UberGuy
-
Posts
8326 -
Joined
-
Quote:Having not seen that quote before, I do appreciate it. Here's what confuses me. I read it as agreeing with me and not with you. Not one thing in that quote leads me to infer that the death needs to be "lame" in the sense that the character didn't put up a fight and "went down like a chump."Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
If you won't accept Simone's original criteria, perhaps you'll give some credit to the well-regarded comics critic Brian Cronin of Comic Book Resources
That is an example of a double standard that goes beyond what Brian Cronin says there. It extends the standard as he explains it: that it's a woman who buys the farm for the sake of a male character's further story. Now on top you're adding the additional sexist overtone that a woman won't get to act heroic in that situation, but that's not present in Cronin's criteria. Its it likely to be included if it's really sexist leanings that are motivating the author? Perhaps, but not inherent in Cronin's definition of the trope.Quote:That double standard also applies to why female deaths in cases of fridging are always that much less heroic.
I'm OK with that. I think she was treated as a kind of brand-name "red shirt". She's someone with no dimensionality killed for pure shock value, probably easily chosen because it seems more shocking to kill someone about whom there is (some) existing lore, but easy to deal with because that lore is minor.Quote:If anything, narrowing the criteria for the purposes of this discussion should focus the issue on how Miss Liberty is treated in-game by the devs, which was the OP's intent when he contrasted her arbitrary death with Praetorian Vanessa's heroic one.
I don't defend it as good writing at all.
(So far, it's not abundantly clear it will fulfill bullet (1) in mister Cronin's list, but I think it probably will.) -
Quote:The pulse was probably the loudest complaint point here on the forums. My own complaints were about the AV fight's overuse of "gimmick" powers, and others complained about that too, but IMO far more complained about the pulse. Notably, the pulse was one of the biggest changes. If it were fully restored to its former "glory", I suspect the trial would plummet again on being formed. I think the pulse could stand to hit harder than it does now without causing that, and I definitely think how it scales when he's damaged seems very minor. But I didn't hate the old pulse.Originally Posted by EU_Damz
If they raised the pulse back up to the way it was before Key-baffin, then i know i wont have any complaint. As it stands the pulse is barely any trouble and even then its only felt by squishies.
On the other hand, it's rare for me to have a character with no self-healing, and I don't really do iTrials on characters that aren't outfitted with IOs, and decent +regen sort of happens accidentally in a lot of builds even if you don't aim for it. So I'm not sure my perspective on the original pulse is ... representative.
Ultimately, if a trial is a good challenge that no one plays, it may not matter much if we like it, because we won't get to play it much. If this trial was hard and fun, I think enough people would play it. A lot of people very vocally deemed it not fun. Sadly, I think it's now easy and still not fun. But at least people play it. -
Quote:Such a pleasant way of dismissing my point!Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
Doing each other the courtesy of reading the posts in a thread before commenting in turn is the only way to prevent threads from turning into merry-go-rounds of repeated quotes.
Perhaps it should occur to you that the accepted use of something can have evolved beyond the specific nature attributed to it by the person who coined the term. I did read that quote before. I did not take it as the accepted definition of "WiR Syndrome" by broader users of the term, exactly because it is not the definition quoted elsewhere, of which Wikipedia was simply a well-known example. Just as "WiR Syndrome" has gained a life of its own beyond the more broad concept of "WiR" (which seemingly pertains to any violent death or depowerment of a female character), so to I believe has the "Syndrome" version. Despite the fact that Gail Simone originated it with that quote and subsequent definition, others have distilled the essence of the term (based on her origination) differently (and more broadly) after she explained it.
What this makes clear to me is that there is simply going to be no agreement over what constitutes an example of WiR (Syndrome). You can quite reasonably argue that you only accept the "original" version, while I feel I can quite reasonably argue I only accept the version "most people" are exposed to (via sites like Wikipedia and TVTropes). We could both argue we only care about "Syndrome" versions and not the "core" WiR.
