battlewraith
-
Posts
676 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by battlewraith
-
-
3 hours ago, srmalloy said:
This has been my experience from other MMOs; in an MMO with open-world PvP, the overwhelming majority of the PvP-focused players seem to be придурки for whom the sole measure of their "leet skillz" as a gamer is how fast their level-capped combat monster in BiS gear can gank low-level characters fresh out of the starting areas who have no chance of even damaging them in return.
That hasn't been my experience in other games. And this game doesn't have open-world pvp. So are you disparaging other types of players in order to start a flame war or what?
-
1
-
1
-
-
Anyone that is interested in getting these rewards should just be happy that, given the current state of the game, its trivially easy. You were supposed to face the risk of fighting other players. That risk is mostly absent now. If the devs were going to do anything regarding pvp zones, it should be something to benefit players who are actually looking to pvp. Not soothing the anxiety of people who want it to be even easier to get the goodies.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, tidge said:
It always felt to me that Energy Melee was toned down because of PvP, especially the Stun aspect. I couldn't tell you when I started to get this feeling, but I have vague memories of early issue 7... such as taking my Day 1 Inv/EM tank int Recluse's Victory and getting dog-piled, but surviving partially because I had done "silly" things like slotting attacks for the stun component (and also taking Stun)... There were so many tweaks relative to this combo (Unyielding, stunned enemies zipping off at hypersonic speeds) you will have to forgive my possibly faulty memory.
I think that's just a weird feeling you have. I used to duo with my friend's Inv/Em tank in zones back then. The thing that made EM a good choice for pvp was burst damage, not stun. Slotting for stun would've been counterproductive.
-
This is the best Batman film imo. It's very well crafted to make the idea of Batman and what he does grounded in reality and plausible. It has some superhero action movie bits but the majority of it is like a suspense drama. He actually does detective work. He's also relatively new at it and makes mistakes. I wasn't too thrilled based on the trailers but I'm really pleasantly surprised with this one.
-
1 hour ago, Troo said:
so you're saying it is a very popular response @blue4333?
Combined with those other responses it sounds like gatekeeping.
-
1 hour ago, Ironblade said:
'Archaic' has a negative connotation.
Let's just say that /jranger is . . . traditional . . . old school . . . classic.
Doesn't /jranger have a negative connotation? I thought it was akin to saying "no that's a stupid idea."
If someone asks a factual question--"can I use a purple enhancement at lvl 2?" You don't type jranger.
Or do you?
-
1
-
-
-
6 hours ago, Indystruck said:
They should put in some Mexicans into the new show and really get people steamed, just straight up say "yeah they're from Mexico"
I already got some fanart for that baby!:
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Excraft said:
And for the record, I'm not outraged at anything.
Lol oh no. You don't sound outraged at all.
1 hour ago, Excraft said:Complete horseshit. There would be a global meltdown about whitewashing African culture and you know it. Disney would never risk it.
Stop your tantrum long enough to follow the script. He asked me if I would cast it that way. I am not Disney. It's a hypothetical question.
Sorry to hear about the traumas you've suffered at the hands of Brie Larson and the like. Get some therapy.
mmmmmkkthxbai
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:
Not to further derail the thread, but since you asked... you can consider that flimsy all you like, there is no question it is canon to the source material. There are non Asgardians residing in Asgard in the Marvel Universe. Following your logic, it should be no issue at all for you to have Whites, Asians, Arabs, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders and whatever other ethnic group you can think of portrayed as natives to places like Wakanda or have characters in the upcoming sequel from Wakanda recast as non-African to give non-African actors a chance.
Again, there is a great diversity among the worlds of men in Middle Earth. You can even make the case that there is diversity among the Hobbits as I believe they were supposed to be closely related to men. In the races of elves and dwarves, not so much. That much is very clear from the source material.
Absolutely there are non Asgardians residing in Asgard. I'm not disputing that. The point is that Heimdall and Valkyrie are two white Asgardian characters from the comics who were cast as other ethnicities in the MCU. I'm not talking about non Asgardian residents of Asgard. You keep glossing this over. What specifically about the canon comic source material justifies the casting of Idris Elba as Heimdall or Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie? They were both native Asgardians in the comics--meaning members of the caucasian Asgardian species. That's canon.
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:Following your logic
Hold on there. Is that your actual logic? It makes absolutely no sense. This is what I'm getting:
Kirby created a race of white gods. He also had some non white people from other races living with them. Guess I'm fine doing some colorblind casting of a couple of these white gods.
Tolkien created a race of white elves. He also had some non white people from other races living with them. Is it ok to colorblind cast a couple characters--oh hell no!
