It is time for a HARDCORE SERVER!

[srmalloy]

1 hour ago, Wavicle said:

You click a checkbox at character creation. Your character is 100% immune to Resurrection mechanics.

BUT ALSO YOU CAN ONLY JOIN TEAMS WITH OTHER PLAYERS THAT CLICKED THE CHECK BOX.

If implemented this way, I predict that we'll see a subsequent whine of "I can't find anyone to team with" from the people playing characters with that box checked when the pool of hardcore characters doesn't match their available play times.

 

I also see quite a number of good observations above about all of the (relatively) minor changes that would need to be made to support a hardcore mode, from making characters immune to rez effects (it may not be necessary to actually disable drops of rez inspirations, since they incorporate a rez effect, and since they're more valuable than other insps of the same tier, just turning them off deprives a character of an admittedly minor source of inf from selling them) to rebalancing powersets that have rez-other or rez-self powers. Ultimately, though, what becomes of this is up to the Homecoming staff.

[Wavicle]

1 hour ago, srmalloy said:

If implemented this way, I predict that we'll see a subsequent whine of "I can't find anyone to team with" from the people playing characters with that box checked when the pool of hardcore characters doesn't match their available play times.

 

I still don't think it's a good idea, but it's a lot more feasible than a separate server (which would almost certainly get the exact same "I can't find teams" complaints).

[Rudra]

5 hours ago, Maelwys said:

That'd certainly require a heck of a lot less attention from the powers devs; but it gives me the jeebies thinking about all the scenarios where a lowbie toon on a TF could die to splash damage from someone else's fight and then get dumped straight to "game over" without even knowing how they died or being able to check the combat log (let alone being able to bitch about it to the offending teammate!) 🤣

Welcome to Hardcore/Iron Man game play. Where dying isn't necessarily your fault, but you're out of the game anyway.

 

Edited Sunday at 06:18 AM by Rudra
Edited to correct "Hard Core" to "Hardcore".

[lemming]

The Hardcore Server was in the forums the entire time.

[golstat2003]

15 hours ago, Wavicle said:

Actually, there IS a way to do both:

You click a checkbox at character creation. Your character is 100% immune to Resurrection mechanics.

 

BUT ALSO YOU CAN ONLY JOIN TEAMS WITH OTHER PLAYERS THAT CLICKED THE CHECK BOX.

 

No special servers, but you still get to team up with other weirdos.

Actually this would be a very cool compromise. I like this,

not sure it’s what the OP wants though.

[golstat2003]

14 hours ago, Maelwys said:

That'd certainly require a heck of a lot less attention from the powers devs; but it gives me the jeebies thinking about all the scenarios where a lowbie toon on a TF could die to splash damage from someone else's fight and then get dumped straight to "game over" without even knowing how they died or being able to check the combat log (let alone being able to bitch about it to the offending teammate!) 🤣

And this is the problem with a checkbox that others were alluding to. the amount of incidental splash damage and AOE in COX is probably a bazillion times more than in games like WoW. And you can’t really control how other players choose to play. If hardcore player complained to me that splash damage got them killed I would laugh in their face and immediately put them on ignore. 😹
 

A server for those folks who want to play that way just sounds like an infinitely better idea.

 

with that said may not be issue as I can’t see many folks playing hardcore anything on COH.

 

i can image at most 30-50 players using it. Again, not a good use of server resources, but if the devs want to do it up to them.

[Excraft]

On 2/13/2025 at 4:50 PM, sshazaam1 said:

One life per character. It would change everything! Carefully selecting teammates, more necessary planning. No more zergers. It would bring more life into your City of Heroes Experience!

 

If you want to play that way, go for it.  No need to waste the time and resources bringing yet another server into the fold for this, especially since it would require a different code base.

[Oubliette_Red]

On 2/14/2025 at 2:32 PM, Super Atom said:

 

This forum is often overwhelmingly wrong and toxic about a lot of things, It's why nobody except the same 20 people like to come here.

 

 

If your experience on the forums is as "often overwhelmingly wrong and toxic about a lot of things", I'm sensing one common denominator...

 

[golstat2003]

19 minutes ago, Oubliette_Red said:

 

If your experience on the forums is as "often overwhelmingly wrong and toxic about a lot of things", I'm sensing one common denominator...