I reject your inclusion of (A) as a requirement. All the others I accept. -
Quote:Honestly, I cannot imagine why a truly new player would assume that. Nothing about "Regeneration" says "toggles and passives". Even if the set truly used +Regen more explicitly as a mechanic, that doesn't have to be toggles and passives - you could still get +regen in click powers, just like modern IH.Originally Posted by The_mini_gunman
Alot of newer players expect Regeneration to be an all-inclusive, 100% passive, fire-and-forget set.
I seriously think they only people who have that bias are old school players who remember how the set used to work. Back when IH was a toggle, it was fairly common to skip Reconstruction - especially if you had pre-ED, 50% enhancement strenght HOs slotted Instant Healing. After its first round of nerfs, it was also at least sort of common to skip MoG. If you did both those things (and I did both) the set really wasn't very clicky at all. Dull Pain was about it. -
Quote:Best served cold.Originally Posted by Mr_Grey
Now I'm picturing a scene of Star Trek featuring a Klingon opening a fridge, pulling out a hunk of meat and walking away going "Man, this Kirkson is GREAT!"
-
Quote:It was possible with IOs before Incarnates. I know BillZBubba used to do it on his Claws/SR. He didn't like fighting like non-positional Psi attacks on those settings, though. He mostly mowed Carnies, despite that, because DRMs use positional attacks, and all Carnies are weak to Lethal damage.Originally Posted by masterpiece
I'd actually like to see a build that can solo a majority of opponents at +4/x8 without INCARNATES. Granted that seems like a task, especially on an SO build. I went IO's before I attempted a feat but I wonder if its possible.
-
Quote:Sure, I did. But then you said:Originally Posted by BrandX
You said heroic deaths were cases of it too, as they made use of Superman using Supergirls death to further the character, the same with Elektra.
What you said there isn't what I said before it. You omitted the parts about it specifically serving to motivate the surviving character to some action or development, and that surviving character usually being male. Someone "just mentioning" a female character's death probably wouldn't count, because as a general statement, it lacks those distinguishing elements.Quote:So what your saying is anything bad that happens to a female character is WIR when mentioned at all by any other character -
Quote:While you and I are broadly on the same side here, that's not at all what I said, nor is that what the trope comes down to.Originally Posted by BrandX
So what your saying is anything bad that happens to a female character is WIR when mentioned at all by any other character.
In that case, you're right. If they're going to have any female character in any continuity except their own, single universe, any and all female deaths are WIR!
I don't know how you get that from what I said (or quoted).
Edit: There are a lot of tropes documented, and there sheer quantity makes some of them perhaps questionable variations on one another. I don't have a problem with this trope - I think it has enough examples where it fits to justify its existence. What I don't agree with is the automatic assumption that (a) the existence of the trope is direct evidence of sexism, in or out of comics, or (b) that any given occurrence of it automatically implies sexist tendencies (accidental or not) on the part of the author. I think its seeming prevalence in comics may be a symptom of the fact that comics are written predominantly for male readers primarily by male writers, leading to a predominance of male lead characters. Whether it's then intentional that this trope's plot element might resonate with that audience specifically, as a story element any use "fridging" is automatically going to be gender biased because male characters are most likely to be depicted as emotionally attached to female characters. Only depicting villains harming a hero's children would probably create stronger tension or hate, and most costumed crime fighters don't have kids. -
Quote:On the contrary, these are examples of "WiR Syndrome", especially the example of Elektra, which had a distinct impact on Daredevil. (Supergirl's death's impact on Superman was partially muted because it happened in a cross-series mini-series that involved the destruction of nearly all parallel earth universes (implying uncounted billions dead) and the more explicit death of dozens of well-known costumed heroes.)Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
Precisely - and that's the difference between a hero's death and getting fridged.
Since there have been so many WIR cases in this thread, here are some counter-examples:- Supergirl: Died fighting Anti-Monitor in Crisis on Infinite Earths, sacrificing herself and forcing the supervillain to withdraw.
- Elektra: Killed by Bullseye, against whom she's evenly matched, in one of Frank Miller's old-school martial arts duels.
