ShardWarrior

This is basically what the Heldenjaeger mission already has.

Setting aside that badges and accolades are optional, something that may work would be to reduce the requirements for defeat badges once one character on an account has completed a defeat badge. Cryptic added this sort of thing to their Reputation System in STO to alleviate some of the grind. When one character completes a reputation and reaches Tier V, that reputation becomes "sponsored" for every other character on the account. Sponsored Reputation projects reward double the Reputation XP, halving the time and resources required to complete. So as an example here, once one character on the account completes the Unveiler badge by defeating the full 100 Fake Nemesis, subsequent characters on the account would be required to only defeat 50 Fake Nemesis to earn Unveiler. This still requires some work to obtain, but it does lessen the grind somewhat. I am not sure how you could work this for other badges and accolades, and I imagine something like this would be very difficult to implement here given the number of badges in game.

First time players can get the Fast Travel accolade and unlock every zone without cost. First timers can get the Oro portal without any cost. First timers can also create their own SG and build their own base for fast travel without cost, with on of the SG base portals obtained without cost simply by logging out in their base. XP boosters at the P2W vendor are totally free of charge and new players can grab them right in the tutorial zone if they like. This is still not interacting with the game to unlock the accolades. Where does this line of thinking end? If we are going to allow accolades to be unlocked just by logging out, why not allow those with short amounts of time to play to log out in a certain place and auto level to 50? Maybe they can log out for a little longer and have all Incarnates unlocked, all accolades and badges unlocked and 2 billion inf so they can buy whatever they need as far as enhancements. I understand and empathize that some people do not enjoy the grind and it gets old doing so on every alt. This is a player issue though, not a game issue as the player can choose to either grind or not grind out rewards. Accolades are not mandatory or required.

This is only exacerbating the disparity. Those that can afford it will buy their way out whereas others who cannot afford it will have to "grind" out the accolades. Right now, everyone is on equal footing having to do the work necessary to get the accolade reward. That is true whether someone is a multi-billionaire or a brand new player starting out. Adding this a a P2W option only affects those without the inf.

Again, all this would do is make it that much easier for those with the means to buy these items while making them unattainable for those without. Even 20 million inf per passive accolade is cheap. This is pocket change for the wealthy in this game with billions upon billions upon billions of influence.

Being logged out as we do with day jobs is not actually interacting with the game. Accolades that provide a permanent buff of some kind (eg. TF Commander, Atlas Medallion, Portal Jockey etc), regardless of how minor, should require some effort and require the player to actually interact with the game content. I do not necessarily disagree that getting all of the available accolades on every character can get old very, very quickly. However, accolades in general are not required or necessary. With that said, I would not object to certain accolades being account wide unlocks.

I personally do not see the need. If we are going to start putting accolades and such into the P2W or Aether vendors, we may as well make. everything free. This just makes it that much easier for those with the means to not bother engaging in the actual game content. The passives are really not that difficult or cumbersome to get. There are far, far better ideas out there for influence sinks.

Yes, unfortunately most of the "wall" object do not match the textures/skins for the actual base walls. To get around this, you can use the Large Concrete & Wood pieces to build walls instead of using the normal base ones. This is of course much more work, but would create a uniform style. Clipping should be avoidable. You may need to adjust your snap values (I usually use 1/4 or none) and with careful placement, there should be no clipping. Again, this does add work. Unfortunately, we do not have object that match the textures for the base walls and ceiling.

Not to mention saving themselves the extra effort to send an alt an ingame email. Learning to earn influence is part of the game, just like leveling up, selecting/slotting/enhancing powers and learning your way around the world. As others have mentioned before, there are plenty of ways to earn influence. No need for a pity system.

Yes. I believe there are a few set photos/videos out on the interwebs people have surreptitiously taken of Jason Momoa filming his scenes for Supergirl.

"Otisburg??" - Lex Luthor 🤣

We can agree to disagree. If the characters are that expendable that we are not supposed to care about whether they live or die, they are not at all important to the story and thereby not worth getting emotionally invested in.

