ZacKing
-
Posts
1359 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by ZacKing
-
-
On 10/16/2025 at 9:40 AM, BrandX said:
I was one of the few who liked Iron Fist, but yes, the guy needed to learn to fight and they should've cast someone who could fight, as Iron Fist is a fighter.
If I remember right, Finn Jones didn't want to put the time in to do any sort of training. And it showed. ☹️
-
The AFK MMs are annoying. There's not much anyone can do outside of reporting them and hoping a GM will take action. As for me, if I'm leading a team or league during ToT and I see someone is AFK, I boot them and fill with someone who isn't AFK. If there's too many MMs AFKing at the motel in PI, I move to a different location. Let them AFK with nothing for their pets to shoot at.
-
3
-
1
-
-
Thanks for the compliments and for adding my Masters of Olympus base! I'm very proud of it and I'm glad you enjoyed visiting. Please do use it anytime and share the code. Your list looks to have completely snubbed Shard Warrior's Paragon Corps Watchtower. It is the 2025 Sci-Fi Base Building Contest champ and it's listed in the Excel Base Tour base. It's also part of a collection of bases across servers. There's links in there to the bases on Torchbearer and Indom. They're worth a visit if you've never seen them.
-
Link to the article https://www.superherohype.com/news/632208-daredevil-born-again-season-3-gets-major-update
Looks like it performed well enough to get a third season greenlit. I liked the series so far. I think it will be cool to see Jessica Jones and Luke Cage return for this. I didn't care for Finn Jones as Iron Fist.
-
On 9/4/2025 at 4:56 PM, ShardWarrior said:
No need for a pity system.
Pity system is I think the best way to describe this and I totally agree, we don't need one at all. New players have all kinds of methods to generate all the influence they'll ever need. I think it's sort of hilarious to see some of the more vocal opponents of people getting PL'ed in AE and "not knowing how to play the game" defending a pity system for "new" players to get influence. This would just make new players have tons of inf without knowing what to do with it. They won't know what to buy, how to slot it or how to play with their new character that they just wasted all that free inf on. Hard no from me.
-
3
-
1
-
-
Superman, like other superheroes are meant to inspire others to do good things.
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.
Suggesting that Superman and other heroes aren't meant to be inspiring and to encourage others to be empathetic and do good through their actions is completely and utterly wrong.
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.
The falafel vendor is a great example. The dialogue says it all.
"Once I gave you free falafel, when you saved a woman from being hit by a taxi. Are you all right, Superman? ... You saved us so many times. Now it’s our turn."
He's an ordinary guy that didn't need to do anything to help, but he stepped up. He could have stood by and watched. He didn't. He put himself in harms way to act and did what he could to help Superman. He did so because Superman inspired him to do good things.
That's what superheroes do - inspire others.
Those aren't the only examples.
Batman Begins -
"In the depression, your father nearly bankrupted Wayne Enterprises combating poverty. He believed his example could inspire the wealthy of Gotham to save their city."
"People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy."
The Dark Knight -
"That wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire people."
Man of Steel -
"You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you. They will stumble. They will fall. But in time they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders."
I'm sure others can add more as there are a literal shit ton more examples.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:
Let's please leaving the reading comprehension failures, trolling, and accusations of trolling to Anna Kedrick and Justin Timberlake.
If I can provide some feedback, this isn't helpful. There are people who deliberately come into these threads looking to start arguments with the intent to get threads locked.
-
3
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Excraft said:
I take it you aren't familiar with the phrase "lead by example"?
...
Only that falafel stepped in to help Superman when he was down.
Exactly! Leading by example.
-
14 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:
Superman leads by example through his actions, not by using his super powers to lord over anyone.
^ Exactly that.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, El D said:
See, these two points are at odds, because Superman 'rising above us and being better' is exactly what Jor and Lara's message was about. The whole surprise Kryptonian ethos of 'become the undisputed leader of their lesser world through your innate superiority' is something movie immediately establishes that Supes himself hates.
