Forbin_Project
-
Posts
11059 -
Joined
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Remmet
I think it's to do with being able to limit how much you can take on yourself. You can purposely go around and aggro the entire room, or you can be careful and take on one group at a time. The same with difficulty settings. Ambushes, especially several stacking or a continuous stream of ambushes, take that control away from you, which can be fun on the right character, or just painful on the wrong one.
Personally, I generally don't mind ambushes, but I really, really HATE the ones that are overused lately in the newer arcs: the ones where you beat a boss down to 1/4 health, they go friendly, and open up a big dialog window full of text (which I'd like to read!), and then an ambush spawns 10 feet behind them! Grrrrrr!
/em smackdev
But isn't facing overwhelming odds one of the things we like about our favorite super heroes? Sure they get their butts kicked but they persevere. And isn't it just like a nemesis to try and distract the hero while signalling for help to jump him from behind when he's talking and not paying attention?
I don't know, maybe I'm nuts for looking at the ambushes as an immersive tool that brings my characters more to life. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
The point of my hypothetical situation being:
In the absence of a blanket definition of good or evil, attacking the problems of sociopathy and psychopathy (as herein defined) as if they were medical issues. Which I suppose they are, whether or not good or evil exists in an objectively definable form.
The retrovirus removes any medically derived antisocial tendencies. As a result, your moral compass becomes your logic, modified by your society. If your society beleives that gingers are evil, you probably start off thinking that also; it would be up to your logic and will to act counter to that, should you so desire.
Here is what people are concerned about. They don't know how much of their own behavior is controlled by genetics. Thus they are unwilling to support a retrovirus that may alter their personality in ways they can't imagine.
We are also concerned about who watches the people making the decisions on what is a defect that needs to be changed, and where does it stop? A far greater evil can be perpetrated from the noblest of intentions. -
Quote:Ah. I misunderstood. Sorry. That's up to the GM's to decide. I could see it going either way.Originally Posted by St_Angelius
I did mean that in reguards to MaestroMavius using the name Bruce Chi. Bruce Lee being a stage nickname rather than a character under copyright and/or trademark.
Personally I usually don't even notice character names unless they do something to make me aware of their presence. (I.E. irritate me) My motto is don't break the rules if your going to act like a jerk. -
Quote:I don't disagree that ambushes can be aggravating at times, and make no sense when you are stealthed, but it doesn't stop me from also being amused when I see people complaining about them.Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
NPCs can be set to auto-aggro and follow.
Players AFK can't due to botting restrictions.
Multiple waves of NPCs have a greater aggregate Endurance and Health pool than any PC.
NPCs don't take bio breaks.
Players do.
And it's not that people are upset by ambushes. Merely that they feel that, currently, the ambush mechanic is overused both within individual missions and across the current spectrum of new mission arcs.
After a while it becomes almost as aggravatingly repetitive, time-wasting, and mind-numbing as the Numina hunts.
As to players that go AFK inside missions, I feel they deserve to get ganked. Missions are supposed to be hostile environments not vacation resorts where thet can park while they take care of real life issues.
And what exactly happens when you die in the game?
Do we have to replace damaged equipment?
No.
Do we get robbed by other players when we drop our stuff?
No.
Do our enhancements get less effective?
No.
Do we incur a Death Penalty to our ability to fight?
No.
Do we lose a level or experience?
No.
Do we have to reroll a new character?
No.
So what happens again when our characters die?
Oh that's right, we get some debt that has to be worked off. Big frelling deal. Debt has been so trivialized in this game it's about as useful as rent on bases.
But that's another opinion and you can feel free to disagree with it. -
Quote:That's fine in our western society, but where do we get off going into other cultures and forcing our beliefs on people that want nothing to do with us and believe differently. Seems awfully hypocritical coming from a nation whose main tenants is peoples freedom of something I agreed not to mention. Especially when we embrace the practice of performing circumcisions.Originally Posted by starphoenix
Mostly correct, but the world is mostly shades of grey with some areas of black and white. Rescuing a child from a burning building is white while causing serious physical or emotional pain to a child is black.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Again playing devil's advocate here just for clarification. -
And what's to stop players from lying because they don't want their stuff labeled as a farm and risk getting it banned and losing a publishing slot.
