battlewraith
-
Posts
1355 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by battlewraith
-
-
I think the gist of what Troo wants is something idiosycratic, not necessarily bad in the sense that it performs poorly.
The game at this point is very predictable, very formulaic. Rudra says:
8 hours ago, Rudra said:Additional skins and animations for existing sets can bring back the fun for anyone that doesn't find them fun any more.
Ummm..no? lol?
If that floats your boat fine, but it I think a lot of people feel this game has gotten stale with the same thing over and over. Just come up with a new theme, tweak some variables, and viola a new set. But it's really just more of the same, which is what this game has been ever since they went down the road of powerset proliferation
Some of the recent posts in this forum indicate that some people:
1. Insist on a carboard cutout sense of balance. Everything has to perform in roughly the same way.
2. They don't want anything actually challenging.
3. They don't want any kind of randomness.
Cater to these three preferences and you have stagnation. The same thing with just cosmetic changes. Dull, low hanging fruit.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Clave Dark 5 said:
Late to the topic but I see the OP got downvoted for suggesting "fun" ha ha
Par for the course. I think some posters are so desperate to promote their vision of the status quo that they forget this is actually a game.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, biostem said:
That's not a reason to add more of it, though...
No, I think the point of badges is to give players a sense of accomplishment/reward for doing different aspects of gameplay. I personally am not a fan of getting out vidiotmaps yet again and bouncing around in different zones to get exploration badges in order to get accolades. But I get that some people like engaging the lore this way.
Given that part of the point of the challenge is to do something different from what players have been doing now for over two decades, I though a badge would be a good thing to add. But if that particular aspect of the proposal is a dealbreaker for you, feel free to set it aside for now.
-
6 minutes ago, Trike said:
All the sharks in the movie make it relevant.Are you serious? Cap fights sharks? I might have to see it if that's true.
-
18 minutes ago, biostem said:
I'm not a fan of RNGs, TBH, particularly when it comes to what primary or secondary my character would get. I'm also not a fan of essentially forcing this randomness on players who collect badges...
Yeah I get that, but it's kind of the whole point of the challenge. You are dealt a hand, let's see what you do with it. I'm sure that people who would want the badge but don't actually want to do the associated challenge would just fudge it--pl or something. The pvp badges are the same. People who hate pvp still covet the badge, so they farm characters in the arena or have a friend in o.ne of the zones help them get it.
-
Lol how many socks are in this thread? By all means, keep complaining about complaining.
-
This is an idea inspired by Troo's thread. The idea entails unlockable content for experienced players, so it wouldn't be something that a newbie would roll up day one.
Unlocking this character would involve acquiring most or all of the gladiator badges and then doing a TF that would make the character available. The character is an MM that conforms to the general structure of the AT in terms of number of pets, upgrades, etc. The difference is that each tier of pet is randomly assigned from a pool of gladiators. The upgrades and other MM powers are randomly chosen from the current MM sets. The secondary is a normal secondary but randomly assigned. The player is free to choose pool powers, patron powers, etc. If the player successfully levels that character "as is" they would receive some sort of badge or accolade. Respec would be available, but doing so would prevent the acquisition of the badge on that character if they had not already acquired it prior to doing the respec.
This I think would offer some novelty to the AT and some aspects of the game, like gladiator badges, that people are probably not getting that much out of.
-
1
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Luminara said:
That article covers people who were affected by two striking unions slowing down productions when they were still ramping back up after the pandemic, and production companies looking for bigger tax breaks outside of California. Not a single word of it even touched on film failures or production companies firing people, and considering that all of the people interviewed were unionized and contract workers, it affirmed what I said about the structure of the film industry.
Um... thanks?
Umm...no not really? Yes it affirmed the point you made that there are independent contractors and unions. And yes, not a single word of it touched on film failures or production companies firing people. But is certainly gutted the part where you insisted that these workers would just jump on another project. And yeah, the fallout goes back to two striking unions--unions that were striking in response to unfair labor practices.
So yes, as I said before, the labor is suffering as the result of the decisions made by studio heads and money interests. That was the simple point I made earlier, it wasn't contingent on the specific scenario of a studio directly firing workers.
-
3 hours ago, Wavicle said:
1. If you're incapable of recognizing that the design of Control sets is "use your powers to protect your pet" then we should definitely not continue to discuss this.2. Suggesting that cosmetic changes are germaine to the discussion is ridiculous.
