battlewraith

Not a fan of the MCU Doctor Strange. They take this trippy, Steve Ditko fueled iconic character and turn him into a lame, mid-grade superhero who pew pews things. Despite that low expectation, this was horrible. Especially early on, the editing and pacing was really bad and some of the special effects were surprisingly bad. It picks up later when Strange encounters the alternate versions of iconic characters--all of whom are wasted appearances. Based on the previews I thought Strange might face off against a classic villain like Nightmare, but no--the actual situation is really lame and unimaginative and is based on an interpretation of dreams that is utterly stupid.

Cool, see you in a couple days when you change your mind. Again.

Well I did my best to ignore you, because you don't listen, misrepresent other people, and now are hell bent on defining your way into some sort of semantic victory--but this is just too silly to pass up. This is particular exchange the happened shortly prior to the mod showing up: May 12th. Luminara said: Sounds like mockery to me. I said that was exaggerated and judgmental. That didn't go over well, and she responded with this: So charges of monumental hypocrisy, arrogance, entitlement, and selfishness. I'm sure you'll go running to your online dictionary to find a way to dismiss this but methinks you have cast too wide a net between ridicule, mockery, contempt, etc. And this sort of language is why the mod came in. Not because people were emphatic, gimme a break. Your psychic powers are not in question, it's your ability to read. I went back and looked over the conversation and I make an effort, from the get-go to differentiate myself from the OP. The problem is that posters like you either ignored it or assumed that this was a sneaky, moustache twirling effort to sneak in combat teleport. People quoted things I said and I responded to those quotes. At one point arcane threatened to quote me about something and I told him to this: So about seven posts later, you do the exact opposite. You make a big wall of text that starts with a couple from the OP and then you attach my unrelated posts. You don't read. You don't understand. Or you intentionally lie to try to win an argument. When I complained about the wall of text with the OPs posts, you doubled down on it. So I'm going with lying.

My man of culture👍

People just need to start stressing what this robust game engine is actually capable of:

My dude there was so much derision that a mod came in to warn people to chill out. You'd have to have been blind not to notice. I called people liars because they lied. I demonstrated how they lied. Would you like it if I quoted you out of context, pasted your statement with someone else's unrelated one, and then claimed you were arguing for their position? My guess is that you would flip your lid. It's fine if people don't want a proposed change. From my perspective, there are some things here that make the feedback dysfunctional. 1. As in your post above, lumping different people together as if they are saying the exact same thing, ignoring differences or nuance. 2. Moralizing. As in your post above--ascribing a moral character to the person who doesn't agree with you or to a stance you don't like. For example, only a selfish person would want to change a power that someone else likes. Or someone who fails to see my logic is going to ostracize people not only ingame but in REAL LIFE as well (LOL). Keep in mind I've been playing this game since 2004. 3. Hidden assumptions or biases. An example is someone assuming a design principle such as the cottage rule without stating or defending that assumption. Or being against a proposed change for reasons unrelated to the logic of the proposal. Or waving away a proposal based on a previous discussion that is not detailed in the current discussion. 4. Dogpiling. You keep framing this in terms of logical argument. Its not a debate. For one thing, some things hinge on aesthetics or someone's subjective values. More importantly, the people defending the proposal have to respond to random comments from numerous people--often repetitive comments that were already dealt with earlier in the discussion. So sorry if this doesn't conform to your standards of a dissertation defense, I think it's reasonable that people might be somewhat vague given the circumstances. Thanks for the attempt. At least you've had a sense of humor in this. Take care.

The majority of the people here are against and don't want any of the changes proposed considered. So you think that I'm popping in here to troll them in order to--help them undermine this discussion? After spending a considerable amount of time working to defend what I thought was interesting about the proposal. I think you're smarter than that.