That doesn't make sense. Telling Superman that he should rule over the people of Earth, have a harem and spread his Kryptonian seed isn't the same thing as telling him to lead by example.
"Go and get a harem and rule over the people of Earth"
vs.
"They only lack the light to show the way"
"You will give the people of Earth and ideal to strive toward."
They're completely separate messages. One is "be a conqueror and rule" and the other is more "be an inspiration and lead by example". I didn't like the "new and improved" message either. It was the dumbest part of the whole movie IMO.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
On 7/28/2025 at 7:45 PM, Voltor said:
The character of Hulk Hogan wasn't the problem it was the man behind the character.
I seem to remember someone once saying something about casting stones....
-
17 hours ago, Bionic_Flea said:
What's this? Did I miss some drama? What happened? You can respond privately if you prefer.
This isn't anything new. They've got quite a few members who behave really badly and try to intentionally ruin regularly scheduled events. It's a shame because the folks that run their Hami raids are really cool. Just seems like there's some bad apples in the group and that's unfortunate. Gives everyone a bad name.
-
1
-
-
Had a chance to see this yesterday. Very enjoyable movie and best MCU film since Endgame IMO. I really liked how they didn't spend a lot of time covering the origin of the FF. They followed a similar pattern to The Incredible Hulk where the origin is covered in flashback/news footage which is enough to set the characters up. I really loved the retro-60s Kirby look to the world. The CGI was well done.
With exception of Pedro Pascal, I thought the casting was excellent. Pedro Pascal does ok as Reed Richards, but I think his portrayal was off. He's the weakest of the cast IMO. I'm indifferent to Shalla Bal as the Silver Surfer. I don't know why they went with her instead of the much more established Norin Radd, but whatever. She's not bad in this movie. Galactus was spot on and nice to see him properly done.
The story does get a bit clunky in the end and it does seem like it suffered a bit due to re-shoots and editing.
Overall this is a very fun movie! I liked it more than Superman if I'm being honest, although that was good too. I'm glad some of the rumours turned out to be false.
-
No thank you. The post limit isn't long enough to post the amount of jrangers for this idea. This is an absolutely horrible idea.
3 hours ago, MoonSheep said:i would remove the ability to convert IOs and remove seeding from salvage so that the economy can have some natural elements reintroduced
This would be an excellent way to kill character progression, destroy the economy, vastly increase farming, invite gold farmers to sell inf and loot for real cash and drive casual players away. I would rather not go back to the days on Live where uncommon recipes cost 2 billion inf. No thank you.
3 hours ago, MoonSheep said:the HC population looks to be sufficient to sustain a free market
Some servers barely get 100 players at any given time.
2 hours ago, Jacktar said:Well CoH may indeed be a progression based pastime but as a player for most of the Live life of the game I was in a position that because the crafted enhancements were just so riduculously expensive to craft, my game progression was in reality NIL.
^ That.
-
3
-
2
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:
Of course not. But maybe we should stop subsidizing automated processes that are trained on human art (without the consent of artists) to generate revenue for large tech companies.
I see. So long as it's saving an artist's job, it's fine. If AI is replacing someone else, well then tough luck on them. Got it.
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:It's not just artists. I've said that.
Imagine you're working your factory job and the manager comes in and informs you that they want you to train a robot that will replace you. Stuff like that is happening. But I guess, based on your comments, the manager could just say "hey it's technological progress. Think of all the people that lost their job because of the light bulb." And the workers would be like "dang man, you got me" and they'd go train the automatons that would make them irrelevant.
You're still proceeding from the very false assumption that people being displaced by technology and automation are unable to find other meaningful work. This isn't true and history bears this out over and over again.
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:Yup. Just not as a career. And as long as they can afford supplies. And energy after a long day collecting trash--although I see that being increasingly automated as well.
