Kitsune9tails

One way to fix the xp leeching on Chain Induction would be to remove the hp damage.

I think it would be effective as a 'bouncing' short-duration (4 seconds?) Hold or Knockdown power, if paired with a useful additional component such as a defense, regeneration or recovery debuff.

Doesnt mind have -recharge? I thought Ice only had Slow.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just a heads up:

I have several devs reading this thread, and are working on the bugs you guys are finding, and on ways to improve the Mayhem Missions (such as making the end Hero non-random; currently the end Hero you get is totally random, and has nothing to do with anything you did in the mission, we are looking into changing that).

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a raelly bad bug for you... when I use my gravity powers on LOWLY 5hp Civilians... they don't get crushed into little balls of bloody fleshy goo.



[/ QUOTE ]

Nor do they change the rating of the game by allowing players to kill helpless civilians.

[/ QUOTE ]


Suggestion for Civilians

When attacked they 'dodge' the attack and run straight for the nearest door. They can still cower a bit or be knocked down, but in the end, the run and hide out of sight. This way, we have a new goal: clear streets of civilians. Once the last one has hid themself, we get a time bonus.



Suggestion for Named Hero

For a solo player:

At difficulty level 1. it's a Boss.
At difficulty level 2, it's a Boss+1
At difficulty level 3, it's a Boss+2
At difficulty level 4, it's an Elite Boss
At difficulty level 5, it's an Elite Boss+1
At difficulty level 6, it's an Hero
At difficulty level 7, it's a Hero+1
At difficulty level 8, it's a Hero+2

[Of course, only difficulty levels 1-5 can be chosen by the player as the starting level.]

For each two side missions done, the level difficulty of the final boss goes up one.

For 4 players, the difficulty level goes up one.
For 6 players, the difficulty level goes up two.
For 8 players, the difficulty level goes up three.


This would mean that a solo player on level 1 who does just the bank job, will get a Boss. If that player does 4 side missions, he or she would get a Boss+2.

A solo player on level 5 who does just the bank job will get an Elite Boss+1. (This allows soloists who run at highest difficulty level to avoid a Hero fight.)

A team of 8 that's starts at difficulty level 1 will get always get at least an Elite Boss. If they do four side missions, they get a Hero. If a team of 8 starts at difficulty level 5 they will always get a Hero+2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like a lot of these ideas.

I think that citizens 'struck' by an attack should suffer the apparent effects, (as allowed by the ESRB) then flee through a door and despawn. Perhaps they could start with a negative modifier to KB, so that any attack knocks them down.

I like the idea of tying the last foe to the Difficulty, and I'll second the idea of your chart as outlined. I also like randomness and not knowing exactly what's coming up, so a 20% chance of going up or down one level on the chart would also be great (but a soloist should not get more than an Elite Boss).

I have no problem with your analysis being proven correct. But if you are going to be right, let's fast forward to that part so the Devs can fix it. And them fixing it correctly is going to take testing and datamining, as well as analysis and conjecture.

Rather than complaining about the Hero/Villain disparity for now, a call for a level bump might be in order.

Then some serious testing and datamining can happen in RV.

Always great stuff! Keep it up, please!

Here's my take on this.

It cannot be questioned that what many people do as heroes in CoH is illegal.

The morality of those acts can be questioned, and that question can only be answered in the context of the individual character.

You may or may not be familiar with the "Citizen Crime Fighting" act that was passed in the CoH universe. Here. [ QUOTE ]
The Paragon City council and mayoral elections of 1936 swept a platform of pro-hero candidates that resulted in the passage of the Citizen Crime Fighting Act of 1937. This law made it legal for vigilantes to bring criminals to justice as long as they followed the same restrictions police officers use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming that police officers' restrictions are not different in this world (and they may well be), unprovoked use of a broadsword on a 'citizen' is a Bad Thing. Of course, you don't have to make unprovoked attacks on "innocent" citizens...

If my Contact tells me to go out and "question" 25 Skulls, I can choose to go up to those Skulls and hit a keybind that says, "Excuse me gentlemen, can we please have a peaceful discussion?" If the Skulls attack (and such is likely) then my 'self defense' is justified. Of course, I could just run away, but I'll need to question those Skulls sooner or later.

But I have a lot of characters. Some of my heroes are morally wrong, in my opinion, while others are right. All of my villains are morally wrong in my opinion.

Apparently, the authorities turn a blind eye to many illegal activities rather than face the alternative: superpowered individuals breaking the law and terrorizing citizens without being opposed by superhuman deputies.