 

I’ll saying again pointing out why a suggestion is problematic or would take too much budget or you would rather the devs do something else is NOT toxic.

 

If folks don’t want discussion about their suggestions they should just dm it to a dev or GM and be done. This is a public forum.

 

Telling folks why you think a suggestion won’t work isn’t toxic. Sick of seeing that false argument.

[srmalloy]

15 hours ago, Wavicle said:

I still don't think it's a good idea, but it's a lot more feasible than a separate server (which would almost certainly get the exact same "I can't find teams" complaints).

That's quite true, but I think the "I can't find other hardcore players to team with on the regular servers" complaints will be perceived as different from the "There's no one on the hardcore server to team with" complaints, because they'll have the undertone of "we wanted our own server, and you wouldn't give us one" carried along with them. Of course, this is just my sitting back with a bowl of popcorn watching a niche community of a niche community talking about how popular they believe themselves to be.

[Super Atom]

1 hour ago, Oubliette_Red said:

 

If your experience on the forums is as "often overwhelmingly wrong and toxic about a lot of things", I'm sensing one common denominator...

 

 

50 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

I’ll saying again pointing out why a suggestion is problematic or would take too much budget or you would rather the devs do something else is NOT toxic.

 

If folks don’t want discussion about their suggestions they should just dm it to a dev or GM and be done. This is a public forum.

 

Telling folks why you think a suggestion won’t work isn’t toxic. Sick of seeing that false argument.

 

You're mistaken, My toxicity complaint is for people calling ideas "Dumb" "Stuipid" or "awful" and thats their only contribution.

 

I don't think just saying "i dont like this" is a good post to make, but it's not exactly toxic.

Edited Sunday at 07:04 PM by Super Atom
cleaned up, still sick so cranky easily.

[PoptartsNinja]

19 hours ago, Super Atom said:

This is mostly assumptions though. You don't know its popularity or cost, not really. It could be unpopular and fall flat. Absolutely it could. Or it could not.

We know the cost the Homecoming devs pay to run each server because that's public information, and I presented you with actual usable "best case scenario" numbers you could easily use to defend your suggestion.

Of WoW's 1.5 million daily players, Blizzard has reported about 200,000 of them play on hardcore servers. That's right around 15.4% of the massive World of Warcraft playerbase. I personally feel like 15% would be a "best case" scenario, as City of Heroes is generally a much more chill, casual-friendly game.

 

But, assuming WoW's numbers are universal, that would mean of the 2,000-3,000 or so daily CoH logins, roughly 300-450 players would be interested in playing on a hardcore server. Which is pretty reasonable, but they wouldn't all be on at the same times. So, assuming roughly 1/3rd of them will be online at any given time, that leaves you with about 99-150 players, with probable spikes on the weekends or during prime time. That would put your hypothetical Hardcore server as about the 4th or 5th most populated server.

Or, if we compare it to the current server stats:
 

North America
 Torchbearer - 157 online
 Excelsior - 1100 online
 Everlasting - 515 online
 Indomitable - 88 online
 Victory - 57 online
Europe
 Reunion - 164 online
2081 online

 

15% of 2081 is 312 players, assuming they were all logged in simultaneously that would make a hypothetical Hardcore server the 3rd most populated. Now, assuming that only half of them are actually logged in (because it's the weekend), that's 156 players, putting that server's population comparable with Torchbearer's. So, right around the 4th or 5th most popular (counting Reunion).

 

But any European players interested in hardcore would either need their own server or have to deal with the latency that would make their hardcore runs much harder. Either would likely eat away at the idealized 15% hardcore playerbase; either stealing ~24 players for a hardcore european server or Reunion keeping those ~24 players who don't want to deal with the latency.

 

 

Anyway, here's another series of challenges a potential hardcore checkbox would have to overcome:
- What happens if the server bugs out and accidentally flags a character as hardcore when they're not?

- Are they deleted instantly?

- Are they moved onto a separate database server so they could be recovered with a petition?

- If they're recoverable, what's stopping actual hardcore players from just petitioning to have their dead characters re-enabled, allowing them to 'cheat' and loot their own corpses, completely circumventing the idea of a hardcore player?

- How much time are the GM's going to have to spend recovering characters?

- How quick would that recovery process be?

- Do deleted characters still tie up one of your character slots while they're dead?

- What sort of grace period is allowed for recovery?

