test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Fighting Claws- biggest disappointment in powers.

2

Comments

  • lafury001200lafury001200 Posts: 567 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    You won the device fair and square Smacky. No guilt.
  • ukatoenasniukatoenasni Posts: 224 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Sheesh, go out for an evening with the girl and a fun conversation explodes into being.

    I think, now that I can see more of the argument, I can agree with your general misgivings, Smacky. At least enough to respect the difference in opinion, as it's generally not a problem I run into (I suppose growing up more with the 90's era comics may have made me a bit more willing to accept over-the-top violence), but my suspension of disbelief isn't yours.

    I think mine's held up mostly by ribbons, duct-tape, and glitter.

    All the same, I think both sides have produced some interesting arguments on the Sliding Scale of Realism and Acceptable Violence. I'll definately have to think about this a bit more in some of my side-projects (and for when I make my next character in-game).

    EDIT: Though I will say, for the 'superhero only has what they bring to a fight' argument, given somewhat realistic (or even embellished, as is often done with the Superhero genre) aspect of training and skill taking time to acquire to a certain point, someone that chooses to bring swords to a fight may not just have any better option. They want to have an effect on stopping crime, and it's either the only thing they have talent/skill/aptitude with (an amateur with a weapon is more dangerous then anything else, because they don't have the level of control or muscle memory you need to stop at 'non-lethal', and even that requires specific training to achieve), or they just don't have access to anything else at the moment (not every vigilante type has a Batman budget, after all).

    You can see shades of this in most vigilante backgrounds - they go off for training for years (Batman and his martial arts training/Walking the Earth), have been doing it their entire life anyway (Hawkeye, who had been training in archery since about age 6 or 7), or have some other kind of boost that only realistically works with certain forms of combat (Captain America's martial arts/shield throw - yes, technically he's powered, but it's the only example I can think of off the top of my head right now). Sometimes, what they use is pretty much the only stuff they're good with, and it's the difference between making an impact today, and possibly never making an impact at all.

    [SIGPIC]Also, this poster rambles.[/SIGPIC]
  • shieldtowershieldtower Posts: 1,208 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    A trained swordsman(superhero or otherwise) would be able to subdue a mook with a minimal amount of blood loss. The same principle would apply to practically every other sort of melee weapon out there.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________
  • biffsmackwellbiffsmackwell Posts: 4,739 Community Moderator
    edited June 2013
    @lafury: sir you are too kind. Thanks!
    Sheesh, go out for an evening with the girl and a fun conversation explodes into being.

    I think, now that I can see more of the argument, I can agree with your general misgivings, Smacky. At least enough to respect the difference in opinion, as it's generally not a problem I run into (I suppose growing up more with the 90's era comics may have made me a bit more willing to accept over-the-top violence), but my suspension of disbelief isn't yours.

    I think mine's held up mostly by ribbons, duct-tape, and glitter.

    All the same, I think both sides have produced some interesting arguments on the Sliding Scale of Realism and Acceptable Violence. I'll definately have to think about this a bit more in some of my side-projects (and for when I make my next character in-game).

    EDIT: Though I will say, for the 'superhero only has what they bring to a fight' argument, given somewhat realistic (or even embellished, as is often done with the Superhero genre) aspect of training and skill taking time to acquire to a certain point, someone that chooses to bring swords to a fight may not just have any better option. They want to have an effect on stopping crime, and it's either the only thing they have talent/skill/aptitude with (an amateur with a weapon is more dangerous then anything else, because they don't have the level of control or muscle memory you need to stop at 'non-lethal', and even that requires specific training to achieve), or they just don't have access to anything else at the moment (not every vigilante type has a Batman budget, after all).

    You can see shades of this in most vigilante backgrounds - they go off for training for years (Batman and his martial arts training/Walking the Earth), have been doing it their entire life anyway (Hawkeye, who had been training in archery since about age 6 or 7), or have some other kind of boost that only realistically works with certain forms of combat (Captain America's martial arts/shield throw - yes, technically he's powered, but it's the only example I can think of off the top of my head right now). Sometimes, what they use is pretty much the only stuff they're good with, and it's the difference between making an impact today, and possibly never making an impact at all.

    I also grew up with 90s comics in my teens, even collected X-Force and a few first issues of Liefeld's Image comics. Ew gross, right? But my enjoyment of all things Liefeldian died away soon after, and I stopped collecting comic books, likely because the crap I was collecting was so devoid of any real substance (except for Groo - that comic never lost its quality, (speaking of wanton violence with swords...)).

    Anyways I can see where you're coming from with the "that's the only thing I ever trained how to fight with" theory, and I'll buy it for, I dunno, a couple guys, but not everyone out there could have that origin story. Especially those dudes named Deaths This or Dark That from the Supergroup Evil Whatsis.

    But fighting claws specifically, how do you explain that? They look like their purpose is to turn a mundane punch into a vicious, disemboweling bloodbath.
    A trained swordsman(superhero or otherwise) would be able to subdue a mook with a minimal amount of blood loss. The same principle would apply to practically every other sort of melee weapon out there.

    I started off by rolling my eyes because Trunks is the worst thing to ever happen. But that was pretty funny. What's up with everything going dark there? Storytelling device or well-timed turbo solar eclipse? I dunno. That last line was hilarious. :biggrin:
    biffsig.jpg
  • ukatoenasniukatoenasni Posts: 224 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    But fighting claws specifically, how do you explain that? They look like their purpose is to turn a mundane punch into a vicious, disemboweling bloodbath.

    Not exactly - I will admit that it's a harder one, but it depends on what form they're taking.
    If we're assuming styles similar to the katar, you could focus on non-lethal areas (jabbing to extremities, or making use of the slashing aspects to disarm similarly to how one would use a knife).

