battlewraith

February 27

Why don't you just make it so that when you apply clear mind on a target, it applies to the emp as well. I think that would provide justification and utility for the emp to take it and not be gamebreaking with all of the other mez rez options available. As someone who plays a bubbler, there are downsides to having a toggle that provides mez res over an area. End drain, players that don't stay in proximity anyways, the fact that it quickly becomes redundant if you have a halfway decent party, etc.

February 26

1 hour ago, Ghost said:

I think they should wait several years, until the bad taste is out of everyone’s mouth

As someone who never watched that series to begin with, I don't have any bad taste in my mouth. I would much rather see She Hulk on a new Marvel team than characters like Hawkeye or pretty much the entire roster of Thunderbolts. Any of these characters can be made to suck with a bad script and vice versa. I enjoyed She Hulk's stint as part of FF when John Byrne was doing the art.

February 26

1 hour ago, Apogee said:

I must be old. I've never heard of Sea Lioning. Andrew Dice Clay sure, even haiku, but not sea lioning. Who comes up with these terms?

Did you look it up? It's even in the dictionary now so that means it's real.

February 26

7 hours ago, Ghost said:

She Hulk???

The character whose show bombed so hard that they removed her appearance from future projects?

Why on earth would they do that?

As for Hulk sequel, that’s what caused the original round of reshoots.

Apparently the movie was way more Hulk oriented to the point that people walked out of the first screening asking “how is this a Cap movie?”

So you don't think they should do She Hulk ever again because that series failed?

There have been a lot of failures--FF, Superman, Venom, etc. I don't blame the characters for it.

February 25

7 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Ok, now you're just lying about me and I'm done responding to you.

There's a single tear rolling down my cheek right now.

February 25

2 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Yes, and a million people clearly agree with your definition of misogyny as "any time a man doesn't worship a woman." Which is why I said, at the beginning of this thread that I entirely discount the use of the word misogyny because it's been changed to the point as to be meaningless, and it gets thrown around at the drop of a hat.

However, the more than a billion of us who agree that misogyny means "hatred of women" reject your new "current year ideology" definition of misogyny. And until the dictionary does get updated to reflect your new definition it's wrong. Because the dictionary is the arbiter of language, you are not.

PS. I rode my unicorn to work today. Actually I drove a car, but whatever. I can redefine words on a whim just like you can, right?

This is your politics of aggrievement. You're mad because things change and you don't like it. And it's like arguing with someone who has ghosts in their brain. I did not define misogyny that way and I never said I can change words on a whim. In fact I just talked about how words change. It's not controversial, it's just an observation about the world.

I think you should talk about unicorns more. Add some much needed whimsy Mr. Grumpy Downvoter.

February 25

34 minutes ago, El D said:

I'd argue that's what the progression of the films have already done. Connery's Bond has scenes that absolutely wouldn't have flown with Brosnan's and Craig's, for example, and that's reflection of 'Well, it's been 30+ years since the first films were made and attitudes changed.' Been the same amount of time since Brosnan now, and likely Craig once Amazon's stuff ever comes out. Though having mentioned it, I wouldn't even mind them going back to the rougher content of Connery's Bond provided they actually contextualize it in the story. Have the woman Bond 'seduces' be in on it from the start, perhaps an informant, and they're both playing a role for the mission rather than Bond having his way with the umpteenth Bond girl because the script says they just can't resist him. Bonus points if it's also to play into the expectations of the antagonists.

As far as Amazon changes go, I'm willing to wait and see. Fallout and Reacher are pretty solid, earnest adaptations that don't shy away from more intense content (variances in tone aside). That makes me doubt they'd full on neuter Bond, at least not unless they do Casino Royale again...

Yeah, I think the films have gotten worse of the years precisely because they try to sugarcoat Bond. In addition, the whole notion of a British spy saving the world for Queen and Country is just laughably out of date. I'd like to see them do it as a period piece where Q giving Bond a tracking device hidden in a cigarette lighter is still high tech and not like a default feature on an Iphone or something.

February 25

1 minute ago, Excraft said:

So following your logic here, the accepted definition of misogyny includes words like hatred of, loathing toward and despising women to further explain the meaning and provide context. According to you, that's the accepted meaning, so your entire argument here fails. You're also failing to understand that if Bond were this woman hating man who despised women, that would make characters like Vesper Lynd complete morons. They weren't.

No you seemingly can't follow the logic. If the definition includes x and y, or z --it doesn't mean that x, y, and z are all being expressed when someone says a word. Often the meaning of a word is contingent on the rest of what's being said. You're basically cherry picking the meanings of the word to object to it being used in relation to Bond.

What? Of course it does. I can't point to a frog and say that's an elephant and because I said so that makes my word usage correct.

