Tetsuko_NA

(bolded for my question.)

What fraction was that? Can I get your source - I'd be highly interested in what the numbers were.

Here you go:

Unless you were saying that women should have 'attractive' clothing options but not actually use them, or saying that women wearing 'attractive' clothing wouldn't please you, (neither of which, of course, make any sense at all), you were directly and specifically telling women what they should wear to please you.
You were saying that you like women in scanty clothes and that to make you happy, they should wear things like that more - so long as they're pretty, mind you.

Does that help your understanding of my point?

Whew!
Thanks for telling women how they should dress to please you.

'Cause there's not enough of that in the world, already.

Oh, and if you don't care for this type of response, just chalk it up to women being hysterical or whatever derogatory term is in fashion this decade, and maybe buy 'em something. That'll shut 'em up.

One of the nice things about doing your own stuff is the ability to not feel forced to conform to other people's ideas about how that stuff should look.
Very very few costume options throughtout the history of the game up to this point have been gender-specific. The vast majority are available to all bodytypes. There has been an increasing trend in the costume creator towards gender-specific costume pieces. Has comic culture showed a similar increase in gender-specific outfits during that time period?
If it hasn't, one can't say that the latter is driving the former.

Most of the objections I have seen are not "Don't give us lingerie," statements, but "Don't give us lingerie in place of the more reasonable clothes given other character models."

The current costume pack indicates that the Devs believe that female 'Gunslingers' (or 'Wild West' themed characters) should be dressed in underwear (however modest). The pack indicates that, as far as the Devs are (apparently) concerned, women in western-style jackets are not viable costume options.
This doesn't follow either the reality or the fiction of the genere.

Would you argue that samurai-style armor not be available to female models?
There were historical example of female samurai* - very few. Not that many more in fiction. I wouldn't mind an off-the-shoulder geisha-style kimono outfit, but not in place of the haramaki-do my namesake character wears.
That's the equivalent of what we got with Steampunk, Barbarian, and now Gunslinger packs as well.


(*pedant: By this I mean the fighting occupation, not the social class.)

Again, I don't think that all character of an AT being equally effected by a change to that AT is a terribly vital issue.

Scrappers who have differing numbers of attackes taken from their primary are experiencing Criticals differently.

Brutes who have more or fewer attacks in their selections - or their attack chain - experience Fury differently.

...and so forth.

So long as I have good information, I as a Blaster player, can weigh the benefits of the (single optional) Defiance power versus what other power I might want alternatively.

As an example - I have a Fire/Fire Blaster who I only play as part of (at least) a duo with a Earth/Emp Controller. So long as the Controller is on the ball, I pretty much don't have to be concerned with being mezzed. Therefore, the addition of anti-mez to Defiance would not alter his power selections to any extent.
On the other hand, I have a Def-capped soloing snipe-based Blaster who often has to go to annoying lengths to avoid mezzes. Considerations of anti-mez capabilities would factor heavily into his power selections.

My point is that in neither case would I be forced into a respec - it would simply be more likely in the place of one character than the other. Actually, it would be an issue for neither character, as they both have their Tier 1 and Tier 2 attacks.

The only characters who would have a difficulty with anti-mez Defiance changes would be those both lacking their Tier 2 attacks and who feel that the increase in their ability to mitigate mez had not increased enough. I'm not certain how large that overlap would be, but I have trouble believing it would be a large enough segment to be terribly concerned about. But maybe I am underestimating the number of Blasters that routinely skip their Tier 2 Primary attacks - is this a large number?
Especially when the benefit to Blasters (inherent anti-mez) would have to be weighed against the possibility of some players desiring to respec their characters after AT changes (presumably with the freespec granted after all major rule changes like this). That seems like a very, very small price to pay for a highly desired benefit.

As we have seen, changes presuming that all Defenders are primarily heal-based are bad as they ignore a large number of AT-typical Defender playstyles. I don't think the same thing applies to assuming that Blasters are attack-based.

I'm going to disagree with your second part just a bit here. As I see it, so long as they are clearly described, there's no reason to force a player to build a character with their mez protection power. No other AT forces a mez protection on the character as a mandatory power pick, that I know of.

Clearly, creating a character while skipping their mez protection is not a particularly survivable idea, but I don't feel that that's a good enough reason to force it upon someone.

I don't assume the Devs balance MM's around petless MM's, so I don't see balancing issues about a Blaster not wanting as much mez protection as they can get.

That being said, I really like the multi-tiered powers/multi-tiered mez concept.

Yes, I could have tested them out (when I'm at home on my gaming system, anyway). I was just being desperately lazy and haven't done so yet.

Good to hear they are decently tintable!

Thanks!

Well, tell you what.
If I ever start to shop at Wal-Mart, I'll be sure to tell you when I stop.

