Lurker > StealThisSheen

Aloc posted...

Yeah maybe she killed thousands of people and the Xmen are like "we matter more"

"She's a mutant. I bet she killed thousands of people" sure sounds incredibly racist.

evilpresident posted...

This topic reminds me of this image https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/1/17854eb2.jpg

Yeah but see actually the X-Men are the oppressors since they're trying to stop those people from forming an angry, violent mob against that little girl. Why can't they just form their angry, violent mob in peace, you oppressive jerks?!

Aloc posted...

The weak ones are oppressed.

The strong ones are the oppressors.

Now, wait. Earlier, you fully agreed with the racist villain rhetoric that because some of them may be strong, none of them could be oppressed. So which is it?

Aloc posted...

But we know there are tiers to this.

Sure most mutant powers are useless.

But then when they can destroy all of humanity with a thought...

So because a few of them are powerful, none of them are oppressed? Explain, please.

Aloc posted...

If you can hold the entire literal universe in your hand and decide if it lives or dies.

You are not oppressed.

A vast majority of them can not, and I can't help but notice you ran and hid when I asked you for proof when you said most of them could.

Aloc posted...

See the whole thing is the whole marginalized group thing worked when their power levels were more grounded

When you have Jean Grey holding the universe in her hands...literally.

I don't buy it.

You aren't oppressed. You can annihilate the universe with a thought.

So if you can kill people, you can't be oppressed?

So... Literally nobody is a marginalized group, according to you, as long as atleast one member of their group can kill people?

Aloc posted...

There are thousands upon thousands of mutants who could end humanity irl.

Not a few dozen lmao.

Proof? It's pretty well established that the vast majority of mutants in the X-Men world do NOT have noteworthy dangerous or powerful abilities, and those that do specifically get sought after by the X-Men and Brotherhood, specifically due to said abilities.

Nukazie posted...

does that apply to the bully too?

Maybe I missed something, but is there literally any source for the victim being a bully other than... The word of the attacker's family? If there is, then by all means, that may change my opinion. But, so far, the only source calling the victim a bully appears to be... The attacker's family?

ModernPost posted...

The law allows lethal force in self defense if you have a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm, not necessarily strictly in fear for your life. If you're being attacked by people who have had a pattern of abuse and violent bullying, this level of force could be justified. I do think there is merit to a self defense claim.

Howso, in this case? What in the video, in your eyes, would provide for "reasonable fear," considering the attacker is the one who struck first?

Again, I find it kinda weird that certain people on the internet are arguing "stand your ground" when not even the actual attacker's family/legal team are doing so. Some people on the internet appear to be filing a "stand your ground" defense on her behalf. Maybe you should contact her lawyer?

Toonstrack posted...

You're not confused lol. Nothing i said was confusing. You're just trying to bait me, and I'm not giving you what you want.

Be gone.

What are they trying to bait you into? Repeating something you said previously, which got you suspended, and might thus get you suspended again?

Not sure how that means I'm wrong, since, you know... You got suspended, like I said you did.

Toonstrack: "You're lying, that never happened!"
Also Toonstrack: "Okay yeah that suspension did happen"

You can't make this up. Did you actually ignore me yet, Toonstrack, or are you going to keep replying and digging a deeper hole?

Toonstrack posted...

Lol, I checked just to see the response, hes definitely lying lmfao. Not even hiding it. I made the right decision.

People literally made a "Toonstrack is SUSPENDED" topic over it because you were so blatant. It's still available for all to see, on the usual site.

But by all means, go on.

Though let me be fair. One of his more recent huge suspensions wasn't for transphobic shit. It was when he went into a topic by a user talking about their wife choosing to end their life via MAID, and he decided to attack the person's wife less than two days after she died.

Toonstrack posted...

Hes misrepresenting things in a massive way lol. All I can say about that.

But believe him if you wish, im going to be adding him to my ignore list so this sort of conversation won't be stinking up the threads further.

Notice he didn't accuse me of lying, simply "misrepresenting."

Fascinating, yes?

The "misrepresentation" is that Toonstrack has, indeed, been suspended numerous times for transphobic shit, and then he goes on reddit and tries to argue what he said isn't actually transphobic, just "factual."

Rika_Furude posted...

Oh. I havent been playing it so I didnt know. I assumed it was multiplayer only already

Yeah, they still did smaller PvE stuff, atleast.

Now, this latest news story confirms that their entire premise for why Overwatch 2 was necessary (to add a big change like PvE) is gone, and it's abundantly clear that they only made Overwatch 2 to try and milk people via microtransactions.

