battlewraith

They both say that. Quoting Jackson's intentions is irrelevant. I've seen the actual films. The Arwen material is an attempt to add another female character (and love interest) to the narrative to make the films more attractive to a female audience. I think it's the weakest part of those movies. And the Hobbit movies were dreadful, which also calls into question his faithfulness to the source material imo. There's a cottage industry of haters on social media that attack pretty much any adaptation of an IP that doesn't fit with their politics. They get a lot of traction in communities of beloved properties like LOTR and they generate pre-hatred of productions based on previews and comments from production staff. I suspect that the industry will eventually just come to view dedicated fans as irrelevant at best, or tools to generate publicity for a wider audience (via controversy) at worst. There's a whole generation of LOTR fans who haven't even read the books and think Jackson's vision is the true one because those movies were good. Those are the kinds of people to whom studios like to cater.

There was a long, contentious thread about this series that eventually got locked. If you're a big fan of the books and expect this to be like the books, I would definitely either skip it or tone down your expectations. From what I've heard, I would call it an adaptation of Tolkein's work. Something inspired by the lore but filtered through the production team's notions of what will appeal to Amazon subscribers. Usually people hold Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy as the gold standard of faithful Tolkein adaptations. But it actually made quite a few departures from Tolkein's work--dropping characters (Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil), dropping themes (scouring of the Shire), changing character motivations, adding Arwen as a main character, etc. Christopher Tolkein hated those movies and the Tolkein estate sued New Line for royalties, which they got by holding up the Hobbit movies until they got paid. Did you enjoy those movies? Maybe you can enjoy this miniseries on it's own merits. Who knows.

Hey guys, I'm getting ready to launch my webcomic, which includes some of my coh characters. Kind of brainstorming elements for banners and whatnot. Here's an icon of my first OC battlewraith who eventually makes an appearance, so I thought I'd post it here:

Lol. This sub-forum, and this thread in particular, is analogous to a family get-together with entitled, elderly relatives who have been having the same menu at this event for over a decade. So somebody comes in one day and suggests that they do something else for the main course. And you get a familiar set of ridiculous responses: "We've always done ham. That means we always should do ham and if you suggest something different you're a selfish jerk who is putting their own interests first...in front of mine." "You're just doing ham wrong. Ham was never meant to work alone. There's green beans too. They compensate for the ham, why do you think they're there?" "I've never had a problem with ham." Uncle Bob's furiously flipping through the dictionary looking for the definition of ham which will no doubt prove him right. "If we change the ham, we will have to change everything. Because that's logical. To me." "You just want instant gratification. You want to change the ham to ice cream. Which is bullshit. You have to eat ice cream AFTER you have the ham. Everyone knows this." "Back in the day, ham was super important. Helped stop the spread of communism and stuff." "Everybody wants everything too fast now. You have to relive that excitement of having that first savory bite of ham in your mouth...even though we've been eating it for years." Eventually the other relatives come up with excuses not to go to this shindig. And its just this small geriatric mob rocking on their chairs. "I fuckin love ham. mmmmm."

I can draw you some venn diagrams if that would help. It's really not that complicated. The primary reason you two probably don't get it is conflating the meaning of things like feedback, debate, review, etc. to a single meaning. And just blowing off other posters. eg. Browbeating is a form of trolling. Nobody's doing that. Ok boss,,,

Yeah not even close. Hilariously wrong.

Here we go again. 1. The Diva exit. Instead of just leaving, you announce it. 2. Cherry pick some comments that you obviously don't understand in order to support a point that is irrelevant. 3. Deflect criticism of your posts by appealing to the fact that feedback is encouraged. Then turnaround and call feedback that you don't like trolling. Can't have it both ways kiddo. Furthermore, I generally try to avoid you if possible. You're tedious as hell and other people have signaled the same thing. Nonetheless, you think this your little debate headquarters so you have to apparently weigh in on everything. Fine, but don't get butthurt and whine about trolling when you respond to a comment I'm making to someone else and it doesn't play out the way you expected.

Good lord. Where did I say that player feedback is not supposed to happen? The claim is that your self serving desire to debate the crap out of people posting suggestions drives people away. That has nothing to do with what the devs want or intend for the subforum.

The statement you quoted was a response to something he said. It doesn't make sense taken out of context. He stated that a formal review team was like this subforum. It isn't.

If there are only a handful of people consistently responding in the suggestions forum, that's a problem. It undermines the idea that the forum serves any point other than giving those individuals a platform with which to shoot down ideas they don't like. And it isn't necessary to weigh how a change will affect the community unless you think the devs are utterly incompetent. So why aren't there more people posting suggestions? Well, the indication is that people pop in to make a suggestion, not get into a dissertation defense with the likes of you. You signal a meek, cookie cutter approach to development that will gradually choke the game. And you discourage players from posting in the suggestion section.