    Conversely, things like the bagh nakh are generally less fatal measures (their primary purpose is incapacitation by severing muscles) with a shallower 'depth' (not in CO, of course, but that's because everything is ridiculously oversized for both visibility and over-the-top comic action). Lethality could be achieved (disembowlment or attacks to the throat or major arteries, sheer blood loss), but for direct lethal purposes (assassination) poisoned variants were preferred (turns every strike potentially lethal regardless of damage done).

    In that case, we can assume that the bagh nakh style of claws are more similar to Bestial claws and the like, and you can functionally use the Katar style of claws closer to a small sword or knife. You always have non-fatal options.

    The animations don't support it, of course, but in that case I summon the Buzz Term Card 'Gameplay and Story Segregation' and question the logic behind a lot of the things that work for gameplay but don't for story purposes.

    [SIGPIC]Also, this poster rambles.[/SIGPIC]
  • nephtnepht Posts: 6,883 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    I am hoping claws get fixed by the time I come back from my hols :P
    nepht_siggy_v6_by_nepht-dbbz19n.jpg
    Nepht and Dr Deflecto on primus
    They all thought I was out of the game....But I'm holding all the lockboxes now..
    I'll......FOAM FINGER YOUR BACK!
  • ashensnowashensnow Posts: 2,048 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    At this point we can start arguing that bee stings and tripping on the sidewalk is lethal. Everything that all heroes do in Champions is deadly force and I shouldn't play as any powerset because people are so fragile that getting burned or electrified will instantly kill anyone..

    That is not the point of my argument at all. My point is that applying one set of standards to some attack forms, such as claws or swords, while applying a completely different set of standards to other attack forms that are potentially every bit as lethal (or even more so) is a bit off.
    Electricity applied by someone who can control the voltage isn't going to be potentially lethal.

    If it is sufficient to render the target unconscious then it is potentially lethal. If you have the ability to control your lightning bolt, but use sufficient power to KO someone, then you are choosing to use it in a manner that is potentially lethal.

    I'm much stronger than my 9 year old son, and I can wrestle with him all day long and not potentially maim him, because I know how to control my strength. Most people do. A superhero that can control the elements would behave in the same manner. Otherwise they wouldn't really be controlling the element. Same as someone with superstrength pulling their punches. Just because you can punch a hole in concrete doesn't mean that you're going to be punching through your enemies..

    If you are hitting him with enough force to send him flying through the air you are not really pulling your punch. You speak of handling your son. If someone were thrown 60, 80, 200 feet through the air to impact against a concrete wall...would it be the same as wrestling with them ?
    You talk about explosions as if they only have two levels of damage; dead and completely unscathed. You don't think that there's a proximity range where it won't completely destroy someone? Further, there's no shrapnel involved, so that makes it less lethal than an exploding car or whatever..

    No I spoke of your specific example using the context you provided. Action movie explosions. They generally dont do much more than get the hero dirty and knock him down. They often kill mooks caught in them. Its unlikely that there will be an explosion where there is no shrapnel involved. Cars generally (Im not saying never) dont explode except in action movies. Its a Hollywood thing. I am not arguing that explosions have only two levels of damage, merely pointing out that the explosion you refer to as merely knocking a hero on his tush is likely to be lethal to mooks. This is not about the real lethality of an explosion of that magnitude, its about how Hollywood tells stories. The $20 million per movie leading man has to survive, so Hollywood shows us how dangerous the kaboom was by having unnamed mooks die.
    A superhero brings what he was given to a fight. A street vigilante has a choice of weapons. I don't believe that a guy is going to bring swords to just not use them properly. Why bring a sword to a fight if you're just going to try to go for precise, non-lethal cuts? Why not use something that's less of a hassle to use and can subdue a criminal/superguy equally? Bringing a sword means you have the intent to cut someone up. Bringing a sword to gently cut your enemies (Great Weapon Fighter comes to mind) seems like a real contrived choice of weaponry to me.

    "use them properly." One of the proper uses of a sword is to subdue your opponent. You should check out some of the renaissance era illustrated guides for greatsword combat. Its eye opening. Why not use something less of a hassle ? Because a sword is what you have, or know how to use ? If you are going after superpowered individuals without superpowers of your own you are likely going to need to be very good with whatever tool you choose to use. This restricts your options because it takes time to become sufficiently skilled with any weapon to be able to take on supervillains.
    Yes, I know ice can cut. That's why I brought up density. You don't create ice that's so tightly packed that it has hard edges or the mass and velocity to crack bones.

    You are projecting ice with sufficient force to destroy tanks and instantly KO an armored human being.
    The reason you won't see anyone cut to shreds in Champions is because they didn't develop that technology, not because the attacks are not meant to be lethal. How often do you get shredded up in real life, literally covered in blood from head to toe (bleed visual effects), and just walk away from that? Similar also to the reason you won't find grappling moves in the game. It was too hard to make it look right with the varying player sizes, rather than any lethality issues. By this same argument you could debunk all of your arguments, because you don't see anyone burned to a crisp after electrocuting them in the game, and you don't see skulls smashed in or broken bones all over the place.

    My argument has never been that foes should be burnt to a crisp, electrocuted, etc. It has been that if we can ignore the real world lethality of non blade/gun attacks because, "its comics," then its fine to ignore the lethality of those guns/blades. I don't want more lethality.
    The bottom line for me is that any "hero" that chooses to bring a sword to his crimefighting career could have made a better choice of weapon. Bringing a sword to make little tiny intimidating cuts is more contrived than being able to make a giant fire hand to pick up a bad guy without hurting him.