3. Yes you ARE making such a claim. It's in the TITLE of the thread!
1. You don't have to use the pets. You don't have to use the buffs. If you disagree, play the way you want. Don't push your expectations on to other people.
2. You said ANY changes would be a buff. Yeah it was ridiculous, but you said it lol so I responded.
3. LOL NO. Can you read? The title of the thread is "phantasm sucks". It's not "the illusion set has an issue that will be addressed by improving the Phantasm" and all the unnecessary baggage you are bringing to the discussion. In terms of the function of the set, I think the requested change would be marginal in terms of performance. The main thing is that it would be less annoying to use and more justifiable as a power pick, as opposed to some other pet or procable dmg power.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Luminara said:
That's... not how the film industry works.
That's exactly how the industry is working. People who are underpayed to begin with are losing their jobs. Or transitioning to some other profession that offers some degree of stability.
The notion that they can just bounce on to another project project headed by producers B-Z is maybe true if they can afford to move to another state or country and most likely work for less.
People do stupid things all the time. Things that lead to disastrous outcomes for themselves, their families, and their communities. You want to munch popcorn over it, you do you. I'm not going to gloat over other people's sufferings.
-
5 minutes ago, GM_GooglyMoogly said:
I think that people want to see flawed people do amazingly heroic things.
The jokes, special effects, and fan service add to that (perhaps), but without the underlying story of someone overcoming great adversity for the greater good, the jokes, FX, and Easter eggs alone can't make a good movie, despite what Uwe Boll and Michael Bay may think. 😁
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_film_directors
Michael Bay is #4 on the list. If Michael Bay thinks he's making good movies, and he's basing that on earnings, then he's probably more credible than people posting in this thread. Or, you have to say that box office doesn't really reflect quality. Or that what constitutes a good movie is largely subjective and different audiences have different perspectives.
-
15 hours ago, Luminara said:
And while I did say that I don't speak for anyone else, I'm also betting that this sentiment is shared by a lot of people reading this. As tragic as it is to watch something you love burn to the ground, it's also rewarding, because watching people enact their own ruination via willful ignorance and abject stupidity is almost as entertaining as Marvel films used to be.
Yeah it's Shadenfreude. It's understandable, but it's a bad look.
Generally speaking, if we accept the premise that greedy incompetent people are ruining the media we love (ignoring any subjective component to that assessment), it's important to remember that the people calling the shots are not ruining themselves. Rich powerful people don't suffer the consequences; maybe they'll go sulk on their yachts.
The people that will suffer are the workers. Artists, animators, gaffers, costumers, lighting people, crew that build sets and props and so on. They will be looking for another job and continuing to struggle to make ends meet.
So no, I don't revel in some studios miss-steps. I don't crave the financial disaster of failed movies or games. I continue to support the things that I want to see and don't worry about the rest.
-
5 hours ago, Wavicle said:
The developers intend you to use Controls (and Support powers if you're a Controller) to protect your pet.
Any improvement OF ANY KIND to the Phantasm will result in it doing more damage, either because it hits more guys, or because it lives longer.
The set is already one of the very top damage dealers among Control sets. It is also pretty good at Control and Debuff as well.Therefore, aside from general pet AI improvements which should apply to ALL or MOST Control set pets, no improvement is called for.
However, you are wrong. The onus is not on me. The onus is on YOU to back up your positive claim that Illusion has an issue that will be addressed by improving the Phantasm.I understand your opinions. They are bad, for reasons I've already explained. But you keep popping back up and regurgitating them.
1. "the developers intend..." Which developers? Something like the illusion set goes back to 2004, at which point it behaved differently than it does now. And the game didn't have sets, incarnates, etc. This is you stating what you want by speaking on behalf of the development cycle of the game. The gist of it is this--coh gives you different boxes of tools to mix and match to suit your personal playstyle. That is the core strength of the game. The point of this thread is that one particular tool is poorly coded and should be adjusted. Your counter is to look at the balancing of the set as a whole and assume that it is being played a certain way. Build diversity and options are more important than your assumptions.
2. "Any improvement OF ANY KIND". This is obviously false, they could improve the aesthetics of the thing for example. Make it customizable. And again you seem to be assuming that the suicidal nature of the phantasm is intentional. It's meant to die so that its dps is balanced with respect to the set as a whole. This is a post hoc rationalization that could be baselessly applied to any poorly implemented power.