No lol. Not like a suggestion forum. You were not hired to review proposals. There is no particular reason to view you as an authority to determine which ideas "hold up." And most importantly, there is no stipulation that an idea suggested has to meet your review specifications. That's an assumption that you are making. People that serve on different types of creative teams are selected for qualifications they bring to the table. Those qualifications and processes are going to vary if you're doing a sociological study vs. a theatrical production vs. an animated short. Making a blanket assumption for random posters on a video game suggestion forum strikes me as pretty daft. At worst they will waste a lot of time and experience a lot of aggravation trying to defend what they may have thought was a fun idea to the unofficial REVIEW TEAM, which is probably irrelevant to the actual success or failure of said idea. It's not about expecting people to immediately accept ideas. It's a criticism of your review team mentality. It's fairly common in this forum to have people declare an idea a bad idea, justify that stance with a screed that is basically a declaration of their game preferences, and/or give some ridiculous lecture on some tangential subject like...oh I dunno...how you need to be rounding out your build with power pool attacks. I think people just get fed up with garbage feedback from opinionated crusty forum vets who are bent on the status quo. Even at the height of the game's population, the forum posters were a small percentage. Now with a much smaller number of people, I think it's probably more apparent that people like you are sucking the oxygen out of the room. And you would would clutch you pearls and complain about "what forums are about" until you were the only person left in the room.

LOL right, of course don't entertain the actual criticism at all, just assume that it's fragile people trying to suppress your ability to discuss (ie crap on ideas you don't like). I do think you accidentally described the problem. People are anti-disagreement--meaning they see how these threads are received and think it's not worth trying to post a suggestion on these forums because of the shitbirds--and they refrain from replying--they abandon the suggestion thread and don't post here again. Or they don't even bother to begin with.

The point of a suggestion forum is for ideation. It's for people to share their ideas and desires for future development. The notion that this a place to come and debate peoples suggestions is idiotic. You're not a dev, you don't have insider knowledge of what they can or plan to do, so what are you debating exactly? Typically it's people gatekeeping based on their own biases or understanding of the game. And it's generally the same small group of people all the time. It wrecks the suggestion forum as a pathway for community engagement in exchange for a few individuals getting the ego gratification of LARPing as a dev.

This is not about being valid. This is not a forum for logical debate. As Sovera pointed out, the devs are going to do whatever they want. Making a suggestion here is appealing to them. Unfortunately, doing so means running the gauntlet of a handful of players who take their self appointed duty to be rooting out bad ideas. Bad typically meaning things they don't like because it doesn't fit with their subjective experience of the game. I think this results in three things: 1. People are discouraged from posting suggestions. 2. People are turned off by the community. 3. To the extent that suggestions matter at all, the game design is steared towards a samey-same paint by the numbers orthodoxy.

Which doesn't really support your feedback, does it? I remember my controllers being really lame until getting a pet. Ultimately somebody's making a suggestion based on their subjective experience of gameplay. I will never understand the people that drop in to crap on ideas while acting like they're solving a math problem.

No you're talking about a minion character with no minions. I see how you're viewing this, I just don't think you're lack of imagination is compelling. The MM invokes some substance, mental constructs, the stuff of dreams, whatever. That substance is made to look and behave like something else, but it's an illusion. It's not really the thing it appears to be. Obviously the pets would work differently than the controller pets. That's a game mechanic issue. Thematically, there is no issue. This is a game where you can be in another dimension and summon a thug that rides in on a motorcycle. Nitpicking about an illusion having a real world effect in the game is silly.

There's no thematic problem with an illusion MM set. Illusion basically means deceiving the senses. A card trick is an illusion, it doesn't mean there are no cards. Even the phantasm from the controller set has reality. The MM version would just be toning down the control and building on that aspect of the pets.

Yeah but you're evil not crazy. Also apologies about my terminology here, I don't mean to offend or mischaracterize evil people.

I think at first glance that thread seemed to be trolling or some sort of language issue. The more I think about it--I have seen weird manifestos like that pop up in different places. Often there is a characteristic connection with something mundane, local politics or the mechanics of a video game, with grandiose statements about conspiracies or the ultimate nature of reality. I think there is a decent possibility that someone is experiencing mental health issues and it's probably not a good vein for humor.

The hypocrisy. Idiots manipulating market. We get a thread. Market manipulating idiots. Silence. Crickets chirping.

A whip set would be awesome. A version based on Indiana Jones would be...really lame. Worse than Hawkeye level lame. Keep it superpowered, something that would not be laughed off by a super powered enemy.

Judging from the way you're overreacting, I'd say that dig must've hit you hard. I didn't see anyone accuse you of moral decrepitude. Complaining about copyright infringement while on the forums for a renegade game is hilarious and it isn't hypocritical to point that out. Assuming that NCSoft approves of this in any way is flat out silly--probably they just don't feel it's worth their time to pursue the issue when the game would just go covert again.

If you'd actually paid attention, I had a long post on the previous page explaining why this proposal is a bad idea. So no, a video of people using an exploit to attack lowbies training up in Atlas Park is not me suddenly changing my mind. You are beyond tedious. Regarding the embedded video, people can simply click on the title to go to youtube and see the description. Or if they don't understand that, they could ask questions in the thread about that incident. It's moot because tone deaf Sherlock was on the job to preemptively belabor the obvious.

It says it right in the description that you copied. You are literally that guy for which every little detail needs to be spelled out. If you got it, I'm confident that others can figure it out as well. It's a joke anyway FFS.

Is it too much to assume that people can read?