I suppose the authorities within Paragon City could choose to put wannabe heroes through training, screening, and enforce due process upon them. But that would leave them at a grave disadvantage against the Skulls, Hellions, et al while the hereoes went through school. They made the choice not to wait.

Now it's up to the individual hero to make their own choices, on a daily basis, about how to enforce the law and serve justice.

Now, since this is in the Player Guides section, how about working on a guide to roleplaying a 'morally correct' hero in Paragon City.

1) Before engaging villains in combat, use a keybind to identify yourself and call for cooperation.

2) Only use deadly force after a foe has threatened you with the same. Respond to fisticuffs in kind, only moving to dangerous attacks that do lethal, fire, or energy damage after being attacked with at least lethal damage.

3) If you see other heroes violating these rules, ask them if they are a roleplayer. If they are, upbraid them about their inappropriate actions in character and try to get them to repent. If of appropriate level, you may want to invite them to settle things in the Arena or Warburg.

Anything else? I'd love to hear from police officers out there. If a citizen were authorized to enforce the law while follwing the same restrictions you guys do (without actually being members of the police force per se), what would that entail?

I think these two changes would fix Dominators:

1) The Domination bar does not decrease unless you are defeated, leave the game, activate Domination, or 10 minutes pass without you attacking a target.

2) While the Domination bar is ready (and you are sparkling), you receive a buff of +5% to base Defense and all Damage Resistance, and a +1 to Magnitude versus all Mezzes. This bonus is lost when Domination is activated.

If you don't think squishies should get even these weak defenses, you could substitute a To-Hit and Recharge buff instead.

In the meantime, I think the buff to Domination we received for PvP is an awesome and beautiful thing.

On the subject of Toggle Drops, I can't see the point of any power having a toggle drop % below 20%. Even bonus chances for a second toggle should be at least 10%.

Every power that has a 'low' % chance to drop a toggle (currently below 20%) should have a 20% chance. Everything that has a 'good' chance (21-50%) has a 30% chance. Everything that has an 'excellent' chance to drop toggles (51% +) gets a 40% chance. Powers that have a 'chance per second' of dropping a toggle should have a 5% chance.

Let's see...trading Psi Resistance, Recharge Boost,and Endurance Recovery for a vulnerability to KB and Immobilize and a lack of Healing?

Sign me up! It's not like you can get Psi Resistance from a Power Pool.

On the other hand, the idea of making Grounded more useful by making it more like Rooted also appeals to me. It may be a pun, but I have no problem with the idea that 'grounded' means 'cannot fly or leap' in this context.

Sure, it may be a pain in PvP, but a lack of Psi Resistance in PvP could be a pain as well. And if you are in a situation where you need to speed away, you could just turn off Grounded and go. Sure, you might be hit with KB as you flee, but that's got to be better than sticking around at that point...

A set with holes, or a set with self-penalties...this set could go either way, and either would be fine, but so far Stone is the one set with self-penalties instead of holes. I say let's make Electric Shields the second one.

I beleive Chain Induction does work similarly to Confuse.

The strength (and accuracy?) of the bolt arcing from each target is based on the critter it is arcing from, not you. A bolt arcing from a Hero will do more damage than one arcing from a minion, and possibly more damage than the one arcing from you.

A bolt arcing from a Giant Monster should do interesting damage (and may crash the server if it hits another GM ). Now, if only a team of electric brutes could reach Lusca...

Thumbs up on the Mayhem missions! Well executed and fun!

I failed mine, though Longbow are much easier to handle than Reinforced Doors...

...why, yes, I was playing a Dominator (mind/psi, threat level 28), how did you know?

I don't know of any authorized SGs, but I do know of a JLA SG and an Avengers SG that were both removed. My main used to team with a Capn America that was removed. I remember an SG of Super-deformed (as in, midget versions) of the JLA (Supermite, Wonder Mite, etc) that used to exist. I think they were called the 'Mitey Heroes' or some such. Haven't seen them in awhile.

Still not a lawyer, but still opinionated...

Anybody can profit from a character that is not legally protected. That's called 'public domain' or 'clip art'.

However, once you legally protected a character by copywrite or trademark, you are saying, "No one can profit from this character without my permission."

It's just that you already gave Cryptic permission.

It would be silly for Cryptic to be unable to show in-game footage/screenshots of characters in CoX (and it's derivative works), which is basically all the EULA does. Of course any screenshots or demos they show around are essentially advertising, and therefore for profit.