    Except that those little cuts to intimidate or subdue someone can really work. Its happened. Personally I think that the giant fire hand is just fine. "Its comics," after all. I also think that, if we can ignore the lethality of radiation, fire, electricity, hitting someone with enough force to throw them through the air dozens if not hundreds of feet, etc. we can make allowances for delivering an incapacitating, but non lethal, flesh wound.

    Of course there are better options than bringing a weapon that has been obsolete for centuries...but if that is all you have or all you know how to use...?

    One of my characters, "superpower," consists of have the accumulated skills and knowledge of his past incarnations. He is a master swordsman, archer, tracker, hunter, etc. Has to be very careful to not kill mooks and such, but generally most supervillains can take a swing of the sword or shot from an arrow. He has some unarmed martial arts as well, but weapons are a force multiplier, an important one for when dealing with individuals much more powerful than yourself.

    (BTW this character is why I have wanted to have the option to buy dual specs in CO. Its not easy to represent a character that can fight unarmed, use a bow, use a single blade, and use dual blades, while also carrying smoke grenades and the like).

    'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
  • biffsmackwellbiffsmackwell Posts: 4,739 Community Moderator
    edited June 2013
    ashensnow wrote: »
    That is not the point of my argument at all. My point is that applying one set of standards to some attack forms, such as claws or swords, while applying a completely different set of standards to other attack forms that are potentially every bit as lethal (or even more so) is a bit off.

    If it is sufficient to render the target unconscious then it is potentially lethal. If you have the ability to control your lightning bolt, but use sufficient power to KO someone, then you are choosing to use it in a manner that is potentially lethal.

    Once again, it's fantasy. We don't know what a guy can do with magic, we don't know what he can do controlling fire. What we do know is that busting a Dragon's Wrath on a guy in real life means that you're most likely ending his life. Unless we can start producing hard facts about things that only exist in fantasy, it's hard to say that any amount of electricity applied to a guy is likely to kill him. It's just as believable that he can control the current to ensure a non-lethal takedown than it is that he can't control it.
    If you are hitting him with enough force to send him flying through the air you are not really pulling your punch. You speak of handling your son. If someone were thrown 60, 80, 200 feet through the air to impact against a concrete wall...would it be the same as wrestling with them ?
    I dunno, maybe we should talk about how much knockback a henchman 30 levels lower than you takes when you give him a Haymaker tap? Again, the amount of force a person uses is not some kind of binary system. I know when I wrestle with my son, he doesn't fly 60+ feet through the air. You're talking as if the slightest tap of any attack in the game is liable to send enemies flying in all directions in pieces.

    I know that I can gently tap someone with my fist and leave a person with no discomfort, or punch them hard enough to knock a few teeth out, or dozens of ways inbetween. However, no matter how gently I drive a warhammer through someone's abdomen, they're not likely to survive the attack.
    No I spoke of your specific example using the context you provided. Action movie explosions. They generally dont do much more than get the hero dirty and knock him down. They often kill mooks caught in them. Its unlikely that there will be an explosion where there is no shrapnel involved. Cars generally (Im not saying never) dont explode except in action movies. Its a Hollywood thing. I am not arguing that explosions have only two levels of damage, merely pointing out that the explosion you refer to as merely knocking a hero on his tush is likely to be lethal to mooks. This is not about the real lethality of an explosion of that magnitude, its about how Hollywood tells stories. The $20 million per movie leading man has to survive, so Hollywood shows us how dangerous the kaboom was by having unnamed mooks die.
    I guess my big mistake was mentioning action movies. Let's take real explosions for example, then. The kind that are not biased and completely disregard hero armor. Have explosions incinerated people? Sure. Have they incinerated everyone that's been in one? No. Have hundreds of inbetween scenarios involving explosions, from incineration to "I was far enough away to not be hurt at all!" happened? More likely than not, since not everyone who's ever been around an explosion has come out looking like a Funyun.
    "use them properly." One of the proper uses of a sword is to subdue your opponent. You should check out some of the renaissance era illustrated guides for greatsword combat. Its eye opening. Why not use something less of a hassle ? Because a sword is what you have, or know how to use ? If you are going after superpowered individuals without superpowers of your own you are likely going to need to be very good with whatever tool you choose to use. This restricts your options because it takes time to become sufficiently skilled with any weapon to be able to take on supervillains.
    I already covered this, and I'll buy that story for a few characters, but not all the guys who worship Deadpool and are more interested in "Hur hur, that guy died funny."
    You are projecting ice with sufficient force to destroy tanks and instantly KO an armored human being.
    See my above examples about the use of force having more than one setting. Bobby Drake could encase foes in ice and make ice shards sharp enough to cut people, but here we see that he's also capable of using his power without any armored human beings getting knocked out and no tanks exploding. In fact, there are several people sitting at that same table, all of them not dead from Bobby's power. Forget the fact that all he's doing is making wet pie, it's just silly.
    My argument has never been that foes should be burnt to a crisp, electrocuted, etc. It has been that if we can ignore the real world lethality of non blade/gun attacks because, "its comics," then its fine to ignore the lethality of those guns/blades. I don't want more lethality.
    Personally, I'd have to go through greater lengths to justify a guy being sliced up and ran through multiple times than I would with things we draw from fantasy. It's easy to say "it's comics" when they're wild ideas, less so when it's things we're aware of in the real world.
    biffsig.jpg
  • ashensnowashensnow Posts: 2,048 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Once again, it's fantasy. We don't know what a guy can do with magic, we don't know what he can do controlling fire. What we do know is that busting a Dragon's Wrath on a guy in real life means that you're most likely ending his life. Unless we can start producing hard facts about things that only exist in fantasy, it's hard to say that any amount of electricity applied to a guy is likely to kill him. It's just as believable that he can control the current to ensure a non-lethal takedown than it is that he can't control it.

