battlewraith

Wasp was not the leader of the Avengers. Cap was. Then it changed. Same with the X-men. The source material is comic books, which are subject to constant change and retconning, which is done to express different writer's ideas of what these characters are like but also to bring them in line with later eras to make them relevant to newer audiences. Regarding Alpha Flight, do you mean Heather Hudson? So Alpha Flight had a male leader--James Hudson who is a scientist that makes a power suit and becomes a superhero. He dies, and his girlfriend who has no superpowers or scientific background takes over the team. You're all for that--but the thought of Sue who is actually a very powerful character leading the team is an issue. Whaaaat?

If you're talking about roughly the first year, yeah I didn't feel this urge to rush to 50. In fact, it took a long time for me to hit lvl 50 on my main. However, the end of that first year also probably marked the steepest decline in server population. By 2005 most of the people I had been actively teaming with were gone. Whole sgs I knew left en masse for other games. So imo it's a distortion to say that there was no reason to rush to 50. If you were very invested in the game, probably not. Realistically though, a lot of people got bored with the content and moved on, particularly when expectations of what your $15 a month was going to get you turned out to be unrealistic.

If Sue is a strong independent woman who is leading the team, that would put her in a situation similar to other female supergroup leaders. Such as when Wasp lead the Avengers or Storm took over leadership of the X-men. I'm at a loss for what the problem would be.

Wrong. Once pvp was added in 2005 there was a subset of the player base that needed to get characters to 50 asap in order to participate in lvl 50 pvp. On HC, my personal motivation to make new characters is to get them to 50, get them enhanced and set up with incarnates, and then run the build on harder difficulty levels to see how well it performs. Occasionally I'll run a character at lower levels, but it gets boring very quickly. This isn't an argument for anything. It's a statement of preference. It is in no way significant whether someone like you can relate to it or not.

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know where it is going to go. I did read the comic as a kid and that side of the extreme was a thing. What is the basis for this comment? Is there something in the trailer that indicates Sue will be "boss lady with no weaknesses who runs the show because men stupid." Just writing that out--it sounds ridiculous.

The premise of the Fantastic Four, as envisioned by Lee and Kirby in the 60's is absolutely ridiculous. It's a step or two above Scooby Do. Big brained Reed Richards decides to go on a space mission, to which he enlists his significantly younger girlfriend, her kid brother (!?!), and his football-player-turned-pilot former college roommate. They get pelted with cosmic rays and become super heroes. Sue being this cosmically powered mom figure that serves to "keep the family together" is just dumb. It's fine that Reed is the leader of the team, but it should be an actual team. They should have insights and perspective as superheroes. She shouldn't just be managing Johnny, making Reed's dinner, and then making forcefields when he needs her to do it. Not just because it's like an outdated "father knows best" 50s sitcom that we've moved on from, but because it reminds us of how bizarre Reed's motivations in the story are to begin with.

Which, if true, means that the majority of people at the time were doing something you didn't like. You were in the minority. And you're celebrating the fact that the playstyle you didn't like got nerfed, so that people like you--instead of playing with each other--got to draw on the pool of people who were nerfed into playing your way. That is the people who stayed around.

I know the character is "The Silver Surfer" or some variation. But that shiny metallic look is so evocative of 90s era cg--it would be like having a character named "lensflareman." The effects people really need to find a way to get the idea across without it looking like a stock effect.

The reason people waited around for a tanker to herd an entire map or sat in a dumpster waiting to blow things up was because the other classes were a lot squishier back then and people were looking for an efficient way to grind xp quickly. There were no double xp buffs available from vendors. There were no incarnate nukes or destiny shields. Etc. I often had blasters bugging me to team (on a dm/inv scrapper) because they couldn't handle aggro. It's always amusing to hear people justify nerfs because things were boring or unfun. I mean...did someone have a gun at your head making you wait on a tank? I was around from the beginning and did not have a problem avoiding this sort of thing if I didn't want to do it. I agree with the post above that the aggro cap at least should go.

The first time I've ever had all the incarnate slots unlocked before slotting any of them on a character. I also made my first genuine tank and droned the big GM dweeb a couple times.

If, by your own admission, you are this hated figure why would I take your advice about how to win people over? LMAO?

LOL. It's a respec. You wouldn't be getting anything for free--any more than a freespec gives you a new lvl 50 or something. Your logic, or lack thereof, seems to be based on categorical misunderstanding of what this idea is about.

Right? I'm not seeing any objections to this idea based on balance or anything. It's just people that like to have to grind for things insisting that everyone else has to grind the same way as well.

I'm answering your comments on delayed gratification....which seem to assume a new player that needs a motivational speech on how to get the best out of their character. Not someone who has been playing the game since launch and would prefer to have the option of not running a bunch of tinpex's just because they would like to change an incarnate power. This anti-change, anti-convenience mindset has always been around and the game has survived and evolved in spite of it.

