Lothic

I agree that "lack of understanding" can be a negative in any situation like this. I simply contend that an incredibly well-written pilot/treatment could override that negative. Except for that near-miss last year NO ONE has managed to be skillful enough to make Wonder Woman work -despite- the negatives.

Again if was easy to write for Wonder Woman it would have happened already. We've already had shows like Xena and Buffy the Vampire Slayer which both lasted for many years so we know that shows with lead characters "similar" to Wonder Woman can happen. Wonder Woman herself must be the problem.

As I've been saying ALL ALONG Marvel has problems creating good stories/shows as well. Just because I think some characters are harder for writers to tackle than others doesn't mean DC can't have some successes and Marvel can't have some failures.

I simply think it's no real surprise that Marvel has managed to get a good string of movies going yet DC hasn't. DC is working with a stable of characters that simply makes it HARDER (not impossible, mind you, just harder) to do. *shrugs*

I have no idea if the specific writers who tried to get that Wonder Woman TV show going last year were uniquely crappy writers or not.

But even if they were how does that excuse any -other- writer who's tried to sell a Wonder Woman pilot to a network for the last 35 years? Apparently Wonder Woman has not been an easy character for ANYONE to write a show/movie for in all these years, not just those particular goofs from last year's attempt.

Eh, I didn't really consider that point too much one way or the other. It'll probably make the headlines for a few days (especially if it's a main character like Wonder Woman) but ultimately people will either accept it or not and move on.

But it does seem rather "coincidental" that DC made this announcement just a week after Obama's historic declaration on same-sex unions. *shrugs*

I guess what makes Dumbledore's case a little bit different was that Rowling made her decree about him while the primary stories/movies about him were still being made. His character had not really been set in stone after decades of being established one way or the other the way a Lex Luthor or Wonder Woman has been.

Let's just say having Rowling arbitrarily decide which "team" Dumbledore played for was weird enough, but it would have been even weirder if she had waited like 30 or 40 years before she released that info.

I think we're basically in agreement. Like I said I -don't- favor characters getting rewritten just on an apparent political correctness whim.

I realize that even if the guy who originally created (pick a random character...) Jimmy Olsen always envisioned him to be non-hetero you can't really go against 50+ years of character history just because -now- it's more acceptable in popular culture to have LGBT characters in the comics than it used to be.

Let them go and create a whole bunch of new characters that are of any sexual orientation imaginable. But just because it's OK for Jimmy to be non-straight now doesn't mean it makes any sense to "magically" declare him to be that way.

Yes, but when was the last time you -wrote- a comic book? Obviously fans of characters like Superman like him for all sort or reasons. I'm not arguing against any of that.

I'm simply stating that from a WRITER'S point of view writing for characters who are as rigidly defined as Superman or Wonder Woman (with all the omnipotence baggage that come along with them) is generically harder to deal with than characters who have many more "relateable" human flaws.

As another case in point you'll probably recall there was a recent attempt (last year) to create a new Wonder Woman TV show. Basically the reason it failed to launch was that the writers of that show didn't really have a good clue what her character was about and couldn't really come up with a "workable" version that the fans didn't instantly rip apart. If the Wonder Woman character was EASY to write for we probably would have had half-a-dozen TV shows based on her by now.

The whole idea of "outing" a character like this just seems like something to do just because they can, not because it would actually improve anything. It's sort of like how Rowling "outed" Dumbledore almost on a whim. As far as I know it didn't really help or hurt his character in any way. It was like she did it just because she could.

Trust me I have nothing against representing LGBT characters in comics. I just don't like characters getting majorly "re-imagined" for no legitimate reason either. I'd feel the same way if there was a non-hetro character that was suddenly rewritten to be straight. What's the point except it being some kind of publicity stunt?

I guess it might be Supergirl as much as anyone else. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but has she ever had a serious boyfriend or male love interest in any of the comics? I know there was one in that horribly campy 80s era Supergirl movie, but I mean has she ever had a serious, long time boyfriend in any of the other comic book canon?

Trying to hand-wave away my premise that DC and Marvel treat these things differently doesn't really make my argument go away. Just because you don't wish to "see" the fundamental difference doesn't mean it's not there.

How do you write a story about a character who could do almost literally anything he wanted, has a hyper-strict moral code that never changes (unless you toss some weird-colored kryptonite at him) and almost literally can't be hurt by anything except the kryptonite? How do you realistically threaten or challenge that guy from a story point of view? As I said before it's not completely impossible.