No, because presumably you're some random individual and aren't actually trying to express anything in this hypothetical. However, individuals (politicians, writers, artists, philosophers, scientists, etc.) may start a usage that catches on with a community and spreads. If it reaches a certain mass and displays staying power--it will eventually end up in a dictionary. There might be a million people routinely using a word in a certain way that is not reflected in a dictionary.

Look at something like the word "bear". It originally comes from a word that meant "the brown one" even though many bears are not brown. The word now can refer to the type of animal, a type of man, a general problem, a trend or type of investor in the stock market, and so on. Obviously the further back in time you go, the less these more current usages are going to be reflected in a dictionary.

February 25

8 hours ago, Championess said:

Okay so you're asking to have the t9 pet buffed.

If they buff the t9 pet you're asking for Phantom Army to get nerfed.

No, you're asking for those things. There is this weird and imo outdated logic at play where, if a set is good, it can't get any kind of tweaks. Or those positive tweaks have to be paid for with some kind of nerf. All the guy is asking for is decent AI and maybe no knockback on the phantasm so that it doesn't train mobs on the user. As a principle, pets shouldn't have some dysfunctional aspect to them that makes them a liability and a headache to play.

With the current state of the game, anyone on any character has access to pets that are better than phantasm by you own account. So it makes no sense that it would be a big deal to tweak phantasm. None.

February 24

1 hour ago, ZacKing said:

Right so the accepted source used in schools all over the globe that defines the meanings of words isn't correct... but you are, and everyone else is "misinformed". LOL! Do you even know what a dictionary is?

Yeah but apparently you don't. Like I said, words acquire meaning through usage. That usage varies over time and in different contexts and communities. A dictionary is a record of usages that the editors of the dictionary have compiled. The very fact that there are multiple meanings commonly associated with words is indicative of how, when people start using a word differently the meaning changes. The addition of a new word or a new meaning often substantially lags the use of that word or meaning as the dictionaries take time to establish whether or not to update. So no, the fact that someone may use a word in a way not sanctioned by your dictionary doesn't mean it's wrong.

Which is really besides the point because your reading comprehension is horrible. I replied to Shardwarrior who wrote that the definition of misogyny includes "hatred of or contempt of" women. I said the usage and meaning has expanded--it has. YOUR cited definition expands it (lol):

2 hours ago, ZacKing said:

a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

"a bachelor and renowned misogynist"

The OED doesn't even include strongly:

"Hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women."

Is Bond prejudiced against women? Sure seems to fit the bill in some of the narratives. Anyway, there is probably continuing education available if you want to build on what you learned in high school.

February 24

28 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

LOL! What? Allow me to introduce you to something you may not know about. It's called the dictionary and it tells you what words mean.

Misogynist

/mɪˈsɒdʒɪnɪst/

noun

noun: misogynist; plural noun: misogynists

a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

"a bachelor and renowned misogynist"

You are so very basic. And why would you lecture me on what a dictionary is when it's referenced in the post you quoted.

Words change meaning over time, and are used differently in various contexts. And no, your favorite dictionary is not the arbiter of language. It's just a tool to help the uninformed.

February 24

2 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

That is how I read the Bond character. My point was that the definition of misogyny includes "hatred of or contempt of" women. Bond clearly did not hate Vesper Lynd, in both the original novel and Casino Royale film as he fell in love with her. Bond also did get married in both the novel and film adaption of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Describing him as a "misogynistic sociopath" is not accurate.

This is largely semantics. You're resorting to a simple, constrained dictionary definition of misogyny and then saying Bond doesn't fit with it. The usage and meaning has expanded since the Greeks, whether you agree with it or not. And it doesn't follow that someone being a misogynist can't love ANY woman. Internal contradictions are common among people. Even Vesper Lynd--that story ends with Bond declaring that the bitch is dead.

I mean, yeah it's not accurate because we're talking about a fictional character comes across to different audiences. But quibbling about whether Bond is a chauvinist (I'd go with possibly a psycopath) or a misogynist sociopath is like complaining that the oven is set to 325 rather than 350.

February 24

36 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Having watched all of the Bond movies, most of them when they originally came out in theaters, I vehemently disagree with your assertion that he's a sociopath or a misogynist.

First, he appears to care a great deal about the people of his country, so much so that he risks his life on a daily basis to protect them. Sociopaths, by definition, lack empathy and the capacity to care about others. Also, he exhibits none of the anger management issues typical of sociopaths. As for misogynist. Well, people now days throw that word around at the drop of a hat. Men now days get accused of misogyny for simply looking in the general direction of a woman.