Absolutely! Well said. There has actually been quite a lot of news articles and academic studies published over the years about this very subject. They can be a very interesting and insightful read! This has always been something I think superhero films tend not to show enough - the ordinary person stepping up and getting involved to help others. It does happen, just not as often as I would have liked but then again, I temper that with this is generally not the focus of the overall plot. Totally agree. How do you feel this was handled in the new Superman?

I am not misunderstanding anything about the character, nor will I get baited into a protracted argument over what Superman is or is not. Superman leads by example through his actions, not by using his super powers to lord over anyone.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, although you are obviously misunderstanding me. There is a rather obvious and quite enormous difference between the hopeful and inspiring words of Jor El from the Donner Superman and Man of Steel films and the "go forth, get yourself a harem and rule over everyone" message in the Gunn Superman. I agree with you that Superman's actions are a big part of what shows his good and noble intentions. With that said, Superman in the Donner film did not go on a whining rant about Lex Luthor hurting his feelings. He captured Luthor, dropped him off at prison with a smile and a wink letting Luthor know he did not get the better of him. Again, Superman is not us. He is better than us. Changing the inspiring message of Jor El did not make sense to me and I did not care for it. You are more than welcome to disagree.

Watched it this past weekend and thought it was alright. Nothing spectacular, but nothing I would say was awful about it either. I do like the more colorful and comic accurate costumes, very much like David Corenswet and Rachel Brosnahan. I thought they had wonderful chemistry together. I thought Nicholas Hoult was great as Luthor too. I would have liked seeing a little more of the Justice Gang. Overall casting was solid. There were parts of the story I enjoyed and parts I did not like at all, but overall a decent popcorn movie. What I liked Comic accurate and colorful costumes. Although if I am being honest, I did not care for the "S" symbol. I preferred the texturing and shape of the "S" on the Cavill costume. This is a minor gripe for me though. The casting. Everyone except Jimmy Olsen I liked. As mentioned, I thought David Corenswet and Rachel Brosnahan had excellent chemistry. The lighter tone and less brooding, although at times it bordered on eye-roll/cringey. The Justice Gang. Not enough of them though! What I did not like Jimmy Olsen. I found him more annoying than anything else. At times, the dialogue was a bit too camp for me. The "new and improved" message from Jor El and Lara El. This did not work for me and seemed rather pointless. I feel it was something that was shoehorned in and was not at all necessary to the story. Superman's speech about "being human". I not care for the whiney parts with Superman yelling at Luthor to explain how "human" he is. Superman is not human. He is not like us. He is better than us. He is supposed to rise above and be an inspiration to us. Thank God that line abut Lex hurting his feelings was left on the cutting room floor. Overall a likeable movie, definitely worth a watch. I got that vibe at certain times as well. I did not care for this characterization for Superman either.

That may be the case, however I still do not think it was all that impactful. Ghost I would not have cared if she did not make it through to the end. John Walker I would have been sorry about. The rest, meh.

I agree. I have not seen Fantastic Four yet, however Superman was not what I had hoped it would be.

The idea of a "wealth distribution system" would lead to exactly that - gold farmers setting up shop. ^ Spot on

I agree, although I do not think there was enough story to add another 6 episodes or more. The truncated season certainly was not a help to the show. So much this! I mentioned Godzilla: Minus One in another thread and I think it a fitting example. The whole film cost less to make than a single episode of She-Hulk, received excellent reviews and won an Oscar for VFX. It is an excellent movie with a well crafted story if you have not seen it.

I will attempt to dumb it down even further for you. I agree that the claim is wrong and provided further information as to why the claim and data supplied to support the claim are wrong. Whatever you like. If you want to take the numbers as gospel, go for it. I happen to know a something of how this kind of information is collected and the various data aggregation methods, so I know firsthand there is wiggle room. Should I repeat yet again I am not claiming Disney fudged any numbers?

