battlewraith

I'd be into this. A warshade is pretty much the last thing remaining for me to make and the visuals are offputting. I'd prefer to have an option for less glare.

It probably doesn't matter. I doubt this subforum matters, it could probably go away and not really affect anything. But if you take the notion of this section seriously, then the goal is to elicit feedback from the playerbase. Not from a miniscule subset of players that habitually weigh in on suggestions. I think that subset presents a kind of orthodoxy of what they want and they discourage people from posting ideas, particularly people new to the forums.

I know right? Which is why it's so weird when people complain about threads that are beating a dead horse, or asking for something that the devs don't seem to want to do. It's like some people only want to hear their dissenting opinion. Crazy Town! Structurally there's always been a problem with the forums in general and this subforum in particular. People who actively participate on the forums has always been a small percentage of the population. Of this population of forum goers, there is a smaller subset that routinely weigh in on suggestions and feedback. I would love to see a graph of say the top six posters here--who they are and how much are they posting comments in comparison to the people that are starting threads.

Sayonara!

You're asking a lot of questions without answering anything. Who is the "us" you mentioned earlier. You said please enlighten "us". Who is that? That would be interesting to know. As for your question... I think you're just bickering. If you're just looking to perpetuate the exchange for no good reason, I think you should stop.

Yup. You have people that weigh in constantly and predictably. And obviously. But if they get called out for it, they throw up their hands "woah I'm not allowed to have an opinion here!" Lol it's too funny.

Lol again, who is "us"? Who is the we I'm supposed to enlighten? I don't drop in on people's suggestions if I disagree them and argue against the proposal. It isn't necessary. Even good ideas will drop off the page in due time. Occasionally I'll see something that I agree with and post to support it. If the idea is unpopular with the "us" that you and other people keep mentioning, then there will be the backlash that happens whenever this group feels the need to weigh in with their consensus. This is a routine part of this subsection--the same group of people that you always see. In comparison, some of the people making suggestions will not be seen here again. Wonder why. Gatekeeping doesn't require any power, just a group of people committed to doing it.

Anyone can shoot down a request. It's an expression.

Actually it doesn't mean that. It's not about excluding people, it has more to do with controlling allocations of resources, opportunities, what is seen as worthy (as in cultural gatekeeping, etc.) You say the devs have ruled on knockback. I believe you. What you don't understand is that I don't care. Anymore than any other business, government agency, etc. that solicits feedback but doesn't want to deliver on requests. I'm not expecting them to cater the game to what I want, but if there's an opportunity for me (and people like me) to express what I want, I'll take it. The bizarre thing to me is that you have a cadre of players who take it upon themselves to try to bat away or discourage people from making these suggestions--and they complain about people beating a dead horse in threads that they could easily just ignore, as if they are doing a public service or something. They're not. Not everyone is the same, different people have different motivations for how they waste their time, but there have certainly been posters shooting down requests out of self interest--they want the devs to focus on the things that they want. So gatekeeping may not be a perfect fit, but it seems a reasonable one. If we're circling back a little.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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): 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.

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.

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.

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.”

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."

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?

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.