battlewraith

LOL you're doing so well on your own. I don't think I need to add anything.

By your own account, you are one of the most disliked people on the forums. So no, I won't take your word on it. And it should be irrelevant to this discussion. People shouldn't be disparaged for holding a viewpoint you don't like.

Imagine tryharding over the pve of a 20 year old MMO, but here we are. The fact that the damage output on paper is higher doesn't mean that it's going to amount to anything significant in actual gameplay. Particularly if mobs are dying quickly already. What is the actual benefit of playing this way under normal circumstances? For people who prefer not to rely on popping, the downside is apparent. Also, I don't know Mez. But you calling them out as gaslighting, saying you didn't know they were "like that", describing them as a carry, etc. came across pretty petty and cringe.

I think the point of that build was that it's good enough. That this huge sacrifice in damage you make when getting some defense is not actually a big deal. Doing the math doesn't really make the case. It doesn't tell you how much of a difference it actually makes in practical terms--running radios against Championess would've given us some indication of that but you apparently didn't have the stones for it. If committing to reliance on popping shaves off a minute or two from the content that I'm already facerolling--no thanks. I'd rather go marginally slower and let the build passively make that unnecessary.

Finally somebody asked a meaningful question here.

I doubt it. I suspect the hardest content coh has to offer is still pvp. For the very simple reason that it's the only content that isn't static. It's a 20 year old casual game. It's not competitive in any meaningful way.

It's actually disappointing that the antagonists in this thing manifest as another band. In reality, the producers behind these acts are horrible and exploitative. I lived in Japan during the 90s. A Japanese friend of mine had two sons who were recruited by a Korean music producer, because they had "the look". They couldn't do a damn thing lol. They didn't sing or play instruments or anything. When you get picked up, they basically put you through a song and dance boot camp. Every aspect of their lives are managed and some of the earnings go back to pay off the debt for the training and other fees.

This all makes sense if we simply embrace how hilariously broken aspects of this game are. First of all that procs are so stupidly rewarding that it makes sense of eschewing any kind of real build balance in favor of slotting as many of them as possible. Secondly that players can simply pop fatty inspirations in advance to cover the holes they left in their builds.

Suboptimal damage maybe? I think "standard" damage doesn't really entail popping inspirations constantly. At least I don't see it when I'm around other players. As soon as you team, you're also getting a variety of buffs from other players anyway, so I don't think that many people are worried about it.

It's because he's the man of steel. He can deflect bullets and withstand savage roastings of his dorky outfit. Krypto has a cape too. The point is to get high on nostalgia I think.

Sure, that might make sense with the content that you do and your general philosophy of playing the game. In my experience, running with 45% in general helps greatly with survivability. If there is a situation where I need DDR, I think I can get some from one of the destinies. If that doesn't work. then I can pop inspirations as needed. I understand that this less optimal, but I find that preferable to constantly monitoring and popping inspirations as the default mode. I do that when I'm farming, I really don't want to do that in general playing. Moreover, if I'm going to min/max a character for damage to the extent that I'm relying on inspirations to keep it alive--I'm going to min/max everything. Find that hardest hitting combo, on the hardest hitting AT, and clear as fast as possible if that's what is important. Why bother with anything else?

Yes, I'm not saying don't use inspirations. I'm responding to the idea that you should not build for defense because you can just be routinely popping inspirations. If that's what floats your boat, more power to whoever wants to do that. But I don't think that was really the intent behind inspirations and I don't think that should be presented as some sort of standard.

I think that's a matter of opinion. Inspirations are generic buffs that anyone can load up on. I think they're the coh version of steroids. They absolutely boost performance, but I find it less rewarding to play that way and I think there are a lot of other players that probably have similar sentiments. If I'm building a solo character I'm trying to make something that covers as many bases as possible. That's part of the design "challenge." It's already ridiculous what you can accomplish with set bonuses, procs, and incarnate buffs. I don't need an additional stream of insps to remind me how trivial the game content can be made. I personally wouldn't steer players in that direction.

According to Google AI, this is a new continuity separate from any previous films, shows etc.

Then you miss the point of a lot of human endeavor. Yes, he's a grifter. He's delivering a formula to his audience. That's what I've been saying. If people want to enjoy that, whatever. If they mention it here, I feel like I can comment on it. Is that okay with you?

Maybe look up the expression if you still don't get it? The well in this instance would be the conceit that he is an impartial critic. A one-word review is a crap review. However the "appalling" is not a review, it's a tagline. There's a link to the slightly longer full review, which is also succinct and dismissive but was done in 2015. 15 years after the movie was released, so it's hard to really see that as poisoning the well. And the example you're using here is ....Battlefield Earth. Having or sharing an agenda doesn't mean agreeing on everything or behaving the same way every time. Like I said, I've watched a couple videos and looked over his review titles (eg. "The Message" is Dead--Snow White was the Funeral). I don't hold him to the same standard as other critics because he's been referenced here to pre-shit on movies. If people were leaning on other people to the same extent, I'd scrutinize them as well. All good?