If you are going to turn your CoX character into a work of art without legally protecting it first, you are already asking for it to be stolen. If you legally protect your CoX character, then it is safe, and no one else can profit from it...except for Cryptic.

Cryptic has taken no rights from you, because you don't have any yet. All you have done is tell them they can continue to profit from your character IF someday you legally protect it.

And if you want to cut Cryptic out of even this nebulous deal, all you have to do is make sure your literary version and the CoX version are as different from each other as Superman is from Captain "Shazam" Marvel, or Hyperion, or Icon, or Mighty Mouse.

Or Statesman.

A lot easier and a lot cheaper than changing a EULA, I'd bet.

As far as porting characters over from other games...the source of a character is not at issue, only whether the character (and the associated set of story elements) is legally protected or not. That's all that matters.

Some day, Marvel will create a popular and profitable comic book character that will bear a very close resemblance to one of the 17 million characters previously created in CoX. THEN things will possibly get very interesting.

I am not a lawyer, but here's my understanding.

The EULA basically says,"I will not sue Cryptic for profits made from a character I created with their tools. The character I made is not plagiarized."

Assuming that Cryptic does not Trademark the characters (and it is unlikey to because of the expense involved), nothing prevents you (or any third party) from then Trademarking the character and profiting from it.

However, if that character then goes on to become a property worth millions, you can't then sue Cryptic for using that same character in their own stories and making money off of it. You signed that right away. That is the right you 'granted' Cryptic--the right to profit from that character.

Can Crypic slap a Cease and Desist on you from profiting from the character if neither you or they have it trademarked? Well, they can, but if it went to court, it would be a real murky and expensive issue. If they cared enough about a character to get lawyers involved, they'd probably Trademark that specific character first, and remove all doubt as to it's ownership.

AND BEFORE YOU GO GETTING ALL MAD AT CRYPTIC, it's likely the same for every online game you have ever played that allows you to create characters.

Cryptic likely does not hold a trademark on any of your characters, just the right to profit from the versions of them you have 'entered Paragon City' with (likely including any designs you finalized in Icon).

If you are that worried about it, legally protect the character yourself.

Cryptic cannot 'return' any rights to you, because you never had any rights to any character you created on their servers in the first place.

Unless, of course, you legally protected the character before creating it in CoX, in which case you did not have the right to create it in CoX.

The two are mutually exclusive.

I will make up a character right now: the Crimson Bride. She wears a red veil and a white dress.

Do I have any rights to that character idea? No. Cryptic, Marvel, or you could write a story with that character right now, and I couldn't do anything about it.

Now I will write a story about The Crimson Bride. One day, the Crimson Bride was angry because she caught her husband cheating with a bridesmaid. She manifested claws and attacked him. It turns out he was a mob hit man and he pulled out a gun and shot her. But she regenerated and slashed him till he fell unconscious. The priest asked her not to kill him, and she didn't. But from then on, she had a vendetta against the mob, and hunted them down anywhere she found them, still wearing her crimson veil.

Does writing that story give me any rights? No.

If I were now to log onto CoX and crreate the character, that now gives Cryptic the right to profit from that character.

If instead of building her as a CoX character, I were to legally protect the character, I THEN finally have rights to profit from it. At that point, I can no longer legally build her in CoX.

If I were to sell a book about the Crimson Bride without first trademarking the character or copywriting the story, someone else could plaigarize it and gain the rights to the character by legally protecting it first.

What you are asking for is for Cryptic to GRANT, not RETURN, but grant the rights to us to legally profit from characters we create using their tools. To trademark the characters for us and then give them to us to profit from.

Good luck with that.

I am not a redname, but here is my opinion anyway.

Technically you're screwed, but in practice you should be fine.

TECHNICALLY:
Assuming that Yumii was not legally protected before you clicked the 'enter Paragon City' button, you licensed Cryptic to use the character name Yumii as it represents a catgirl with a Katana, wearing the specific costumes you choose for her in the game.

Technically, if you then profit from Yumii (the katana wielding catgirl in those specific costumes), Cryptic has the right to legally shut you down and profit from her themselves.

Note that this does not give Cryptic the rights to all Katana-wielding catgirls. It especially does not give them the right to Katana-wielding catgirls named something other than Yumii, or who wear a costume not depicted on Cryptic's servers.

So, change the name in the novels, use none of Cryptic's backstory and you can have a legion of katana-wielding catgirls.