    And its just as believable that someone can be cut without dying as it is that they can be hit with a blast of fire intense enough to knock them out without it being potentially lethal. People are cut without dying every day.
    I dunno, maybe we should talk about how much knockback a henchman 30 levels lower than you takes when you give him a Haymaker tap? Again, the amount of force a person uses is not some kind of binary system. I know when I wrestle with my son, he doesn't fly 60+ feet through the air. You're talking as if the slightest tap of any attack in the game is liable to send enemies flying in all directions in pieces.

    No, I am saying that punches, in CO, can and do send people flying. I have some recall of you posting that one of the things you like about Might as a powerset is the ability to send goons flying.
    I know that I can gently tap someone with my fist and leave a person with no discomfort, or punch them hard enough to knock a few teeth out, or dozens of ways inbetween. However, no matter how gently I drive a warhammer through someone's abdomen, they're not likely to survive the attack.

    If you hit someone with the same amount of force with your fist as you do with a warhammer you will find the results to be about the same. What makes the hammer more dangerous, in general, is that the leverage it provides makes it possible to deliver more force.
    I guess my big mistake was mentioning action movies. Let's take real explosions for example, then. The kind that are not biased and completely disregard hero armor. Have explosions incinerated people? Sure. Have they incinerated everyone that's been in one? No. Have hundreds of inbetween scenarios involving explosions, from incineration to "I was far enough away to not be hurt at all!" happened? More likely than not, since not everyone who's ever been around an explosion has come out looking like a Funyun.

    Explosions are dangerous. The further away from one you are, the better. And yeah, I was commenting specifically on action movie explosions since that seemed to be the focus of your comment.
    I already covered this, and I'll buy that story for a few characters, but not all the guys who worship Deadpool and are more interested in "Hur hur, that guy died funny."


    Perhaps, but now you are talking about someone, as a player, choosing to play a psychopath, not about whether or not the use of a particular power is heroic. The one individual with whom I have played Champions PnP who seemed to delight in near psychopath characters preferred fire. "Hur hur, that guy burned to death funny."

    See my above examples about the use of force having more than one setting. Bobby Drake could encase foes in ice and make ice shards sharp enough to cut people, but here we see that he's also capable of using his power without any armored human beings getting knocked out and no tanks exploding. In fact, there are several people sitting at that same table, all of them not dead from Bobby's power. Forget the fact that all he's doing is making wet pie, it's just silly.


    And you could have a bladesman cutting a sausage into precise sandwich fixings or spreading butter...

    Personally, I'd have to go through greater lengths to justify a guy being sliced up and ran through multiple times than I would with things we draw from fantasy. It's easy to say "it's comics" when they're wild ideas, less so when it's things we're aware of in the real world.

    Its all fantasy. And its all inspired, to some extent, by reality. The ability to throw lightning bolts, the ability to dress in spandex and run around waving a sword. All of those powers are drawn from some aspect of reality. Lighting is presented as damaging because we know it do be destructive from real world examples. The same with fire, pestilence, and so on.

    'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
  • cybersoldier1981cybersoldier1981 Posts: 2,501 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    In the GI Joe comics, on several occasions, Snake Eyes used his sword to disable and neutralize foes without killing them- once on Scarlett. So, with the 'master swordsman' in mind, it's entirely possible.

    But to be fair, I don't consider my 'missions' in character so I could care less how I'm dispatching them as long as I get their pants.
  • cybersoldier1981cybersoldier1981 Posts: 2,501 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    As for Claws:

    http://www.wildstar-online.com/media/uploads/images/hero-images/Web_Banner_Stalker.jpg

    ^
    That.

    That is something like I'm talkin' about.
  • jennymachxjennymachx Posts: 3,000 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    In the anime Samurai X aka Ruroni Kenshin, the main protaganist uses a reverse-edged sword, with the blunt edge at the front and the sharp one at the back of the blade. He uses such a sword because he has sworn never to kill again, having been a former assassin. The very worst that he can do is to give someone a bruise bad enough to temporarily disable someone from moving. That's actually believable.

    Compare that to a bigger blunt weapon like a warhammer that relies entirely on the force of impact? You're going to break bones making some of the devastating attacks that you do with the Heavy Weapons powerset. A shattered ribcage will puncture lungs and eventually kill someone. A direct blow to the head would cause severe concussions, and if that doesn't kill the recipient, then the broken neck most certainly will. Gravity will give further assurance of that upon hitting the ground from being flung so high up into the air. If there's any way to disable someone without causing them a lot of harm, this sure isn't it.

    You're not going to disable someone using fire. Give me a break. If your intent is to arrest someone by giving third degree burns then I suggest that you re-evaluate your methods, unless your prime targets exclusively wear fire-retardant suits or have a natural resistance to high heat.

    If I'm injecting toxic nanites into a biological being's bloodstream, then guess what? That being is going to die excruiatingly. Poison attacks will most certainly send them into a cardiac arrest. A higher-tiered supervillain could resist it, but a lowly henchman without any sort of resistance is going to flat out die, unless they're entirely mechanical.

    If I'm firing a high-velocity rocket at a henchmen just clad in tights and not much else for bodily-protection, that guy is going to be blown to bits. If so many other things in the "comic" world get blown to bits from explosions, I don't expect that any different would apply to the enemies I'm fighting.

    Those are just examples of an argument against suspending your disbelief for every kind of powerset available to justify your hero being "non-lethal".
  • meedacthunistmeedacthunist Posts: 2,961 Arc User1
    edited June 2013
    jennymachx wrote: »
    In the anime Samurai X aka Ruroni Kenshin, the main protaganist uses a reverse-edged sword, with the blunt edge at the front and the sharp one at the back of the blade. He uses such a sword because he has sworn never to kill again, having been a former assassin. The very worst that he can do is to give someone a bruise bad enough to temporarily disable someone from moving. That's actually believable.

