart a hit success, there'd be a season 2 regardless of when it was released.

September 2

9 hours ago, battlewraith said:

LOL umm no, but you did describe it as a steaming turd of a show. Those things tend to go together.

So I never used the word "hate" to describe the show. You're making things up.

9 hours ago, battlewraith said:

We were talking about streaming numbers, which were good. It out performed other shows on Disney+.

What is "good" in this instance? Good compared to what? What other programs did it outperform? How did it compare to other MCU series?

9 hours ago, battlewraith said:

The decision not to continue Ironheart may have been made before the show even aired, in light of other priorities going on at Disney, and not reflective of how well the show was actually received.

Or Disney knew it wasn't good and decided to hold off on releasing it in the hopes their next couple of projects started reversing the already declining interest. Once again, if Ironheart were a success, it would've have been renewed regardless of when it was released. That's a fact.

7 hours ago, Ghost said:

Don’t know what ads D+ runs, but I know whenever they have something “big” coming up because my Roku Home Screen always get taken over with ads/posters.

I did see ads of my Roku home screen for Ironheart, but they didn't last long. It seemed to be gone in a day.

September 1

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

If I'm being honest here, I think you hate this "steaming turd of a show" so much that it's warped your thinking.

I don't believe I've ever used the word "hate" to describe the show. I think you love the show much it's warped your thinking and your blinded by devotion and can't admit the obvious. See? That can work both ways.

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

Moreover, if you think that maybe it didn't do well, go ahead and explain why.

It didn't get a second season. That's a patently obvious fact as to the show not doing well.

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

If hype, advertising. and proximity to the movies have an influence on a show's success, then you've just restated the reasons why the show didn't do as well as it might have.

Well no, what I'm saying is that Disney knew they had a turd on their hands and that no amount of hype or release proximity was going to save it. BP: WF performed markedly worse than the first Black Panther film ($1.34 billion vs. $859 million). The property was already declining. If Riri's solo story was that good, it would have garnered higher viewer numbers and received another season regardless of when it was released.

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

You boldly assume that, since you hate this show then the Disney execs must have agreed with you.

Apparently they do. Did they greenlight a second season?

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

In actual reality, there are other reasons why the show was held up:

It's possible those were factors. Regardless of the reasons, the show didn't get a second season, which means not enough viewers. The how and the why don't matter at this point.

September 1

26 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

No it's just a very typical exchange on these forums. I said that it did well on Disney+ and after argument and reminders that this data can be fudged we all seem to be on the same page that--yes, it did well on Disney+. Huzzah.

Yeah no. I'm being honest here, it reads to me that you misread what was posted and zeroed in on a single comment out of context from someone who said they didn't like the series. You decided to go on the offensive and accuse them of something they didn't say because they didn't like the show.

Also, how are you defining "did well"? Did well in comparison to what? It made the top 10 for the week on Disney? Ok, but what other new content was released that week? How does Ironheart viewership rank among other MCU streaming shows?

29 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

I think that's a bit too reductive to be the bottom line.

Disney shelved the series for three years and did minimal promotion, at least according to what people have stated here.

Under those conditions, it seems to have performed very well. Which goes back to my earlier statement--if the studio had handled the series better, it probably would've performed better and maybe gotten a second season.

I disagree. It's just as plausible that Disney shelved the series because they knew they had a huge steaming turd on their hands, and instead of wasting money on advertising, they shelved it while deciding whether to write it off or release it. Ultimately they decided to release the series, but decided not to spend on advertising because they knew it wasn't going to do well. If Disney were really confident they had a hit on their hands, they'd have hyped it up and released it years ago after Wakanda Forever to continue Riri's story. You can play the "what if" scenarios as to why the show failed and/or how it could have done better endlessly. The series didn't perform well enough for a second season. That's a fact.

1 hour ago, Starhammer said:

I can't speak for others. I also don't care about ratings or reviews. I watched it. I enjoyed it.

That's what's most important.

1 hour ago, Starhammer said:

6 episodes as a series just feels truncated.