Rika_Furude posted...

Wasnt it already cancelled? Or just de-facto cancelled but with mystery surrounding it?

The promised big PvE mode was canceled months ago. That said, they still did smaller PvE events, such as character stories. This news article suggests they're canceling those, too.

bfslick50 posted...

Which is why Thor can do whatever the fuck he wants. Its laughable for an Earth government to try and oppress visiting Asgardians.

...Did your argument literally become "Well, yeah, Thor can do whatever he wants because he's too powerful, but Earth should still oppress mutants because they can?"

Like... Holy shit.

Dark_Arbron posted...

Youre wasting your time.

Yeah, I know. I'm just bored. He'll inevitably get suspended again for posting transphobic shit, anyway. He always does.

Toonstrack posted...

I dodnt lose anything, you did the moment you used steam numbers. I'm not even convinced you've played this game at all recently at this point which is why you weren't aware how many platforms its available on.

You then tried to use this same platform you are now decrying as unreliable, and when you self owned doing that, are now at the "flipping the chess board" stage of things.

You win dude. Only 20k ppl play this on steam, no where else.

Man, if the game's doing so good, maybe you should tell Blizzard so they stop firing people and canceling features? I bet Blizzard would like to know from GameFAQS user Toonstrack how well their game is doing.

Toonstrack posted...

Then why did you just try to use them as an arguing point after realizing how stupid it was to cire steam numbers for a game on 7 platforms

You're the only one trying to desperate make the numbers NOT make sense then they line up pretty well lmao.

Like, what is your end goal here? What are you trying to prove at this ppoint? The game isn't dead, you can find a match is seconds on any platform, its dev updates get hundreds of thousands of views on the day they are uploaded... do you jsut have a compulsive need to be right about everything?

StealThisSheen posted...

According to ActivePlayer themselves:

All data presented by ActivePlayer.io are all estimated data and should NOT be used as factual reference.
https://activeplayer.io/how-we-collect-data/

ActivePlayer: "Please don't use our data as factual reference"
Toonstrack: "Oh I'm gonna, and I'm gonna say things even you didn't say, but I'll attribute them to you, anyway!"

You literally already lost.

Blizzard, themselves, have admitted the game is doing poorly, by canceling bonuses to devs, straight up firing people, and literally canceling promised features.

At this point, it's on you to prove Blizzard, themselves, are wrong about how poorly the game is doing. And your source, ActivePlayer, basically betrayed you by posting on their own site "Do not use us as factual reference."

According to ActivePlayer themselves:

All data presented by ActivePlayer.io are all estimated data and should NOT be used as factual reference.

https://activeplayer.io/how-we-collect-data/

ActivePlayer: "Please don't use our data as factual reference"
Toonstrack: "Oh I'm gonna, and I'm gonna say things even you didn't say, but I'll attribute them to you, anyway!"

Toonstrack posted...

You realize that changes very little about the fact this game has a steady and regular flow if players numbering into the millions each and every day, or do you think that 300k people are playing this game for 24 hours straight?

Like just stop trying dude. All these new goalposts isn't changing the fact. Your steam numbers say absolutely nothing, this game is on at LEAST 7 different platforms.

I can't help but notice that you didn't actually realize that, and now you are desperately trying to make sense of numbers that even ActiveGamer themselves state should not be taken with any kind of certainty for legitimate player counts.

This is hilarious.

Toonstrack posted...

.

Why don't YOU do the math and multiply that number by 24 so you get the average daily count. The number will SHOCK you. Absolutely SHOCK you i say.

You do realize they, by their own admission, go hour by hour. So, for example, if I played for two hours, I'd be counted twice.

You realize that, right?

Toonstrack posted...

Yes lmao. This game is on 2 x box platforms, 2 Playstation platforms, pc and switch. Theres a metric ton of people who play on all of those including myself who still plays on a ps4.

The estimate is indeed an estimate but its far closer to the real thing than steam numbers.

Alright, I actually looked at ActivePlayer, which doesn't merely count ACTIVE players, it counts ANYBODY who logged in at all in a given hour, no matter how long they logged in for.

Do you wanna know their CURRENT count, for the last hour?

Online Players (1H)294,071

Why don't you do the math and tell me how far away that is from 6 million.

And, again, this is their estimate, based on no actual proven figures.

Toonstrack posted...

Oh, sorry here's more recent numbers.

https://www.dexerto.com/overwatch/how-many-people-play-overwatch-player-count-tracker-2022-1643403/

Its actually closer to 6 million a day.

So whered you source YOUR numbers from?