You're assuming that there will no longer be a market for human created art and that artists won't be able to find other good paying work. Also, I don't know why you're hung up on artists going into trash collecting and treating trash collecting as if its some demeaning, degrading job. Again, the electricians, plumbers and yes, the trash collectors around here are living in very nice houses with nice cars, boats, RVs, and sending their kids to private schools. Seems like they're doing pretty well to me.
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:What you can't seem to grasp is a historical process that shifts people from one job to another vs. modern automation that replaces human labor altogether. A technological advance in the past may have eliminated jobs but opened up new industries. Automation with AI will eliminate jobs AND probably be able to automate whatever new related industries pop up, if anything pops up at all. If you replace all human workers at a call center with AI, the technological advancement is no longer needing people. Other than that, the call center is the same. There is no technological advancement that will prompt a bunch of new jobs from that.
I can grasp history just fine. I know enough about it to know these same arguments were made for all kinds of technological advances in the past and they didn't lead to the destruction of the world economy like some alarmists predicted it would. As far as there being no other jobs or opportunities cropping up, this isn't true either. Who programs the AI? Who will maintain the infrastructure and technology supporting all of this? You seem to be fantasizing about some fantasy far off future where anything and everything is automated fully with no human interaction required ever. We're nowhere even remotely close to something like that, if ever. Even if humanity does get there, well, then I guess people will have a lot of time on their hands to do things like be creative and artistic instead of toiling away at some job.
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:So after spending years to develop skills as an artist and taking on considerable debt if you're not wealthy, people are just expected to jump ship and hop on to a different career. Which puts them in competition with people who actually were seeking those jobs to begin with.
How is this any different than any other profession or career? How are other people all over the world able to accomplish changing careers? People all over the world are doing this every day, but artists can't?
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:A more reasonable plan is to simply resist AI bullshit. Form communities that don't allow it. Support businesses that don't use it. Educate the general public about what it entails.
AI models require an enormous amount of data to train. Good artists will strive to prevent theirs from being used. Without their input, companies will have to rely on inputing AI generated data which leads to model collapse.
You're more than welcome to resist using AI and not support it. Feel free to do so. I have a suspicion that should you run into a situation where you're needing to take full advantage of some medical or other benefit that was derived through the use of AI, you'll gladly do it without hesitation and won't be asking if some artist lost their job or not.
Anyway, this is really diverging from the topic at hand. I did want to comment, I don't like the idea of using AI voiceover for NPCs in the game here. It's still clunky and doesn't sound right to me. If it ever were developed, it should be totally optional.
-
2 hours ago, LightMaster said:
While the two sides has good arguments, one keep moving goal posts for opposing arguments while another comes off as constantly naysaying despite that the negatives are very real.
If this is directed at me, then let me say I don't disagree that AI, like any other tool or invention or technological advancement, can be either good or bad. Using caution is a good thing. I don't believe we should hold back on developing AI because it may replace some jobs or industries. If we did that, there would never be progress.
2 hours ago, LightMaster said:I argue the real issue is the misuse of AI by corporates and common people by investing the more mundane or even unhelpful aspects of it, and using the word as an incessant buzzword without getting people to know what kind of AI is even about, as well as overexposure and overly pushy promotion of Generative AI.
I agree that corporate control of AI isn't necessarily the best thing. That said, who gets to define what is or isn't a "helpful aspect" of AI? Seems like some want to say that AI taking the place of human artists is a bad thing and isn't helpful. Well, if AI helped someone who can't draw be creative and create their own artwork by using AI, that's not a bad thing, at least to me.
-
3 hours ago, battlewraith said:
https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ai-index-state-ai-13-charts
The overwhelming investment in AI technologies is in the corporate sector, not academia. The investment seems aimed at streamlining business rather than developing new products. And although it isn't spelled out in this article--there seems to be emphasis on generative AI (ie replacing artists) than the thing's you mentioned.
That's one article. I can do quick Google searches too. Here is just one article on how AI is being used to help radiologists detect cancerous tissue more quickly and accurately that will, you know, save real lives. https://www.breastcancer.org/screening-testing/artificial-intelligence. Should we stop investing in AI and let people die of cancer to save your artist?
