battlewraith

Why are you posting this stuff here instead of the AI art thread?

If it was identifiable as their distinct creations, yeah they or the IP owners would expect compensation --hence rules in this game about using copyrighted characters. Beyond that, this argument is just silly. Nobody owns genres, despite the fact that they may have been popularized by certain creators.

This is a weird argument. People get sued for copyright infringement. You can look into court cases and see what types of things constitute infringement. A style or technique alone is generally not something that an individual owns (eg. Monet doesn't own impressionism).

You come across as someone who doesn't understand art production or automation in this context. If I crop something, either physically or digitally, I'm making a decision and taking action on it. Digital work is definitely more flexible, but so what? You think artists don't make changes on physical paintings or drawings? You're fixating on one aspect of the process of image making and thinking that makes it equivalent to AI, that's ridiculous. You give AI some tokens and it gives you results based on what it's model thinks those tokens mean. You have no hand in the actual image making. You can make all these inane comparisons all day long but it's pretty easy to demonstrate the difference here. If you can't draw at all--Photoshop is not going to help you. All those layers and undoes will not make a difference. But you could go to Midjourney and tell it to make a portrait in the style of Norman Rockwell and it will do just that. The scraping involves breaking down the formal characteristics into a kind of vector math that is associated with tokens and filtered through a model. It's actually nothing like how a human artist actually learns and it's completely contingent on existing work that people have done. The AI doesn't ever learn anything and it can only be derivative because it's doing a pastiche of datapoints from it's dataset. Non artists trying to defend AI scraping don't understand the difference between that and a human being having influences.

Non-destructive editing is not automation. The only thing that you mentioned that would qualify would be auto saving, assuming you were using an application set up to do that. Undoing something you don't like is automation...really? So my pencil is a form of automation because it has an eraser on the back? Computers run automated processes to execute code. That doesn't mean that non-AI digital art applications are automated to create art or do editing. Any more than the gears that automatically turn on a bicycle mean that it's self-propelling. AI is bad for artists, actors, musicians, etc. It robs people of the benefits of actually developing artistically instead of having something do the work for them. Fortunately it's not about what I deem acceptable. Most creatives hate it and it cannot function without scraping their work. Even non artists are getting tired of the slop and fake videos of cute animals bouncing on trampolines, etc.

Both would be examples of me editing a photo. Neither are automated processes. Same with art. I can draw on a piece of paper. I can draw on the computer as well. Neither case is automation.

Wow, as someone who has been using Photoshop since the 90s, I didn't know it automated art and image editing. Maybe you can point out the hot key that will tell it to do my work for me, I must have missed it somehow.

Compensation for artists has been an issue for a long time. The concern with AI is not simply about compensation, it's about your creative output being used to train an automated process that is intended to replace the need for people like you. Most anti-AI people aren't focused on blaming afaik. They are just trying to keep AI content out of their communities and are focused on supporting creative people and not tech companies. Fallacious comparison. Technological development leads to specific goods and contingent services becoming obsolete. The type of AI being discussed is an automated process that seeks to replace the creative labor of human beings in general (ironically by scraping vast datasets of human creative output). So the logical extension of your statement is "no one mourns for the creative people."

This is one of the craziest AI takes I've ever read. The anti-AI crowd are mainly artists. They are the ones who actually create things for the society. And they actually do have a plan--don't indulge in this garbage. Try to protect your work so that it isn't laundered through an AI process that some company will profit off of. Etc.

The majority of the “good” reviews I’ve seen said something like “it’s an awesome album that was released with a movie.”

I think there is some sort of power fantasy dynamic that is at play here—the degree to which a lot of players got personally offended if their character was defeated is crazy.

I don't know, why don't you ask him? Nerfs kill people's fun. Usually in service to some overarching view of balance. The people that left over ED probably had other complaints and ED was the straw that broke the camel's back. And they were probably right to do so. We have hindsight now. We also have confirmation bias. If you're still here posting, you probably favor a finely balanced, predictable, more of the same kind of game experience.

Pfft… The absurdity of an invuln scrapper herding the whole map. Which was a blast. Fun times. Some of the best times involved things being out of wack.