That is a double standard.
Would I cast non-blacks as natives of Wakanda? Maybe. Depends on the script. There are reasonable narrative justifications for some additional diversity in Wakanda, particularly with the events of Endgame and the current focus on the multiverse.
-
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:
It should be more than abundantly clear to anyone looking at the image you posted what the influences of the character design are. Point being, Kirby allowed for non-white characters to exist in Asgard, so it stands to reason they would be in the MCU.
The furred cap looks Mongolian. The horns look Norse. The strappy skirt bits look Roman. The cowl looks European. Boots are superhero. Big blobby mace and bracer with dagger on it --who knows. Real abundantly clear. Here's another image:
But if I'm following your logic here--since Kirby included what you take to be a non white character residing in Asgard then the MCU's inclusive casting is alright. Idris Elba as Heimdall works because not everyone who lives in Asgard is white. Is that correct? If so, that is the weirdest flimsiest justification for a non traditional casting I've ever heard. If you were to apply this rationale consistently to other properties then the casting in ROP shouldn't be a problem. Middle Earth has non whites in it. Therefore some casting of elves and dwarves as non white should be fine. Otherwise there's a double standard.
-
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:
The same can be said for the various races of men who fought one another for a whole host of reasons, not just Easterlings or Haradrim.
Were these men shown to be consistently in the employ of Morgoth or Sauron in Middle Earth?
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:He still is not a literary critic making assertions about the authenticity of the work and whether it is "true Tolkien" or not. I would like to read those critiques if you do not mind posting them.
He is not only a literary critic, he was a member of Tolkien's literary society along with people like C.S. Lewis. The interview I quoted literally comments on his anxiety over the authenticity of the work. I don't feel the need to pursue this further. If you want to go further with it, go where I told you. Also do more reading on issues related to translation and publication in general.
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:No need to get angry. I cannot help it if you are wrong. Kirby created Hogun who is depicted of Asian descent as one of the integral characters in the Thor comics, so there is existing precedent in the Marvel universe for there to be non-white characters in Asgard.
Except that Hogun is not Asian. His lands and people were destroyed. He has strength and durability typical of the people of Asgard so he's not human. The only thing Asian about him is the headgear which is reminiscent of something Mongolian. And maybe the mustache which varies from 70s pornstar to fu manchu depending on who's drawing him. His skintone in the comics is the same as Thor's. People decided to cast Hogun with actors of Asian descent and you're incorporating that into your understanding of the character.
Based on that image alone, I'd cast Dan Severn to play Hogun. And you completely dodged the casting of Heimdall, who is supposed to be Sif's brother.
-
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:
Again, please do your research. Not all characters in Asgard in the Thor comics were Asgardian. Hogun - one of the warriors three - was not Asgardian.
I said that Kirby did not reimagine Asgardians as black or Asian. What does Hogun, who is not Asgardian, have to do with anything?
The Asgardian people. Not the residents of Asgard. This is so tedious and petty man, Seriously.
-
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:
Again, please do your research. As @TheOtherTed pointed out, you are grasping at straws here. No, not all Easterlings were evil.
That's not what I said. I said To the extent that they relate to the people of Middle Earth, they are antagonists. I believe the rundown I cited supports this.
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:So it is inaccurate because it is based on Tolkien's own notes and writings? That makes no sense at all.
It's not a question of accuracy. It relates to authorial intent. Tolkien had published works and then he had a plethora of notes, correspondences, related articles, etc. NerdoftheRings appears to take all of these things as straightup canon.
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:As @TheOtherTed asked, please post them. I would like to read them as well. Interviews with his son Christopher are not the same thing as literary critics.
I already said where I was getting that. I'm not going to start posting sections of Tolkien criticism here, dig for yourself.
If I had read the Christopher Tolkien first, I wouldn't have even referenced anyone else because that interview perfectly sums up the point I was trying to get across.
J.R.R. Tolkien described Christopher as his chief critic and collaborator. I went over the challenges of publishing the Silmarillion, and Christopher Tolkien's feelings about it. The point is that the guy closest to Tolkien, who was in charge of editing and interpreting the work, had reservations about the published work because he had to inject himself into it. It is not, strictly speaking, Tolkien's work. There are even living authors who feel that their works are significantly changed through the course of translation and editing. That's why you have don't just have a single translation or edit of classic texts.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Excraft said:
And he'd be over the moon about the changes Amazon is making? LOL! You're still deflecting.
Woooosh! Another point goes sailing majestically over your head.
