Oedipus_Tex

Sidebar: I'm not sure I'm convinced that "literally" means "figuratively" now. I think "literally" has a meaning that is impossible to define but instantly clear to most native speakers of English. It means something like "so intensely that it could almost be real," but I'm not sure that definition covers it either. I don't feel any of the online dictionaries I looked at really cover the full meaning of the word or its usual context. I know it's dangerous business disagreeing with the dictionaries in general, but in the case of this word I think its too contentious to call.


Main thread: "Decimate" in its original, literal sense is a pretty useless word IMO. The only reason to keep it in the dictionary is the figurative meaning. I personally associate it with the idea of "killing a portion of."


Sidebar 2: Just for fun, since we are talking about words migrating from their origins, check out these words (with links back to the Online Etymology Dictionary to provide more background):

Nice: stupid, senseless

Amuse: beguile, delude, cheat

Gentle: well-born (retained in "gentleman")

Daft: gentle, becoming

Snack: bite or snap

Quintessence/Quintessential: Literally the "fifth essence" or "fifth element," referring to the element beyond the classic 4 (air, earth, water, fire) that metaphysically permeate all things, soon after expanded to include current definition of "purest essence."

Of course he wasn't. The only thing he can do is dress his own toons how he wants to. The fact that he likes to see women dressed a certain way is not degrading, nor is it "telling" anyone they have to do anything just to please him. It's an expression of personal desire. The only way it translates into a game discussion at all is that if the pieces he likes stop being made, he personally cannot continue dressing his characters in new outfits he personally likes.

I personally like to see hot shirtless guys. If hot guys could just never wear shirts I would be fine with that. But the fact that I would like this does not mean that I am "telling" all guys they need to be shirtless all the time.


For the record, I think trying to link any poster's opinions on their own character's wardrobe to sexism, conscious or unconscious, is claiming moral high ground that doesn't exist.

To be perhaps excessively political, IMO the primary issue with the LFG tool is that it assumes that leagues organized as true democracies versus autocracies have equal chances of success.

I would say about 1/2 to 1/3rd of the victory chances in incarnate content rests on having a strong leader. This person's role isn't just to direct players. They also have to set the parameters for badge completion, organize teams, handle criticism from outspoken members, react to mistakes made by the league, and serve as a central cheerleader who encourages people to come back.

I am, I think, a pretty good player. I am NOT a strong leader. Put me in that position with 23 other players and I will do anything to get away from it. One time the LFG tool made me the league leader of a Lambda, and, unable to figure out how to move players from team to team, I just hit the Quit League button to escape. I also got tagged as Desdemona's escort one time, and though I toughed it out til the end, I spent the whole trial worried I would mess up and have 23 angry players screaming at me. I am grateful for the players who step up to the plate to perform these roles. I think a lot of players are very uncomfortable filling them.


I should add one thing that I haven't really seen commented on, unrelated to the quote above. Part of the reason trials have toggle-button boss difficulty is that if the league runs in and half the team quickly wipes, any Lore pets they had will be dead for the remainder of the fight. This is a HUGE loss in DPS, and I very strongly suspect its why I have only ever seen the end boss of the Underground defeated in the first two minutes with very few deaths, or stuck in a 15 minute stalemate with players unable to make its HP budge.

No promises on accuracy (although the article has many references), but this site has a fairly well written discussion of the topic: http://www.randomhistory.com/1-50/036heels.html

Assuming the purple patch works the same way as with the 1-50 stretch, the AV would be +6 to you, so I believe your attacks would do 15% of normal damage (that, is, have an 85% damage debuff) before resistance from armor is factored in. You would also take 66% more damage from the AV.

In other words, it's not quite as bad as showing up for Apex or Tin Mage without an alpha slot (8 level difference between character penalized at -4 levels and the +4 enemies). But with that amount of debuff don't expect to do much to the AV other than provide support.

[Note that in a current best-case scenario, level 53s also suffer penalties fighting the AV. They all fight him at -3. But the difference between -3 and -6 is very large. I'm having a hard time finding the words to explain it, but basically the gap between 50 and 53 (3 levels) versus a level 56 is not the same as the gap between 50 and 53 (also 3 levels) versus a level 53. It's the level difference from the target that matters. I believe that is why Tier 1 Mastermind pets were buffed in trials to no longer be -6.]

You can, of course, still very easily kill civilians and fail the trial for everyone.