- If the deleted characters don't fully go away until server reset, what happens if a problem happens 3 minutes before the weekly maintenance reset?

 

The easiest solution for most of these would be "implement a development fork," but then either one of two things would happen: game updates would take much longer as the devs would have to update two different codebases and make sure everything worked on both; or the less popular fork (likely the hardcore fork based on WoW's numbers) would just... never get updates.

 

But then you get into another question:
- Do we all have to pay for a server we're not interested in using, or do the hardcore players have to shoulder the cost of their server themselves?

 

 

Again, I'm not trying to discourage you. If the devs want to make a hardcore server, I hope it would be successful enough to be worth the time investment. But there are a lot of genuine questions about the mechanics and costs. I'd think you'd be much more likely to get traction if you tried brainstorming reasonable answers to a few of them rather than telling the Devs (and non-Dev suggestion forum goers) that it's their responsibility to figure it all out.

[Super Atom]

4 minutes ago, PoptartsNinja said:

We know the cost the Homecoming devs pay to run each server

 

We do yes, but the comment made is it would be 800 dollars for a new shard, which i don't think is accurate?

 

6 minutes ago, PoptartsNinja said:

that would make a hypothetical Hardcore server the 3rd most populated

 

I genuinely don't believe it would be, I think Hardcore would be pretty niche as far as the CoH playerbase goes, which is why my support mostly shifted to Checkbox over server, my only issue with that is difficult for Homecoming. If it's easier to do a server, that would likely be preferable but as you mentioned, the server brings all kinds of other issues into account including EU Regions. The checkbox solves that, but it brings up-

 

8 minutes ago, PoptartsNinja said:

Anyway, here's another series of challenges a potential hardcore checkbox would have to overcome:
- What happens if the server bugs out and accidentally flags a character as hardcore when they're not?

- Are they deleted instantly?

- Are they moved onto a separate database server so they could be recovered with a petition?

- If they're recoverable, what's stopping actual hardcore players from just petitioning to have their dead characters re-enabled, allowing them to 'cheat' and loot their own corpses, completely circumventing the idea of a hardcore player?

- How much time are the GM's going to have to spend recovering characters?

- How quick would that recovery process be?

- Do deleted characters still tie up one of your character slots while they're dead?

- What sort of grace period is allowed for recovery?

- If the deleted characters don't fully go away until server reset, what happens if a problem happens 3 minutes before the weekly maintenance reset?

 

This is mostly hypothetical situation that could likely not occur, but I'm not sure this would be a fairly large bug that would hopefully be caught in testing phases.

 

9 minutes ago, PoptartsNinja said:

- Do we all have to pay for a server we're not interested in using, or do the hardcore players have to shoulder the cost of their server themselves?

 

We already do this for every server an individual who donates doesn't use, I'm not sure what you mean. If the cost was too much, which again i think would require an actual developer to comment on, then obviously the server specific idea would be a non-starter and i believe people would accept this answer, or just any "We're not interested in this" really.

 

11 minutes ago, PoptartsNinja said:

Again, I'm not trying to discourage you. If the devs want to make a hardcore server, I hope it would be successful enough to be worth the time investment. But there are a lot of genuine questions about the mechanics and costs. I'd think you'd be much more likely to get traction if you tried brainstorming reasonable answers to a few of them rather than telling the Devs (and non-Dev suggestion forum goers) that it's their responsibility to figure it all out.

 

I appreciate your post, It's a great set of questions and weekend math. I don't think I've told anyone it's their responsibility to figure out though, only for Devs who are literally the only ones who can comment on specific things, like how much it would really cost or if something would require complete reworks of powers or not. Or that one guy  who told me i had to prove him wrong, which again i still maintain nobody has to prove anything to another player to suggest something like this. It's not the same as someone calling a power bad and being asked for proof its bad.

 

 

(I'm still not feeling well, so if you reply with follow up and get nothing for days it's illness and not disinterest)

 

[golstat2003]

50 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

 

 

You're mistaken, My toxicity complaint is for people calling ideas "Dumb" "Stuipid" or "awful" and thats their only contribution.

 

I don't think just saying "i dont like this" is a good post to make, but it's not exactly toxic.

 

I don't like is a perfectly fine post. It helps the devs judge how popular or unpopular and idea is. And that helps the dev to give them direction if they ever do decide to go on a spree of implementing suggestions from the forums (not likely they will or will ever have the manpower to go on ANY spree, but one can dream.)

