Liquid

Yeah, it wasn't really clearly stated that way in this thread (hence the OP's continued confusion about it in the post I quoted), so I thought it should be clarified. However, I didn't want to state that it fired off if you missed because I wasn't sufficiently sure of it. So I threw out that second idea as the only other possibility I could think of.

On a related note, does Illusion: Blind fire its AoE sleep even if the hold misses?

This is a good point. If Gauntlet only fires off on a hit, then with a 95% tohit chance you still should never have 2 consecutive misses, or 1 miss followed by a to-hit roll. The second attack after a miss should still trigger the streakbreaker, because the attack before it missed.

I think this means that either Gauntlet fires off even on a miss, or it performs tohit checks but somehow doesn't have a taunt effect unless the source attack hits (which sounds unlikely to me, but may be possible with pseudo pets and/or temp powers as far as I know).

What sucks is that when this piece of garbage fails, they're going to once again claim that it's because "audiences don't like female superheroes".

Xena is probably the closest thing we'll ever get to a decent portrayal of Wonder Woman.

As I remembered reading the first comics after she showed up again, when the X-Men saw her, they did not show any surprise about her being in someone else's body. If it was originally intended for her to have switched bodies, you'd think they wouldn't recognize her. Now, it's been over two decades since I read that comic, so I could be wrong (and as you'll see below it sounds like I must be-- I wish I still had my old x-men comics so I could see exactly when they first commented on it), but I remember learning about Revanche later and saying "what? That doesn't make any sense" instead of "oh, so that's why they didn't recognize her".

However, I've done some googling, and apparently Chris Claremont did indeed intend for her to be changed to look Asian. He just meant for it to have been done through magic and plastic surgery by Mandarin and Spiral. So, the Revanche thing is a retcon, but I was wrong that it was done to explain why Jim Lee started drawing her that way (and to be honest, I didn't even notice that she was supposed to look Japanese when he did it at first, I thought it was just his way of drawing her). Chris had intended for her race to change after emerging from the Siege Perilous, and the Revanche retcon was done for some other reason (maybe they didn't like the magic and plastic surgery thing, I don't know). Then later writers cranked up the convoluted backstory to 11.

Here's the article where Chris says he hates the Revanche thing, and here's one that goes into more detail on everything that was done to her (and claims that her teammates didn't recognize her, which I don't remember at all, but again, that was over 20 years ago).

So anyway, yeah, the Revanche thing was a retcon. But her becoming Asian was actually a decision made by her creator. I don't want to get into an argument about race-changing (those threads ALWAYS get locked), but while it's one thing to retcon a character into being a different race, it's another thing entirely to do it while maintaining their original family members and history. It's... so weird.

For the record, I like the character design of the post-siege perilous Psylocke better than the one from before it. I just think making her physically Japanese was totally unnecessary and bizarre-- having her embrace Japanese culture and training like Wolverine has would have been great, and far less confusing. As much as I thought I loved him as a kid, I've realized that Claremont seems to confuse character development with radical physical and power alterations. I think the whole secondary mutation thing is dumb, too (I realize that was Morrison, but I'm saying I feel the same way about it).

Right, but she's not a Japanese national hero. She's not wearing a flag or anything. I was just saying that she's not a good example for this particular thread.

Honestly, though, it was just an excuse to express annoyance at her ridiculous backstory. I hope you aren't taking it as me jumping on you for being "wrong wrong wrong" or anything.

Nitpick: I know her body is Japanese due to a ridiculous retcon to explain why Jim Lee started drawing her that way, but Psylocke is British. She's the sister of Captain Britain, and was, in fact, Captain Britain herself for a time. She's not a good example of a Japanese national superhero.

The Sunfire example is good, though.

My opinion on the topic is that, unlike most of the fantasy genre, a superhero or supervillain's costume is a critical part of his/her identity. Identity should not be locked behind anything, and should be fully available at character creation. I won't complain about having "fancy" versions of costume parts being locked away (I'd rather they weren't, but I won't complain about it), as long as the basic version is available at level 1. I never had much of a problem with the Roman pieces, as you can make a passable Roman out of the basic items that we have at creation. However, I think it's ridiculous that we still have to wait until level 20 to wear a simple, one-color, rectangular, cloth cape in the premier superhero MMO.

If these Incarnate costume parts are just fancier versions of costume items we already have, I'll shrug and move on. But if they lock something character-defining like jetpack back items behind Incarnate trials, then I'm going to think it's stupid.

On this topic, I once had the opportunity to get what I would consider to be my absolute dream job. I did well on the test (or at least, I got the impression that I did), and they flew me there for an interview. I made a ton of mistakes in that interview (some of which are hilarious in retrospect), and I'd say this is the number one mistake I made: I did not give them the impression that I cared or thought deeply about the questions they asked, or game design in general. If I gave an answer that I thought they disagreed with or didn't like, I immediately shut up and didn't defend it or further clarify myself. I tried to answer their questions literally, instead of saying "well, let me give you a better example of what I think you're trying to learn about my thought processes when it comes to game design". I was so terrified of expressing an opinion they would disagree with, assuming that it would lessen my chances at getting hired, that I think I gave them the impression that I had no professional integrity.