So yeah. I disagree with your entire premise and stand by what I said. James Bond is a hero, perhaps a morally gray one, but a hero nonetheless, and I disagree with trying to rewrite him as Hanibal Lector in a tuxedo.

Lol so people in your opinion overuse the term misogyny, therefore you're just going to wave it away with respect to Bond? Weak.

Bond at the very least is a chauvinist. There's multiple instances where he forces himself on women. In Casino Royale, Vesper Lynd tells Bond that "you think of women as disposable pleasures rather than meaningful pursuits." That's a pretty good summation of how Bond relates to women in the films. Two die in Goldfinger alone from being involved with him. It's not like he's happy about it, but he isn't exactly troubled by it either. It doesn't stop him from using women, putting them at risk, to advance his goals and have a good time.

I don't think anyone here is saying that Bond should be Hannibal Lector in a tuxedo. But Ian Fleming himself pushed back against the idea that Bond was a hero. He's a spy, serving the needs of a government agency:

“I don’t think that he is necessarily a good guy or a bad guy. Who is? He’s got his vices and very few perceptible virtues except patriotism and courage, which are probably not virtues anyway.”

February 23

7 hours ago, Voltor said:

You are right in that Bond does vile or violent things, that is what he has to do at times to stop the bad guys and terrorists and world conquerors. Bond is licensed to kill, kind hearted people do not get a license to kill. Bond is someone that stands on the wall and faces off against the threats that we do not normally hear about, all to keep the world safe.

Same with Star Trek: Section 31, classic Nick Fury, also Cecil Stedman from Invincible.

Yeah I think that's the gist of the disagreement. You're talking about Bond the cartoon character, who faces off against some cartoonish depiction of evil and saves the day. I have little doubt that Amazon will go down that road again, but I think it's been done to death and the further we get away from the 60s the more ridiculous the premises become.

Bond as a film character is basically a laundry list of traits that the editors of Playboy might have come up with: knows how to rock a tuxedo, can hold his liquor, bangs lots of hot women, can drive a racecar, shoot guns, save the world if necessary, etc. The point of the movies is to see this character have an adventure and crack one-liners, not actually see espionage. So under those assumptions, it's ok to see Bond coerce his masseuse to have sex with him (which in no way advances the plot or his mission) because the formula demands that he beds a certain number of women per film.

I don't want them to change that. I want them to lean in on it. I would just want them to set him in a narrative that doesn't pass off protecting his governments interests as "saving the world."

February 22

3 hours ago, Voltor said:

As to him being a drinker and womanizer......well the character is a product of the time he was created. Of course spies like him have to be able to blend in and be ready to handle all situations and targets. People have complained in the past when Bond attacks female enemies such as at the start of Diamonds when he starts choking Marie to get Blofeld's location or in The World is Not Enough when Brosnan Bond shoots the female villain. Bond is licensed to kill........there are no exceptions to such a license, and to obtain that license requires a certain level of ruthlessness.

I don't think the compliant hinges on Bond killing people.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/sep/23/james-bond-no-time-to-die-cary-fukunaga-thunderball

"One key scene in Goldfinger features Connery’s Bond apparently forcing himself on Honor Blackman’s Pussy Galore in a haybarn. In a 1959 letter concerning the novel from which the film was adapted, Ian Fleming explains that this “laying on of hands” from “the right man” was all which was required to “cure” the lesbian character of “her psycho-pathological malady”.

LOL?

February 21

4 minutes ago, JKCarrier said:

You could get a pretty interesting movie by positioning a book-accurate, borderline-sociopathic Bond as the villain. MI-6 looks the other way because he's useful and effective, but eventually he goes too far and they decide they have to take him off the board. The story is told from the point of view of the agent sent to take him out, and they wrestle with the fact that this guy is legit a hero who saved the world multiple times, but also a loathsome human being.

But yeah, what we'll probably get is some bland, forgettable "Bond-Lite".

That would be better for sure, but I'd like it to be something like Bond meets John La Carre. Something more accurate to what intelligence agencies are actually like. Bond is a loathsome human being who has saved the interests of his loathsome agency in it's conflicts with other loathsome organizations. Will never happen but, that's where I'd like to see it develop.

February 21

I don't know what good treatment would look like. Sean Connery's Bond pretty much set the mold and those movies are challenging to watch now.

He's a womanizer that comes across as almost a sociopath at times. I loved the Roger Moore films as a kid, but they are pretty damn goofy now. The more recent films seem to try to redeem the character in light of more contemporary sensibilities but meh. I think Bond needs to be this stereotypical drinking, gambling, womanizing, killer and he needs to be set in a world where that makes sense--and I have a hard time picturing anyone, let alone Amazon doing that well.

February 20

55 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

You have a misapprehension of the meaning of the word gatekeeping.