However, the rights to the specific combination of name and appearance do not go away once the character has been genericed or deleted. What goes away is Cryptic's liability. Once the character has been genericed or deleted, Cryptic has done their part to avoid ownership issues, and you can no longer sue them for using your character (assuming they don't continue using your character).

But if the character was never legally protected by you in the first place, you can't sue them for using it. You expressly gave them permission to use it.

IN PRACTICE:
If someone /petitions your character Yumii, and emails them a link to a published story about a Katana-wielding catgirl, it will be much cheaper and easier for Cryptic to generic the character than to hire a lawyer to hit the publishing company with a Cease and Desist.

In fact, they could choose to be nice and allow the fan use of their property to continue, basically ignoring the issue.

If, years later, the character Yumii the katana-wielding catgirl starts to make millions of dollars, it is unlikely (but possible) that anyone is even going to remember that she started in CoX (don't say so in interviews) and come after you for money.

I seriously doubt if Cryptic has legions of lawyer-monkeys scanning the media for any character that might have come from their game, then scouring the servers (over 17 million characters have been created) for matches.

However, if you did say that the character came from CoX originally, and the character were such a cash cow it was worthwhile, they would have the right to ask you for money. Even if the character had long been deleted by then.

Again, to avoid even this remote and unlikely possibility: In your fiction, use a name other than Yumii. You already stated she looks different from the CoX version, so that shouldn't be an issue.

Finally, about the name:
I think Yumii is a common Japanese name, so Cryptic can't do anything based on the name alone. It is the combination of the name Yumii + the specific look as depicted within CoX that Cryptic was given rights to.

You can't 'get your rights back' for a character you never legally protected in the first place. If the character was never legally protected, you never had (legal) rights to it in the first place. Any number of people could claim they thought up the idea of a katana wielding catgirl named Yumii first. And some of them might be telling the truth. 'Having rights to a character idea' begins when the character is trademarked, or a story is copywritten.

While it would be nice, I kind of wonder whether it would be worth the time and expense to get a lawyer to come up with an altered EULA for Cryptic.

First of all, the only thing you are really risking (IMHO) is that the character might be genericed. Annoying, but much less problem than changing the EULA.

There is the tiny possiblity that one of your characters might become wildly popular and worth millions somehow, and that Cryptic might ask you for some of the money. But you can avoid that, by simply altering the name and appearance of the character before using it for profit in the future. Much cheaper than hiring a lawyer, for both you and Cryptic.

Due to the Marvel lawsuit, Sean "Manticore" Fish changed the name of the character Bastion to Citadel. Did Marvel think of the name Bastion first? Who knows? For all I know, Sean thought the name up in High School, possibly decades before the Marvel Character showed up. But I bet Marvel legally protected it first.

Manticore dealt with it in a mature and professional manner (or so it seems, he could have thrown furniture around the office for all I know), and I suggest we do likewise.

Cryptic does not purport to own the name Captain Marvel or Drizzt Do'Urden.

It is because they do not own these names that they cannot allow you to play characters with those names on their servers.

By the act of creating a character on the servers, you are stating that the character is your own original creation, and not previously legally protectd, which you are gifting to Cryptic.

If the character is not your own original creation, you are lying.

If the character is previously legally protected, you are lying.

If you also played a character of the same name and appearance in Dark Age of Camelot, it is probably (I haven't read their EULA) owned by DAOC, in which case you are mistaken or lying.

When Cryptic discovers that you are playing a chearacter in their game that is owned by DAOC, they technically should generic that character.

They may not, because they are nice. But if they do not, they are chancing a lawsuit.

Marvel forced their hand.

It is true that Cryptic only owns your character data. They cannot really own the character name and appearance. But they can make you change the character name and appearance as it appears on their servers.

[ QUOTE ]
So what's my incentive to log in and create a toon that Cryptic ends up owning?

If Cryptic owns the toon to protect against anyone else in the game from stealing my idea and making money off of it for so long as I have an active account w/ Cryptic, then I'm 100% ok with that. But I should still be able to sell my idea on afterwards if I so chose.

If the account is cancelled or the toon deleted, then its up for grabs. I wouldn't be trying to use Cryptic as a Copyright office but I expect my original ideas to be protected when I log into the game and still remain my ownership rights for so long as I keep the account active.

Would that be a fairer way to look at it?

[/ QUOTE ]

'Fairer'? Hard to say, rather subjective.