Oh and you do recall that it was Positron who flat out told us NOT to label AE content as farms?
Quote:•• Players are urged to avoid using common farming terms in their story title and/or descriptions. Even if it’s a joke, DO NOT run the risk of having an arc banned and requiring Customer Support to grant you your publishing slot back. -
Funny how people get upset at ambushes but aren't the least bit bothered by being able to lay the smack down on some baddies within plain sight of other bad guys and they never sound an alarm.
-
Quote:I don't give a damn about corporate mandate. I still don't like retcons and spin offs about "the early years". It's an opinion. I'm free to have it and the companies are free to ignore it.Originally Posted by Hqnk
Man of Steel (John Byrne) lasted from 1986 until 2004.
Superman Birthright (Mark Waid) 2004 to Infinite Crisis circa 2009
Secret Origins (Geoff Johns) Infinite Crisis till the 2011 line wide reboot.
These were corporate mandates and Byrne made the biggest changes. The others were updates with not that many changes Byrne's changes to Supe's powers. They were minutae, relationship oriented or updates for the times. None of then included a super baby. That's a good 25 years of no super baby. Even in the Grant Morrison driven reboot, Clark did not arrive fully powered.
In Action comics in current continuity, he couldn't fly when he came to Metropolis, he hitches rides on airships, that conveniently dot the Metropolis sky. -
Quote:Ah yes that reminds me of a question once posed by the late great George Carlin.Originally Posted by Zombie Man
There's also the issue of the varying degrees of Superman's strength and invulnerability where it seems he can increase his power by willing it so. This is the psychic/mental control of his powers theory.
Under that theory, he can shave and cut his hair because he wills it so because it's him doing it to himself.
"If God is all powerful, can he make a rock so big that even he can't lift it?"
-
Quote:I hope you appreciate the irony of that statement since you were the one that brought up the topic of abortions.Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Abort! You are entering Mod Territory...
But I'll let the subject drop.Quote:Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Another way of putting it might be:
Would it be correct to introduce a medical procedure that prevents people that would vary too much from a "normal" genetic standard from ever being born, in the hope of abolishing certain birth defects.
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Local_Man
Actually, I don't think the Marvel lawsuit changed any policy. Cryptic and NC Soft already had in place the EULA which prohibited players from copying characters from comic books. The "settlement" in this case was, I believe, for NC Soft to continue to do what it was already doing.
While the settlement was never made public, I actually read the opinion from the preliminary injunction hearing. In most of these kinds of cases, if the plaintiff loses at the preliminary injunction stage, the plaintiff will most likely lose the case. Marvel lost the preliminary injunction hearing. The opinion pointed out that the game systems allowed players to make characters similar to Marvel characters, but that NC Soft already had in place a policy prohibiting such copying. And furthermore, the examples of copied Marvel characters used in the hearing were actually made by Marvel employees and agents . . . thus they were violating their own trademarks. (I thought that was pretty funny for the judge to point that out.) From what I read, NC Soft won all the way at that stage of the case. Thus I presume that Marvel "settled" by giving in all the way while still saving face.
However, I don't entirely fault Marvel for filing the suit . . . the Trademark laws require the Trademark holders to protect their Trademarks. It would be far worse if we had the government looking over our shoulders at everything we do to determine if we have violated any laws, so I don't mind the private enforcement of Trademarks and some other things.
Some people complain about the "aweful and litigious nature of American Society." Yes, there are some abusive lawsuits, but far fewer than most people believe. The Federal Courts have Rule 11 Sanctions for stupid lawsuits, and most states have something similar. There has to be a balance of the ability to protect one's rights by filing lawsuits vs. the obligation of the government to oversee everything. The classic example of the lady who sued McDonald's after she spilled hot coffee on her lap is constantly mis-reported . . . if you actually knew all the facts of that case, then you would see that she actually had a valid case for severe personal injury after that McDonalds had been warned time and time again that the coffee was way too hot -- it was just a matter of time before someone spilled it on themselves. (I have seen a picture of her injuries . . . horrible.) And the stories fail to comprehend the effect of comparative negligence in such cases.
Uhm just out of curiosity was it NCSoft or Cryptic that was sued by Marvel? As I recall Cryptic still owned the game when the lawsuit took place. I know it doesn't matter as far as how NCSoft chooses to enforce their current rules on IP violations. -
Quote:Originally Posted by CassandraCorte
So whats to prevent DC from locking up every other cultural icon ever in the same manner? They just get to keep a 200 year old public domain character that way, just because they got their first?