Since no Game Company is willing to share their live logged users data. Activeplayer.io went ahead and produced an estimated data.

Spoilers: ActivePlayer is shit for actual statistics. Sorry it took you this long to find out.

EDIT: However, do you know what ISN'T estimated? Things like current Steam and Epic PC player counts, which... I posted.

Wanna try again? Do you really believe 5.8million Overwatch 2 players are on Xbox and Playstation, to make the numbers make sense, given Steam and Epic's PC counts?

Toonstrack posted...

https://www.gameleap.com/articles/overwatch-2-player-count-stats-december-2023

Overwatch as of December 2023 averages 3 million players a day by estimation.

For a year and a half old game that is basically a direct copy paste for a 7 year old game thats pretty solid.

You are, quite literally, trying to refute my CURRENT statistics with an article from almost four months ago.

Intriguing.

I'm still trying to make sense of

"We, Blizzard, literally sold Overwatch 2 based on the idea of 'We're going to add a PvE element so large that it can't just be added to Overwatch 1, it requires an entirely new game. So download this new game, and we're going to kill Overwatch 1.' Oh, btw, we cancelled the PvE which we insisted required the new game to begin with. ...But buy these new microtransactions, please!"

Certain users here: "This is fine, this makes sense! Why are you upset?!"

deoxxys posted...

Yes but not really. I know exactly what happened. Overwatch 2 was more of an excuse to change the microtransaction system, change the PVP format to 5v5 and intended to have more of a single player experience BUT what I'm talking about is a separate spin-off game is what would be required, completely changing how combat is done. It would require focusing on just maybe one or two playable characters so that the game could thrive and actually be a fun single player experience and not just feel like one of their seasonal PVE events squared with tacked on ability trees.

You can say all this, but we literally have proof for how Blizzard sold the idea of Overwatch 2, which was "We're going to include this big PvE element but we have to make a new game to do so."

Why are you trying so hard to excuse them?

Toonstrack posted...

Like another user said you'd have to basiicslly reinvent the game from the ground up.

Which, again, was literally the entire premise for why Overwatch 2 was necessary, instead of just adding to Overwatch 1, so, uh...

Toonstrack posted...

The player numbers however remain solid.

6 month ago peak: 75k

Current timeframe peak: 39k

Are you sure on that one? It's literally dropped by almost half, in 6 months. Palworld, an early access, blatantly incomplete game, has almost 3x as many active players, and its initial hype has died.

deoxxys posted...

I mean the characters are interesting but they would have to have a separate game and to be built from the ground up with a gameplay system different enough from the PVP that you would have to build it around 1 to 3 characters max.

This was quite literally Blizzard's reasoning for Overwatch 2. They, quite literally, sold it as "We're going to take the game that exists, and add a major PvE component, which necessitates the need for a new game, instead of just adding on to Overwatch 1." They killed off Overwatch 1 based entirely on false promises, when, in reality, Overwatch 2 is just Overwatch 1 but with more microtransactions.

omniryu posted...

This. Humans don't have 80 foot robots trying to capture them. No one is telling humans they shouldn't exist gor being human.

Unfortunately, since I made that post, we've learned that a surprising amount of people actually support the idea of mutants having 80 foot robots chasing them, because "Some of them COULD be dangerous."

This topic got really gross real fast.

Toonstrack posted...

And the game survived just fine without it, and still does.

I mean the game is literally dying as we speak. They are literally firing people over how badly it's doing.

RadDude9000 posted...

That's why we get a real life version of Luke Skywalker or Tom Cruise firing the shot to save the day.

Yeah but that's merely shooting into a small opening. In this case, they'd have to shoot the missile into the opening, and then somehow remotely control it so that it curves through the throat and along the digestive track until it hits the stomach, so that it doesn't just hit, say, the back of the mouth, and be ineffective.

Toonstrack posted...

I never understood why anyone cared about this. No one plays OW for the Pve lol

"lol who cares about promised features being canceled"

Have you ever tried just not posting?

The entire reason nobody plays OW for the PvE is because the PvE was never even allowed to properly exist.

Rounders

LanHikari10 posted...

Blizzard stinksss.

This is the takeaway. Can't even say it's just Activision, since Activision has a similar-ish example where the team actually did legitimately atleast try to add story, even given poor circumstances. This is like, literally all on the OW team, specifically.

RadDude9000 posted...

Air force fire missiles right down its gulled.
Bunker busters go into the beast's belly and BOOM you take down the beast.
If I would have been in command . Yeah.