Google also shows a whole lot of information about how AI is being used for good things like smart grids, renewable energy forecasting, improving energy efficiency, precision agriculture and resource optimization, food waste reduction, vertical farming - all of which is related to combating climate change ... the list of positives for all of society can go on and on. Again, AI is a tool like other tools and technology before it. It can be transformative and a positive thing for everyone.
3 hours ago, battlewraith said:Because human beings made it? As opposed to an automated process that vastly increases that negative consequences for human beings over previous technological change.
Human beings invented the light bulb too. That put candle makers out of business. You mentioned photography earlier. The invention of the camera took away jobs from portrait painters. AI isn't doing things all by itself. Human beings are developing and implementing it. What exactly is your suggestion? Get rid of AI to save the artists? Ok, then why not get rid of light bulbs so candle makers can get their jobs back? Get rid of indoor plumbing so chamber pot collectors can get their jobs back. Get rid of every innovation and technological advancement so the people who were displaced because of it can go back to what they were doing. What industries or vocations should be off limits for AI? If its just artists, how is that fair to other industries? Or that's not important?
3 hours ago, battlewraith said:Your profound disconnect here is that you simply view art as a vocation as another paycheck, rather than something that creatives do as part of there psychological makeup.
I'm not the disconnected one. AI is in no way, shape or form going to prevent anyone from picking up a paintbrush or creatively writing or sculpting or whatever their creative medium is. Those artists will still be able to do all of those things that they enjoy doing.
3 hours ago, battlewraith said:Then you have these vocations suddenly deluged by people who were replaced with AI, so the availability of positions, assuming there were that many to begin with, goes away and the wages drop because there are so many people desperate to get in.
This isn't true either. History bears this out. You're neglecting the reality that while some jobs may go away, others will be created. People left low paying farming work for industrial jobs that paid better. Those factories grew and more jobs were created. You're ignoring your own example earlier of the painter being replaced by the photographer. I spelled out for you all of the different jobs and industries that came about because of the invention of photography.
3 hours ago, battlewraith said:Artists have skills--related to creating art. So if you lose your job doing conceptart, you might try to land something in graphic design. Except that all of these things are likely to be impacted by AI, so every domain in which an artist has competency might go away. And it's not just artists that are this predicament.
Most people have more than one skill and most people can learn to do new things. I don't know of a single person who is working the same job forever from graduation to retirement.
3 hours ago, battlewraith said:Well, the machine required me to put in a quarter and then hit some buttons.
Generative AI is, I guess, very different.
"imagine/ a cat riding a motorcycle, in the style of Jack Kirby"
phew.....damn that was intense. Really...took a lot out of me.
A human being was still involved in the initial input and further refinement of the work. The machine didn't make it without any human input.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, battlewraith said:
How far forward would you like to take it? We could develop the technology to blow up the sun, engineer a virus to instantly kill off unprotected populations, etc.
And you're just going to shrug and say it's all good as long as there are still some people left alive? Lol.
None of those things are real. The weapons you attempted to compare with AI generative art are real.
10 minutes ago, battlewraith said:No I didn't. Go back and read it. It was about AI in general. You also glossed over everything about power consumption and climate change.
I did read it and yes, you did. This may come as a shock to you, but AI is also being implemented to improve the efficiency of existing power generation along with research into renewables and sustainable energy. It's also being used in medical research for cures for alzheimers, cancer and other diseases. Should those kinds of things get shelved to save an artists job?
12 minutes ago, battlewraith said:Yeah it's very common for AI advocates to write things off as human progress because it relieves them of any kind of ethical responsibility. And if it fucks up human society it will all have been in the name of progress (ie not them). Artists, writers, and musicians will maybe just try to hack it as plumbers, electricians, etc. so that the general public can have an unending stream of AI slop that was based on the work of previous artists, writers, etc.