    Believable only in Hollywood.
    At any rate katana isn't this subtle and lightweight weapon portrayed in anime and Hollywood movies. At least not a real world one.
    It's as crude and brutal blade as is european longsword and weights as much as its european counterpart - approx 2.0 to 3.0 lbs. Same was also weight for warhammers (and of most real world hand-held weaponry, anything heavier isn't usable in prolonged combat).
    Hit someone with blunt katana and you will still break his bones. Those swords were also used to smash through armor.
  • jennymachxjennymachx Posts: 3,000 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Believable only in Hollywood.
    At any rate katana isn't this subtle and lightweight weapon portrayed in anime and Hollywood movies. At least not a real world one.
    It's as crude and brutal blade as is european longsword and weights as much as its european counterpart - approx 2.0 to 3.0 lbs. Same was also weight for warhammers (and of most real world hand-held weaponry, anything heavier isn't usable in prolonged combat).
    Hit someone with blunt katana and you will still break his bones. Those swords were also used to smash through armor.

    I forgot to mention that in the anime, Kenshin always used restraint even against opponents who wanted nothing more than to gut him. No bones broken, just getting his opponents covered in enough bruises that they have difficulty standing or even moving a muscle. I wasn't really talking about it being believable in a real world sense, but more in the context of how the weapons work in CO. I should have made that clear. At least with katanas ingame you can "pretend" that you're disabling your opponent on a certain level because the effect isn't as devastating as heavy weapons. It's even easier to do so if you use resistance nightsticks.

    With heavy weapons it's made very obvious that you're pretty much obliterating your enemies with all the KB going on in comparison.
  • biffsmackwellbiffsmackwell Posts: 4,739 Community Moderator
    edited June 2013
    ashensnow wrote: »
    No, I am saying that punches, in CO, can and do send people flying. I have some recall of you posting that one of the things you like about Might as a powerset is the ability to send goons flying.

    Sure, why not. It's a game and I don't feel bad for the little fake people in there. I also don't delete my characters when they fall in a pit of lava, or become exasperated when mobs respawn before my eyes. Or when I get knocked through the air and into a wall and I just kinda slide off instead of being busted through the wall. There are lots of things that I can wave away because it's just a game or it's just comics. Game mechanics force you to skew the "reality" that's going into the game a bit. But one part of the reality that doesn't sit well with me is things like eating souls and hacking a person up with metal blades. Sure, I can pretend that every single "hero" out there that's running around with blades is thrusting their weapons through their opponents as an intimidation technique, but like I said, it's far more believable to me to do something as absurd as picking someone up with a non-burning fire-fist.
    If you hit someone with the same amount of force with your fist as you do with a warhammer you will find the results to be about the same. What makes the hammer more dangerous, in general, is that the leverage it provides makes it possible to deliver more force.

    You're saying that a tap from haymaker is on par with a heavy weapons attack that literally puts a giant weapon through a person's insides. Like I said, I don't care how gently you drive that weapon straight through a person, gently severing someone's spine is still severing someone's spine. And you did that just because he wears purple.
    Explosions are dangerous. The further away from one you are, the better. And yeah, I was commenting specifically on action movie explosions since that seemed to be the focus of your comment.

    Only reason for that is that we don't see videos of people getting hit by explosions all the time. The focus of the comment was that explosions aren't always 100% lethal.
    Perhaps, but now you are talking about someone, as a player, choosing to play a psychopath, not about whether or not the use of a particular power is heroic. The one individual with whom I have played Champions PnP who seemed to delight in near psychopath characters preferred fire. "Hur hur, that guy burned to death funny."

    Except if I recall correctly, Dan Forden doesn't pop his head in the frame because you just reduced a bunch of people to a pile of charred bones.
    And you could have a bladesman cutting a sausage into precise sandwich fixings or spreading butter...

    Of course. We're agreed that things can be applied with varying amount of force, then.
    Its all fantasy. And its all inspired, to some extent, by reality. The ability to throw lightning bolts, the ability to dress in spandex and run around waving a sword. All of those powers are drawn from some aspect of reality. Lighting is presented as damaging because we know it do be destructive from real world examples. The same with fire, pestilence, and so on.

    Yes, all inspired by reality. But in reality we do not know of a single person that can control fire or lightning with their mind. What if increasing or decreasing the intensity of the element is as natural to them as flexing and relaxing a muscle? We don't know, so we can make it up. But we do know what happens to a person if you drive a giant sword (and that's giant sword, not fencing foil) through them. They die, or they spend the rest of their life in a wheelchair. Or they die.
    biffsig.jpg
  • biffsmackwellbiffsmackwell Posts: 4,739 Community Moderator
    edited June 2013

    I'd love if we had that kind of stuff for more powersets in the game.
    jennymachx wrote: »
    You're not going to disable someone using fire. Give me a break. If your intent is to arrest someone by giving third degree burns then I suggest that you re-evaluate your methods, unless your prime targets exclusively wear fire-retardant suits or have a natural resistance to high heat.

    For this I just go back to what I have seen established in comics already. Controlled elements don't always have to be lethal. Why? I dunno, because the writer at the time said so. But when we're talking about things that are impossible to do in real life (control elements), it's easier to suspend disbelief (for myself, at least).
    If I'm firing a high-velocity rocket at a henchmen just clad in tights and not much else for bodily-protection, that guy is going to be blown to bits. If so many other things in the "comic" world get blown to bits from explosions, I don't expect that any different would apply to the enemies I'm fighting.