But by the same token a huge number of cool story ideas that will NEVER apply to that "super" man could easily apply to a "non-powered" expert-assassin archer guy. You could explore countless plotlines anywhere from moral failings to fear of gunshot wounds. The archer guy is so much more "relateable" to the human audience that a writer writing for him has a practically bottomless well of plots ideas to draw upon compared to the super-god guy who can't be hurt and will never have a moral failing. The archer-guy can grow and evolve because what can or can't affect him is not fixed in stone. Characters which by definition can't change are fundamentally harder to write stories for, period.

If it makes it any easier for you I'd be willing to say that every comic book character has a characterization that is either more or less applicable to the real human audience reading their stories regardless if they are DC or Marvel characters. As I implied before Batman already breaks the "rules" as far as that goes. I'm simply making the generalization that you tend to find more characters on one side of that spectrum at DC and characters of the other side of the spectrum at Marvel.

A generalization is just what it implies. One more time I'm not saying that all Marvel stories are good or that all DC stories are bad. I'm simply saying it's ABSOLOUTELY understandable why WB can't get its act together when you are willing to understand the challenges they face compared to the Marvel movie folks. Put bluntly most of DC's characters do not lend themselves to good movies as history and current events plainly prove. Case in point do you really think it's an "accident" there hasn't been a Wonder Woman movie/TV show in 35 years?

And I'm pretty sure you missed my point 100%.

One more time I have never said that it was impossible to write good stories for DC characters. I have enjoyed many good stories based on these characters for decades and for what it's worth I actually tend to prefer DC over Marvel.

I simply maintain my premise that in general the basic nature of many DC characters make them more inflexible to the collective human condition most of us relate to. This makes writing "good" stories for these kinds of characters more difficult than many of the more "humanly flawed" Marvel characters. Writing stories about characters that are more like your audience is always easier.

For the most part DC characters are already perfect and self-actualized. Sure there have been fun stories about Superman trying to learn how to live life as Clark Kent and sure he makes mistakes along the way. But even as Clark Kent he's already the paragon of justice and morality - there is no doubt what he stands for and no doubt he will do anything to preserve the Greater Good. On the other hand many Marvel characters are "grittier" and more morally questionable. They experience more doubts and question their role in the world. Characters like these are far more relatable to the "flawed" human audience and thus there's far more material to explore story-wise. Writers simply have an easier time coming up with stories for these kinds of "less than perfect" characters. Why do you think the best DC movies in the last few years have been Nolan's Batman? It's because Batman is very much more like a "humanly flawed" Marvel character than he is a standard DC one.

Just because it's easier to write stories for Marvel character doesn't guarantee that Marvel stories are -always- better than DC stories. There have been plenty of Marvel stinkers over the years. I just accept that it tends to be easier for writers to work with characters who aren't stoically perfect and the fact that WB has not been able to get a coordinated movie "tapestry" going is symptomatic of that.

Avengers was a very good movie, and I have no doubt we'll probably get many new spinoffs/sequels from it for years to come. But I think time will have to tell if it becomes a "cultural phenomena" the likes of Star Wars.

Star Wars became as big as it did because it effectively established a new sci-fi based religion. I understand some people will probably quibble over my equating Star Wars to a religion, but if you compare how other real religions got their start you'll see quite a few parallels between the two, especially if you consider how many people were genuinely affected and consider Star Wars to be "life-altering" for them even today. Heck, last I heard Jediism was literally an officially recognized religion in Australia.

Will Avengers spawn a pseudo-religious experience for millions of people like Star Wars has? Somehow I doubt it in the long run. But I will agree that as far as mega-popular franchises go it'll certainly be one of the biggest for the foreseeable future.

*sigh* Sort of forgot about that one - probably my sanity trying to subconsciously defend itself.

Basically the very concept of a "Micheal Bay movie that doesn't bomb" is undeniable proof that people are still selling their souls to the Devil and still getting magically impossible things for making those deals.

For what it's worth if a "Michael Bay" type movie has to exist I'd almost rather it come directly from the source. The scary idea that people are trying their best to "copy the Bay formula" is more depressing to me than Bay himself making money from his own tripe.

Welcome to last week when I said:

Apparently my prediction came true.

I think the key problem here is that for many people the "paid time" data is either incorrect and/or doesn't properly reflect things like retail codes or VIP time. The Devs have basically lost the ability (at least since the start of CoH:Freedom) to accurately tell how much paid versus free time anyone has anymore. And again I would argue that they NEVER had a complete 100% handle on that kind of thing for everyone anyway.

In a perfect world it would be nice if the Devs could base these badges on some version of the "paid time" concept. But I think it's sadly clear this will never happen. I will readily admit my solution to this problem is simply a practical brute-force workaround for a problem that likely can't be solved any other way.