I thought I was maximizing my potential for landing the job by showing that I was willing to compromise, when I was actually minimizing it.

Hey Eva, back in Issue 5, after Croatoa was released, I requested a Praetorian Earth zone.

*runs*

I hadn't thought of it that way. Also, I did see another indirect insult of this kind (and it indirectly insulted me, by the way), and let it slide, both because I didn't want people to think I was jumping on people I disagreed with, and because that same person (not going to name them) also had a lot to say that was on-topic.

Also, one of the reasons I specifically responded to DanZero's (not the person mentioned above) post to thank him was that I made this thread more to hear the reasoning behind different opinions from mine, because I didn't feel that I'd heard much reasoning behind those who disagreed with me (and in the course of it, I've shifted my opinion due to those posts). If people popped in here, saw a bunch of people in agreement about how they like/don't like the powers or like/don't like whatever, they might say "meh, if I post my opinion, they'll belittle me for it" and leave. And DanZero thought exactly that (but fortunately posted anyway).

That being said, the derail led to both DanZero's full response to the OP, and the resulting comment from Void Huntress about new players thinking Praetoria is the "real world", which was something I'd never thought about.

Good advice.

This thread has gotten off-track enough times and gotten back on enough that I think I'm going to give up, and just hope that the signal outweighs the noise. Even if the noise is off topic from the OP, if it's interesting, that's worth it. And your post was. I do hope people continue responding to the OP though.

I agree with this. I think my opinion on the pets has been stated enough. I don't think they'll delay the slot.

I don't think that's going to happen, because people from the sneak peak are saying that the Lore slot has a level shift in it.

I think all people that don't like the pets can do at this point is ask for other options down the line (probably not for several issues, since they work so far ahead).

Dan is responding that way because of a misunderstanding. He thought I was belittling him. I'm glad he posted that (though it could have been worded nicer), because it allowed me to respond and then get the following post, which had a great point about giving everyone a larger toolbox, and the gameplay opportunities it allows.

Let's just stop with the fighting and get back to discussion, okay? I hate doing this.

Edit: This is a good point, and is the reason I'd like to get back to discussion:

I'm sorry if it came off that way, I'm trying to encourage people with that. There was no snark intended.

I don't have a secret goal of convincing the world that the pets suck. My "secret" goal is to hear other perspectives on the topic, and I've already seen several that have made me think differently about Incarnate powers, including those that like or don't care about the lore. If you have anything else to share, I'd love to hear it.

And thanks again to everyone that has responded with their thoughts on the topic.

When I mentioned Tank-Mages, I was referring to the original complaint that "people will be able to solo everything and won't need anyone else". That's what I consider to be the definition of a Tank-Mage. I didn't want to talk about that.

If you're saying that homogeneity is inevitable as you add more powers, that's an interesting response. I'd like to hear more if you have any more to say on the subject.

Because they weren't insulting posters. There's nothing uncivil about saying that you don't like a power (and I did ask for opinions on the powers). The Lore pets aren't going to feel the need to defend themselves, and then other people argue against their defenses for the rest of the thread like posters will when you call their opinions "tantrums". That's how threads get derailed, and immediately following your post it started happening.

Tank-mages were specifically not what I was trying to discuss.

This has been a remarkably civil thread. Did you have to start this here?

Understatement of the thread.

BAB got death threats after Issue 13.

You might enjoy arguing with me, but arguing with you leads to madness and sweaty palms. Not that it matters, because I can't really disagree with your post at all.

But that doesn't mean we can't have a discussion!

The one thing I feel that is lacking is opportunity cost with respect to the slots themselves. The great thing about Patron and Epic pools is that if you don't feel like they fit you, you can just take more Primary/Secondary/Pool powers instead. With Incarnates, if you've got a character for whom you don't want one of the 4 elemental powers in Judgement, you have to just skip it. In the short run, that means filling other slots faster, which is great, and encourages diversity! In the long run, it means having one less power when all of your teammates have it, and they might be relying on you to have it.

But since it's too late to have the slots themselves require you to choose among them (like, if they'd had us choose 6 out of 10 or something), I'm honestly more interested in having more base options (especially for Lore) than deeper trees, though your ideas are interesting, and definitely provide a form of opportunity cost.

We'll see what happens.

What do you think of that in terms of game design, and this game's design in particular? I remember you talking about mechanical homogeneity in the past. I'm curious about your thoughts as they relate to Incarnates, and the possible long-term results.

I'm not going to argue with you about it, I just want to know your thoughts.

I want to be clear that I meant no disdain in my post when I used that word. Some people like homogeneity. I also like it depending on the circumstances.

I've been reading all of the posts in here, and I don't think you're the voice of dissent. Several have expressed similar feelings.

Thanks for posting your feelings on the topic.

You're right. That really should be an "if", not a "when". I've changed it.

And thanks, everyone, for responding, and for reposting to answer the questions if you did. I appreciate it, and find the responses very interesting.