    Comic book science says that ammunition plays a large role in how deadly your guns are. A rocket that explodes with a controlled concussive blast (think Cyclops) isn't going to blow anyone to bits. Of course, if I were a villain, I'd use the regular blow-your-****-to-bits type of ammunition. But for a hero, I'd never think of it that way.
    gradii wrote: »
    for instance phased swords, that stun enemies, especially if the character using them can do that :P

    This is why I think we need a lot more options for this kind of thing in the game. And why I will tend to use Telekinetic Blades in lieu of the big metal ones. Telekinetic Blades don't exist in real life, so it's easy to write in whatever you want for their effect. Does it numb the person? Drain their will? Burn them? Paralyze them? Eat their soul? Sure, any and all of them.
    biffsig.jpg
  • ashensnowashensnow Posts: 2,048 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    You're saying that a tap from haymaker is on par with a heavy weapons attack that literally puts a giant weapon through a person's insides. Like I said, I don't care how gently you drive that weapon straight through a person, gently severing someone's spine is still severing someone's spine. And you did that just because he wears purple.


    Nope. What I am saying is that a big part of what makes a hammer (or many melee weapons actually), generally, deadlier than a bare fist is that the leverage provided by the hammer allows one to deliver more force, kinetic energy, to the target, but that if you hit someone with the same force , hammer or fist, the results are going to be similar.

    I am not comparing a tap of one's hand to a full powered swing of a hammer, as mentioned before, its about how much force is applied.

    Here is a solid test of the principle:

    Put an egg on a table. Gently push it around the table with your hand. It probably won't break. Now do the same with a hammer (robably have to use a normal carpenters hammer as I assume that you dont have a medieval warhammer lying around). THe egg probably still won't break despite the fact that you used a hammer instead of your hand. Thats because you used similar levels of force in each action.

    Now replace that egg with a cue ball. Hit it as hard as you can with your fist. Probably didnt hurt the ball (but you might want to ice your hand now). Now hit as hard as you can with a hammer. Probably broke the ball, dinged the table too. Then again a hammer swing with all of your might will be hitting with something on the order of ten to twenty times more force. If you were superstrong you could hit that ball with every bit as much force as the guy in the example above did with his hammer.
    Only reason for that is that we don't see videos of people getting hit by explosions all the time. The focus of the comment was that explosions aren't always 100% lethal.

    And neither are gunshots, stab wounds, electrical accidents, diseases, anything represented as an attack power in CO really. Lethal force doesn't mean that something is invariably lethal. It means that the attack form is reasonably likely to be lethal. If you throw a bundle of dynamite, rigged to explode, at a group of people, and are caught, you can expect to be tried for attempted murder even if none of the targets die or are even seriously wounded.

    Nothing I have said is meant to imply that explosions are always 100% lethal.


    Except if I recall correctly, Dan Forden doesn't pop his head in the frame because you just reduced a bunch of people to a pile of charred bones.

    No idea of who Dan Forden is. Sorry. My point was that homicidal psychopaths are homicidal psychopaths regardless of their chosen method of homicide. A gun or a sword do not make one a psychopath.

    Members of every generation of my family for more than two hundred years have carried a firearm in service to this country without being psychopaths (uncle "Boozer" was more of a neurotic than a psychopath). On the other side of the family we have produced good, firearm carrying, cops for about the same length of time. No psychopaths (though we have assisted in putting some behind bars).

    Of course. We're agreed that things can be applied with varying amount of force, then.



    Yes, all inspired by reality. But in reality we do not know of a single person that can control fire or lightning with their mind. What if increasing or decreasing the intensity of the element is as natural to them as flexing and relaxing a muscle? We don't know, so we can make it up. But we do know what happens to a person if you drive a giant sword (and that's giant sword, not fencing foil) through them. They die, or they spend the rest of their life in a wheelchair. Or they die.


    We do know what happens to people who are struck by a sufficiently powerful jolt of electricity that it renders them instantly unconscious. Serious injury, potentially lasting disability, death, brain damage, etc.

    If you expose someone to a cold so intense that they instantly fall unconscious...shock, death, blindness, physiological damage, etc.

    The thing is that the ability to control that power so as to not deliver lethal force means little if you are choosing to not use that restraint.



    The overall point is that, "its comics," means that what would be lethal force in the real world can be shined on. All of those damage types that I pointed out could or would be potentially lethal in the real world should be seen as less so in the comics (well in many comics), so long as they are presented so. The same with swords, guns, etc. They are presented as being non lethal in CO. All attacks are.

    One of my character has been thanked for, "apprehending," bad guys after using guns to bring them down.


    You should be happy to knock mooks into next Sunday with your charged Haymakers knowing that they'll end up with nothing worse than bruises, a headache, and maybe an arm in a sling.

    And my swordsman will deliver incapacitating but non lethal flesh wounds.

    'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
  • biffsmackwellbiffsmackwell Posts: 4,739 Community Moderator
    edited June 2013
    ashensnow wrote: »
    Nope. What I am saying is that a big part of what makes a hammer (or many melee weapons actually), generally, deadlier than a bare fist is that the leverage provided by the hammer allows one to deliver more force, kinetic energy, to the target, but that if you hit someone with the same force , hammer or fist, the results are going to be similar.

    I am not comparing a tap of one's hand to a full powered swing of a hammer, as mentioned before, its about how much force is applied.

    Here is a solid test of the principle:

    Put an egg on a table. Gently push it around the table with your hand. It probably won't break. Now do the same with a hammer (robably have to use a normal carpenters hammer as I assume that you dont have a medieval warhammer lying around). THe egg probably still won't break despite the fact that you used a hammer instead of your hand. Thats because you used similar levels of force in each action.

