Excraft

Well no, you're misrepresenting what I'm saying and I believe you know that. The discussion is about powers, not costume textures. A player making an Invulnerability character isn't making a Stone Armor character. Invulnerability doesn't have Mudpots or Crystal Armor and such. ^ That.

Yeah, I get that. The physics of it still don't make sense. It's not just about how sharp a blade is. I get that there's some leeway in how things work, but at least to me, some things are a lot harder to believe and border on the ridiculous that takes you out of the suspension of disbelief. It's like in the comics when they showed Wolverine swiping at and slicing a telephone pole in half with one strike. Sure, his claws are sharp, but he doesn't have the physical strength required to generate enough force to physically do that. Or like when the Hulk - who was shown to be able to rip apart/crush/dent Ultron who is constructed of much thicker layers of adamantium, isn't able to crush/bend/break Wolverine's adamantium-laced bones. Wolverine may heal, but his adamantium doesn't.

If the character does not have any of the powers in the Stone Armor set, then it isn't a Stone Armor character. It's something else. It sounds like you're in favor of options, so long as they're options you like and approve of or would use. Giving people the option to have minimal/no VFX on powers is an option that you don't have to use if you don't want to. That's the beauty of optional things. Well no, you're an Invulnerability character with a rock texture. You don't have any of the power specific to the Stone Armor set.

Then don't play it the "normal"/traditional way. Run some DFBs, DiBs and AE farms to bypass the content you don't like. You can also skip all those "useless" power picks and make your build without ever needing to respec. This is why we get new power sets and new content to add new and different things. This isn't really true. It's highly dependent on the individual, what they're play style is, what their goals are, their character concept and any number of other things.

I understand it's supposed to be vibranium wings and the magical Wakanda can do whatever the script calls for tech, but the physics of it all looks ridiculous. His wings cut through the wing of the jet like it was butter. How? Is it a lightsaber now? It would be like a head on automobile collision between a dump truck and a sword. The car would receive crushing damage, not get sliced in half no matter what the sword is made of. The physics of something the size and weight of jet fighter traveling at near supersonic speed colliding into 200 lb Sam and nothing happens to him? It doesn't make sense. Also, how is he withstanding the g-forces traveling at supersonic speed without a pressure suit?

More options for animations and visuals is always a good thing IMO. I'd love for more minimal/no VFX options for several of the armor sets. More powerset customization is never a bad thing. That's not a stone armor character, just a stone textured character without any of the powers available in the stone armor set.

I think Sam would do ok in a fight as we've seen him practicing and training in FaTWS, even without super powers. However, from the few clips I've seen online, him fighting other things looks utterly ridiculous. The wings are able to slice through the metal of a fighter jet traveling right at Sam at hundreds of miles an hour like butter, or through a car being thrown at him with ease because "vibranium". It look goofy. Also, I guess vibranium negates the force of gravity now too? How is he able to withstand the g-forces of high speed combat without a pressure suit?

The name "saga mode" is confusing. "Shortcut" mode sounds more appropriate. I don't see this idea as being workable, or needed if I'm being honest. It reads like yet another suggestion to totally unbalance and break the game. The core experience is based around progression of power and abilities. "Saga mode" would totally break that. This would make low level content even more trivial than it already is by giving players access to powers that the content level is not designed for. Powers and slots are goals to be worked toward, not unlocked right at the start. In the case of something like Headsplitter, that doesn't become available until Level 26 (I think), so if someone can pick that at level 2, what do they pick at level 26 if they already have their best powers? This makes the assumption that people don't like lower level content. There are a lot of people who do, many of whom never play to level 50. For those that don't care for running lower level content, I don't see "saga mode" changing their mind. It's still less time for them to farm up an alt and built it the way they like. There's already a lot of diverse ways to build and slot a character. I don't know what you mean by "narrative diversity". The "measured increase in power" is a core aspect of the game. You can already build a character that "nukes every couple of minutes" or a "super glass cannon" if you want to. This is why you see people with characters like petless MMs and such.

It's not relevant to the thread topic. If you'd like to discuss sharks, please create a new thread. Thank you.