Well, there is the literal path, like this:



Note that the Gunslinger pack didn't come with either tights or a new face, so the player has to pick for themselves. If someone wants to read that as "sexy" I can't really stop them but to me it's a subversion.

As for whether some people are making serious characters with costumes similar to what some players are making in parody, there's only so much you can do with just the clothing piece. If someone thinks a sorority girl in a plate mail bikini is serious business that is their own affair. To me it's literally an electronic drag performance.

My take on it is that cheesecake player-characters are only possible if the player intentionally creates them. This game isn't a Sword and Sorcery RPG where you have to wear certain kinds of armor, and everyone is basically human. I think we've talked in the past about how debates about revealing clothes are pretty subjective, when what you could be talking about is whether a robot or lizard-person is showing too much leg. Sexiness is very easy to subvert, and even one costume piece that is out of alignment (like a hideous face or hairy legs) can result in comedy or even revulsion.

Now, for the kind of characters I and some other players tend to roll, subversion is the entire point. The pieces I need are generally extreme, exaggerated, and readable at a distance. Actual sexiness is not really a consideration.

I do think a few of my characters are "attractive," including the Oedipus Tex model itself. But generally if I'm using the sexier so-called "cheesecake" parts it's what I would call "pantomime sexy" and not actually sexy. I think there is a fine line between these concepts and maybe I'm not always successful in pulling it off, but the Attila character in my signature would be an example of an attempt at this.

What a costume pack is supposed to represent is something we want to buy. I liked the parts in the packs with the frilly woman's clothes. We've only gotten 4 of them total in the history of the game, and while many of them were lumped close together time-wise, we also had to wait YEARS to get our first ones. I think named theme packs are kind of lame and I never try to recreate a "gunslinger" or "barbarian" with them or whatever. I especially never consider the default costume from the Costume Sets drop down as anything but a starting point. That's just my take on it.

I understand why you don't like the parts, but you also need to understand why some of us have something to say when the future of character design is being retooled because of complaints. And, in particular, why some of us who like these parts feel bludgeoned into accepting changes because some people--not you, but people with no reservations about piggybacking on your initial thread--have taken up the issue and reframed it as a moralistic battle in the war against sexism, when the rest of thought we were talking about a miniskirt.

FWIW there aren't a lot of things you specifically have said that I disagree with. But that is also why I rarely had much to say about your posts. A lot of what else was said was much more divisive. So while you may not have made that argument yourself, a lot of people did, and that is what many of us are responding to. Like many threads, where it started and where it ended up are two wildly different places. There were continual, overt, pointed statements about sexism, prostitution, strippers, oppression, victimization, and countless other loaded terminology.

Ok.

But I wasn't talking to you. I don't know where you got that impression but I'm sorry if it came across like I was.

I think it's impossible to argue that an awful lot of comments in these threads have been about how 'revealing' these clothes are, including comments made in this thread, which I was responding to.

If the sexiness and amount of skin on display is a "strawman" I suggest taking it up with the people making statements that they are offended by the parts, instead of just responding to me when I post a response to them.

Does Fire Melee do significantly more damage than Katana? This will indeed be my main (and only) melee incarnate raider most likely. I'm rerolling the Joan character in my signature from a Broadsword/Fire Scrapper to a Brute. I could always fall back to the Broadsword/Fire Scrapper. But I do like Katana's animations much more.

I know it's tacky to say I'm done and then come back to a thread, so I'll eat whatever derision is thrown my way, but I have to say...

...I'm gay and would rather look at the girls than the guy.

Sexy females don't threaten me. <shrug> I know (and have dated) some guys who would feel threatened or maybe even grossed out by the second picture, but I don't consider demanding that women cover themselves up an uncontestable virtue.

The facts is, so far, no straight guy has actually come into this thread and said "I like these parts because I want to ogle my female toons." Despite repeated attempts to frame this discussion as trogolodytes versus women's libbers, the reality is most of the arguing has been between two parties that agree that women need freedom but disagree about that means specifically in terms of wardrobe.

To be fair, IMO any power set suggestion that gets that specific is most likely going to be largely ignored anyway. It's not the player's job to balance the set. Just saying "Force Field Armor" at least provides a baseline aesthetic.

Well that's it for me folks. Have fun with this conversation. Once we get to the point where sexuality = prostitution I can't pretend to tread water.