Again, the character I created is visually different enough from the DC character to not be confused, while close enough to the public domain image to be recognizable.
This is one time I think that, were such a case brought to trial, DC would be laughed out of court... especially given that we're talking about a third tier character, at best, whom DC didn't even create in the first place.Quote:Originally Posted by Rainbow Avenger
I've got the same issue with an alt. I chose a name that was a rank title of a elite military unit that was in regular service for about six-hundred years. I logged in and my comics nerd friend immediately said "Oh, that's a DC character."
*boggles. Googles*
I actually found three listings for the name, none higher up than the end of page 2 of the Google search. The name was used once by Marvel as a one-off villain in 1963, once by DC as a one-off villain in 1991, and a couple of times as a hyper-obscure DC z-list hero with a half-dozen guest appearances over a decade ago. None of them even has a Wiki entry. They're that obscure. Yes, my friend is a serious comics nerd indeed. Needless to say, my character has no resemblance whatsoever to any of them.
So do these trivial uses as throwaway background characters really trump the future use by anyone of a proper noun of 16th century derivation that has been in common usage for almost five hundred years?
So no I'm not renaming the character, but every time I log him in I feel twitchy, and that annoys me.
And this is why the GM decisions should be appealed. It doesn't hurt to escalate a genericing because they may very well decide in your favor. -
Quote:Doesn't matter if it was. The laws of Taiwan and Hong Kong are outside our legal systems jurisdiction. It's not even a criminal illegality, so Law Enforcement won't bother getting involved.Originally Posted by St_Angelius
But then, was Lee Jun-fan's stage name ever subject to copyright laws? The name Bruce was after all just the nickname given to him by the american attending physician at his birth.
-
Quote:That would be because in Taiwan and Hong Kong they aren't under any obligation to obey American copyright laws.Originally Posted by St_Angelius
I don't see why. It's not as if, Bruce Li, Bruce Lai, Bruce Lei, Bruce Le and co ever got in to trouble over their name's. And they were actually Martial artists and actors.
-
Quote:I would rather cast a "nobody" that actually fits the role before casting an actor or actress in a role just because they have a large fanbase. Those nobodies may very well make history with their performances.Originally Posted by Lycantropus
Great replies everyone. That's all a part of it. In this case, I honestly thought they would have done better with Jessica Alba playing Electra (her dark hair, eyes, and... *shudders* exotic look would have made more sense- Yes I know Greek vs Hispanic but whatever) and had Jennifer Garner, who would have looked much more natural with the blonde hair and blue eyes they tried to work on Jessica... Anyway I think it would have been a better approach. However, it's hard to find female action stars that would have taken either role before the genre started really hitting mainstream. This factor, too, is a part of what I personally can forgive. Though I agree, when he took on the persona of Dr. Doom, his voice should have changed some... or something.
Look at what happened with the Rocky Horror Picture Show, or Harrison Ford as Han Solo.
Oh and I'm an Alba fan myself. -
Quote:So slavery is evil except when you can come up with excuses to justify that it's in the best interest of the individual enslaved in order to protect them.Originally Posted by Warkupo
Parents are the Guardians of their children. As the Guardian, it is the parent's duty to provide protection for their child, and do what they feel is necessary to accomplish this goal. Are you suggesting that all children should be abandoned from the Guardian and subject to roam the world at the age when they are most vulnerable?
Don't be absurd.
As to absurdity. Playing devil's advocate to your statements isn't being absurd. Remember it was you that said
That's a blanket statement that can easily have holes poked in it. For example there are countries in the world that practice FGM on girls before puberty because their parents think it has to be done based on their religious beliefs. Should those children have any right to refuse that procedure? Do you or I have any right to tell someone their religious beliefs are wrong?Quote:Originally Posted by Warkupo
Forcibly administering procedures upon an unwilling patient is slavery, as far as I am concerned.
Slavery is evil.
In the real world there is no black and white, only shades of gray. -
Quote:Thanks a lot. As if 130 characters wasn't enough, you had to give me an idea for more.Originally Posted by MaestroMavius
Figured it was skating the line. MA/WP scrapper with the bio;
My name is Bruce, I have strong Chi.