I don't understand where this notion that the trope only applies to crappy deaths comes from. From the Wikipedia entry on "WiR Syndrome" (with working citation link).
What this says to me is that examples of WiR Syndrome can indeed include dying a heroic death. What matters is that it's a woman, and that often the death serves to propel development of a male character with whom the female was associated. She can be taken out wimpering or go down fighting, it's still an example of this trope.Quote:'Women in Refrigerators Syndrome' describes the use of the death or injury of a female comic book character as a plot device in a story starring a male comic book character. It is also used to note the depowerment or elimination of a female comic book character within a comic book universe. Cases of 'Women in Refrigerators Syndrome' deal with a gruesome injury or murder of a female character at the hands of a supervillain, usually as a motivating personal tragedy for a male superhero to whom the victim is connected. The death or injury of the female character then helps cement the hatred between the hero and the villain responsible -
Quote:At risk of bringing down the wrath of a certain segment of the forum population, I disagree, and maintain this is only your opinion. Perhaps there is an implied "IMO" on all things you post, but you do not state it explicitly, and therefore I disagree with it on the assumption that you are asserting it as a fact.Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
The problem with fridging is that it's bad writing, period: Treating a female character's death worse than if she were male, the essence of WIR Syndrome, is never going to make a good story better, only poorer.
I have no objection to the notion that this idea of a woman's death being worse can be used poorly. Relying on it solely to engage an audience, either intentionally or subconsciously, is not the mark of a strong author. However, as someone subject to the notion, I disagree that it cannot ever be used well, or could not enhance how engaged I am in a story or a character.
Among other things, your assertion suggests that my own view on whether its worse for a woman to die is wrong, something which I don't accept. Examples of what would be wrong would be for that view to lead to other things such men treating women in patronizing ways since men have to protect them, or not letting them do certain dangerous things because they need to be protected. Viewing harm to women as worse than harm to men is necessary but not sufficient for those kinds of negative outcomes to result. -
Quote:When I used the word "deconstruct", I did not mean it in the philosophical sense, though I see why you could have inferred otherwise in the context of the thread. I meant it in the more literal sense of decomposing a story into elements.Originally Posted by Venture
Deconstructionism is reading a work in such a way as to "prove" it means something other than the author's intent; usually but not always the opposite of that intent. If you have to deconstruct a work to claim it's using a trope, you're wrong.
Tropes are nothing but story element or character type templates. Because of this, recognizing these tropes within a story involves lifting details from the story and fitting them into a category in a way that is able to ignore all details of the story not relevant to the trope. This is, by definition, a deconstruction of the story into independently recognizable, constituent parts.
In that context, I find your assertion about tropes and deconstruction to be without merit. That may be, though, because it was not clear that this was the meaning of "deconstruction" I was referring to. -
Pretty much what Nihilii said.
For me, it means I can fight mobs of most any faction on these settings, bosses enabled, AVs probably (but not always) disabled, while suffering defeat only now and then, on average, with 2-3 deaths in a single mission meaning I might have my settings too high. 90-120 seconds is probably longer than I want to spend fighting a spawn with any regularity, but I might accept it if the foe is particularly resistant to my damage types, depending on whether that ends up being actually challenging or just tedious.
I tend not to use inspirations when solo, by my own choice. I like knowing what my limits are without the right ones on hand. However, unless I flub by riding the edge too close, I usually resort to them when I see I'm in over my head without them.
Most of my characters can solo most mob factions at +4/x8, but can't solo one or two. The usual culprits they can't solo at those settings are Arachnos and maybe the IDF, usually because those two inflict auto-hit defense debuffs. Honorable mention sometimes go to Carnies if my character lacks Psi protection. (Other spawns have hard-hitting Psi bosses, but none save Carnies have only hard-hitting Psi bosses, with x8 earning you at least two in every spawn.) I can usually solo these at +4/x6, which usually gets you only one boss per spawn.
When I say I solo at +4/x8, I do not mean that I can farm whatever I come across. Soloing != farming, though most farming is done solo. You don't farm much of anything with Broadsword/Invul or Dark Blast/Dark Miasma, but you might be able to solo just fine.
