Excraft

I liked season 2 and the series as a whole. I don't agree with a lot of the criticisms I've seen about the Loki series though. Only beef I have is in the writing for Sylvie this season. Once she knew that doing what she did at the end of Season 1 would lead to the destruction of literally everything, you'd think she'd change her ways. Not changing a lick despite that makes her a narcissist to the extreme and truly an unlikable character. She's the worst part of season 2, if not the whole show IMO.

That's fair, although don't most people have alts on various servers? From what I can tell, people who didn't want to wait in a queue just switched to a character on Torchbearer to avoid the login queue. Seems that at least some would be doing that organically. Probably not enough though.

@Jimmy Thank you very much for the clarification. I hope you all can find a more permanent solution to fix the stability issues with Excelsior and as always, thank you and all the HC folk for the work you put into the game.

How do you define "under performing"? Aren't you implying that people who want to be in a crowded space are somehow more important than those who want a more casual, less populated setting? You're basically telling them that it's a multiplayer game, so deal with a heavy population even if there's an option for them not to. There's no right or wrong and I wasn't implying anything. I was asking for clarification since the HC folk had said they wanted to provide players as broad an experience as possible by having both heavy and low pop servers. The double XP and Raids on a couple of lower population servers - which according to them might be low population by choice of those on them - seemed to contradict that philosophy, so I asked for clarification.

All shards have active players on them. It's very Simple to understand my reply. Please read the linked posts I included that provide context from the HC folk regarding server populations, player preferences and reminding that server transfers are free. Trying to spread everyone out is not an "objectively better situation" for those who might want to play on lower population servers. At the same time, if you or anyone else don't want to be in line waiting to get on, then use a free server transfer and move to a lower population server where there's no wait. Having to wait in line a minute in order to be on a populated server so you have more people to do content with is a tradeoff. Same goes for those who are on a lower pop server who might want to have more people to play with. Those who don't want or don't need a large population can stay on the lesser populated servers. Not at all saying invasions and double XP on certain servers is a bad thing at all.

Exactly. Badly written.

See my linked posts above. Server transfers are free and people have the choice to move to a higher pop server or to a lower pop server based on their preference. If pop is too low, move to another server.

Great that you're all trying this out and thanks for doing it. Something isn't adding up though. Why try to drive more people to other low pop servers when people already there may be there specifically for the quieter experience as you all mentioned here?

No, they shouldn't have. Nor should this or the last Indiana Jones film ever been made. All of these studios trying to resurrect properties and stars older than dirt to milk as much as possible out of them is what's getting old. I wonder how many mega flops it will take before these movie studios start creating new stuff again?

Problem is and always has been that what is or isn't an "homage" differs greatly between players. I think it safe to say most everyone can agree on what a direct copy is. See the above post as an example. I've personally seen others who are definitely not direct copies get reported and genericized while other groups are allowed to have flagrant ripoffs INCLUDING copyrighted names and still be allowed to keep them. All depends on who you know here.

Same here. I don't think I'd call any of these latest MCU (or DCU) flops "woke". From what I can see, they didn't fail for being "woke". They failed because they're poorly written. Add to that you have studios who seem to be more interested in rapidly churning out as much content as possible instead of focusing on quality over quantity.

I'm really glad you both get something out of those sites and they work for you. I prefer to be skeptical of reviews posted on sites owned by the studios producing the films being reviewed.

I wasn't asking about direct copies. Those are a no brainer. Homages are a different story and depending on who you ask, they shouldn't be allowed. There's still all sorts of people here who get upset if they find your character to be too close for their comfort.

Sites like Rottentomatoes are notorious for bots and manipulating reviews. There's all sorts of reasons why they do it. For me, I don't believe any of the results on websites like those.