1 hour ago, Excraft said:I'd be saying the same things if Disney tried to push there being tons of non-African people in Wakanda. It doesn't fit the source material.
Did you have the same outrage over the MCU Thor movies? Based on what I've seen so far, it looks like that is the closest parallel to what Rings of Power is doing in terms of casting. Norse mythology doesn't indicate that there are black or Asian Asgardians. Kirby's comic book imagining doesn't either. I don't know what the reason was behind this casting. But all that mattered in the end was that they were good movies with good performances.
2 hours ago, Excraft said:Watch the video I posted above. I'm not the only one objecting to the blatant political agenda pandering. I can share a whole shitload more of them if you would like me to. There's certainly an abundance of them out there.
There is a cottage industry of outrage peddlers on youtube and social media. Algorithms on sites like Facebook and youtube have been shown to favor controversy in terms of searches, etc. because it drives traffic. So yeah, you can show an abundance of rage over this issue, including the cancel-culturish drive to downvote the trailers and promotional materials. I'll wait until September when the thing actually airs to try to gauge the general reaction.
-
2 hours ago, Excraft said:
It's ok, I already know what your answer will be.
You should know, I answered basically the same question back on Wednesday.
-
1 hour ago, Excraft said:
Peter Jackson's movies were successful without the need for any "non traditional casting" of characters in his films that also had a large ensemble cast. He respected the source material. The cast worked just fine and the films raked in billions worldwide. People of all ages, races and genders had no problem enjoying the story.
If these characters in the Amazon version are so minor and no big deal, why is there a need to cast them "non tradtionally"? What's so difficult to understand people want the source material respected instead of "updatimg it for a modern audience" and caving to identity politics? All you need to do is read what the showrunners have said to address people questioning them to understand where they are coming from.
You should read that interview with Christopher Tolkien I posted. He hated the Jackson movies and said they eviscerated his father's work. When given the opportunity, he would not meet with Jackson. This was the foremost authority on respecting the source material. I've been over this again and again in this thread--Jackson made significant changes to the story in order to make it entertaining and appealing to his audience. It's arbitrary and hypocritical to across the board say that similar changes cannot be made in another derivative work. Execution matters. If it's done well, it will be a success. If not, it will fail. Even if it fails it might draw in new fans to the series.
1 hour ago, Excraft said:If these characters in the Amazon version are so minor and no big deal, why is there a need to cast them "non tradtionally"?
To give non white actors an opportunity to take part in the project. To signal to fans that there is diversity in this world--rather than waiting on some hypothetical epic concerning the easterlings or the Haradrim that probably nobody is thinking of doing. To cater to people that would like to see a few people that look like them. We've been over this. Hearing reasons like this again is not going to sway you if it hasn't already. That has to do with your politics as much as the showrunners.
1 hour ago, Excraft said:What's so difficult to understand people want the source material respected instead of "updatimg it for a modern audience" and caving to identity politics?
People huh? Who are these people? You're not just griping about what you want are you?
Luminara's post from Friday about adaptions and their relation to source material was very eloquently stated. If that didn't get through to you, nothing I say is likely to either.
-
3 hours ago, TheOtherTed said:
For the casual readers out there, the Avari were called "dark elves" (or, more specifically, Moriquendi) by the Noldor, because they had never seen the light of the blessed realms. The term "Avari" itself means "refusers," and refers to their initial unwillingess to take the journey west with the other Elves.
So "dark," in this instance, has jack-all to do with the color of their skin, or their morality. In fact, we know next to nothing about them.
I honestly don't know how you can ignore what's staring you right in the face. These elves are, as you say, dark because they had not seen the light of the blessed realms. They weren't just unwilling to take the journey west, They ignored the call to do so. This doesn't mean they were evil, but it is absolutely indicative of a moral failing in the context of the spirituality of this world: they were not following the dictates of the higher powers.
Now, aside from that we know next to nothing about them. So casting a non-white ethnicity as a dark elf in a derivative work would be bad because.................................................why?
3 hours ago, TheOtherTed said:I would really, really like to see some of these critiques.
I was going off of the Silmarillion wikipedia entry. If you dig through their citations there are some interesting sources. The most relevant one to this discussion is probably a rare interview that Christopher Tolkien gave the French magazine Le Monde.
When Tolkien died, Christopher received his papers--70 boxes, each stuffed with thousands of handwritten pages. Hardly anything numbered or dated. Even worse, to protect the original documents the son worked from photocopies, which made dating things even more difficult. In the article, Christopher describes himself as a historian and interpreter of the work. He had this to say about the Silmarillion:
First in England, then in France, he reassembled the parts of The Silmarillion, making it more coherent, added padding here and there, and published the book in 1977, with some remorse. "Right away I thought that the book was good, but a little false, in the sense that I had had to invent some passages," he explains. At the time, he even had a worrying dream. "I was in my father's office at Oxford. He came in and started looking for something with great anxiety. Then I realized in horror that it was The Silmarillion, and I was terrified at the thought that he would discover what I had done."
