Hydrophidian

I implied nothing of the sort, as clearly indicated by the rest of the post you took the quote from.

That's not sexualization. Again, attractiveness does not equate to sexualization. There's nothing that is explicitly sexually provocative about a man looking manly. If there were, this game would have to be rated M for Mature.

Sexualization is what happens to a female character's chest when the Witch Top is donned. Is there any costume option that makes a man's crotch bulge or makes it look like he's got a banana in his pantleg? No.

Female characters in the canon who are sexualized: Desdemona, Dominatrix, Sister Psyche, Silver Mantis, Bob Cat, Mother Mayhem, Vanessa DeVore.

Male characters in the canon who are sexualized: ...can't think of one.

Ghost Widow hasn't been sexualized. Honestly, I think that's contributed to her popularity. Note, many people still find her sexy. Sexy and sexualized aren't the same thing.

I recently saw Appleseed: Ex Machina. Deunan Knute is a good example of a sexy and strong female character who hasn't been sexualized.

Glad you brought this up.

I want developers to work on all sorts of things, even if I'm not personally interested in them. Because that expands the playerbase, which in turn makes the game more successful, which is good for me and everyone else playing it.

That aside, I don't think expanding character design options is ever a bad thing, because it contributes to character uniqueness, and I think just about everyone appreciates that. Even if you don't use a particular option, someone else will, which further distinguishes them from you.

I'm going to hear her with Dr. Girlfriend's voice from now on.

Or maybe you don't actually get what sexualization is.

Women are clearly more sexualized in this game than men are. One need only look at the costume options to see that.

Attractive != sexualized. Physically idealized != sexualized.

What is nice, though, is that female characters are not locked into it as they are in some other games. And it's possible to bring that aspect into a male character as well, which is rare. I appreciate that.

But if you think that men and women are equally sexualized in this game, well... I'm afraid there's something you're not getting.

Frankly, I'm baffled it's even being debated.

Some?

Oh, good. Except what you offer as an alternative...

...doesn't seem to stand up under scrutiny. Here are some of my problems with it:

- There have been serious clipping issues with many costume pieces for a very long time. Issue 4 introduced a sharp upturn in the amount of clipping players had to work around (or exploit) in character design. I was worried then that a lot of characters would end up looking like crap. That didn't happen. So it should be clear by now that most players will avoid clipping, or even leverage it creatively.

- I look at many of the excluded CoT pieces (big gloves, jeweled belt, back detail), and I can't see how they're any more intrusive than some of the other stuff that's been recently released. Such as, for example, the Celestial pieces.

- Some of the worst clipping I've seen has come out of Booster Packs. I can't even use Valkyrie Wings, because my characters' calves get impaled by the wingtips. Some of the modeling and clipping on the Steampunk pieces--the most recent Booster Pack, I might add--are terrible. Where were these standards of quality then? If these items got the green light, I find it hard to fathom why the excluded CoT pieces didn't.

- Currently, with body scaling and existing clipping issues, players are fully capable of making completely hideous looking characters. So the line, "we reserve the right to withhold these pieces in order to maintain the good looking characters you guys are capable of," seems a bit, I dunno... inconsistent, at best.

While it's nice to get a response, this one has raised more questions for me than it's answered. It strikes me as running oddly counter to the content that's been delivered in the past seven years.

All that aside...

I won't be getting this set anytime soon. Had there been more substantial pieces included, I no doubt would have snapped it up immediately. I think it's important to note that this will be the first costume offering that I'll be taking a pass on. I don't find it to be worth it.

And while I'm on the subject...

I won't be getting any set for which there isn't: 1. screenshots and 2. a readily accessible itemized list of what's included in the set. So far, the presentation and information details of store items have been, I've found, woefully inadequate.

Being able to model these things in the costume creator is nice, but it's not sufficient. We should be told exactly what we're getting. That's, like, merchandising 101. I'm honestly surprised at how lacking the store is in this regard.

What if you didn't have to wait?

Apology accepted!

Yup.

This is pretty much what a friend of mine was doing.

I suspected that, at first, trials would be dominated by melee types. That's what most people seem to favor, and I assumed they'd want to get their favorites set up first.