I believe you are misunderstanding my posts and trying to inject something that is not there. There was no rhetorical goal other than to explain why the two charts differ. Again, this is due to the results varying based on the methods employed, thereby making the data open to interpretation and noting that some methods are error prone, so there is some degree of inaccuracy. In no way was I making any sort of insinuation or suggesting numbers provided should be dismissed. Quite the opposite. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am suggesting Disney fabricated an audience. I was not. Yet again, I said nothing of the sort and I am happy to go back and highlight where I have repeated this. The goal was to provide context and reasoning why Ironheart was not on the list provided and why the Luminate charts are not a good measure for the viewership of Disney+ programs. As you pointed out, someone mentioned that people did not tune in for this show because the Luminate chart did not show it. All I did was say was that is not entirely accurate and provided some reasons why Ironheart does not appear there. If you believe there is any more than that, you are mistaken.

Since this appears to be directed at me, allow me to expound. First, as I have already mentioned twice and will repeat here yet again a third time, I am not suggesting Disney did anything nefarious reporting numbers for Ironheart. I am not suggesting at all that Disney is embellishing their viewership data. Second, I made absolutely no mention about "not liking the data points". In fact, my earlier post regarding the Luminate report presented was to explain why Ironheart did not appear there to refute the claim that Ironheart did not appear in the top 10 for viewership. It did appear in the top 10, just not on the Luminate report. This is because Disney does not directly report their viewership data to Luminate. As you can see, Ironheart did appear on the Nielsen top 10 as Disney does report their viewership numbers directly to Nielsen. That is not me saying that I did or did not like the Ironheart data, only presenting information as to why Ironheart did not appear on the Luminate report. Third, my comment about numbers being open to interpretation comes from experience. My employer is in the music industry and we report music sales (both physical and digital) to Luminate daily. This is accomplished by pulling shipment data from our OMS and pushing that data to Luminate directly via API call. My understanding is the Nielsen operates in a similar fashion. There have been a few occasions where due to technical issues, some of our sales data was under-reported and some over-reported. Not by enormous amounts, but enough that they could potentially mean being the number one album for the week or not and we do know there are those in the industry that do embellish their numbers to do just that. We could be very liberal in what we report if we wanted. I will repeat again, this is not to say Disney is embellishing their viewership numbers. Furthermore, In all the years I have worked here, only twice has Luminate asked to audit our data and that consisted of them asking us for the same data we had already sent them. They report whatever numbers we send them, and since it is possible for there to be inaccuracies, then it is possible to intentionally change numbers and we know some people are. Again, I am not suggesting that Disney is doing this, only that it is possible to do. In my experience, competition and bragging rights alone for who is number one or makes the top charts for the week/month/year are motivation enough for some to embellish their numbers. If you have more technical experience with Luminate and Nielsen and can expand on how they are collecting and auditing the data provided to them to make sure what they are reporting is accurate, by all means please share your knowledge. Lastly, if you do not believe there are inconsistencies in the data and how companies like Luminate and Nielsen collect and report their data, all you need do is compare the numbers between the two. Take The Waterfront as an example. For roughly the same time period, the numbers vary between Luminate and Nielsen by 1.4 million minutes with Luminate - who Netflix does not directly report viewership numbers to - being higher. That is a rather significant variance. Which report is correct? Nielsen or Luminate? Does that mean Nielsen is under reporting or Luminate over reporting? Also, Squid Game - a Netflix show - with its 3.2 million minutes viewed does not appear on the Luminate charts at all, but other Netflix programs do. That is another large variance. I do not care whether Ironheart made any top 10 lists for viewership or not. I did not care for the series myself. I understand there are those that did enjoy it and I am truly happy for them. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, viewership was not enough for the decision makers at Disney/Marvel to want to invest in producing second season. Perhaps Ironheart will still appear in future MCU projects, hopefully with better script writers next time.

You will note I specifically said I was not saying Disney fudged any viewership data, nor did I say they did so specifically for Iron Heart. As for why some do want to embellish their viewership numbers or album sales and such, there are a great many reasons for that.

Her not being all that important or likeable is exactly the point. It was not the "shock/gut punch" that I believe it was intended to be. It did not have any meaningful dramatic impact because you did not care about the character.