I agree and I personally think it's part of the reason Marvel/Disney knew there wasn't much of a story here.

1 hour ago, Starhammer said:

I hope they continue to use the characters and incidents in future MCU content, but maybe Riri as a character needs to grow quite a bit before they come back to her for any solo project bigger than a One shot presentation or something.

I agree. I'd like to see a better script and totally agree Riri needs to do a lot of maturing first.

September 1

2 hours ago, JayboH said:

How about a chance to immobilize instead, to help prevent them from all walking around during a stun?

Don't know that I'd say the set is broken, but this part would be a welcome change.

September 1

17 hours ago, battlewraith said:

As far as I can tell, nobody here is claiming that Ironheart did gangbusters compared to other popular shows, just that it did well. So the lists that were provided are irrelevant to the point, other than to indicate what numbers Disney is giving which you can just google.

I disagree, I think they are relevant. They're providing further context. The charts show people did watch the show, and that it may have done okay, but not well enough. The viewership hours weren't sufficient to warrant Disney renewing the series. I don't know about you, but I did find the info rather interesting and did a little research myself. I had thought most went just by straight viewership hours. I found some info about this Luminate company and how they collect their data. Some of it makes me want to read user agreements again for my streaming devices lol. Anyway, from what I found, they are able to track D+ stuff even though they don't get viewership numbers directly. They had reported on how the viewership for the MCU is declining back in November of 2024. Take that article for what you will.

A lot of people (IIRC including some of those nasty YouTubers you hate so much) hopped all over that first article @Ghost linked to with the one chart as proof Ironheart sucked because it didn't make the top 10 viewership. I'd have thought given your ardent defense of anything Ironheart, you'd have been thankful that someone took the time to explain why that chart in particular wasn't accurate. I know I'm thankful. It added clarity to the discussion.

18 hours ago, battlewraith said:

What am I supposed to do with this?

I could be wrong here, but I think you're reading way too much into it. Seems very simple to understand. There's differences in numbers posted by various sources due to different collection methods and there's a degree of inaccuracy. If I'm being honest, you're trying really hard to accuse @ShardWarrior of saying Disney inflated their viewership numbers for Ironheart. @ShardWarrior repeatedly said that Disney he isn't saying Disney inflated anything, just that there can be some degree of inaccuracy in the data, especially considering that they all use different methods of data collection. That's all.

Bottom line is, people did tune in for Ironheart, but not enough to warrant further seasons.

July 28

8 hours ago, Greycat said:

For many of us, there's more to a character than just the numbers. Again. Beta gets wiped. Someone who *plays on beta* for whatever reason now has to recreate the characters, recreate the SG, hope anyone they played with feels like recreating characters on beta, re load up his AE (I don't *believe* beta shares the AE database with live, for obvious reasons) and the like.

And the comment that started all this was basically "play on beta," not "transfer a character." The two are different.

I understand that the Beta server is subject to frequent data wipes. Again, I don't disagree with you. All I said was recreating a character on the Beta server isn't going to take the "hundreds of hours" alluded to.

July 27

2 hours ago, TheMoneyMaker said:

It is possible that things occur without you personally experiencing them. I've joined teams and was told "you've got no set bonuses" and stood around waiting for an invite from someone recruiting for a TF and ignored outright, only to be sent a tell by someone on the team after they've left telling me to finish my build.

I can second that this does happen. It's not common, but I do see the occasional request in LFG for people running Aeon or ITFs that are requiring people to have "multiple IO sets" in order to join. There are a couple of really bad SGs that require people to have completely ridiculous builds created by one of the officers in order to run content with them. Any deviation from the build is allowed.

July 27

6 hours ago, Greycat said:

... which means you're probably spending most of your time playing it on live, not beta.

Well, yeah. I don't disagree. That's what I was getting at. All I was saying is that it's not a huge chore to recreate a character on the Beta server. You don't need to spend "hundreds of hours" playing it again and again to get back to whatever level progress you were at. You can recreate any character at any level within a couple of minutes. No need to even transfer it from a live server.