Edit: I do consider 54/x8 a better designation, because of the ambiguity introduced by level shifts. Level 54 mobs are +3 combat levels to my level 50s, because they all have the Alpha Slot level shift. -
Quote:Amen.Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
The mere fact that you observe a trend (real or not) doesn't provide you a definitive interpretation of what it actually means.
This is the main objection to the thesis of the OP and its defenders. Personally, I accept the "WiR (Syndrome)" as a trope, where a trope is a deconstruction of any given story to find elements in it that fit a storyline template. What I don't accept is that finding a place where that template can be applied tells us something definitive about the message given by that story, or indeed even that the prevalence of the trope itself tells us anything definitive. -
Quote:Many returning players have asked why this kind of thing didn't exist, as they're used to it existing in other "F2P/hybrid" games they returned from to look at Freedom. While I realize there are some implementation details to work out, I think it would behoove you guys to look into something along these lines into play. I say that because what these premiums I know are doing is looking at what their options are, seeing they can't use IOs without paying, and then leaving again.Originally Posted by Zwillinger
We're constantly exploring many designs for possible implementation. In this particular case, we don't have any current plans on implementing this feature, and it showing on the vendor was a bug (if you look at the tooltip, it's obviously WIP).
While I love to see you guys theorize and speculate
, I also believe it's important to set appropriate expectations. In this case, do not expect to see this feature in the immediate future.
While the "off-the-cuff" response to that may be "well, they weren't going to pay anyway, so who cares?", the reason it matters is that if they aren't playing at all, there's no hope of selling them other stuff. Making a few bucks of of them every couple of months is better than making nothing at all. -
Nope, I'm VIP and I was able to see it. Saw it on release day for the latest patch.
All should note that this is not functioning yet, and while it seems likely we'll see it "soon", it's not guaranteed, and those prices might change. I'm guessing it's a future feature that partially leaked out before it was fully functional.
Edit: I think 180 (360 for both) isn't really that much measured over the course of a month, unless it's someone who's not playing much. And if they aren't playing much, well, it may not matter how much it costs.
What I like about it is that it's a way for past subscribers to get bootstrapped back into IO access. They have a month where they won't have access unless they pay for a license, but once they have a license, they can use their fully armed and operational battl... er characters to roll on TFs more effectively. -
Quote:Heh. I run into this listing common high-level salvage for <10 inf. It's more like "people with 100+ salvage slots" problems.Originally Posted by OneFrigidWitch
Rich people marketeer problems.
-
Quote:I have mentioned that before, though I don't know for sure you're remembering me. When I've said that, I usually meant it in the context of things like movies and books, because at the end of those, you can do in the villain. Of course, if you don't bump them off, they can become a recurring villain across a series of sequels.Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Some time ago, someone (I think it was the Uber Guy) exposited that he wanted a villain he could hate. In fact, a villain we loved to hate was what made a good villain. This concerned me, because I thought I agreed, yet I still disagreed about the "goodness" of the villain in question. A villain I hate - and I mean really, truly hate in the "lick the puppy" sense - is a villain I ultimately don't want to see. This is the villain I hate, this is the villain I want to see dead, this is the villain that, if I had my way, I'd end on the spot. But, of course, I can't or the story would be too short, so I have to sit and watch narrative about this villain I hate... And it bugs me. In real life, such villains do exist and there isn't much we can do about it, but in fiction that doesn't quite work. If I don't like a villain - if I hate him - then I don't like the story he's in. And while I can't just ignore real life and its horrors, I very much CAN just walk away from a story.
There are places in this game that can work. Westin Phipps is a villain I hate. I wish I could do him in or at least imprison him. (I have villains that would kill him, given the opportunity.) He stands a bit alone for being quite so vile, so he sort of works. (It would be annoying if all the contacts were like that.) But he sort of doesn't work, because it's dissatisfying not being able to take him down, given that he's a persistent character.