You glossed over the whole point of what I wrote. He poisons the well. It's not that he's wrong about C list characters being in the film. It's that he, right at the outset, explains how he has no enthusiasm for the film because if features C list characters that nobody knows, from films most of us haven't seen, in a by-the-numbers action flick, fighting a poorly explained threat etc. etc. Before asking if it will be as bad as we expect. He's pandering to his audience. He's reassuring them that he will crap on it for their entertainment. An actual critic won't do that because they are generally try to be as impartial as possible, so that the review will be useful to some general reader/viewer who does not have an axe to grind. For that kind of person, there's really no reason to watch the review past that first 40 seconds because he's clearly heavily biased. Why do I watch his content? I don't. But if he, and people like him, keep getting referenced in discussions like this I think some basic familiarity and pushback is warranted. Before this thread, I think the only review of his that I had seen all the way through was the Thor Ragnarok review where he described the film as "Thor getting his ass beat twice by girlbosses". That one seems to be gone now.

That did it for you huh? Not a hypothetical where someone receives a prosthetic limb they don't need. Or talk about ancient Chinese monks getting too many horses? Lol okay?

"Poisoning the well" in the philosophical or rhetorical sense of smearing something to discredit it prior to making an actual case for something. I keep defaulting to Thunderbolts because I've actually seen it recently. In the first 40 seconds of CD's review, for instance, he talks about feeling nothing about the film because its a bunch of C and D-list characters that nobody knows, from films most of us haven't seen, in a by-the-numbers action flick, fighting a poorly explained threat etc. etc. He then asks "but is it really as bad as we expected?" He can then spend the rest of the video pointing out "stupid things", mention a couple things he actually liked and then explain ultimately why it's another Marvel failure--posturing as reasonably disappointed after dismissing it completely in the opening of the video. That's a hack that's pandering, though judging by the comments for that video his followers didn't agree with him. I don't know if he and his cohort bear much responsibility for the failure of movies, but you were the one that pointed out that they have millions of subscribers.

A legitimate critic brings a number of things to the table. They should have an understanding of filmmaking and film history. They should provide the reader or viewer with some basic information that informs the review (eg who is the director, what are they know for, etc.) They should try to be impartial--the point of a review is to evaluate a film, not unload the reviewer's baggage. They should offer an actual critique of the film, which involves discussing the good and bad. Moreover, a critic should be upfront if they do actually have some kind of strong bias. For example, someone who hates slasher films should state that upfront, and try to get past that, if tasked with reviewing a slasher movie. If a reviewer's content is actively poisoning the well and situating things within a framework of established grievances--it's not criticism. It's propaganda. It may be pandering to a specific audience (ie a grift) or actually part of a political movement.

Calling something a gift is a linguistic convention. It's not a reference to ontological status or whether the recipient is happy about the gift. The definition is one sided because there's no other side that matters. It's simply the way people communicate. Your boss doesn't gift you more hours. The IRS doesn't gift you more taxes. That's not the convention of how the word is used in English.

PI posted a still from the trailer and said that he was worried the film would be a hamfisted lecture about the current administration (presumably in the US). This was linked to a reddit post by the Critical Drinker, who I criticized as a formulaic online grifter. Shardwarrior then kicked off this discussion of critics in general, saying that the industry incentivizes critics to heap lavish praise on their films. This was a non sequitur. Even if it were blatantly obvious that all professional film critics are paid to hype movies, that would not be a defense of online grifters. It is also a false equivalence to view people that may exaggerate the positive qualities of a film in a review with people who denigrate these films along predictable ideological lines often based on a short snippet from a trailer before a film is even released.

The bad logic here is evident if you simply swap terms. Some doctors have committed malpractice, therefore it's safe to assume all doctors commit malpractice. Some cops are paid off, ergo all cops are assumed to be dirty. And so on. There was one research article posted in this exchange that studied studio bias with regard to reviewers. That study acknowledged there was influence and concluded that the result was typically a small rating shift, maybe half a star and/or a delay of 1-3 days for a negative review to be released. The conclusions of that article stated this: “The implication is not that the reviews are grossly inaccurate, on average, but I think as a consumer, you should probably rely on more than one reviewing outlet if you’re making a consumption decision,” says Waguespack."

My wife is going to subscribe to watch the new season of Andor, so we'll probably check this out.

Sony was sued over that incident and settled.