-
3 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:
Please do your research. This is not at all accurate. Not even remotely close. Ilúvatar created the race of men, which encompasses all the races we read about in Tolkien's work. The Haradrim were, like many other kingdoms in the worlds of men, divided in their allegiances. Some sided with Sauron, others opposed him. So no, not all "dark skinned" races were evil. Many took up arms to oppose Sauron.
As I and others have pointed out in the thread, there is a very rich, very diverse, very interesting story in the worlds of men that has never been explored in depth. The events touched on in the video above would be a great setting for that epic GoT type series Bezos wanted to use LoTR for. How would those Haradrim who opposed Sauron feel about not getting a ring of power? Lots of interesting tales to be told revolving around Umbar and places in the south.
I looked it up. I misread a passage about Tolkein not specifying the origin of their culture (rather than their actual origin). However the rest of what I said is accurate. To the extent that they relate to the people of Middle Earth, they are antagonists:
https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Easterlings
The Nerd of the Rings video you posted leans heavily on the recently published The Nature of Middle Earth, which is based on a variety of fragmentary Tolkien writings that have been compiled into this book. Even the Silmarillion is considered suspect by a lot of critics because it was published after his death and had two editors who had to flesh out some of the sketchy material.
Interestingly though, in going over this stuff it turns out the first beings that men encountered upon awakening were "dark elves", called Avari. These elves who refused the call to go to the west may have also been the elves that were later tortured and turned into orcs. Maybe the showrunners are exploring Tolkien's diversity.
-
2 hours ago, Excraft said:
This is absolutely true and absolutely proves you're totally wrong with what you're pushing about equality and equity here. The Peter Jackson LoTR movies were huge critical and box offices successes worldwide raking in billions. They did all of that without needing to inject racial diversity in the casting. The films were a smash success without it.
I'm not pushing for equality and equity. I'm addressing the people who have their panties in a wad about nontraditional casting of 2 characters out of what is no doubt a large ensemble cast. As has already been discussed, Jackson deviated from Tolkien's story to add more female content to the saga. If that was a success, maybe these liberties will work out as well. "But he didn't write it that way" is already true of the Jackson version.
2 hours ago, Excraft said:If "God" or whatever his name is in Middle Earth wanted everyone to be white, he wouldn't have created the races of men which Tolkien wrote into the story as being diverse in color.
There's no account given for the diversity of men in the lore. The god may not have created them--they may have arisen from Morgoth's corruption of reality, same as trolls and dragons. What is stated is that the Easterlings fought for Morgoth. The Haradrim fought for Sauron. The Numenoreans who sided with evil were called black Numenoreans. You see a pattern here yet? Thematically, anything good is associated with light. Anything bad is associated with darkness--including depictions of the dark skinned men when they actually enter into the narrative. I don't think it's racist but it comes across as the weakest aspect of the writing imo.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:
I understand what Tolkien himself wrote on this very topic of discussion. He drew from various historical and religious influences, but he was not including any of it as topical or allegorical. You are mistakenly trying to apply allegory and direct correlation where Tolkien himself said there was none. Things like the White Tree of Gondor being a symbol for Gondor and having meaning in the books is not a direct correlation to anything Christian or real world related. This is not at all difficult to understand, especially since the man himself made that absolutely clear. Again, Tolkien knew what he was talking about and what his intent for what he created. These things influenced him, sure. They were not direct correlations though.
This is why Tolkien's quote strikes me as naive. It supposedly had no inner meaning because it wasn't topical (ie related to current events) or allegorical (which I take him to mean a direct correlation--Gandalf as Christ for example). As if these two options are the only gateways to meaning. The structure of the narrative embodies well established tropes about a people who have fallen into decline due to corruption or human weakness. The fated hero of the series is God's chosen representative who will return to restore order and prosperity to the land. It reflects a certain worldview. Saying there's no meaning in this structure is like saying there's no meaning in Arthurian legend. I suspect that what Tolkien was trying to actual signal here is that he wasn't sending a message. His work was not meant to proselytize.
-
1 hour ago, Excraft said:
You going to continue to try and deflect or are you going to answer the question?
The question is more or less answered in the thing you quoted. You just don't get the objection.