Now that the 'first wave' is ebbing, I'm guessing we'll soon see a greater mix of ATs as people start moving down their own rosters. It might already be happening, 'cuz I'm almost there myself, and I assume I'm a bit behind the curve in progress.

Yes, lucky to get an attack off...

>>>> AFTER <<<<<

...all the incarnate stuff comes into the picture.

Jeezus!

Get off the overpower issue, please! It's not what I'm talking about. It's a separate issue. I'm talking about Haves and Have Nots specifically. Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Yes, it is. Yes, I determine what it is that I am talking about. I am talking about Haves and Have Nots. Okay? Okay.

Example:

4 people team. Everyone contributes. But 3 of those 4 people then unlock the Incarnate powers. The 4th person now doesn't have anything to offer that the Incarnate powers aren't already providing. 4th person is now redundant.

I've seen this happen already.

The 4th person's option is to also unlock the Incarnate powers. Now that team of 4 will be overkill. But at least they're all on relatively equal footing and can leapfrog or whatever else to deal with the separate overpower issue.

You should know better than to do this.

No, that's not what I'm saying. If I had been saying that, I would've said it. I didn't because I'm not.

What I'm saying is: I have observed that there is a certain rate of speed any given player will be comfortable with. Regardless of where that comfort level is, reaching it by themselves is far more viable with the Incarnate powers. Obviously. Therefore, needing someone else to help facilitate that comfort level is less likely. Incarnate powers directly impact self sufficiency in a way that IOs and such have not.

And, again, I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'm leaning towards liking it right now. Particularly because we're only talking about 50s. The 1-45 game is the same as it ever was.

But the point is: specific roles are diminished by the Incarnate powers. They give characters options they did not have before, things that were typically provided by other teammates. So people who think it's still all going to all be role-based should be aware of that.

No. No, they weren't. That might be the case with the people you run with, but that's not standard in the circles I typically interact with, which run the gamut from hardcore to 'still running on SOs' casual. It does happen, but not often. The Incarnate stuff is having a much greater and immediate impact than previous systems on this kinda thing.

I disagree.

First of all, the process of getting the Incarnate abilities is far, far, far simpler than plotting out and then equipping a high-end IO build. From what I'm seeing, that simplicity is making a difference on how common the Incarnate powers are becoming.

Secondly, the Incarnate powers have had much more of an impact on my own character's soloing speed than her IO build ever did. The same can be said for my friend's ubertank. Maybe this effect isn't as pronounced with damage dealers, characters who're already built to farm, etc. But those characters are already in the 'self sufficent' camp anyway. The Incarnate stuff is shifting many more characters into that camp, characters that previously couldn't reside there no matter how ubertastic their build was.

My IO builds just mostly amplify what my characters are. The Incarnate stuff expands on what they are. My Defender can now practically one-shot every third mob of critters, she no longer has to be all that concerned with mezzes, and her Lore pets can wreck mobs all on their own. It's a dramatic difference in play experience. With an IO build, she did the same thing she always did. She was just much better at it and tougher. Now she's doing things that used to be provided by others.

Actually, no. My own character didn't come into it. I was responding to Megajoule, trying to illustrate how several characters packing Diamagentic and everything else can effectively cancel out the need for a Rad. The entire premise was based on the assumption of need.

So, this tangent started with Megajoule's post and my whole initial point was: it's going to be less about individual ATs (Have Nots) and more about just overall character power (Haves). That's it. Therefore, I think unlocking this stuff should be as accessible as possible, because individual niches and roles are being diluted, and the people who've depended on those roles as their specific contribution are likely to be frustrated and disappointed as a result. I became conversational about my own misgivings, and that's what you apparently chose to latch onto.

And I think the Incarnate system has effectively cut ahead in that line for a very significant number of people. The day after i20 launched, I was already seeing "+3 level looking for raid" in broadcast. Many people who I know were very, very slow to warm to IOs are already throwing 3rd tier Judgments around and showing off their Lore pets. Only time will tell for sure, but I'm already getting the impression that the Incarnate stuff will be FAR more prevalent than multi-billion IO builds--or even cheap IO builds--ever were.

Which is part of why I'd like to see the devs facilitating as much buy-in on this system as possible.