    Now replace that egg with a cue ball. Hit it as hard as you can with your fist. Probably didnt hurt the ball (but you might want to ice your hand now). Now hit as hard as you can with a hammer. Probably broke the ball, dinged the table too. Then again a hammer swing with all of your might will be hitting with something on the order of ten to twenty times more force. If you were superstrong you could hit that ball with every bit as much force as the guy in the example above did with his hammer.

    I fully understand all this. My problem with the various use of big metal weapons in this game is that you literally drive them through your foe. That breaks eggs. Even taps, giant heavy weapons run right through your enemies. That's not a small, precise cut meant to intimidate a foe.
    Nothing I have said is meant to imply that explosions are always 100% lethal.

    Then I hope we can agree that a fire controller can exert enough control over his element to cause a small explosion that can knock someone out, the same as you and I can give a light tap on a chin as opposed to breaking someone's teeth off. Something has to seriously go wrong for me to break teeth if I'm not meaning to.
    No idea of who Dan Forden is. Sorry.

    He's the guy that would pop up on the corner of the screen when you did Scorpion's fatality in Mortal Kombat.
    Members of every generation of my family for more than two hundred years have carried a firearm in service to this country without being psychopaths (uncle "Boozer" was more of a neurotic than a psychopath). On the other side of the family we have produced good, firearm carrying, cops for about the same length of time. No psychopaths (though we have assisted in putting some behind bars).

    I have no problem with people who carry firearms. You're entitled to self defense. But when a police chief asks you to help with the prisoners that have broken out, I really doubt he's saying "Hell, let's just give them all the death sentence. Go in there and plug 'em all up!" I mean, fine, if you're Robocop you can just bust all their kneecaps, but not everyone is Robocop.
    We do know what happens to people who are struck by a sufficiently powerful jolt of electricity that it renders them instantly unconscious. Serious injury, potentially lasting disability, death, brain damage, etc.

    If you expose someone to a cold so intense that they instantly fall unconscious...shock, death, blindness, physiological damage, etc.

    The thing is that the ability to control that power so as to not deliver lethal force means little if you are choosing to not use that restraint.

    You're saying a guy that can control fire is as deadly as a guy with a gun or a massive sword. Yes, sure. All human beings are potentially violent killing machines. However, the chances that I end up killing someone when in a fist fight with them is drastically lower than if I were to pull out a gun and start shooting that same person. Now, if I'm a superpowered person and I'm getting jumped by a dozen gangbangers, I'm fairly certain I could put them down without killing any of them. However, if I'm Vigilante Joe and I get jumped by a dozen gangbangers and I decide to empty a few clips on the ol' UZI, chances are I'd be a lot closer to killing them than if I were to wrestle them into submission. (Yes, I know, a super-powered guy can knock a head off and completely gib a large man... but it's not going to happen if they're not trying to.)

    That is where my personal point of morality comes in. If I'm going to fight crime and battle super dudes, my first instinct isn't going to be to start killing people or making vegetables out of people who might have families. If I'm a no-super-power-having guy, my first line of defense won't be firearms or knives. That's reserved for situations where lives are in danger, not just a bag with a dollar symbol on it.
    And my swordsman will deliver incapacitating but non lethal flesh wounds.

    That's all well and good, but when I see someone getting plowed with a Dragon's Wrath, I'll have a hard time telling them that they'll be just fine after some bandaids and bedrest.

    Absolutely and completely changes when we're talking about Ego Blade Breach, though.
    biffsig.jpg
  • ashensnowashensnow Posts: 2,048 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    I fully understand all this. My problem with the various use of big metal weapons in this game is that you literally drive them through your foe. That breaks eggs. Even taps, giant heavy weapons run right through your enemies. That's not a small, precise cut meant to intimidate a foe.

    I've never actually used any of the Heavy Weapons stuff in CO so I'll take your word on the animations. Even so, if I am asked to stop suspending disbelief and look at what would really happen to a foe hit by any particular attack...any punch that sends somebody flying through the air is going to be every bit as deadly as a hammer bash to the chest.


    Then I hope we can agree that a fire controller can exert enough control over his element to cause a small explosion that can knock someone out, the same as you and I can give a light tap on a chin as opposed to breaking someone's teeth off. Something has to seriously go wrong for me to break teeth if I'm not meaning to.

    Anything that instantly renders someone unconscious is potentially lethal (and requently carries long lasting harm even if not lethal). The ability to control the flames to non lethal levels is not particularly relevant if you choose to use the flames in a potentially lethal manner.


    He's the guy that would pop up on the corner of the screen when you did Scorpion's fatality in Mortal Kombat.

    Never actually played that one.


    I have no problem with people who carry firearms. You're entitled to self defense. But when a police chief asks you to help with the prisoners that have broken out, I really doubt he's saying "Hell, let's just give them all the death sentence. Go in there and plug 'em all up!" I mean, fine, if you're Robocop you can just bust all their kneecaps, but not everyone is Robocop..


    My point is that it isnt the gun, sword, etc that makes something unheroic or psychopathic.


    You're saying a guy that can control fire is as deadly as a guy with a gun or a massive sword. Yes, sure. All human beings are potentially violent killing machines. However, the chances that I end up killing someone when in a fist fight with them is drastically lower than if I were to pull out a gun and start shooting that same person. Now, if I'm a superpowered person and I'm getting jumped by a dozen gangbangers, I'm fairly certain I could put them down without killing any of them. However, if I'm Vigilante Joe and I get jumped by a dozen gangbangers and I decide to empty a few clips on the ol' UZI, chances are I'd be a lot closer to killing them than if I were to wrestle them into submission. (Yes, I know, a super-powered guy can knock a head off and completely gib a large man... but it's not going to happen if they're not trying to.)

    And, if supergunslingerman has as much control over his guns as you do over your strength then neither of us is going to kill anyone we dont want to.
    That is where my personal point of morality comes in. If I'm going to fight crime and battle super dudes, my first instinct isn't going to be to start killing people or making vegetables out of people who might have families.