We are explaining to you what was previously explained to us when we made the same suggestion!

Yeah you can stop with that. I assume that the majority of suggestions made here will be ignored. People might hope for a change, want to discuss an idea, or just vent. They don't need the world-weary gaggle of naysayers talking about the dead horse, as if they were bound like Alex DeLarge and forced to read repetitive forum posts.

February 20

39 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

Yes, we. Maybe you don't live on these forums the way some of us do. Knockback is not a new topic of conversation. The devs have repeatedly indicated (to "us") that they have no intention of removing Knockback aside from those tools they've already given us (and possibly adding more "gather them up", "hold them in place", and "close the gap" abilities. Asking for it again and again is just a waste of everyone's time.

Which is why I said gatekeeping earlier. I don't live on these forums. I specifically don't camp here in suggestions to shoot ideas down.

If people keep asking for something again and again, it's an indication of interest. Which is why they are expressing that interest in a place called SUGGESTIONS & FEEDBACK.

Your time is your own to waste. Unless you're being coerced to comment, there is no point in you complaining about what other people request. If the devs don't like the request, it will sink off the page like everything else.

February 19

10 minutes ago, arcane said:

We have no indication that the developers see your position on knockback as a problem. They have repeatedly pointed players to existing solutions every time this dead horse takes a beating.

"We"?

They'll either see it or they won't. In the meantime, you could cut out some of the noise by refraining from beating the horse yourself and then complaining about other people doing it lol.

February 19

A very reasonable case has been made, by multiple people, that the AI should be adjusted and that the knockback is a problem. If you have to tax the player with resources and a slot to fix a problem, that's bad design and should be addressed. I couldn't care less what the status of the whole set is with regard to someone's tier ranking. Mainly because this game is very easy to begin with and calling something an S-tier monster doesn't mean that much. On a team with other ATs that are fully slotted with sets and incarnates, that "buffed" phantasm is not going to matter at all. On the other hand, if you're a lowbie and grinding your way up with SOs--seems kind of waste of money to drop a couple million to buy what is basically a QOL improvement because your own pet is putting you at greater risk.

February 19

13 minutes ago, arcane said:

Can you point to the person who is opposing better AI?

You introduce the notion that the set should not be buffed. Then there is debate about what constitutes a buff. Wavicle said:

"Any improvement is a buff. Those suggested changes to Phantasm would improve its damage and survivability, making them buffs. I happen to agree that Phantasm should hang back, and that its attacks should all be knockdown instead of knockback, but I'm not going to deny that those would be buffs. Obviously they are buffs. You were in fact asking for Illusion to be buffed, you were just specific about what exactly you wanted buffed."

Nobody is directly defending the current AI, because that would be overtly stupid. Instead, the idea is being dismissed on the grounds of being a buff. A quantifiable sin, so to speak.

February 19

40 minutes ago, arcane said:

Don’t be ridiculous. It is not gatekeeping to say “Illusion Control is one of the most potent sets in the game so maybe they shouldn’t buff it right now, beyond AI improvements that everyone is in agreement on.”

I don't see much there other than gatekeeping. There is no substance to this response.

The pet is annoying because of knockback and it's AI. I'm playing one right now, it's a moron and sometimes gets me killed by aggroing other groups. Regardless of how strong IC is as a set, addressing these issues is not going to make it suddenly vastly more powerful. It will just make it more enjoyable to use that pet. It's laughable that someone would frame this as a big deal. And you're mischaracterizing this conversation which seems to be divided between "yeah adjust the AI" and "any fix to a problem is a buff, and under no circumstances should this set get a buff."

February 19

So the phantasm has to be an annoying moron so that people won't think that illusion is too OP. This is the mentality that, imo drives the game towards mediocrity--the fact that every set follows a formula where it comes across as a tweaked, repackaged version of something else. The concern that illusion would be head and shoulders above other sets (for what?) in a 20 year old game is silly. Particularly, when most vets have at least one 50 sitting on a shelf somewhere. In the age of inventions and incarnates, where damage dealers like blasters can have pets if they want, the thought of a non-stupid phantasm throwing things out of whack is just gatekeeping over the most marginal of concerns.

February 17

28 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

No, it's not doing well.

100 million is about 1/10th of what this movie will need to make just to break even. It's done better than The Marvels (which honestly isn't hard to do), but worse than Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania. Given the very lackluster reviews, we can fully expect the box office numbers for CA: BNW to crater the following weekend.

No way this film comes close to breaking even.

I said SO FAR. I would say given the controversy and troubled production history, these numbers are pretty good. Definitely better than I expected. I said nothing about it breaking even or anything like that.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Events

Store

Articles

Patch Notes

Posts posted by battlewraith