No, what I'm talking about is an issue of Haves and Have Nots. When a character's particular contribution to the team is suddenly covered by everyone else's new Incarnate goodies, that character is no longer required.

Of course, the character can then get outfitted with the same goodies, putting them back in the game, so to speak... but then you have this homogenization going on (not sure how I feel about that), as well as the power issue you've mentioned. And while, yes, that power issue has been around forever, it's looking like it might now become very wide-spread... much more prevalent than it's ever been before. That's one development I'm genuinely worried about.

I'm not talking about people's feelings. I'm talking about real dynamics and developments I'm seeing taking shape in the game right now, only one week after the introduction of the Incarnate trials. Characters who would've been contributing to the success of a team two weeks ago are now redundant. The Tanker who needed a Blaster to speed things up doesn't really need that Blaster anymore. The Blaster doesn't really need the Defender, and so on. My own Incarnated character's solo speed and efficiency has increased dramatically, and she's not even maxed out yet. Obviously, this is also going to impact her contribution on a team, and for every other Incarnate on the team that effect is multiplied.

In short, post-Incarnate play is shaping up to be very different from pre-Incarnate play, and I'm not convinced the two can comfortably coexist together. Which is why I'd like to see multiple paths available for making the transition.

The best way to neutralize Ghost Widow depends on who's joining the team and what characters they want to play. For me, debuffing Widow's brains out usually ends up being part of the strategy. Regardless, if she's dropped in a timely manner without anyone being smished in the process, it's sufficient enough for me. However, whether it's debuffs or buffs, the point is, with all the things Incarnate powers bring to the table, characters who traditionally provided such buffs and debuffs won't be necessary anymore.

In the dynamic I'm starting to see hints of, it's not going to matter what AT you have. The only thing that will matter is whether or not you have all the Incarnate goodies.

For all these years, my main has been a Defender, her survival forever chained to a dependence on those little purple chicklets, no matter how powerful she'd otherwise become.

Now, at long last, that chain has been broken. It's glorious. It's liberating. I'm giddy. I taunt Carnie lllusionists and Chief Mesmerists just to revel in the freedom of it. There are all sorts of traditionally vexing mobs that I really can't wait to smack around now.

At the same time, though, I recognize that this new level of independence means no one else need protect me anymore. It diminishes someone else's potential contribution. And not only that, I can make that same contribution myself.

Rad? Yah, I've enjoyed the glory that is Rad. My Illusion/Rad has often hobbled opponents who were otherwise seemingly insurmountable. My Rad/Rad is still, to this day, the most disgustingly broken early game experience I've ever had (soloing red Igneous bosses at lvl 14? No problem!).

But, of my regular play group, at least--at least--four of us have gone down the Diamagnetic path with our mains. Rad? We won't need no steenkin' Rad! We gotchyer Rad right here in our attack chains! Ghost Widow, arguably the biggest threat in the STF (and consequently the biggest attraction for my debuffers) will be completely screwed just with the Incarnate stuff being thrown at her. Those debuffers need not come along for the ride any longer.

And I'm not sure if that's a bad thing or not. Sure, damage dealers are going to be doing stuff that they used to want me around for, but on the same token, I don't need their damage so much anymore either.

What worries me, however, are the Have Nots. What worries me is playing, say, an SKed character--level 35-40 or so--with a team full of people who all have these goodies. I used to be able to make some sort of meaningful contribution with such a character, but in these new dynamics? I might be lucky to get an attack off. Not too thrilled with the prospect of that. And what about my 50s who're not yet goodies-laden? Do I just make 'em exempsluts? I dunno.

Anywho, this is why I think the end game stuff needs to be very accessible, with multiple path options available to unlock these things. They don't have to be easy. They don't have to be as expedient as the trial path (though I do think they should be in the same general ballpark), but I think they should be out there. And sooner rather than later.

If you've played the game long enough, it's not a difficult thing to assess. Nor is it difficult to demonstrate, if there's any doubt about it. Just hang back for a couple of mobs and watch.

I've been playing this game consistently for almost seven years now. I know when my character is contributing in very important, specific ways (even if my teammates don't). I know when my character is pulling their weight, even if their contribution isn't particularly distinctive (I love themed teams, for example: all Defenders, or all Stalkers, or all Dual Blades, or all Stormies).