You do realize how hard it'd be to fire a missile through its mouth and actually straight into its belly, right

They're entirely designed to tell specific stories within a specific timeframe, instead of being an ongoing thing. That's why they're called limited series.

itcheyness posted...

He's a known anti-Ukrainian troll who constantly posted fringe news YouTubers justifying the Russian invasion and spreading Russian propaganda on 261.

Good call, I didn't recognize the name. Probably because he likely spent a lot of time in purg, given his karma.

I'm absolutely baffled how many people are going "It's okay to be racist against a group as long as a few of them are criminals and thus you fear them."

Like, legitimately baffled.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

I'll have to look up this new thing. Its been a long time since I went through proper gun training just thr yearly qualifying

Basically, "double tap" is the idea of shooting twice after only aiming once. "Controlled pairs" is the idea of aiming, shooting, aiming, shooting. The idea is that, by aiming the second shot, you're basically providing enough time to not only make sure you actually hit the target, instead of blindly firing based on your initial aim, but you're also providing time to gauge if the second shot is actually necessary.

BunkerBoy posted...

Look at this tool the TC posted
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/957d1bad.jpg

User Info: TinyTim01

1. Elite
2. User Since: Aug 2009
3. Karma: 736

TC is literally an alt, and yet certain posters couldn't help but trip over themselves to support them, anyway.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

There is a reason with gun training double tap is a thing. One bullet isn't always enough to stop someone.

There's also a reason why "controlled pairs" is the prevailing teaching over "double tap." "Double tap" is now a frowned upon thing.

Like, 90% of fucking Captain America himself's actions are "extrajudicial vigilante justice."

bfslick50 posted...

Using their powers to exert extrajudicial vigilante justice isn't part of their actions?

"Just think if they stopped only targeting criminals and attacked all of us!" is literally a racist X-men villain argument. Good job.

Spoilers: 99% of superheroes exert extrajudicial vigilante justice.

dancing_cactuar posted...

I don't know if you're reading the manga or watching the anime, but the way shit's done in the Final War arc really throws a lot of it under the drain in my opinion. I get him accepting more power from AFO because he feels what he has isn't enough compared to someone like Dabi, but him getting reduced intelligence even worse than Gigantomachia as a result left a sour taste. I also get being manipulated into being the "face" of AFO's heteromorph forces with the ulterior reason to get Kurogiri, but I dislike that some random toady that Anima took out with a bunch of birds was the voice because Spinner could barely form a sentence.

I'm torn on this. I sorta get it, because AFO blatantly fed on Spinner's devotion to Shigaraki, and Spinner is devoted to Shigaraki entirely because he views him as a friend who never judged him. Yes, I didn't like the whole... Devolving Spinner into a mindless beast bit, but it made sense to me, because, again, AFO basically fed it to him as... "You're helping your friend this way." I'm sorta okay with it because it's painted as AFO basically taking advantage of Spinner, not something Spinner actually actively chose, himself. He was sorta tricked into it.

bfslick50 posted...

You've changed the analogy. The X-men equivalent would be asking how you react to the good bomb guys? The guys who are part of a vigilante group building bombs to fight bad guys on their own, how do we react to them? The good X-men are still walking bombs and that is definitely not how we should be viewing minorities.

...If you view the GOOD mutants as "walking bombs" simply because of their powers, and not because of their actions, uh... Yes, that's racist as fuck. If the good X-Men have never bombed innocent people, then why are you judging them? Literally anybody can build a bomb.

dancing_cactuar posted...

As half baked as it also was in My Hero Academia, it unironically worked better in that shit because it is literally this example where people hate Spinner 'cause he looks like a gecko or Tentacole 'cause he has those six arms with skin webbing in between in a world where most of the population has powers and most of those are relatively weaksauce shit.

MHA actually did it very well, considering how comics/manga usually treat it, even if "half baked." I feel like Spinner is a very well played character, for example, in that he idolized somebody like Stain because he felt so marginalized and hated himself, and you just get the feeling that if somebody good had reached him sooner, he'd have been a good guy, since his entire devotion to the current villains is almost entirely based on his friendship/sense of belonging, to them.

deoxxys posted...

I guess that's true.

but you hear how a lot of these people were enjoying torturing animals to death as kids and it seems some are just born rotten.

I guess I was emotionally responding to this specific instance

I feel like this is the point, though. If somebody enjoys torturing animals, they clearly need help. And the LACK of help is what creates problems later on.

That said, I get the emotional response, completely.

EDIT: Also, to be fair, you hear extremely few cases of somebody enjoying something like torturing animals out of the blue. It's often caused by some kind of trauma or influence, which, if properly treated, could likely be improved/cured.