Excraft
-
Posts
990 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by Excraft
-
-
3 minutes ago, biostem said:
That may very well be true with the current generation of such AIs, but to say that humans don't learn by some process of breaking down the art and related methods/techniques/media into some digestible/reproduceable process is laughable.
It's not just laughable, it's pathetically laughable and a joke. Humans going to art schools, take art classes where they specifically study the work and techniques of famous artists who came before them. They do this to learn, practice, expand and refine their skills and technique. AI is learning by studying the works of artists to hone its results and improve itself.
Individuals or companies hire artists to design things for them. They give the artist prompts to provide an idea of what they are looking for, and the artist creates what they were asked for. Someone can now go to Grok or ChatGPT or wherever, give the AI prompts to provide an idea of what they are looking for and the AI will create it.
I think it safe to say that everyone can understand that some people are scared of being replaced by AI. I get that, it's totally relatable. With that said, AI is a tool just like every other tool or invention or technology that replaced the work of a human being since humans have existed. These same people crying about are also going to be the first in line to take advantage of any life saving medications or medical procedures that AI helps develop, no matter how many human beings were replaced in the process.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Clave Dark 5 said:
Yeah, no. 😄
Cool! So you're sending money to the families of all the artists who created the superhero genre this game is based on? What about the people who originally created all of the digital assets and code for this game? I assume you're sending them money too?
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, biostem said:
Actually, they are. You can undo something you don't like - automation. You can have it save your work at set intervals - automation. You can change colors, layers, hide some objects, and so on - all tasks you could not do by hand - all automation. They are different degrees of automation, but in the end, it is a person providing input and the computer processing that input to produce a result. You are just unhappy with the degree to which AI performs those tasks vs what you have deemed acceptable.
Take this even further and ask why they're even using a computer to begin with. Using a computer puts the craftsman who make paper, canvases, frames, pastel pencils, paints, charcoal, watercolor or whatever other art mediums out of a job. Where's the concern for the craftsman keeping the art industry alive?
19 minutes ago, biostem said:And most artists cannot learn without "scraping" the methods and techniques of those that came before them.
Exactly. Bob Ross learned (some say he "stole") from Bill Alexander. Should Ross' estate pay the Bill Alexander estate for any money Bob Ross made off of using the wet on wet technique? Is any artist today who paints impressionistic style paintings forking over any money to Monet's estate? I guess its acceptable for one artist to copy another artists' style or work and sell it for money because they're all artists, so that's makes it ok.
Here's a funny thing with this - I follow a couple of artists using traditional mediums and methods to create different kinds of art, and most of them have been saying they're busier than ever because of AI. The demand for traditional handmade crafts is going up, not down because people prefer handcrafted things.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Clave Dark 5 said:
The difference here is we're not making money off their work, no one here is, except Grok.
Then you're part of the problem, aren't you? You're taking advantage of them all by a using product that isn't paying any of the artists who inspired the genre the game is based on. Unless you'd care to post some details about residuals checks you're sending to the estates of Jerry Seigel and Joe Schuster and Jack Kirby and Stan Lee? Why aren't you paying them for using a product inspired by their work if it bothers you so much?
-
1
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, Ghost said:
These same people have no problem…..
-Listening to electronic music, taking money from actual musicians.
-Going to concerts with backing tracks, again taking money from actual musicians.
-Watching movies with CGI instead of practical effects.
It's way more dumber than even that.
These same people crying over AI stealing jobs have absolutely no problem...
- Turning on the light bulbs in their house - which put candlemakers out of work.
- Getting in their car to go somewhere - which put horse drawn carriage builders, carriage drivers and horse breeders out of work. Not to mention the people who used to clean up after the horses.
- Flushing their toilet - putting people who used to empty chamber pots out of work.
- Storing food in their modern fridge - which put ice delivery people out of work.
- Sending emails instead of mailing a letter - puts tons of postal workers out of work.
- Using the phone to make a call - put telegraph workers out of work.
- Taking selfie photos on their camera phone - put portrait painters out of work.
You could spend months listing all these out. And by their own definition and standards, every single one of these things these AI hypocrites are doing is feeding money into some evil greedy company that stole work from someone else to make a profit. The hypocrisy knows no end.
-
1
-
2
-
2 hours ago, Glacier Peak said:
You didn't answer my question.
You didn't answer my question. Where's your credit to artists like Lee Falk, Jerry Siegel, Joe Schuster, Bob Kane, Jack Kirby, Stan Lee, Alex Ross, John Byrne, George Perez, Jim Lee or any other artists and creatives out there who created the superhero genre that this game is based on? I will absolutely guarantee every character you've created here is derivative of the work of someone else and you've done diddly to give any of them a single shred of credit.
Let's take this another step further. The artists who created the Romanesque environment for Cimerora and the clothing for the NPCs and such there - where do they give credit to the real life Roman artists, engineers and designers who designed and built those kinds of buildings and clothing back in the day of the Roman Empire? I can't seem to find them giving those Roman artists credit anywhere. Perhaps you can help me find it.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Glacier Peak said:
Are the artists who made all of the things in those clips credited somewhere?
Are artists like Lee Falk, Jerry Siegel, Joe Schuster, Bob Kane, Jack Kirby or Stan Lee credited anywhere on the characters you've created in CoH? They all contributed to creating the superhero genre that this game is based around, and I'll bet real money any of your characters are in some way, regardless of how slight a similarity, derivative of earlier works by other artists. I'll bet real money you aren't crediting any of them either.
I get that people don't like AI and that's ok, but these kinds of comments are a little hypocritical.
-
1
-
1
-
3
-
1
-
-
Why not just quit the league and join another? It's not like there aren't multiple instances of PI running ToT leagues. There's also leagues running in KW.
-
On 9/19/2025 at 3:41 PM, Glacier Peak said:
it seemed REALLY out of place.
I think you're right. Reading through the discussion here, it does seem out of place.
2 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:As far as Metamorpho, you would think that being put in a cell along with your infant son would be enough to realize Lex is a bad person and would enlist Superman's help. I just find this part of the script a little on the weak side.
It is a bit odd. Metamorpho clearly wasn't some milquetoast. Seems to me he could have broken out of there and rescued his son quite easily with his power levels. I know they needed him to make Kryptonite to explain how Superman doesn't just escape the prison, but I do agree this part of the script is on the thin side.
-
29 minutes ago, Ghost said:
You know what will solve this?
@Troo explain what they meant.
If you are correct, I’ll apologize and admit you were right.
If you are incorrect, I’ll expect you to do the same.
There is another, much simpler way to solve this. Put the person on ignore and move on. Feeding trolls doesn't solve anything.
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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%.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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?
-
1
-
-
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?
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
1
-
The AFK Police
in General Discussion
Posted
This won't work. These MMs are avoiding the AFK timeout by starting a TF or Ouro arc and then setting up in PI.