That probably made a lot more sense when there was a full scale development team updating the game. Under the current state of affairs, I have no expectation that this idea is going to be implemented. Even if everyone in this thread thought this idea was amazing, I don't think it would happen. That's true of the vast majority of suggestions that are going to be made here. Coming here to make a suggestion suggests to me a certain level of investment in the game. My real world concern is that people coming here and getting exposed to various degrees of derision will sour them on the community and further deteriorate the playerbase. In debates that are of no consequence anyway. That's the only practical consequence I see coming out of this. Do I expect people to read this comment and curb their desire to argue, pontificate and moralize? Absolutely not lol. It's just a thought. edit:typos

"Hello I'd like to make a suggestion!" "Suggestions are down the hall. This is argumentation." "But it says suggestions on the door." "No it doesn't." "Yes it does." "No it doesn't." "Yes it does!" "Are you suggesting I can't read?" "Why yes....yes I am. Because it clearly says suggestions on the door." "I already told you once-- suggestions are down the hall."

So you make a couple assumptions which is typical of the "against" crowd. You assume that this hypothetical power works a certain way when that hasn't been established. Since you're relentlessly dismissive of the idea, you immediately wave away aesthetic concerns as a contrived defense. Apparently it's not worth something just looking or being cool. I made all kinds of comments about possibilities. Taken as a whole, or even reasonably in context they don't fit with your lie.

I already commented on the "it doesn't affect anybody's build" statement. The exchange happened on page 9. YOU said that your way "affected nobody's current build." I replied to that statement by saying "it (ie your way) affected nobody's current build. The (proposed) change was aimed at potential builds. In other words, builds that might be possible if you didn't have your way. I didn't lie about anything and have nothing to be ashamed of. Perhaps you should slow down and actually read what has been written.

Connecting my statements, made at a later date, to his and saying that I am defending his ideas is lying. You are not showing context, you are stripping away things that were actually said in the discussion. And I've made it clear elsewhere that I have only been speaking for myself. Saying that a gap closer could be cool, look cool, and could free up a power slot is not the same as same saying that a power needs to be changed so that somebody can get all their desired pool powers. In that post I talk about jumping around like Batman with no other travel powers. Of course that doesn't help your narrative so you're ignoring it. The only basis for the perception you keep droning about is utter lack of reading comprehension and dishonesty, now that i'm pointing at what I actually said. You got this wrong. Stop with the bullshit.

No you are a liar, The quotes from myself alone don't say what you and Stych are claiming. They are not defenses of his ideas, they me arguing for the type of utility I see possibly coming out of this change. That's why my first quote you list is what, 2 weeks after his? Unbelievable. Didn't think my opinion of you could be lower champ but you did it. You broke through the floor. This was my first post in the thread, which you downvoted: It makes no reference to his posts. It only deals with scrappers. And it doesn't have anything to do with optimizing for the "big 4 powers." Liars. Don't know why I'm surprised.

Oh you mean the wall of quotes that is not all me? The one where he mixed in quotes from somebody else? That wall? You people are something else.

It has weight. But it's not the silver bullet you think it is. Even Jimmy's post was more flexible on this issue than I was expecting.

You're assuming more than I am. I have a hard time thinking that makes your position stronger. I also think this tendency to speak as if one knows the minds of the devs or the overall health of the game is irrelevant for the purposes of discussing ideas. They will do what they want anyway. Posters shouldn't have license to talk out of their ass and deride other people's ideas because they are secretly roleplaying the devs.

Except you're lying. I never insisted that I wanted a power and access to 4 pools of choice. You're inferring that because it's part of this "big 4" conspiracy you've got going on. I just said that a perk would be more build varieties. That might involve builds that take fewer power pool options. This is a simple point, yet seems impossible for some people to understand. The proposed power DOES NOT exist. The point of this thread should be to ideate what that power would be. Yes gap closers already exist. Other things also exist. "I want to propose a new scrapper set. It has attacks." "No." "Why?" "We already have a bunch of scrapper sets and they have attacks." Also, faulting this suggestion because it doesn't evolve builds away from the "Big 4 pools"--who stated that this was a particular goal of this change? Again, you're projecting on to the proposal. Sad. Really disingenuous. Two sentences later I said this: "I'm not going to ask for a change to a specific power, of a specific AT in order to get the general flexibility I want." You are truly desperate to not engage honestly and hear what you want.