3. "However, you are wrong. The onus is not on me. The onus is on YOU to back up your positive claim that Illusion has an issue that will be addressed by improving the Phantasm."
Try to listen. I am not making a positive claim that illusion has an issue. That is YOUR framing of the issue. Your dogmatic insistence that the issue be filtered through your assumptions.
I'm just concerned with the behavior of the pet and whether is fun to use or not. I think the dps increase about which you're complaining, assuming it materialized, would be negligible. Laughable.
-
14 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
People will say they didn't like the movie and even explain why. And then other people will attack them for not liking the movie, demean them, insult them, and then the thread gets locked. When someone says "That movie didn't do well, and here are the number to prove it" what they're really saying is "I think this movie is garbage, the majority of people believed this movie is garbage, here's the objective numbers to prove that the movie is garbage, and you can't argue with that because the numbers are the numbers."
Yeah I think that’s a dynamic that goes on here. People complain about a thing they don’t like. If that doesn’t satisfy, they point to bad box office. If pointing to bad box office doesn’t satisfy, they complain about the industry.
The thing is, bad box office doesn’t mean a film is bad or the studio necessarily did anything wrong. Especially for films that are ahead of their time and come to be appreciated later.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Wavicle said:
Because that's how the game works. Individual powers are not balanced against each other, sets are. As a set Illusion is absolutely top tier for both ATs.
Is Phantasm the top tier of Controller/Dominator pets? No. But that doesn't matter, because it's good enough, and the set overall is top tier.
Yes, the AI of all pets should be improved. Yes, Fear should be added to Containment. But neither of those are relevant to the question of whether Phantasm needs something else specific changed.
I suspect for both myself and the OP, this is a QOL issue. The pet is annoying to use and causes problems. You are insisting that this is a balance issue, out of what appears to be a dogma that any change must be a balance issue that involves a consideration of the balancing between different sets. I don’t agree with your framework, and I think the onus is on you too establish that a more reasonably behaved Phantasm will somehow significantly improve the set as a whole with regards to how people are doing with controllers in general. I think that would only be the case if the developers intended to pet to die a lot and be unmanageable.
-
3 hours ago, arcane said:
You are free to ask for pointers on how to play your Illusion Dom better.
Sure let’s hear it. Let’s hear your pointers that are going to take my ill toons to the next level. Also provide some context for where this wisdom is appropriate—solo/teams/low level/post 50/SOs/incarnates/Hard Mode/pvp/ what exactly?
-
5 hours ago, Wavicle said:
There is only one Controller set that's good at burning down large groups quickly and it's Fire Mastery.
This has been brought up before, but you keep pointing to the strength of the illusion set in comparison to other controller sets. This thread was about phantasm. You have yet to make, imo, any case for the fact that giving phantasm better ai or changing it's knockback would do anything to make it more or less OP. If anything, there's been some indication that phantasm is skippable. Replace it with a better pet from an epic pool or take those slots and invest in an aoe that you can proc out.
I recently did an ill/sonic dom and a dark/ff controller. The controller is way better at dealing with large groups.
-
1 hour ago, Wavicle said:
It's a set for Dominators also, where it doesn't worry about Containment, and has an additional AoE control. The PA is literally unkillable, as is the Phantasm's Decoy. It IS among the very top performers for both ATs, the points you've made may be accurate but they don't change that basic fact.
You've been repeating that ad nauseam in this thread and it misses the point, again. It is a top performer at some niche things. It is not a powerhouse at everything and it doesn't particularly stand out in teams these days when you're burning down large groups quickly and don't particularly need PA to tank for you.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, ZacKing said:
No one is suggesting that this means a studio or filmmaker who made one box office hit means they have to repeat that success with every project they are involved with. I'm not looking for multi-billion dollar box office smash hits from the MCU every film either. The quality of the films has progressively gotten worse while the budgets have gone up. Something isn't working right there and it's not a crime for people to discuss that.