It's more common for opponents to change and progress to try and argue ethics and try to paint (forgive the pun) a picture that technology and progress are bad things. You're treating it like it's a zero sum equation. It's not. For every industry and job that disappeared due to technological improvements or progress, new industries and jobs were created. In many cases, much better paying jobs. Your analogy between nuclear weapons and AI generative art wasn't good. The photographer replacing the painter is a better analogy. Sure, the painter lost a job. However, the photography paper makers found jobs, the craftsman who manufactured lenses, camera parts and such found jobs. The people who made camera stands, lighting, photography studios, the photographers themselves all had jobs because of that progress.
You are accessing the internet to visit a website to make a post using technology brought about by progress and innovation. You're playing a video game brought about by progress and innovation. Why aren't you advocating for the game to be shut down because the computer technology used to deliver it to you replaced someone's job?
You also seem to have a very negative view of artistic people being incapable of doing anything else besides art. And I don't know where you live, but the garbage collectors, plumbers and electricians around here make piles of money. It's not like those are bad professions. Artists aren't stupid and I'm sure have many other skills which they can use to make a good living.
24 minutes ago, battlewraith said:I think you're right. It can be argued that is the case. And it's a jaw-droppingly stupid argument.
I disagree.
25 minutes ago, battlewraith said:Generally speaking, it's as true as someone going up to a vending machine, punching a few buttons, and when it spits out a sandwich declaring that they are a chef.
That's not really a good analogy either. AI generative art is still requiring human input and prompting to generate an image.
-
25 minutes ago, tidge said:
You used AI you evil AI proponent you! 🤣
-
For those who are thinking that Lex doctored Jor-El's message, he didn't. Directly from James Gunn himself.
https://www.superherohype.com/news/613782-superman-jor-el-message-real-fake-james-gunn-origin
-
10 minutes ago, El D said:
Gotta say, it's really funny for a proponent of generative AI to demand that anyone else provide exact details, data, or sources for anything.
Gotta say, it's totally hilarious for an opponent of generative AI to make claims about detrimental and destructive impacts to the game population and community, yet won't provide any actual measurable evidence to support that claim.
11 minutes ago, El D said:Though, reading that post again... off-hand dismissal, demands for additional sources, shifting of goal posts, diatribes via personal opinion, ignoring legitimate criticisms...
Though, reading your posts again ... off-hand dismissals, refusal to provide any additional data sources outside of hyberole and conjecture, shifting of goalposts, diatribes via personal opinions, ignoring legitimate counter arguments... maybe you should use ChatGPT. It could help you with your posts.
6 minutes ago, battlewraith said:The equivalence wasn't between nuclear weapons and AI generated art--it was AI in general. Guess you missed that despite the examples I raised. And yes, humanity is still here even with nuclear weapons. Except the descendants of people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the people killed in wars related to or affected by the issue of nuclear weaponry. And the nuclear scientist who are yeeted every year because they are involved in a program developing such weapons. Stuff like that.
How far back would you like to take this? What about the descendants of the people who were killed by rocks and sticks when humans first started crafting weapons?
7 minutes ago, battlewraith said:Nope, that stuff is great. Rhetorically you've deployed the "it's just a tool argument." Okay so the point is that the tool is very bad under certain circumstances. We should do something to avoid those circumstances.
Well no, you tried to draw the equivalence between a weapon of mass destruction and AI generated art. One is meant to kill people en masse. The other isn't. I agree, we should do something about weapons of mass destruction. AI generated art? Not so much.
9 minutes ago, battlewraith said:The argument that this has always been a complaint about technology is true but it fails to acknowledge a couple things. First of all, technology has effectively destroyed a lot of human endeavors. Photography largely ended artists paining portraits for a vocation. Film destroyed live theater as a source of entertainment for most people. Etc. It's disingenuous to say that, since these things still persist in niche circumstances that the complaints about AI are shallow or ignorant of history.