You could have a lawyer write up a EULA to that effect and present it to Cryptic as an alternative to what they have now. Who knows, maybe they will adopt it.

In the meantime, it is not up to Cryptic to protect Rubberlad, it is up to you. If Rubberlad was legally protected prior to your hitting the 'enter Paragon City' button, you have nothing to worry about. Profit to your heart's content.

However, Rubberlad could get genericed at any time. If he is, you can then start sending Cryptic documents to prove you own the character, or change his appearance and name in their game, whichever you prefer.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever checked to see if any of your fans have created a Rubberlad on any of Cryptic's servers?

As far as what is your incentive to create a character for Cryptic to own? I say one incentive is that it's a damn fine game, and fun to play. Another is that you might find it fun to be able to create characters whith the express hope to show up someday in the Comics, Novels, Cards, etc. You may even end up working with them some day.

I've created a LOT of characters that Cryptic now technically owns, but if I end up publishing my own comics some day I have no doubt that I will end up making plenty new ones that Cryptic has never seen.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Marvel tried this already. They created a Wolverine clone in the game and then tried to sue Cryptic over allowing the character to be created.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I can 100% appreciate. But in lieu of the settlement, can't the EULA be updated to recognize previously trademarked ideas that players self-own and recreate in the game? That's totally different to what you're saying when a player logs in and recreates a toon that *someone else* owns.

Granted, I don't want to see someone create a 100% identical toon like "Rubberlad" and rename him "Tennis Ball" but at least it's not "Rubberlad." But to say Cryptic owns "Rubberlad" the minute I log in and create it even if the toon never existed in the game prior to my logging in, that's just ridiculous.

That would be the same mentality as corporations who own their email and IT storage systems and own exclusive creative rights to all the work created by salaried employees and contractors they pay to work within that system which would be incorrect. As a player who's paying a monthly fee to buy into playing in a world with my player-created toon, I would argue that I am also paying to retain my right to own my own creativity and use it as I see fit outside the game model regardless of which came first - the idea or the game.



[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not YOU own Rubberlad does not enter into it.

The question is, "Does Cryptic own him?" If Cryptic does not own Rubberlad, they cannot allow him on their servers.

Whether or not YOU own Rubberlad does not enter the question until Rubberlad's owner tries to sue YOU. Which is unlikely, I'd hope .

Updating the EULA is possible but unnecessary: if you want to play a character you own on Cryptic's servers, send them a letter granting them permission to use the character along with documentation proving you own it, and more documents proving your identity, sanity, soberness, etc.

They can then choose to reply with legal documentation to cement all that, a waiver document, etc. However, keep in mind that they could still choose to just take the easy safe route and 'generic' the character.

EDITed for speeling.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is (IMO) clearly spelled out in the EULA. Given that, Arctic Sun's warning hardly seems "too late".

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that Artic Sun's warning was too late, but that I (and perhaps others) already have a toon they've marketed and/or sold prior to recreating it in the COX universe. Artic's interpretation of the EULA suggests I couldn't go on to continue marketing my idea because I made the mistake of recreating it in COX and that I have a problem with.

A classic example would be the "Statesman" toon. If Jack Emmert ever became disassociated with Cryptic Studios and COX universe, would he still retain the rights to the Statesman toon he created years beforehand?

If he signed away creative ownership of the toon specifically in the contracts written in order to make this game possible, ok then. But what if he didn't? Stan Lee is another classic example of someone who created a great idea as an artist but lost ownership to the corporation that made it possible (Marvel, Inc.).

Couldn't this be the same issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cryptic is unlikely to sue you over a character you are playing in their game that has previous legal protection.

If they become aware of it, though, they are likely to force you to change the appearance and/or name of the character in the game.

If Jack Emmert (who owns Cryptic, IIRC) left Cryptic for some reason, and if Statesman were legally protected prior to the existence of CoX (which I don't think it was), then Cryptic would most likely stop using Statesman in the game (can you say '5th Column') and also not allow Jack to play Statesman in the game.

If Statesman did not predate the game legally, then Cryptic could keep using Statesman and Jack would not be allowed to play him.

The fact of when you thought up a character appearance and bio do not enter into it (someone else can say they thought of it first), unless they were legally protected before you hit the 'enter Paragon City' button on the character creation tool.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The name, image, powers, situations and actions of a character as portrayed in your novel are yours.

The name, image, powers, situations and actions of a character as portrayed in (or created using the tools of) CoX belong to CoX.

