battlewraith

Human beings are social animals. Some people are just looking to have a conversation. The consensus seems to be that KM sucks, so this seems like a good topic to have a chat about and not encounter hostility. But alas, twas not to be.

You berated the guy for no real reason and you're defending it by pointing out that you could be even more of a jerk. BETEO

Okay just looking up the lore on the wiki, Hequat at full power raised all of the nation of mu from the bottom of the ocean. So some additional island zone doesn't seem like a big deal. Yes, she's defeated in a mission. So what? Ever read a comic book? Enemies are defeated and come back, often more powerful than the first time. It even says in the mission text that it is likely she will come back. There is no reason why Hequat couldn't have an expanded presence in the game, garbage speculation about which gods we can stomp and why notwithstanding.

When you die, it locks that character out for a period of time and randomly selects another character from your roster, who appears doing a grieving emote.

I can sympathize with what I take to be the OPs complaint--that almost everything in the game revolves around damage spam and that emphasis leads to absurd outcomes (eg players relying on insps for def) and a general devaluing of roles for different ATs. Personally, I see this as the outcome of too much balance. The game is structured so that pretty much any AT or team composition can do perfectly well in the majority of the content. Early on in the development, there may have been a time when the devs could've really embraced the notion that different ATs were necessary for something. Maybe there would've been content where controls were necessary for the successful completion of a mission, for example. I would've even liked to see a scenario where your character origin actually mattered. Maybe your science based character actually needs a magic-based support character to empower them to deal with certain threats. That ship has long since sailed. What we got was an emphasis on convenience and accessibility--if your character has a limitation it's trivial to find a way to patch it over. Ultimately, I don't think tweaks to the current state of affairs would really do much to address that issue. It would just aggravate people who are used to the way things are now.

I finally got around to seeing this and found it pretty enjoyable. I think it's pretty clear that clear that they were following this theme of trauma and people leaning on some talent or ambition as a way of coping with it. Riri makes bad decisions from start to end and I get why people might not relate to her, but the show spent a lot of time explaining why she is the way she is and makes these bad decisions. I enjoyed the fact that, despite all the Tony Stark references, she is not that universally brilliant. She's good at some engineering related things but fails completely at things outside that range of competence. I think the point of this (short) season was to have her fail pretty badly but to make connections and have her establish a cohort that would help her become more of a hero. I suspect that the deal with Mephisto would fall through either because 1) her motivations for the bargain were good, unlike his other bargains 2) he doesn't actually have the ability to bring back the friend, so he doesn't actually hold up his end of the bargain. Regardless, I doubt they will do anything more with this character so it's basically a tragedy.

Maybe they can adopt cooking terminology. This attack has a medium impact with a sprinkle of -regen and a pinch of toxic damage. Then we can all have "fun" testing what that means.

Psychological components to being coh rich: 1. You have far more in the way of resources than you will need at any time. 2. You deliberately play in a way that preserves or increases this sum of excess resources that you will never spend down--when the game ends, vaults full of unused resources will simply blink out of existence. 3. You posit this state of affairs as somehow normal or not-noteworthy--despite the vast majority of players not being like this. 4. You vitriolically oppose changes in game incentives or "free stuff" because if such ideas took root, you would likely become less rich.

All you really need is a sharpie.

How dare you.

He's not wondering about controversy (disagreement over ideas). Troo likes to think outside the box. This sets him at odds with people who want the box as snug as possible and get pissed off when people think about it.

Key words are no regard. Humans that just kill plants and animals for funsies are seen as bad, if not outright evil. If an ant is in my house, I kill it because I know that it's a drone with no consciousness and it doesn't make much difference to the colony. Furthermore, I don't leave food out so that ants won't be attracted and I won't have to kill a bunch. If I went to step on an ant and it said "please don't kill me, I want to live." That would present a moral dilemma. I would at least try to communicate with the ants to get them to stay out of the house. Galactus in this situation, not only kills the ant communicating with him. He kills all the ants on the planet as well as every other living thing.

There are certainly people that view humans killing animals solely for sport as evil. The cutoff line for most people seems to be sentience. Hunting other human beings for sport is absolutely regarded as evil and killing off helpless populations is monstrous. One thing that I think the movie got wrong is that Galactus doesn't just eat planets--he needs to consume worlds that are able to support biological life. The Silver Surfer is, imo, a rebuttal to the idea that Galactus is just some inscrutable entity that can't be regarded in moral terms. As a herald, the Surfer is far beyond a human being in terms of abilities, perspective, etc. The Surfer has seen the vast scope of the universe and has the most insider perspective on what drives his boss. Yet the Surfer, after spending a brief time on Earth, decides to revolt on behalf of humanity. It's hard to view the Surfer's cross-species empathetic sacrifice as heroic without conversely seeing Galactus's complete indifference to other beings as evil. Not to mention Galactus's thuggish dealings--be my herald and I won't eat your planet. I remember the whole John Byrne trial of Galactus thing where they tried to redeem Galactus--he has some higher purpose, etc. But I default to the initial idea of Kirby and Lee, which I take to be "what if you ran into a godlike being that was just hungry and didn't give a shit about morality." All that said, I agree with you that the depiction of Galactus was not great. I had two ways that I think they could've resolved the situation that were lore appropriate and better than Sue hulking out:

At what point is it no longer really Tron? When you bring these characters into the real world and give them superpowers--doesn't it change everything? Even your notion of time:

Depending on how you define evil, Galactus is evil. He's utterly indifferent to the suffering of sentient beings on the planets he consumes.