 

I don't thik any idea is dumb, but there are some that . . . well shouldn't be suggested. But that's subjective and is STILL not calling the actual poster dumb, stupid or awful. Those are two very different things.

 

We may have to agree to disagree here.

[golstat2003]

36 minutes ago, PoptartsNinja said:

We know the cost the Homecoming devs pay to run each server because that's public information, and I presented you with actual usable "best case scenario" numbers you could easily use to defend your suggestion.

Of WoW's 1.5 million daily players, Blizzard has reported about 200,000 of them play on hardcore servers. That's right around 15.4% of the massive World of Warcraft playerbase. I personally feel like 15% would be a "best case" scenario, as City of Heroes is generally a much more chill, casual-friendly game.

 

But, assuming WoW's numbers are universal, that would mean of the 2,000-3,000 or so daily CoH logins, roughly 300-450 players would be interested in playing on a hardcore server. Which is pretty reasonable, but they wouldn't all be on at the same times. So, assuming roughly 1/3rd of them will be online at any given time, that leaves you with about 99-150 players, with probable spikes on the weekends or during prime time. That would put your hypothetical Hardcore server as about the 4th or 5th most populated server.

Or, if we compare it to the current server stats:
 

North America
 Torchbearer - 157 online
 Excelsior - 1100 online
 Everlasting - 515 online
 Indomitable - 88 online
 Victory - 57 online
Europe
 Reunion - 164 online
2081 online

 

15% of 2081 is 312 players, assuming they were all logged in simultaneously that would make a hypothetical Hardcore server the 3rd most populated. Now, assuming that only half of them are actually logged in (because it's the weekend), that's 156 players, putting that server's population comparable with Torchbearer's. So, right around the 4th or 5th most popular (counting Reunion).

 

But any European players interested in hardcore would either need their own server or have to deal with the latency that would make their hardcore runs much harder. Either would likely eat away at the idealized 15% hardcore playerbase; either stealing ~24 players for a hardcore european server or Reunion keeping those ~24 players who don't want to deal with the latency.

 

 

Anyway, here's another series of challenges a potential hardcore checkbox would have to overcome:
- What happens if the server bugs out and accidentally flags a character as hardcore when they're not?

- Are they deleted instantly?

- Are they moved onto a separate database server so they could be recovered with a petition?

- If they're recoverable, what's stopping actual hardcore players from just petitioning to have their dead characters re-enabled, allowing them to 'cheat' and loot their own corpses, completely circumventing the idea of a hardcore player?

- How much time are the GM's going to have to spend recovering characters?

- How quick would that recovery process be?

- Do deleted characters still tie up one of your character slots while they're dead?

- What sort of grace period is allowed for recovery?

- If the deleted characters don't fully go away until server reset, what happens if a problem happens 3 minutes before the weekly maintenance reset?

 

The easiest solution for most of these would be "implement a development fork," but then either one of two things would happen: game updates would take much longer as the devs would have to update two different codebases and make sure everything worked on both; or the less popular fork (likely the hardcore fork based on WoW's numbers) would just... never get updates.

 

But then you get into another question:
- Do we all have to pay for a server we're not interested in using, or do the hardcore players have to shoulder the cost of their server themselves?

 

 

Again, I'm not trying to discourage you. If the devs want to make a hardcore server, I hope it would be successful enough to be worth the time investment. But there are a lot of genuine questions about the mechanics and costs. I'd think you'd be much more likely to get traction if you tried brainstorming reasonable answers to a few of them rather than telling the Devs (and non-Dev suggestion forum goers) that it's their responsibility to figure it all out.

 

As someone who works in IT for planning, these are the types of questions Developers, Architects, Business Analysists and QA folks are challenged daily to ask. I'm sure the dev team would also have to look into these. They may be volunteers here, but they sure as hell ARE professionals in their day to day paid jobs.

 

On a side note, I'm glad HC takes a methodical approach like this to anything they implement. And that's not guessing or assumptions before anyone says so. Just spend any time in the betas Discord and you can see it first hand. I've seen what happens on other COH servers when things are done in a slapdash throw everything at the wall manner.