July 27

4 hours ago, Greycat said:

People don't play on Beta not because things are free, but because it's beta and subject to massive change and/or getting wiped at any time - and that's warned about. I wouldn't want to play there and have hundreds of hours on a character just to have "New patch, beta's had to be wiped" hit it.

You can just re-copy the character to BETA or re-roll it with all the bells and whistles in a few minutes. It's not like you'd need to level up the character running all the content from scratch again. I think it's more people don't play on BETA because of the low population and most do want some feeling of progression.

July 26

43 minutes ago, Seed22 said:

That last bit about other dev teams irks me and I feel its HIGHLY disrespectful to real development teams.

A couple of things ...

No disrespect was intended.
It is true the HC team produces more content than some real development shop. See Cryptic Studios. STO barely gets a trickle of content.
Pointing this out doesn't mean other real development shops suck. That's you making an assumption. All my post means is that some of them produce content at a slower pace than HC. That's all.
You're injecting a personal hangup into my post that isn't there.
If you want the cadence to improve, as others have suggested, volunteer for the development team.

July 26

On 7/24/2025 at 9:29 PM, macskull said:

Since pretty much right after Homecoming spun up six years ago, they said they were going to handle updates with smaller, more frequent "pages" instead of issues like the retail run. The first year or two they seemed to be getting that right, but now we're looking at 1-2 releases per year which doesn't really jive with what they said they were trying to do. There have been three updates since the NCSoft license agreement was announced a year and a half ago, and one of those updates was 90% done before the license agreement happened, so there really have been only two.

No disrespect meant, but so what? This is just my 2 inf, but there's already so much content in this game. I really don't think we need more story content or power sets. I think we should be happy we have the game back and that the group of volunteers running it are still running it and not burned out. Is everything HC does great? Hell no. Some of it has been great, some of it has been a steaming pile. Overall, they've done a good job with what they have and accomplish more than other real development teams working on real games have produced. That's not something to complain about.

July 24

On 7/23/2025 at 2:05 AM, golstat2003 said:

One constant over the last few days is how fast we get changes made to the game. So far we've gotten maybe 1 or 2 pages/issues per year. At that pace any suggested change made (either on the forums or discord) could take years to implement when the devs decide to pick some up (if they decide to, really at their discretion).

What's not getting done fast enough for you? How much are you expecting from volunteers doing this in their spare time? I think they've done a great job with the amount of content they've produced in the time they have, and that should be commended. I may not like everything HC does, but I'm thankful they are doing it.

July 22

Aw man, I just watched the final Black Sabbath show with Ozzy and Metallica. So sad to hear about this. RIP Ozzy.

July 22

18 hours ago, srmalloy said:

Or, as with the Energy Blast set, learning how to use the knockback to assist with clustering up spawns for more efficient AoE use.

Which in of itself is a pain, especially in cave maps and narrow hallways, and that isn't including KB knocking stuff into the map geometry where it gets stuck. Hence, the reason people avoided playing sets with heavy KB.

18 hours ago, srmalloy said:

Although there were people who just wanted to watch mobs go flying and didn't care that they were spreading out the spawns.

There still are those people.

July 16

57 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

I have some issues with people confusing "I didn't like this" with "this is bad / not good".

You just have issues with people not liking things. Nobody is confused. Nobody needs you to explain this to them. Nobody needs you to explain what an opinion is or what the term "subjective to the person" means. Just because I didn't care for a particular comic in no way means others won't enjoy it. I didn't care for Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow. I do encourage everyone to read it and make their own judgment about the story.

1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

And yes, I understand that you said "both" (there are three statements there). That's the point.

Your point doesn't make sense though. People can dislike something and that doesn't make it bad for everyone. If I can be honest, it seems to me like you post here just to start arguments. I have to agree with what @ZacKing said earlier - you have the opportunity here to discuss the film and have yet to do so.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Events

Store

Articles

Patch Notes

Posts posted by Excraft