I'm far from perfect, and no doubt have large blind spots in my purchasing, but I do at least make the effort to avoid the most egrigious offenders against basic decency.

I would also make a distinction between niavely purchasing products from a company that skirts ethical regulations when it can and actively and (apparently) unrepentantly supporting and defending openly unethical and criminal activity.

So... what's the maximum amount of goods or services I can purchase from a known criminal organization before I have to consider myself a criminal? Could I purchase, say, a $100 stolen jacket and still think I haven't done anything wrong?

If I only buy spark plugs from an illegal chop-shop, I'm still a good guy, right?

I just want to know what the threshold is, so I never have to think of myself as supporting criminal enterprise. Thanks in advance!

Well, um, you can have exactly the same experience as before by simply not making any Khelds until you get a character to 50.

Unless, of course, your objection is to other people having Khelds.

Just so you keep in mind that I'm not saying that people shouldn't buy it at that price.
Nor am I saying that people won't buy it at that price.
All I'm saying is that I won't be buying it at that price.

The statements it's too expnsieve and it's too expensive for me are not equivalent.

This appears to make the assumption that logical and rational reasons are in some way not chemically/genetically derived. If you have evidence for a source of thought or emotion not genetic or chemical, I'd be very interested to hear about it. Demonstrate this evidence for it, and you're a shoo-in for the next round of Nobels.

We have ways in the real world of reducing the incidence of crime and violence. These typically are political solutions and as such are outside of the scope of this forum. Opposition to these solutions are often religious in nature and are therefore also outside of the scope of this forum.

To give you an example (for thought, not discussion, for obvious reasons), in your bar hopping example, what would your hypothetical hypodermic do to someone who was raised to believe that using alcohol was immoral?

Ok.

How long does a corperation have to last until you consider it a success?

Let me put it to you this way - if you had owned (let's say) 1% of that failed company throughout it's history, would have made a little money? Maybe gigantic boatloads of money?

People who can guide an MMO through 7 (presumably) profitable years are actually pretty good at what they do. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest they are better at it then random people off of the street, and better at it than the vast majority of people on their forums. They're certainly better at it than I would have been.
I'll let you decide if they have been better at it than you would have been.

(Please note my point does not suggest any group 'knows everything possible' about business. But, y'know, that straw man looks like he's still got some fight in him - better knock him down again, for good measure.)

So... and please correct me if I'm wrong... you misunderstood something the Devs said, and now you're unhappy that they're not fulfilling your misunderstanding, yes?

Not really sure how to help you with that.

Nope - people kept assuring him that the sonic fences were the only things truly required to keep Hami at bay and that additional security measures would be oppressive and dictatorial.

What idiots!

And this is why we keep coming back to this awesome game, year after year - the Devs actually do listen when we voice concerns, even when the concerns are... odd.

Back on topic, let me say I am hugely excited about both the comic-panel splash screen concept, and the new game intro mechanic.
Can't wait to see what's up next!

And I find it amazing that honest critique, including people saying "Hmm, this looks disturbingly sexist/etc" is somehow conflated with OMG RAGE.

(Citation needed)

Does BAB's skin tone reflect what bright light - especially red-colored light as from a fire or explosion - look like on dark-colored skin? Is the tone of his hair, costume and gear similarly pale-shifted to suggest he is being bathed in actinic light that might wash out his skin tone?
BAB looks causasian in this picture - according to lots of people looking at it.
He's not.
That's either an technical mistake (which I would imagine the artist would like to be informed of), or it is a deliberate altering of BAB's apparent ethnic background, which the players would like an explaination for.

In terms of SP's expression, it looks less over-the-top and more asanine. This appears very much out-of-character for her, and so - once again - technical error or character alteration?
More to the point, let's assume that her expression is fully justified - she truly is that horrified/angered/paniced... do you pose like that when you're frightened? I'm quite serious - cover her face and look at her pose... what about that suggests fright or horror?
Or determination or strength or heroism, for that matter?
The fact that poses that emphasize outthrust breasts and hips are considered action poses for female comic book characters is sexist - deeply sexist. If you don't think so, just picture BAB in that same pose. If we are making the assumption that a character specifically uses her eye-candy appeal as part of her operational toolkit (e.g.: Catwoman, Poison Ivy), that's one thing. Again, is the part of SP's established character?

*sigh*
I hate this argument. Being able to match an effort is not a reasonable gate for being critical of that effort. if a gymnast falls off of their equipment during their routine, I don't have to be a gymnast to recognize the error. if I'm really unfamiliar with the subject, I might ask "Did you mean to do that?". And that's what some people ehre a re doing: "Did you mean to make BABs look white? Did you mean to make SP look like a posable sex doll?"

Did it maybe occur to you that feeling that you should end a post like this might just suggest you should review it for content?
Unless, of course, you find the typical opinion expressed on the boards to be worthless - in which case I would have to ask why you bother posting...