Edited Sunday at 07:42 PM by golstat2003

[Super Atom]

1 minute ago, golstat2003 said:

 

I don't like is a perfectly fine post. It helps the devs judge how popular or unpopular and idea is. And that helps the dev to give them direction if they ever do decide to go on a spree of implementing suggestions from the forums (not likely they will or will ever have the manpower to go on ANY spree, but one can dream.)

 

I don't thik any idea is dumb, but there are some that . . . well shouldn't be suggested. But that's subjective and is STILL not calling the actual poster dumb, stupid or awful. Those are two very different things.

 

We may have to agree to disagree here.

 

It's absolutely fine to just go "I wouldn't like this" i just personally think it doesn't give much to the conversation at hand. "I don't like this because ___ " even if the reason is short, gives the idea poster something to work from and can potentionally evolve an idea from something that may not have worked into something more people would be good with, an example is literally here in this topic. A lot of pretty good reasons an entire server isn't ideal but more were receptive to it being an option like the PvP warrior.

 

You are right though, sometimes there are ideas so out in space that it collectively confuses everyone.

[golstat2003]

24 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

 

I appreciate your post, It's a great set of questions and weekend math. I don't think I've told anyone it's their responsibility to figure out though, only for Devs who are literally the only ones who can comment on specific things, like how much it would really cost or if something would require complete reworks of powers or not. Or that one guy  who told me i had to prove him wrong, which again i still maintain nobody has to prove anything to another player to suggest something like this. It's not the same as someone calling a power bad and being asked for proof its bad.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone is saying anyone has to prove anyting. Folks are just pointing out the POSSIBLE pitfalls to any suggestion. Answering those can help the poster (or others) refine a suggestion or offer alternative approaches.

 

Which happened in this thread when the idea of the checkbox came up. (Though not what the Original Poster asked for).

[Super Atom]

5 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

 

I don't think anyone is saying anyone has to prove anyting. Folks are just pointing out the POSSIBLE pitfalls to any suggestion. Answering those can help the poster (or others) refine a suggestion or offer alternative approaches.

 

Which happened in this thread when the idea of the checkbox came up. (Though not what the Original Poster asked for).

 

Well, he did literally ask to be proven wrong about how many people would enjoy it, which i felt wasn't needed here. Hardcore is obviously a feature people enjoy, even if it's a lower population. It's like PvP in that way.

 

I think i need to be clear, for me personally if adding Hardcore would require more dev time than just adding the feature and the occasional bug fix if there is one, I don't think it would be worth it either. If they had to address hardcore with every single update and make specific changes, then I too would be on the side of "this probably isn't worth it".

[tidge]

1 hour ago, Super Atom said:

You're mistaken, My toxicity complaint is for people calling ideas "Dumb" "Stuipid" or "awful" and thats their only contribution.

 

I don't think just saying "i dont like this" is a good post to make, but it's not exactly toxic.

 

22 hours ago, Super Atom said:

Here's a idea for you, you don't like an optional feature? Don't fucking do it.

 

...

[Maelwys]

37 minutes ago, Super Atom said:

We do yes, but the comment made is it would be 800 dollars for a new shard, which i don't think is accurate?)

 

That wasn't actually what was said in my post.

 

What I posted was: "Homecoming's published Server Infrastructure Cost for last month alone (for the current 6 shards) was $4,853.37. That's a average of a smidge over $800/month per server shard".

 

A current average of $800/month per server doesn't necessarily mean that adding a new HC server would automatically cost another $800. However it does show that running six HC servers is pretty expensive; and suggest that adding another would likely require an additional non-trivial monetary cost.

 

As far as I'm aware the way the HC hosting platform currently works, multiple server shards can be spun up and hosted within the same shared resource bucket. And the hardware limitations of that bucket will likely care much more about how many maps + critters are loaded into memory simultaneously rather than how many individual shards are online and accepting logins (certainly a few years ago when I had more free time to dabble with the SCORE code, RAM consumption was the major bottleneck...). So if the current setup has sufficient unused capacity then it might well be possible to spin up a new server without shelling out for extra hardware.

 

This sort of thing is generally referred to as "technical debt" - an additional hardware/processing time requirement that is not properly covered by a new project's budget but instead gets absorbed by existing ICT infrastructure. It will always eventually catch up with the organisation and eventually need "paid for", and typically this happens whenever the relevant hosting/licensing contract comes up for renewal and you end up with a far bigger quote than before (because all those little extras have accumulated to bump your requirements into the next performance tier!) so wherever possible these additional requirements should be acknowledged and budgeted for ahead of time regardless of whether or not you'll get affected by them right away.