If Kirby's Wakanda was like Tolkien's Middle Earth, Kirby's marvel stories would be set in Wakanda. The Eternals would all be dark skinned. And the Celestials would presumably all be dark skinned. Lee and Kirby making Wakanda was their progressive politics btw.
1 hour ago, Excraft said:I could give a hoot about you and your post history to be honest.
Well that's very nice of you! The forums could probably use a lot more positivity and people giving hoots for each other.
-
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:
Right so the original author clearly explaining the intent behind his life's work is wrong and your interpretation of his work is correct. Got it. Give us a break.
No, you don't get it. Does Gandalf the Grey dying and returning as Gandalf the White mean something? Does the white tree in the courtyard of Minas Tirith mean something? Lol if there's no meaning to any of this, why is it even written this way? Did Tolkien just arbitrarily throw things in there that he thought were cool?
Tolkien was a scholar and translator of other literary works. For example Beowulf:
Ten years after finishing his translation, Tolkien gave a highly acclaimed lecture on the work, "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics", which had a lasting influence on Beowulf research.[64] Lewis E. Nicholson said that the article is "widely recognized as a turning point in Beowulfian criticism", noting that Tolkien established the primacy of the poetic nature of the work as opposed to its purely linguistic elements.[65] At the time, the consensus of scholarship deprecated Beowulf for dealing with childish battles with monsters rather than realistic tribal warfare; Tolkien argued that the author of Beowulf was addressing human destiny in general, not as limited by particular tribal politics, and therefore the monsters were essential to the poem.[66] Where Beowulf does deal with specific tribal struggles, as at Finnsburg, Tolkien argued firmly against reading in fantastic elements.[67] In the essay, Tolkien also revealed how highly he regarded Beowulf: "Beowulf is among my most valued sources"; this influence may be seen throughout his Middle-earth legendarium.[68]
So you think its reasonable to assume that someone who's professional work is to preserve the meaning of texts from one language to another, along with arguing for specific critical understandings of key texts, decided to forego any of these concerns in his own literary work. In the process, scrubbing clean the meaning any of his relevant sources would have had. Got it. Give me a break.
2 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:I would counter this with ask why is it necessary to update it at all? If anything, history has more than proven Tolkien's work has globally universal appeal.
History has shown that LOTR and the Hobbit have universal appeal. It also shows that there's a generation of fans that haven't even read the books and is taking Peter Jackson's vision as cannon. This project is a prehistory of the LOTR that takes place in an earlier age. I don't even know if the showrunners consider this an update. In my opinion these complaints we've been discussing are pretty trivial. The script, acting, overall production value, etc. are the things that are things that are going to make or break this thing.
2 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:As to what the potential damage could be, I think the video I linked above and subsequent discussion has already covered that. To recap, it is abundantly clear that these changes are alienating quite a lot of the existing fan base and not in a good way. Who is this going to be for if not for the fans? This is not a good place to start from in my opinion.
Well to begin with there are a contingent of triggered "fans" who will hop from franchise to franchise and raise hell about anything that offends their political sensibilities. And there are influencers who feed this and profit off of it. So when a controversy like this erupts it's honestly difficult to tell whether these people even matter. They may have just whined themselves into irrelevancy.
Look at the Star Wars franchise. First one was a classic. Second one was my favorite. Third one sucked. Then the prequels came out and I thought they were pretty bad. Lucas got fed up with the fanbase and blamed them for ruining it. Then he walked away from it. The new movies are some of the most reviled by the triggered anti-woke contingent of fans. Problem is they made billions of dollars. Obviously there were lot's of fans of these movies. So are companies wrong to more or less ignore the ones with the vitriol?
I started watching that video you linked earlier and I had to stop. A film critic that says 99 percent of big budget films are bad and something like 50 percent of indie films are bad. He's positioning himself to appeal cool to a certain kind of consumer. I can't take him seriously, sorry.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Excraft said:
What's the problem here?
Reading comprehension? You quote me as saying it's not about demographics, then reply by talking about demographics.
.jpg/1200px-The_Ten_Commandments_(1956_film_poster).jpg)
Not sure if this has been asked: PvP on/off switch
in Suggestions & Feedback
Posted
This is a suggestion thread. I don't think the intent was to give you a platform to complain about 90% of a group of players being childish pricks and trolls, whether you believe that to be true or not. I suggest you stick to the topic. He was referencing open world pvp in other games. This game does not have open world pvp. I suggest he stick to the topic as well.
I was basically asking him what he hopes to accomplish with his sweeping generalizations about the overwhelming majority of a certain kind of player. I think that's pretty obviously a bad road to go down.