You keep bringing up that they a function differently and it still doesn't have any significance to me. The point of a respec is to avoid the hassle of grinding one. You have a respec for characters for this reason. People make mistakes, change their minds, powers get nerfed, etc.--the respec is so that you don't need to do that effort again. Your rebuttal is basically saying "hey this is different because, for a little more hassle, you can stop using the one you made and make another one." You're missing the whole point of having a respec option. As for delayed gratification, opportunity costs, etc. ... maybe you simply have more time to waste on meaningless grind? I don't. And I suspect that a lot of players simply move on to something else if they make a mistake or don't like an outcome. Or stick to safe choices.

I think people conjure up problems where there really are none. As it stands now, I think most people pick the same incarnates most of the time in order to get the most bang for their buck. I think the result of them going willy nilly is that they would experiment with less optimal setups and I really can't see any reason to be concerned about this.

So you're basically arguing that it's preferable to waste people's time rather than allow them to respec something that they earned because.....why again? You think there should be a tax on making a mistake or changing your mind about something? It's a respec. They aren't getting anything they didn't already pay for. Yeah I can slot and unslot incarnate powers. So what?

You're always good for a laugh, ciao!

Good lord could you be any more myopic? As I said, the stuff I have is for entertainment value. Can you read? It's what is required to keep making characters. Nobody's begging for free stuff. It's a respec option that concerns an investment that has already been made. You are against it because you feel that it makes your previous time investment less valuable to you, and everyone should cater to your feelings on the matter. I couldn't care less about that. Anymore than a new player should be concerned about all the time I wasted slowly passing through zones before utility travel power, teleporters, etc. became available. If this got implemented, you would still have the things you earned. And nobody should have to pay some dumb fee to make you feel better about the situation lol.

Funny you should ask. I imagine the people most adamantly against this sort of proposal are hoarders who are sitting on a largesse of resources. I just play for fun. "My stuff" is generally enough to outfit one new character at a time. If your time investment was not for entertainment--I hate to break it to you but the things you've accrued have virtually no actual value. Maybe you could get 50 bucks for your account or something. These days I doubt it.

People that have more than 6 T4 Incarnate powers would still have more than 6 T4 incarnate powers. People that had unlocked every T4 incarnate would still have every T4 incarnate unlocked. This is a game, not a career path. Over the entire history of the game, development has trended away from the grindy, time consuming nature of a paid service that had a financial investment in people spending a lot of time to unlock things. If some veteran players feel this is a big middle finger--Great! They need to get over their entitlement. I remember a time when I had to do a mission every time I needed to respec, and there was only 4 available. Now I get respecs in the course of leveling and the game is better for it. You need to pay a heavy fee because I wasted my time is not an argument for anything.

Ummm...no. It can be both. Here are some things that I couldn't care less about and never have since 2004: 1. The amount of posts that an account has when making a suggestion. The arrogance of habitual posters thinking that, because they post more, they are more important than other players is not compelling. 2. The feasibility of an idea. Only the devs know this. 3. The likelihood of a suggestions being implemented. Under the present circumstances everything is pretty unlikely so it doesn't bear endless repeating. 4. The fact that other players want other things. So what? They can discuss those things in other threads. If you find yourself gravitating towards 1-4, you could very well be a nattering naybob of negativism and should probably do some self reflection.

I had assumed that she would not be able to survive indefinitely, at least not without major complications. This would have prompted Sam to reestablish the Grid and return with her to solve the issue. Then maybe Dillinger would’ve become involved as an antagonist after discovering the technological leap she represented. Oh well…

This is a part of an ongoing project to use entertainment to finance the development of a technology that will be detrimental to not only art, but human society in general. It’s only a matter of time before convincing AI generated video is offered up as news, surveillance footage in court, etc (beyond the deepfakes we’re already seeing). Cinematography is based in controlling the shot. The art of filmmaking largely rests on shaping the subjective experience of an audience by presenting them with selective information that is framed in a way that makes this information significant. Aside from other concerns, this treatment of a film is imo a sad disservice to the directors, cinematographers, actors, set dressers, etc. that make movies.

In other words, "hair of the dog that bit me" I think there is a large contingent of people that play coh who are in an engineering related field or are diy hobbyists who like to delve into the mechanics of things. Which makes sense given the mechanics of the game and the way you tweak variables to get desired results. Unfortunately, that kind of person can be a real pain in the ass when it comes to spitballing ideas or coming up with something new. Conversations tend to be "let me evaluate your idea in terms of efficiency or practicality." If you communicate that you don't want that, you'll get an argument about why they're being helpful and you're being unreasonable.