I also know when my character's participation is clearly superfluous.

Now, when that happens, it still might not bother me. I still might be contributing, just as a player, with organization and/or knowledge and experience. Or, if I'm teamed with friends, really, who cares? Sometimes I'm being carried, sometimes I'm the one doing the carrying. What ultimately matters is the company, so don't sweat it, right?

I do have a line, though. If I feel as if a particular character is being routinely marginalized, that does start to get on my nerves after a while. I doubt anyone likes feeling like their character is a fifth wheel. Some of us just have a greater tolerance for that sorta thing. But I do believe we all have a line about it, somewhere.

There was a point in the early days of the game when Invulnerability Scrappers were well and truly broken. They didn't need anyone, could rip through just about anything. As someone who strongly favors support characters, just seeing an Invulnerability Scrapper join the team was enough to make me cringe, as it generally meant my role had just become irrelevant. There was one memorably egregious situation where three of us (two Defenders and a Tank) got to lay around defeated in the reactor room while one of these Scrappers soloed the rest of the respec trial (yes, this is back when it was actually difficult). <sarcasm> Woo, what fun! </sarcasm>. That's an example of when my own line was crossed.

With this Incarnate content, the developers are risking a reemergence of these skewed dynamics. I'm starting to see them in the actual trials; the gap between the Haves and the Have Nots is becoming easier to detect. Not a concern, really, because the trials are entirely about closing that gap anyway.

On the other hand, outside the trials is potentially a very different story. While most of the people I know are doing these raids, some aren't. Outside the trials, those people are getting to hang back and spectate while the Incarnates on their teams giddily revel in their power and blow through everything. That's gonna get old, fast.

Well, they should just do the trials then, right? Sure. Except, maybe that's not so easy an answer. Maybe they have clunky systems and they crash in the raids. Maybe they don't like being surrounded by strangers. Maybe they're only playing during off hours. Or maybe they just don't like the style of the content, which, frankly, is entirely valid.

While I don't subscribe to the sentiment that launched this thread, I do understand it, and I recognize that a lot of people share it. Yah, they might be a minority, but I'm willing to bet they're a pretty significant minority. I'd rather not see them shut out.

Due to the scope and long-term impact of the end game system, I would like to see it be as broadly accessible as possible. While I don't agree that "multi-group content is not the way", I would agree that: multi-group content should not be the only way. Not for a system such as this. Its influence on the rest of the game is too great.

And for my own sake too. While I've enjoyed the raid stuff so far, the idea of now repeating that content with the other 50s in my roster isn't terribly attractive. I really hope some alternate paths are being planned. Not just for the sake of the different playstyle preferences that are out there, but also for the sake of variety and freshness.

Yah, I see a lot of people doing BAF and enjoying it. I've been enjoying it myself, for the most part. Right now, on Virtue, it doesn't take much effort to gather an entire BAF league together, with folks on the side waiting for the next open spot. Most of the trouble is in finding a zone empty enough to put everybody. So yah, BAF does seem to be a success.

Lambda, on the other hand, is a whole different story. A very different story indeed. I'm lucky to find a team of 8 for it, nevermind 16. A lot of people seem disinclined to tackle it (with strangers, anyway), and I've now seen quite a few folks on BAF leagues declaring their hate for the Lambda scenario. At this point, I've all but given up on pugging it. I'm going to have to prearrange a full league for it.

So, I'd disagree that the trials are being enjoyed. I think the BAF trial is being enjoyed. Lambda... not so much. I think it's not nearly as accessible to casual play, and my impression is that a large segment of the community, on Virtue at least, agrees with me.

I'm referring specifically to the practices often described by people making these claims (there's one described in this very thread).

I don't engage in those practices.

Well, as you were one of the participants in the effort, I'll defer to your estimation of its success... or lack thereof.

But... if marketeers actually had the level of control and power that's sometimes attributed to them, such an effort should have created more than a fleeting dip in price.

On that front, it failed to demonstrate what some people keep claiming is the way things work on the market.

To engage in swindling, overcharging, or the like.

You of all people should know that this road can only lead to madness.