We could have villains we love to hate in individual story arcs. We can't easily change the macroscopic game world in a lasting way (the problem we have with Phipps), so it wouldn't be a major, "name-brand" villain from the CoH universe, but written well, it could still be very satisfying.
I don't think all villains should be like this. I also don't think they should all be respectable. We need a mix. Practically speaking, the persistent ones should be lean towards being respectable. The non-persistent ones could lean towards being despicable, but I don't know that they should. That seems like some sort of nascent meme: "Disposable *******". (Edit: Person of questionable parentage.)
I don't think most players want to play despicable villains. Some do, and I am all for them having that option, but I think more people are probably looking for the glamorous, sophisticated or "bad boy (or girl)" villain than for a sociopath. -
And to be clear, this was a nerf/fix to all interface powers, not just Reactive. While melting things with Reactive-boosted Burn and Freezing Rain was spectacular, it was also pretty impressive to hammer their toHit en mass with Diamagnetic.
The effect of Reactive in rains and patches was so strong that it actually shaped iTrial tactics: one person or maybe two people with a rain or patch damage powers could lock down a prisoner spawn door in the BAF, leading to the prevalence of the "doors" approach. Post nerf/fix, there was a migration to the current vogue of choke points, because fewer people could lock down doors effectively. -
Quote:Get over yourself. I'm not making a "+1" post. I was asking what the hell you were talking about, because you posted nonsense. He was asking about the powersets, not just the scrapper version. You should have been able to infer that from context of the discussion and the question. Parsing where he put the "/" into the notion that he was talking about Scrappers, and then replying to the post "they aren't Tankers" is frankly idiotic.Originally Posted by New Dawn
These +1 posts make me sick. Anyone wishing to try their Dark Armour on a mish I have saved can meet me in game.
Who cares if you have a mission saved that's got -toHit in it? We all know that swarming anyone that needs to hit stuff will give it problems. Unlike you, not everyone happens to think that's some horrible problem that requires a powerset change to fix. Guess what, if you run in a big swam of +4 Cimerorans you can't hit them either. This is all known. And Invul sucks up Psi damage, Regen croaks under -recharge, and Electric Armor hates Toxic damage outside its godmode. Nothing is supposed to be perfect. If Dark Armor can hit multiple foes with its heal, it's an amazing powerset. Sometimes it can't, and then it suffers.
Deal. -
Riiiight.
-
Quote:How does any of that pertain to:Originally Posted by New Dawn
They're not. Most of what a Dark/Dark relies on requires a tohit check where as most other combos don't as much. Half of Dark Armour requires a tohit check. Swamped with a alpha of tohit debuffs it could be lights out in a game where everyother combo buys that bit more time. Jayboh was asking where we thought a hole in Dark Armour lies.
Quote:Originally Posted by New Dawn
They're not tanks. -
Quote:Uh, what?Originally Posted by New Dawn
They're not tanks.
-
The primary "benefit" of Shards (other than the ability to turn extra ones into threads) is just that getting enough trial-specific Incarnate salvage to craft four Rare/Very Rare powers has has taken enough time already that I don't want to increase that time running the same trials 25% to get the components for Alpha, too. I view using the TF drops (and thus Shards) for Alpha as keeping things a bit more varied.
Now that the Underground Trial offers a guaranteed Rare or Very Rare at the end, I expect the average number of trials required to top out all four powers to drop, so my view on that may change. -
Quote:Possibly, but I'm pretty sure its presence in the list of working/available window names is new. That might mean it's something new they're working on.Originally Posted by Fulmens
My guess is they either write this window "in case we use it someday" or they implemented it, figured out it sucks, and pulled the functionality.
-
Quote:And again, not only does MMO no automatically imply teaming, even if it did, it does not imply oversized teamming. "Massively Multiplayer" does not and never has, in any MMO, automatically assumed that all those other players who were online at the same time as you, populating the game world with other characters were on your immense team.Originally Posted by Tyger42
If the thing I'm not happy with is an MMO being an MMO, then I'd say I'm the problem here, not the MMO.
So honestly, your constant references to MMOs as some axiomatic defense of what's being objected mean absolutely nothing.