Arcanaville

The problem with voice acting (such as within animated pictures) and motion capture is that the overall performance is a combination of the actor and technology, and the technology component is not itself eligible for a performance award. It would be no different than if an actor performed in a movie and then all of his lines were dubbed over by another proficient voice actor. The combined performance is two different performances blended together, but the award is not an ensemble award. If only one of them can receive the award and neither can take credit for the performance of the other, both would be at a disadvantage to singular performances that a single actor can take full credit for.

That's just reality, and its not entirely wrong.

Not to my knowledge. However, the requirements to be nominated are fairly strict: the song must have been written specifically for the movie in question and not have been published prior: it cannot be a remake or a cover. In fact, if a movie is a screen version of a stage play, all of the songs from the original stage play are automatically disqualified, having not been written explicitly for the movie.

I think there have been years when only three songs have been nominated, but I think this is the first time in at least recent memory that only two have been.

It would be more ironic if your forum handle was Coyote_ButtRocket.

Going to have to screencap this.

If the devs were willing to learn the lesson you want them to learn, long ago they would have learned to reverse ED and scrap the invention system.

You seem to think someone is going to come along and logically prove to you that you shouldn't get what you want. So I'll terminate that line of thought by saying its considered an axiom that a properly functioning game is better for the long term health of the game, and no one that actually builds MMOs that I'm aware of questions that axiom. So long as that axiom exists, there is no logical argument possible that can reverse it. That's what axioms are.

You can question it, rail against it, but because everyone who makes games believes it there is no escape from it without quitting MMOs and taking up hacky sack.

In the old days, I used to hear people ask for Defenders, or "healers." But over the last few years, the vast overwhelming majority of advertised requests I've seen have been for either:

1. A Tanker
2. Buff, Debuff, or literally Buff/Debuff (overwhelmingly most common: Debuff)
3. Damage
4. Anything to fill the spot

At one time more common, but increasingly rare:

- Healer
- Defender
- "A Kin"

The only archetypes that have *some* difficulty fitting into *some* people's concept of the big three (Tanker, Buff/Debuff, Damage) on any consistent basis in my experience:

- Stalkers
- Peacebringers

Just flash a peace sign and everything will be cool.

In other words, offer void for City of Heroes community members.

Because that's only worth six points and that's a lot of pins left to pick up the spare.

The "oldies" would say "asbestos underwear."

What point could it possibly prove?

You could just as easily argue that heroside players get to be lackeys that do nothing but stop a villain, sometimes after its too late, and return everything back to the status quo. The heroes do not get to permanently improve the world in any significant fashion, and the notion that heroism is about the status quo is equally suspect as villainy being about destroying it. Sometimes the villain wants to preserve the status quo, because the status quo is what works best for them - I mentioned Phipps above, and he's the posterboy example of someone exercising villainy not by trying to destroy the status quo and therefore losing, but trying to preserve the status quo and therefore winning (and in spectacularly nauseating fashion besides).

I believe the devs believe this, and that's why villain arcs tend to be written with the villains at best breaking even.

But does every villain always lose? Of course the villain that wants to destroy the Earth tends to lose, because the destruction of Earth tends to curtail story telling opportunities in most cases. But does Hannibal Lecter lose at the end of The Silence of the Lambs? Consider Wanted (the comic, not the movie). And Kaiser Soze certainly didn't lose in the end.

In comics, some of the best villains do not, by most standards, consistently lose. The Joker is often caught, but only after his plans come to fruition. Dr. Doom seems to break even on the "take control of the world, lose control of the world" score. I can't even begin to compile a score for Magneto, but he most definitely didn't always lose. And in the movies, you could argue that in X2 he's actually the biggest winner.

In City of Heroes, there's a villain that always wins. And its Westin Phipps. The devs can write villains that always win. They just clearly don't seem to think too highly of the situation.

And they are never going to get that chance in an MMO, because in an MMO we need the world tomorrow. You'll only get that chance in a single player game, which would also tend to end the game.