It would probably be safe, but with GM's erring on the side of caution, just didn't wanna take the chance.
Now I have a new Ice/Plant Dom Ninja named Iced Chi on one server and a Will/Ice Tank on another by the same name. -
Quote:As I said before file an appeal and see if you get lucky. That is your only recourse.Originally Posted by CassandraCorte
Problem being, my character did not resemble that image. It resembled this one:
And that one is public domain (the US government cannot own trademarks or copyrights, by law) and can be used by anyone, for any purpose.
But no matter what happens it's their game and their rules and they can choose to enforce them if they want. If you don't like their decision you are free to leave. Doors on the left. -
Quote:Your right I didn't. As I said before I chose to assume that you meant Clark when you posted Chris.Originally Posted by Hqnk
You aren't "calling" me on anything.
-
Quote:Which is the problem I have with spin offs on character Origins. They always change and rewrite character history to suit the desires of the current writers.Originally Posted by CaptainFoamerang
Well, I'm not sure how his origin has been revised since the last time it was official, but last I checked, Superman gradually got his powers as he got older, so he (and his hair) weren't always so invulnerable.
I recall several Superman comics as a child where he had all his powers and one where he and Bruce Wayne (as kids) were using a time viewing machine to see themselves in the future.
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Wing_Leader
I am surprised, then, that the consequences of not backing down and fighting the Marvel/DC suit has turned out to be the present policy of "generic first and sort it out through a cumbersome petition process later", which is a guilty-before-being-proven-innocent philosophy that ought to feel alien to most people (and probably does given the surprise it engenders in the innocent who come here and plead their case in the court of public opinion).
Oh so now you are going to pretend that you have knowledge of the procedures that NCSoft GM's go thru when they receive a petition on a possible copyright/trademark violation?
Do you work for the company and can provide incontrovertible proof that when a GM gets a petition that they don't log onto Google and type the character name in question along with the words comic or super hero and do a 10 second search to see if it's valid. Or that they don't have a database that contains a list of copyrighted super heroes/villains form the various major comic books.
Can you prove beyond the shadow of any doubt that they automatically generic every single petition without verifying any facts.
Yeah right. -
Quote:Maybe we should let a computer decide what would make happier, more productive citizens.Originally Posted by Megajoule
Clearly you need to be cured of that antisocial disorder in order to make you a happier, more productive citizen. Here, take this pill and lie back. You won't feel a thing, and you'll wake up with a much better outlook on life. Trust us. We're here to help.
Praise the Computer. The Computer is my friend.
-
Quote:I was willing to let the name slide and assume it was a simple mistake rather than call him out on it. But since you brought it up, Chris Kent is a character that didn't show up until after Supes was an adult and has nothing to do with how Supes got his own hair cut as a child.Originally Posted by CaptainFoamerang
Read the post again, sir. It said Chris Kent, not Clark. As in the Krytponian boy that crashed on Earth during the Last Son arc.
-
Quote:Yeah cuz you know being able to provide hard evidence of the actual crime being committed as it was occurring and the identities of the actual criminals involved to Law Enforcement isn't helping anyone.Originally Posted by LordLundar
If he really was doing it only to help people he would have told the camera crew to not get involved. He not only allowed them to record it, but encouraged it. So no, he's not doing it to help his fellow man, he's doing it for the spotlight. Helping out his fellow man is just a side effect.
-
Quote:So Batman knows Supermans secret identity when he (Supes) was three years old and built him a device that let him get his hair cut?Originally Posted by Hqnk
In Man Of Steel, supes used his reflected heat vision to shave. In the DC Universe, he has, well, plenty of options. Batman gave Chris Kent a kiddie-watch that emitted red-sun radiation to suppress his powers. He probably has his own robot barber in the Fortress of Solitude that he trusts to cut his hair while under a red-sun lamp.
And Cavill's pictures remind me of Gladiator Superman" from the early '90's.
http://shirtless-superheroes.blogspo...gladiator.html
Pretty sure Supes didn't build his fortress of solitude til he was an adult.
Edit: Oh and if Bruce and Clark knew each other as kids, why did Clark let Bruce's parents get murdered? As Superboy he could have traveled back in time and saved their lives.