@Techwright @Trike - what's this have to do with Captain America: Brave New World? Please keep on topic. Thank you.

Not going to lie, I've no idea what you're getting at there other than you have friends who "store stuff for their next character", then forget about the stuff they stored. Most people I know store some rarer items only, then sell the rest. Most salvage, IOs (even attuned), recipes and such are dirt cheap on the AH. Saving tons of dirt cheap salvage for a rainy day isn't something we do. I'm sure there are people who do just that, but again, I don't see eliminating the need for a mule toon to have any great impact on it.

Apologies then as I seem to have misunderstood you. It seemed to me your posts on not making it easier to transfer items around would encourage more players to hoard. See below. I agree. Most people value the influence they can get from selling things versus hoarding it where it isn't earning anything.

@GM_GooglyMoogly @Luminara@battlewraith can we get back to the thread topic? Gentle reminder - Thank you.

I'm not sure I understand how allowing coalition members (or anyone for that matter) access to storage bins outside their own SG is going to create "more players hoarding". Sure, they would be able to access storage more storage bins, but so can anyone else within the coalition (or not) so long as they had the correct permissions. Some people may put stuff into storage, others will take it out.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think opening up salvage racks and enhancement tables to everyone is needed either, but if it were implemented, I don't see it having the negative impact you seem to be concerned about.

There's no reason to believe that players would stop putting things into the market. Everyone already has the capability to hoard insane levels of salvage and enhancements, but there's still plenty of stuff available in the market.

There's been a couple of people who've complained that this thread has gone off the original topic, so perhaps we can get back to discussing CA: BNW? What makes a good movie is an interesting topic and deserves its own thread I think.

While true, the market is also seeded. This game doesn't have the population to be relying solely on players putting stuff up for sale on the AH.

I guess my question to you in other posts were removed, so I'll ask again - did you see Captain America: Brave New World? What did you think of it? What did you like about it? What did you not like? What did you think of the characterizations of the Leader and Red Hulk? Comic accurate or too far divergent from the source material?

Something like Martial Arts or Street Justice as a primary and Willpower as a secondary would make a good Kirk-type scrapper. Of course, MA or StrJ doesn't hold a candle to the sheer awesomeness of the Kirk-fu style of combat.

Out of curiosity, where do you think the money Disney makes comes from? Did the money that Disney used to make these movies grow on a tree? All the money MCU fans spent over the years on movie tickets, film related merchandise, streaming services etc. wasn't their money? And since it's not their money, they shouldn't care about the quality of the films being produced? Interesting point of view you have there. I don't see the harm in discussing where the money is going for these movies.

It's still falling under Disney, no matter how many LLCs and shell companies they try to make to hide money.

This proceeds from a false assumption that people want these films to fail. I know I don't and no one I know looks forward to these MCU films being box office flops. I like Anthony Mackie. He was great as Falcon. I've enjoyed most of the MCU films and loved comic book characters as a kid. I really want these movies to be good and make everyone involved a lot of money. There are a lot of people who work really hard on these movies and I don't think they want them to be failures either. Most critics I've read all want these movies to be a success too, but what Disney and Marvel is doing now isn't working for them and hasn't been for years now. I think people aren't wishing these films to fail, it's more they're hoping that the poor performance is a wake up call for Disney and Marvel to right the ship and get back to what worked. From what I've read and what my brother told me, this film ruined the Red Hulk and Leader. Stick with the plots and stories that drew fans to these characters. That'd be a good start.

I'm not sure I'd consider those "meh" numbers either. However, if you compare that to all the other films adjusting for inflation, they aren't that great for the franchise as a whole. https://screenrant.com/star-wars-movies-box-office-adusted-inflation/ Also, it's important to note that your list didn't include Solo. The box office was definitely on the downward trend for the Star Wars franchise with what you have there.

Well no, the word misogyny doesn't have multiple meanings. The word itself has its roots in the Greek words misos (hatred) and gunē (woman). It's not a homonym or homophone like "bear" or "jam" that requires context in order to be understood properly. Again, as it applies to Bond, "misogynist" isn't really the correct word for him. He's more a male chauvinist.