ShardWarrior

Fury does not work quite the same as what was suggested, but there would be some similarity. Fury can be built up against a single enemy NPC whereas powers like Invincibility work better the more NPCs in range. Additionally , Fury is a straight +DMG buff only whereas Rage is both +ToHit AND +DMG.

That could be fixed in part by making Rage non-stackable. It might make an interesting test as well to try Rage with a similar +DMG mechanic as AAO... Invincibility works by the number of enemy NPCs in range, maybe Rage can too. Thematically, fighting massive hoards of enemies did make The Hulk pretty angry and more enraged. 😁😉

I never said it was necessary. Rage adds a +ToHit buff which is different than +ACC, which I believe you know. The reason why +ToHit is desirable is how hit calculations work as enemy level increases. +ToHit provides a direct addition to your base chance to hit, while Accuracy is a multiplier applied after other calculations. As I always understood it, the relative accuracy value decreases as the enemy's level - and thereby their effective defense - increases. You can slot a lot of accuracy and not require any +ToHit buff, but in my experience that comes at a cost. It boils down to player preference. So long as you are enjoying how you have your character slotted and are happy with the reduced levels of DPS, that is all that is important. More power to you. Again, I never said that not taking Rage makes hitting higher level enemies impossible. My experience is that accuracy alone did not perform as well as +ToHit coupled with +ACC against higher level mobs. If your experience differs, that is fine too.

How are you defining "fine" and under what conditions on what difficulty settings? I very much doubt you are getting anywhere near the DPS you would be with Rage active. I would also question whether or not you are able to even hit anything in content set at higher difficulty settings. Accuracy buffs from IOs only take you so far. If DPS is not a concern and you are going for a taunt bot to stand there and hold aggro, then sure, you do not need Rage. You also do not need any other attacks other than your T1 and Taunt. That is a very boring way to play a tanker, at least to me.

Very nicely done! You should be proud! 😁🫡

I do not agree that Rage should be removed and replaced with Unleashed Might. I think it would be better to offer both and let the player decide which one they want. I do agree that SS performs much more poorly without Rage, especially when compared to other offensive sets. Rage is where the significant damage and ToHit boost come from and without it, SS under performs. The crash has always made sense thematically. Super Strength is inspired by The Hulk whereby he gets stronger/more durable as he gets angrier and becomes more enraged. In his less enraged state, he is still strong and durable, yet not as enormously strong and much more susceptible to attack and injury. It makes sense that the Rage crash would have the -DMG, -DEF and -END as part of the crash. With that said, The Hulk was not exactly a squishy, weakling pile of mush if he was not fully enraged. I think Rage does need work. I personally never thought it needed the -DEF component as it was overly punitive to DEF based armors. The damage debuff and end cost once it wore off were sufficient, at least to me. Adding the -RES to Rage made an already bad design choice worse. Perhaps keep the -DMG component, remove the -DEF and -RES, make Rage non-stackable and increase the end drop a little. Another idea would be to make Rage non-stackable, but also build in +DMG and +ToHit over time, kind of like how Fury works. Probably not doable or a good idea, but it is a thought and stays in line with the original theme of the set.

Hand claps are not something unique to Superman, but he is capable of them and has used them before on many occasions. Wonder Woman has been know to let out a battle shout or two here and there as well. 😉

Interesting, but nothing we did not already know. Steve stayed in the past to live out his life with Peggy and they had children. All of that we knew already, and it was announced months ago that Chris Evans was returning for Avengers: Doomsday. It will be nice to see Steve Rogers again, but I am reserving judgment until the film is out. So far, these trailers are not much beyond nostalgia bait.

From what I have read, WB/D is not at all keen on the bid from Paramount/Skydance due to Larry Ellison and his part ownership of TikTok, which Netflix sees as a direct competitor.