If both are identical, CoX wins. Unless you had a previous copyright/trademark, you have just 'gifted' NCSoft with your creation.

If you had a previous legal claim, by terms of your tacit agreement with the EULA, CoX still wins. They own your character until you point out to them that you have a previous claim.

When they become aware that they have your copywrtten/trademarked character in their game, they will 'genericize' (randomize the appearance and/or ban it until the name is changed) it and warn you not to use such characters in their game.

If you want to use a previously-owned character in their game, contact them and have them ask the character's owner (who might be you) for permission to use/portray the character. Good luck.

I am not a lawyer, but I do have good reading comprehension and I have read the EULA.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in other words, short version, Cryptic "owns" every single character name on *every* single server now created by players? Keep in mind that there are characters where a "name" appears under multiple companies, with multiple core concepts/images/appearance.

Captain Marvel & Firestar, for instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

What defines identical though. If my blue skinned, white haired merfolk in my story and in CoH are the same, but they have two totally different backgrounds and histories, is that different enough?

[/ QUOTE ]

It comes down to what happens if someone /petitions the character.

If someone /petitions the character (or if a GM read your novel), the GM involved gets to make a judgement call (or defer the judgement to superiors).

If they choose to err on the side of caution, they will then 'generic' the character and ban it. They will send you an email asking you for alternate names. Once you choose an alternate name for the character you will be allowed to play it again.

They more or less HAVE to do this to keep you from suing them over allowing someone to play your legally-protected character in their game.

Marvel tried this already. They created a Wolverine clone in the game and then tried to sue Cryptic over allowing the character to be created.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The name, image, powers, situations and actions of a character as portrayed in your novel are yours.

The name, image, powers, situations and actions of a character as portrayed in (or created using the tools of) CoX belong to CoX.

If both are identical, CoX wins. Unless you had a previous copyright/trademark, you have just 'gifted' NCSoft with your creation.

If you had a previous legal claim, by terms of your tacit agreement with the EULA, CoX still wins. They own your character until you point out to them that you have a previous claim.

When they become aware that they have your copywrtten/trademarked character in their game, they will 'genericize' (randomize the appearance and/or ban it until the name is changed) it and warn you not to use such characters in their game.

If you want to use a previously-owned character in their game, contact them and have them ask the character's owner (who might be you) for permission to use/portray the character. Good luck.

I am not a lawyer, but I do have good reading comprehension and I have read the EULA.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in other words, short version, Cryptic "owns" every single character name on *every* single server now created by players? Keep in mind that there are characters where a "name" appears under multiple companies, with multiple core concepts/images/appearance.

Captain Marvel & Firestar, for instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if there is a character out there on Cryptic's servers named Captain Marvel, Cryptic owns that character (the version on their servers) until they become aware that there is previous ownership of Captain Marvel (any version).

When they become aware that someone previously owns Captain Marvel (and that that character is on their servers), they are then obligated to genericize the character and/or force a name change, while explaining to the misguided player that they can't just remake the character on pain of banning.

This is part of why we as players can /petition names and costumes and are encouraged to do so in the case of recognized violations of trademark, copywrite, or the EULA.

It'a all part of a plot to keep their lawyers broke.

Laws are often silly.

In my home town, there used to be a bookstore that allowed you to trade in books for half the cover price in other books. No money changing hands, just books.

They ended up in court because they were not paying tax on the book exchanges.

The store owner had it explained to him by the lawyer thusly: If your mom cooks an apple pie for you in exchange for you mowing her lawn, technically she owes sales tax on the exchange of the pie for the service of getting the lawn mowed.

In conclusion, the law may be that silly.

The name, image, powers, situations and actions of a character as portrayed in your novel are yours.

The name, image, powers, situations and actions of a character as portrayed in (or created using the tools of) CoX belong to CoX.

If both are identical, CoX wins. Unless you had a previous copyright/trademark, you have just 'gifted' NCSoft with your creation.

If you had a previous legal claim, by terms of your tacit agreement with the EULA, CoX still wins. They own your character until you point out to them that you have a previous claim.

When they become aware that they have your copywrtten/trademarked character in their game, they will 'genericize' (randomize the appearance and/or ban it until the name is changed) it and warn you not to use such characters in their game.

If you want to use a previously-owned character in their game, contact them and have them ask the character's owner (who might be you) for permission to use/portray the character. Good luck.

I am not a lawyer, but I do have good reading comprehension and I have read the EULA.