Riiight. And when you have multiple characters with these powers on a team, the group essentially becomes synchronized K-pop dancers with crime fighting choreography. This is no more or less goofy a post-hoc rationalization than what the OP was describing. The name of the game at this point is powerset proliferation. The fact that something exists elsewhere is not a reason to prevent it from occurring elsewhere. Because something like focused accuracy is available in a patron or epic pool doesn’t mean players shouldn’t have more options. Even is this was something like a single target version of the leadership pool—that would be interesting. As Beet already suggested, I’d like to see something like this being an avenue for debuff resistance.

I think the scene in part helps define Metamorpho as a character. I doubt many people watching that movie know him. The whole sequence tells us something about his powers and that he has a moral tipping point, at which he will risk further separation or even harm to his child in order to take a chance on Superman.

The scene also took place in Luther’s pocket dimension, where his god complex is unfettered.

Is it any good? Do the people that have played it feel that it’s worth supporting?

The whole point of Homecoming is to bring back the game AND continue development. Which is why we have a suggestions forum and engage in these conversations. The shivans and nukes are a funny example. In a sense they are free, because they were content set within the context of an open PvP zone. The intent was to bring players into the zone, where they would fight each other in order to achieve the objectives and get the desired reward. If people can routinely go there and get the rewards without interacting with anyone from the opposite side, then the primary challenge in earning the reward has been skipped. And yet the sky did not fall. The game did not go shrieking down the slippery slope of ruin.

I do skip them, generally speaking. And when I don’t, the “real effort” amounts to moving a character to locations that are memorized or marked on a map in order to get “exploration” badges. Or clicking on history plaques, the contents of which were first introduced in what, 2004? Moreover, the “don’t like it, don’t do it” argument can be applied to anything. Don’t like that a melee set underperforms? Don’t play it. Don’t like that certain ATs are less favored in hard content? Don’t play them. Don’t like that certain areas of the game are underpopulated (eg. redside)? Just don’t play there. It’s a recipe for stagnation that favors risk-averse players that are satisfied with what they have and don’t want change.

They are a trivial matter. It’s just a repetitive, tedious activity that people have been doing for years. There’s nothing particularly difficult about it. As for the power creep argument—the game is easy, whether they make a change like this or not. People that have a problem with this can play harder content or skip the accolades if they think it’s a big deal.

Tweaking the requirements of the accolades to make them less tedious is, imo, an incremental adjustment. It does nothing to change the strength of the accolades or their influence on gameplay.

The game is not some unchanging platonic ideal. It’s gone through various phases of development and continues to be altered. The gist of development is to make it fun and appealing presumably to a wide variety of players. The notion that certain legacy things have some sort of perfect balance and therefore should not be adjusted is silly. It’s a dogmatism that could actually cost the game players in the wider view of things.

It’s just crazy to me. The last three games I played all have vastly better graphics than this and didn’t recommend that much. Google came up with some minimum specs for this game that are lower, but they aren’t listed on the company’s info page. I think I’d probably have to buy a new computer to run those recommended specs.

Everyone is rightly focused on price, but damn that’s a lot of RAM for a game that looks like that. Seems very risky to drop enough money for a AAA game on something that appears very poorly optimized.

Regardless of what the next suggestion is, the general response will be the same. Too many oldsters enchanted with the repetitive tedium that was designed to keep them paying$15 a month. Changing that would be like rearranging the furniture at the retirement home. If people are only running Numina to get the accolade, isn’t the real problem that Numina isn’t appealing on it’s own? Is linking rewards that people want to content they don’t like good game design? I think the accolades were introduced at a time when people were new to the game and hungry for content. Killing various enemies would just normally happen in the course of playing. Clicking a couple extra boxes to get an accolade was not a big deal. It’s 20 years later. There’s nothing novel or challenging about doing this for the hundredth time. People have pointed out that the accolades and their constituent parts are optional. If that’s the case, then there’s no harm in making it less of a blatant time sink. The net result would probably be more people doing it, or pursuing it on more alts.