I do not see that changing much, if at all should Netflix purchase WB/D. Given the ever increasing expense of going to the movies, cinemas (especially the large chains) are not exactly in the affordable price range for the "common folk" so much anymore. Maybe that is what should happen though. If you recall when home video rentals became a thing, there were tons of mom and pop video stores cropping up all over. Most all of them were eventually put out of business by the likes of big chains such as Blockbuster video. Same went for local movie cinemas, at least where I grew up. They were put out of business by big chains like AMC. Perhaps with cinema becoming less and less relevant, it may mean the death of the large cinema chains, which in turn could be a good thing for smaller, local cinemas. What all of this means for the movie industry as a whole is debatable and remains to be seen. The studio system is certainly dying, if not dead already, and maybe that is a good thing. Perhaps getting rid of the studio system will mean independent production companies (like Wyldwood) can thrive, which is great for the people doing the actual creative work. The studio system has always been an issue for the actual creatives in Hollywood. This is why United Artists was created more than 100 years ago by Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, D.W. Griffith and Douglas Fairbanks. They wanted greater control over their work, more of the profits and to get away from shady studio practices. Old Hollywood is going to have to adapt. I do not think Hollywood is going to stop streaming, no matter how hard they try. The old adage "nobody mourns for the buggy whip salesman" applies here. Where and how entertainment is created and by whom is something that the entertainment industry is going to have to figure out. If Hollywood cannot adapt, it will die out and become irrelevant.

I do not necessarily disagree with you, however I temper that with Netflix having a lot of experience in the streaming business and having a stable library only helps them. Purchasing WB means they will own the content instead of "renting" it from other studios. That is not necessarily a bad thing for them or the subscribers. With that said, it is definitely not an entirely good thing either. Where I do see this as a bad thing is in two key areas. First is the impact on the movie theater business. Netflix has shown they are not keen on theatrical releases and if they do, it is a very short window. See the recent Guillermo Del Toro Frankenstein. I am torn a bit on this one as I do have fond memories of going to the movies as a kid and sharing the communal experience of seeing movies, but that is tempered with movies being less and less "experiences" nowadays, coupled with utterly ridiculous pricing. With that in mind, perhaps it is time for movie theaters to fade away, much like live theater did when movies were first invented. I do not think going to the movies will ever go away completely much like live theater never disappeared once movies became a thing. Radio is still around despite television replacing it. The second problem which I personally think is a much larger issue is the loss of physical media. Streamers are not at all keen on physical media. No physical media means no ownership and no ability to watch a favorite movie or television program unless you have a subscription, and even then only if your program is available at the time. All streaming services pull movies and television programs over time. It also means you may need more than one streaming service to watch a favorite property. Paramount/Skydance will be pulling Star Trek from Netflix internationally starting in January of 2026, which means you will need a Paramount (or maybe Amazon Prime) subscription to watch Star Trek, assuming Paramount streaming is even available in your country. If you owned all of the Trek TV shows and films on DVD, you can watch them any time and you own it forever. One thing to keep in mind is that Netflix has been around for a long time, and they have been successful despite what many had thought. No one ever thought renting DVDs by physical mail would amount to anything, nor that it could or would ever replace movie rental businesses. Few ever thought streaming content would be a thing. Now here we are with Netflix poised to buy out a big part of old Hollywood. Times are definitely changing.

Not every set needs to be so homogeneous. I am probably in the minority here but I like Empathy, especially in a small team or duo setting. It is a great set for lower level content. I love taking my Empathy Defender on Synapse TFs. The only changes I would suggest for Empathy is to make Clear Mind a Targeted AoE instead of single target and decrease the recharge on Resurrect. Something that might be an interesting change is to make Absorb Pain a Targeted AoE as well. Empathy, like most other buff/healing sets becomes less and less needed at higher levels. That is changing now with the continued addition of higher difficulty settings.

From what I have read this morning, this report cannot be verified at the moment. I doubt it is a rumor, but you never know. Multiple news sources are suggesting the story cannot be verified and no one from WB or Standard General has officially commented. I think if CNN and other non-film related assets could be sold off separately would be a good thing for Netflix and WB/D. News is not really Netflix's wheelhouse.

I think it a good decision for WB/D to reject the Paramount/Skydance offer. It would not have been a good thing in the long run overvaluing the company to such an extent.