Incarnate content and level shifts. Your wish has been fulfilled...

When you consider that there are other big blockbusters coming up in the next few weeks this opening weekend for Battleship was likely going to be its only serious chance in the theaters. Hopefully this'll put an end to the "Michel Bay-esque" type movie for the foreseeable future - we can only hope...

Yes I have to agree with Ironblade on this. People have been getting the same "hope to have a fix implemented in an upcoming patch" answer to this specific issue since CoH:Freedom launched last year.

If you read this kind of diplomatically worded response carefully you'll realize you can expect a fix to something like this sometime between 5 minutes from now and the heat-death of the Universe. It's just about as neutrally non-committal as a Dev/GM/CS type person can get...

The one little desire I've had for roughly 8 years now is to have a version of the female "Bikini 2" item textured in the "shiny" style.
I've always wanted to make a unitard outfit with the existing "tights shiny" top matching with a shiny version of the "Bikini 2" bottoms.

Surely something like that would be trivial for the great Dink to accomplish.

I have a friend who is semi-retired from this game. She has been wanting boots like this in this game for so many years that I literally think she'd be willing to resubscribe back as a full VIP player if these one type of boots were offered.

I'm not against Nova crashes because Judgment powers have now allowed other ATs to have their own "mini-novas". I don't really care about that issue. I'm against Nova crashes because I've compared the pros and cons of using my Tier 9 Novas versus my Judgment powers on the characters (like Blasters) who can have both at the same time.

Basically if I'm faced with a situation where I could either use my Tier 9 Nova or my Judgement power I would probably use my Judgement power 99 times out of a 100 despite the fact that the Nova would probably do far more damage. The fact that the Nova tends to suffer from a huge END crash paired with the idea that its recharge tends to be much slower than the Judgement means there's practically -no- reason to ever use my Tier 9 Nova under any circumstances. I consider that a serious game balance problem.

Now whether that means that Judgements tend to be far too easy to use or that the old Tier 9 Novas are now too restrictive that's hard to say. But if the Devs do not have a problem with the way Judgements are working now then I would submit that its time for a review of some of the qualities of the old Tier 9s that make them so much -less- desirable than the newer Judgment powers.

Basically Incarnate powers should not make Tier 9 powers effectively pointless.

Yes it is true that I've been playing this game for a long time. But to clarify what I said I have been able to fully afford many complete builds using various ATO/PvP/HO/IOs worth billions of Influence without -any- serious use of Reward Merits. I've probably only spent maybe a grand total of 500 Reward Merits across ALL of my characters in all the years I've played this game. That's why in addition to the 12,000 or so account-based Merits I mentioned before many of my characters have thousands of their own personal Merits gathering dust. If I had a way to trade them to you I would.

I'm not trying to argue that Reward Merits are strictly useless. I'm just pointing out that if you feel you are being limited by the number of Reward Merits you can get there are alternative ways to accomplish things in this game without them.

Eh, I don't see that as being particularly "mean" parent-wise. If I were overseeing kids playing this game I probably wouldn't want them (depending on the kid) to play unhidden at least until 12 or 13 anyway.

Unfortunately I've seen some cases where people have innocently claimed to be like 10 years old in chat and then get totally berated and mocked by idiots who couldn't handle the fact that those players were doing well enough playing the game regardless.

I agree there -ought- to be an optional spell-checker in the bio editor that can be toggled on and off as needed. But since it's easy enough to type bios offline and then just cut-n-paste them into the game I'd consider the priority on that "fix" to be very low.

On the other hand I'm willing to say that having a spell-checker in chat would almost not be worth it. Far too many people use reasonable abbreviations and "stylized misspellings" for a checker to be all that useful. It's pretty much accepted that chatting is a quick-n-dirty form of communication and I really don't think anyone is seriously bothered by seeing a few spelling or grammar errors there. Besides most of the time it would take far too much time to backup, correct a highlighted error and then send the chat than it would be to just fire it off and move on. Again I would consider updating the chat for spell checking to be a very low priority issue at best.

For what it's worth I enjoy using the snipes on my characters who have them. I'm probably one of the few who don't have an extreme hatred with the way they work now. I've never been a totally "omgmusthavemaxdpseverysecond" type player either so I enjoy some of the tactical intangibles sniping provides.

Having said that would I be adverse to some kind of improvement in the sniping mechanic in general? Probably not. But to be honest it's not really bothering me that some kind of improvement like this hasn't happened yet. Frankly I'm more annoyed by the Nova crashes (in light of the way Judgement powers now work) than I ever was at snipes.