No, not really. I think you're stifling discussion based on a set of assumptions and pre-drawn conclusions. So you and others could maybe put together a group document that lists all the ships you think have already sailed. That way people who get fired up about an idea could read it and have their enthusiasm immediately squashed without putting in the effort of trying to pitch something to an unsympathetic audience. For example, I went back and forth a bit with arcane about this idea. Then after some exchanges, he mentioned that he didn't want anything that would buff scrapers in terms of attacks or utility. Well that would've been good to know from the outset because the specifics of the provoke argument are irrelevant to his overall stance on the AT. I don't have a specific build in mind. I've often had issues trying to fit in everything I need in terms of pool choices in one build, but that's a general concern. I think there should be more options in general. I'm not going to ask for a change to a specific power, of a specific AT in order to get the general flexibility I want. I'm generally interested in a replacement for what a see as a generally useless ability (taunt) on the scrapper. AND I'm curious to see what kind of build options open up as a result.

I thought it was funny lol. Sure, maybe you could give me a list of all the other things that are not to be considered for...reasons. Thx. 1. Quote away if that's your thing. Just only quote me, I'm not responsible for other people's comments. Saying that it would be nice to not dip into a power pool is not the same as saying this change would be good with respect to easing build restrictions. There is a lot more to unpack in the latter. 2. The cottage rule was coined by Castle back in 2007. He made plenty of boneheaded decisions and is no longer a developer for this game. So it might be your preference to adhere to this philosophy, but that's all it is. It's a bad dogma in light of gaming in 2022 imo.

1. Wrong. My position is that confront is lame and something cooler could be there as an option. If the option in question is a gap closer, that could free up some build options. 2. I have over and over again reflected back the same "you can just pick X pool" argument back at you. You and others fail to see that it cuts both ways simply because you are used to things being a certain way. 3. Well you have to understand. I think you just have such an ingrained status quo mindset that you don't really get the point I'm trying to make. I also really really couldn't care less what you think my look is. Also: get Bill's dildos out of your mouth. This is a family friendly forum.

No that's the thing. It's not about combat teleport. People just assume that and say "well take combat teleport." That's how stupid this conversation has been. What exactly this gap closer is and does has not been really adequately been fleshed out. In an ideal world people would steelmanning this idea and maybe coming up with some interesting suggestions that, if not appropriate for this case might be added elsewhere. Instead you get naysayers just defaulting to a known quantity (eg. combat teleport) and just trying to kill off discussion because they apparently think that's the ideal contribution.

This is you being a drama queen. That is the objective truth. Pretty much everyone has to take pool powers to do things and this entails limitations in building. The idea idea of doing something to a power that is very skippable to make it a more attractive pick and free up build options seems like a good suggestion. For the devs. IN A SUGGESTION FORUM. Supporting a suggestion like this is not "expecting the game to change to suit my whims." I don't expect anything. And sidestepping the shrieking harpy who lacks the capacity to see how anyone could actually reasonably want something like this is not me being arrogant, entitled, and selfish. It's just Thursday on the Homecoming forums. Lighten the hell up lol.

Well that's your exaggerated and judgmental hot take. Best to shoot down an idea you don't like by casting aspersions on the people suggesting it. The idea here is that there is a scrapper power that is generally skipped in builds, and is described by adherents as niche but useful. The suggestion is to change that into a gap closer. The proposed benefit is a possibly useful less niche power and expanded build options. The downside is that players who like having a single target taunt in their scrapper builds would lose this and have to go with a pool option. How many people would that be? Would the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? Those are questions for the devs. It's a suggestion. You don't like it, fine. You stated that. The fact that you think people are throwing temper tantrums over this (though maybe Greycat did) makes me suspect that you don't get enough pushback on your ideas.