 

All of which (alongside the reduced need for a forked codebase and major lore changes) is a big part of why I'd be far less against the idea of adding "Permadeath mode" to the existing servers as an optional extra.

[Super Atom]

7 minutes ago, tidge said:

 

 

...

 

 Me being toxic to toxic people absolutely happened, yes.

[Super Atom]

1 minute ago, Maelwys said:

 

That wasn't actually what was said in my post.

 

What I posted was: "Homecoming's published Server Infrastructure Cost for last month alone (for the current 6 shards) was $4,853.37. That's a average of a smidge over $800/month per server shard".

 

A current average of $800/month per server doesn't necessarily mean that adding a new HC server would automatically cost another $800. However it does show that running six HC servers is pretty expensive; and suggest that adding another would likely require an additional non-trivial monetary cost.

 

As far as I'm aware the way the HC hosting platform currently works, multiple server shards can be spun up and hosted within the same shared resource bucket. And the hardware limitations of that bucket will likely care much more about how many maps + critters are loaded into memory simultaneously rather than how many individual shards are online and accepting logins (certainly a few years ago when I had more free time to dabble with the SCORE code, RAM consumption was the major bottleneck...). So if the current setup has sufficient unused capacity then it might well be possible to spin up a new server without shelling out for extra hardware.

 

This sort of thing is generally referred to as "technical debt" - an additional hardware/processing time requirement that is not properly covered by a new project's budget but instead gets absorbed by existing ICT infrastructure. It will always eventually catch up with the organisation and eventually need "paid for", and typically this happens whenever the relevant hosting/licensing contract comes up for renewal and you end up with a far bigger quote than before (because all those little extras have accumulated to bump your requirements into the next performance tier!) so wherever possible these additional requirements should be acknowledged and budgeted for ahead of time regardless of whether or not you'll get affected by them right away.

 

All of which (alongside the reduced need for a forked codebase and major lore changes) is a big part of why I'd be far less against the idea of adding "Permadeath mode" to the existing servers as an optional extra.

 

Well yes, another server would add cost. My one and only complaint was you mentioned 800, but it would appear i may have just misunderstood what you were saying.

 

Like i said above, if the cost was too much it would likely be a non-starter.

 

As for the lore, again you could basically call this non-canon experience and be done with it. The forking codebase, if it did actually require that much attention and wasn't closer to a side feature that didn't require that much attention, i would agree with you that it wouldn't be worth it.

[sshazaam1]

3 hours ago, Super Atom said:

 

Well yes, another server would add cost. My one and only complaint was you mentioned 800, but it would appear i may have just misunderstood what you were saying.

 

Like i said above, if the cost was too much it would likely be a non-starter.

 

As for the lore, again you could basically call this non-canon experience and be done with it. The forking codebase, if it did actually require that much attention and wasn't closer to a side feature that didn't require that much attention, i would agree with you that it wouldn't be worth it.

Hell if its only 800 dollars more a month for a separate server, I'll pay it myself lol. Ideally I feel a "Hardcore Dedicated Server" would be an amazing popular idea. They would be flooded with people IMO ofc. However I do like the "checkbox" idea as well. However when it comes to the powers and teamming with people, no need to change anything. If he dies during a TF, thats just life people move on. And just don't get rez powers, easy fix.

[Rudra]

1 minute ago, sshazaam1 said:

Hell if its only 800 dollars more a month for a separate server, I'll pay it myself lol.

Then please don't take this the wrong way, but, you can download the source code, code it to be in Iron Man mode, and run the server yourself.

 

2 minutes ago, sshazaam1 said:

Ideally I feel a "Hardcore Dedicated Server" would be an amazing popular idea. They would be flooded with people IMO ofc.

"Ideally" from the perspective of anyone making a suggestion, that suggestion would be wildly popular and have lots of other players clamoring for it and then playing/using it when implemented. The world isn't ideal and Iron Man hasn't proven to be particularly popular even on other platforms.

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

5 hours ago, Super Atom said:

 

 Me being toxic to toxic people absolutely happened, yes.

 

Well then, that's enough toxicity for one thread.