It failed at the box office because the majority of moviegoers weren't interested in it for whatever reason. That's great that you liked the Thing (I agree - totally underrated film) and Dredd. I did say that whether a film is good or bad is subjective, but that's irrelevant. What you and I may find to be a masterpiece of cinema doesn't magically make it so. Box office receipts don't lie - the film is a total flop and a complete financial disaster. I'm happy you enjoyed it though.

Are homages allowed now? I had thought they were verboten.

Scores on Rotten Tomatoes are notoriously suspect, same as any other site where "customer" reviews and product ratings are easily manipulated by bots and sellers paying for good reviews. The Marvels being good or bad is subjective, but numbers don't lie. Overall, the 46 million dollar opening weekend followed by a near 80% drop off in the following week is enough to inform you that the movie isn't performing and is a complete box office disaster.

I don't disagree that some people can get very passionate about the subject, but the same can be said for any topic. If moderating is such a big concern, just add this to the CoC and ban any and all discussion of other servers and be done with it. Seems weird to single other servers out but allow discussion of other games IMO. Having to monitor and moderate forums and chat rooms and such comes with the territory though and if you want to host those things, you have to deal with the consequences of your decision. Pretty sure the mods here have to keep an eye on all kinds of topics. Like I said above, if they don't want people talking about what other servers are doing, add it to the CoC and just outright ban discussion of the topic.

That's your opinion which you're more than welcome to. It certainly wasn't my intent. I notice you selectively edited out the part of my post where I began with "with due respect." Reading the OP and follow up from the GM, it sounds like the post made wasn't bashing any server. As far as bashing other games, there's a thread in the Video Games subforum right now discussing the worst games ever. I'm sure some people can get very visceral and disrespectful of other games they didn't like and those game makers can't come here to respond. Allowing threads like that isn't making more work but somehow discussing other CoH servers does? Not trying to be disrespectful, what you're saying here doesn't quite add up for me. As far as mods needing to respond to posts where newer players may ask why HC can't do what other servers have done, the mods here have already addressed that, a few times as I recall. Players can help by linking to those responses in threads to answer the question. I understand this is their house and their rules and they can do whatever they want. I've no objection to whatever rules the folks here decide to put into place.

"Comments like this" are easily avoided by allowing respectful discussions of other servers to take place. Restricting the topic is inviting people to comment. Making rules to squash healthy, constructive discussion isn't a good look in this case. Seems very strange to hand out warning points over something so trivial and so arbitrary.

With due respect, I have an honest question about this. There's a whole subforum devoted to discussing video games here where forum members can discuss and critique all manner of other games. None of those other game makers can comment or address points raised about their games either. What's the difference here? Is it because the other CoH servers are direct competition to you? Is it because those other servers are accomplishing just as much, if not more in many instances than HC is with little to no financial backing from player donations? Something seems really weird about handing out warning points and such to members who just want to talk about what some of the other CoH servers are doing, especially if the discussion is being done in a respectful way.

Is this counting real players or just accounts? What portion of these are people double or triple boxing on multiple accounts?

Have to admit, it's really telling that your ire about strawmans is directed solely at me while appearing to be perfectly fine with others doing the same to me. You're welcome for your new downvote. 😉

I understand perfectly how the system works and that it is being done this way whether I like it or not. I just disagree with the implementation which I believe we're allowed to do here. Assuming it's ok with you of course. I'll also reiterate yet again that inactive accounts (accounts that haven't been logged into for more than a year or two) should have all names regardless of level opened up. I see, so its ok for others to misrepresent what I wrote, but its not ok for me to respond in kind. Got it. Thanks for making my point for me. Good day to you 🙂

This is nice. It's got nothing to do with what I was saying and its way off base, but it makes for an interesting and entertaining read regardless. I think it's fishy because it seems like the assumption is if an active player is messaged about releasing a name they won't do it, so let's just make them do it by adding a new (albeit trivial) requirement. That doesn't seem to fit with what I've seen here on these forums with people releasing names publicly to those who would like them. Sorry, but if people are going to misrepresent or twist what I've said, I'll respond to correct it. Thanks. 😉