The notion that the game should provide you the option to destroy the universe and then escape into another one because that's your backstory is at best impractical, and at worst ludicrous.

Sure, the devs could write the villain side better. I've often commented that I truly believe the reason why the villain side stories tend to be poor villain portrayals is because fundamentally the writers generally don't believe in it. The game depicts true villainy as either twisted, sick, delusional, or insane. It never depicts evil as just deciding not to follow everyone else's rules, or just being out for number one, or just deciding that good doesn't work. I once told Positron that I wanted to see villainy range from the Joker to Magneto, but the game tends to present evil as a range from Eric Cartman to the Human Centipede.

But even so, there are limits. The hero side is nearly as limited as the evil side in motive and perspective. At the end of the day, the world is going to be a certain way after the story ends, and all storylines go there by fiat. You can write a backstory that contradicts the game world or requires choices unsupported by the game world, but to expect the game world to honor them when you deliberately go that far outside the box is foolhardy.

Perhaps not immediately, but he can't stay awake all the time.

Not that I'm agreeing with the OP's list, but this is not true.

First the numerical facts:

Blasters do not have the highest damage cap: Brutes do (775% vs 500%)
Blasters do not have the highest melee modifier: Scrappers are higher (1.125) followed by Dominators (1.05) and then Blasters (1.0)
Blasters do not have the highest ranged modifier: Scrappers use the melee modifier for most ranged attacks (1.125) and are tied with Blasters (1.125) if you do not count criticals.

Blasters do not have the highest normalized damage cap (modifer x strength cap): their ranged value (5.625) is exceeded by Brutes (5.813) and Scrappers (5.906 @ 5% crit rate). Controllers and Corruptors can also situationally exceed these numbers (with containment and scourge respectively).

In the specific area of "enhanced non-buffed" AoE damage, Blasters are about numerically tied with Brutes [1.125 * (1.95 + 0.45) = 2.7 vs 0.75 * (1.95 + 1.6) = 2.66] but actually average slightly less AoEs - in terms of non-tier 9 ranged cones and AoEs the average blaster primary has 2.08 AoEs (25 in 12 sets) and the average brute primary has 2.2 (33 in 15 sets). And that doesn't include the fact that Brutes have more AoE potential in their secondaries than Blasters do in their primaries (damage auras are in 40% of secondaries and a couple have actual AoE attacks - Burn, Shield Charge).

Also, for the record, the strongest damage self-buff powers belong to melee archetypes and not blasters: Rage, Power Siphon, Against All Odds, Fiery Embrace.

See, while most people were thinking about what sort of character would be cool to have in the Freedom Phalanx, I was thinking about what the nastiest sort of powerset combination I would want to put into the LRSF.

Or perhaps more directly relevant: Endless September.

He was referring to *mixed* weapon sets, like the OP mentioned: i.e. "claw and blade, claw and axe, claw and mace, axe and blade, axe and mace."

If it helps, the model is doing a half-overlap gait (where if you were doing it in place, half the right foot would overlap half the left foot), and one way to study it in slow motion is to make a character do the walk, run into a wall, and let the character walk against the wall. If you get the angle right, she'll walk in place without sliding to the left or right, and you can then observe the walk from all angles except the front.

When the walk first came out, I took some videos of it so I could watch what it did. I deleted them, but its doesn't take long to capture one that's doing what I describe above like so.

It is a very tough walk to reproduce. Good luck.

You're free to discuss the matter: I'm not specifically saying not to. But I am saying that by policy bugs get fixed. That's a fact, not something that discussion alone alters. And its a policy that would require a better argument than I've ever seen to overturn. Its certainly beyond my ability to even attempt.

I'm not sure if they can give us different chest bodies, but assuming they could (they can give us different looking arms and legs after all) wouldn't that mean every kind of neckline for the "stretched" look would need a different body part, since the upper part of the "stretched" part would be different in each case?

A bug's a bug, the end. If you think this behavior is so valuable, advocate to have it added explicitly as a feature. If the behavior is as overwhelmingly beneficial as you claim it is, generating support for that change should be trivial.