That's the nature of human progress. Some things are destroyed and others are created. That's not going to change. This also seems to proceed from the very false assumption that people who may have lost a job due to automation or technology were unable to find another job. What about when those technologies that replaced a human being helped make things better/cheaper/more effective for the general public?
10 minutes ago, battlewraith said:Secondly, automation in the past has been about replacing human physical labor. AI is about replacing aspects of human intelligence. As these two branches of technology continue to advance--what exactly is the need going to be for actual human beings? Is there going to be a technological wonderland where all human needs are provided for? Or are the people in control of the tech going to make bank while the have-nots struggle to find a way to scrape by? I'm guessing the latter.
I don't have such a negative view of it. If AI can be used to help improve lives and better educate people so they don't have to work in physical labor jobs in favor of better paying jobs, that's a good thing. I don't know what the future holds. Nobody does.
11 minutes ago, battlewraith said:Artist's that had work stolen have legal recourse to deal with it.
They still have legal recourse even in the age of AI generated art.
12 minutes ago, battlewraith said:If someone copies your work, they first of all have to have the skill to do so.
That doesn't make it right.
20 minutes ago, battlewraith said:Copying is also an important part of how humans learn. AI doesn't have the capacity to learn anything from emulating people's art.
I think it can be argued that AI is the new pen and paper or paint or clay. It's just a different tool.
-
11 minutes ago, El D said:
You got real hung up on dismissing my personal opinion over AI and the idea of criticism of AI in-general but seemed to have skipped the important 'and this is how it's current affecting Homecoming' bits in there. Regardless of anyone's personal stance on whether AI or 'good or bad,' Homecoming's official allowance of AI has had a direct impact on sustaining the community by negating outside interest in the game and is incredibly hypocritical considering the devs own efforts and how much work they put in to crafting content.
I wasn't the one making claims about how AI generated art is "impacting the game" by "sustaining the community by negating outside interest". The onus isn't on me to provide quantifiable data. That's on the people making those claims. What's the overall impact? Is there any impact at all? How big or small is said impact? So how many people were driven away by AI generated art on the HC Discord? How many joined specifically because there is AI generated art posted there?
I'm sorry if I don't believe a few people posting on social media that they don't like HC because of AI art equates to any measurable impact on the community in general. From the numbers we can see, the relative population has been stable. Excelsior is in the red most nights now. Seems to me that AI art isn't driving people away in droves.
20 minutes ago, El D said:It also runs counter to Homecoming's 'you want to help and make decisions? Volunteer yourself. Put in effort on Beta and apply to join the dev team' approach. The devs either had to learn the skills they use to manage the game's code, write engaging content, and craft costume pieces and powersets or already possessed them and have refined them through working on Homecoming. Generative AI doesn't do that. It doesn't teach anything or hone any skill sets. There is no 'generate a new dev' button. The skills that our devs utilize are only gained by work and maintained through practice.
And all of that will more than likely eventually change when AI is capable of programming game code through prompts.
22 minutes ago, El D said:CoH's art community though? Their skills and earnest efforts can be ignored if you want to use generative AI. Homecoming will even make special channels for it. A constant reminder that many of the folks here readily push the 'don't hire an artist or learn how to draw/paint/demo edit, just get the end result' button while the devs require that anyone who wants to work with them actually be able to show their work.
None of which means artists with real artistic skill cannot share and promote their work here on the forums or on Discord. Why don't you ask the GMs here to create a specific subforum here and on the HC Discord for non-AI generated art?
-
28 minutes ago, battlewraith said:
Any artist posting online now has to contend with their work being scraped and used in AI training models.
How is this any different than before? An artist posting their work online had to contend with others stealing their work and claiming it as their own or directly copying it.
Daredevil Born Again getting a Season 3
in Comic, Hero & Villain Culture
Posted
I guess that makes sense, although there have been actors who put in the time and effort to practice enough to make their performance believable in a short time. Viggo Mortenson comes to mind when he got the part of Aragorn. I think he only had a couple of days before he had to start shooting the sword battles at Weathertop.