It's not a crime but it's entirely subjective speculation about how big players in an industry are conducting their business. Based on whether you approve of the quality of certain films, whether you feel their budget was warranted, etc. I suspect the head honchos at Disney, or any large company, expect to have periods where they face reduced profits and they course correct. It might simply be the case that people are tired of superhero films. Or there are external issues at play that are affecting production--writer's strikes, actors aging out or passing away, etc. But the notion that other studios, with different budgets/goals/business models/etc. have periodic successes and that means Marvel studios have some sinister dysfunction at play is just silly.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Ghost said:
Kinda strange comparison
Previous Godzilla movies were made for kids, and Japan really didn’t have a strategy for US releases.
In fact, Minus One was supposed to follow their usual strategy of a very limited release. Once it blew up - they extended how long and how many theaters it would play in.
Regardless, it doesn’t take away the fact that they were able to put out a huge hit on a modest budget.
Maybe the ones I grew up with were made for kids. There have been general audience movies made since then, I even saw one in the theater when I lived there.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that huge hits haven't been made on modest budgets. The thing that doesn't follow, or at least hasn't been established, is that studios therefore should not invest heavily in big budget movies.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ZacKing said:
Take Godzilla. Godzilla KoTM had a reported budget of $170 million. Godzilla Minus One had a reported budget of $15 million, won an academy award and is better rated by both critics and audiences alike. That's just one example.
Yeah it's an outlier. Japan has produced a ton of Godzilla movies, how many were hits here? If it's that simple, we should see a bunch of smash hits coming down from that studio right?
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Luminara said:
People want to know if what they're spending on a ticket or streaming service is justified. We know Hollywood is as corrupt as Washington DC, we're tired of it and we're asking questions. Considering that they've spent decades accusing the general public of being thieves, I doubt you'll find much support for the position of letting them keep their own shady practices and expenditures under wraps.
So what are you proposing? Why does it matter how a movie studio spends its money?
If you're coming at this issue as a capitalist, its pretty straightforward. If you don't like some company's product don't buy it. Invest your money in products and studios that produce the things you like. The thing is, if other people like the things you don't and are willing to pay money for it--them's the breaks. All the complaining about what the studios are putting out is just that...complaining. That's the system, it doesn't center around what any particular fan wants. It also keeps a lot of people employed, even if they are working on a colossal bomb of a movie.
If you're coming at this from another political perspective, that the entire structure of the industry is corrupt in the sense that a political system isa corrupt--sweet baby Jesus, stupid Marvel movies are near the bottom of the list of things you should be concerned with.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Ghost said:
I wouldn’t know.
In a universe with superheroes, gods, monster and powers - the idea of a planet that sings everything was something I just wasn’t willing to accept or suspend disbelief for.
It's very common for tv series, especially shows like Angel or Buffy, to have a musical episode. Usually there is some plot contrivance that explains why everyone is singing their lines. I've seen it on a lot of different shows and this, I think, is the vibe they were going for with that segment. I'm not particularly into it, but that segment was not that long and honestly in a universe with superheroes, gods, monsters and powers--that's exactly where you would find this sort of thing. Comic books are not hard scifi and the genre is a catchall for anything the writers think is cool. The goofy fun parts of that movie were not the problem. The problem was when it took itself seriously as a Marvel we-have-to-save-the-world narrative.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Ghost said:
I think people were willing to overlook those movies because they knew the MCU was building towards something.
Since Endgame, they’ve been all over the place. Sure they said they were building towards Kang - but then they started jobbing him out.Then we got mixed messages. No Kang. Oh wait, yes Kang. Just kidding, No Kang.
Next they start bringing back the old gang, which makes it seem like they are just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.
Bringing back the old gang makes sense though. That's part of what makes Hollywood what it is--the star system. Throwing bags of money at RJD to get him to come back for some role that makes absolutely no sense will still probably bring in an audience. That is probably going to work at least for one movie.
As for them being all over the place--look at the source material. The comics are all over the place. These characters exist in a fragmented, heavily retconned nerdscape where significant features of the narrative can change whenever a new writer comes on board to put their spin on something. So the comics love multiverse narratives because it allows them throw crap against the wall and see what works, while dismissing the stuff that doesn't as some alternate version of the character. I think that is deeply ingrained in Marvel comics and the film studios buy into it in order to appeal to comics geeks and offer a rationale for why they bring Loki back from the dead or have RDJ play Doom or whatever.
homecoming gets old
in Suggestions & Feedback
Posted
Oh no...
First Hall and Oats, now you two.
Some people. Lol.