    Completely agreed, regardless of the form my attacks take.


    That's all well and good, but when I see someone getting plowed with a Dragon's Wrath, I'll have a hard time telling them that they'll be just fine after some bandaids and bedrest.

    Absolutely and completely changes when we're talking about Ego Blade Breach, though.


    And when I see a mook caught in an explosion that incinerated the armored vehicle he was standing next to...


    For what its worth, Ego Blades are my favorite of the various melee powers in the game. I really wish we had some transparent or ghostly weapon skins for other sets so that it could be easier to visually mix and match between Ego Blades and Martial Arts weapons.

    'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
  • biffsmackwellbiffsmackwell Posts: 4,739 Community Moderator
    edited June 2013
    ashensnow wrote: »
    I've never actually used any of the Heavy Weapons stuff in CO so I'll take your word on the animations. Even so, if I am asked to stop suspending disbelief and look at what would really happen to a foe hit by any particular attack...any punch that sends somebody flying through the air is going to be every bit as deadly as a hammer bash to the chest.

    I forget the name of the attack, but it's a short cylinder AoE attack. You pull the weapon back, pointed at your target, then thrust it in. So yes, you can ram a giant sword, rock club, or warhammer straight through a person's midsection.

    Dragon's Wrath and Ego Blade Breach (I'm pretty sure these are the two) have the same animation, where you get two swords and simultaneously drive them through your opponent's gut. You stab them in straight, then pull them out at an angle, seemingly to cause much more damage in doing so.

    Further, but off the point, I'd really not like to see any attacks like this where most people wouldn't be able to walk away from. It's definitely a finisher type of move that most any superhero (short of Wolverine, of course) would have trouble dealing with. Not to mention getting hit repeatedly with this kind of move.
    Anything that instantly renders someone unconscious is potentially lethal (and requently carries long lasting harm even if not lethal). The ability to control the flames to non lethal levels is not particularly relevant if you choose to use the flames in a potentially lethal manner.

    I'd argue that these things are potentially far less lethal than a hail of bullets. I'd rather try to knock the wind out of someone than rip out their innards or put holes in their lungs (or face).
    MAnd, if supergunslingerman has as much control over his guns as you do over your strength then neither of us is going to kill anyone we dont want to.

    Are we talking about Super gunslinger man? A guy with superpowers, sure I can believe he can throw a quarter up in the air, shoot it, and catch five nickels. A guy who's a perfect shot, every time, I will totally believe that he can put his guns to great use. But again, that's a niche backstory. Like I said before, it's a lot easier for a guy to kill another guy, accidentally or not, when using a gun as opposed to his own body.
    And when I see a mook caught in an explosion that incinerated the armored vehicle he was standing next to...

    Control... you must learn control.
    For what its worth, Ego Blades are my favorite of the various melee powers in the game. I really wish we had some transparent or ghostly weapon skins for other sets so that it could be easier to visually mix and match between Ego Blades and Martial Arts weapons.

    Same. Would make me feel almost human while playing Lord Death of Murder Mountain.
    biffsig.jpg
  • meedacthunistmeedacthunist Posts: 2,961 Arc User1
    edited June 2013
    I forget the name of the attack, but it's a short cylinder AoE attack. You pull the weapon back, pointed at your target, then thrust it in. So yes, you can ram a giant sword, rock club, or warhammer straight through a person's midsection.
    One of my mains uses this powerset combined with PA. All HW animations are as subtle. You're either delivering horizontal cleaves trough target waist or smashing people into ground with pummels or splitting them in half with vertical slashes. Combined with look of weapon models, as all are either huge blades, axes or warhammers... No energy weapons unlike single blades, to justify a less grimdark kind of hero.
    It's hard to believe it's done in a non-lethal way.
    Probably most brutal looking of all melee powersets.

    It screams "make a villain of it!".

    I always wondered why role-model AT for this powerset is Thor-like when a) original is more electricity user and b) his hammer is relatively small and is rather a one-hand weapon.
  • cybersoldier1981cybersoldier1981 Posts: 2,501 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    I'd argue that these things are potentially far less lethal than a hail of bullets. I'd rather try to knock the wind out of someone than rip out their innards or put holes in their lungs (or face).

    Traumatic brain injuries occur as a result of being knocked unconscious. Shooting someone and causing bullet wounds in negligible- people can recover from gunshot wounds. However, Traumatic Brain Injuries can result in a lifetime of permanent brain damage to include loss of bowel control, motor skills, cognitive skills, senses, etc. A short trip to a VA hospital among survivors of IED attacks will show you this. Give me a bullet any day.

    So, in a nutshell- that guy you 'knocked out cold'? You've ruined his life. Your caped super hero should probably be facing a lawsuit so big he will never recover from it on behalf of the victim's family.

    Yes, when you found a normal guy committing a crime and used your superpowers or super-advanced martial arts training (which can be considered a deadly weapon under legal circumstances) you made him the victim.
  • biffsmackwellbiffsmackwell Posts: 4,739 Community Moderator
    edited June 2013
    Traumatic brain injuries occur as a result of being knocked unconscious. Shooting someone and causing bullet wounds in negligible- people can recover from gunshot wounds. However, Traumatic Brain Injuries can result in a lifetime of permanent brain damage to include loss of bowel control, motor skills, cognitive skills, senses, etc. A short trip to a VA hospital among survivors of IED attacks will show you this. Give me a bullet any day.

    So, in a nutshell- that guy you 'knocked out cold'? You've ruined his life. Your caped super hero should probably be facing a lawsuit so big he will never recover from it on behalf of the victim's family.

    Yes, when you found a normal guy committing a crime and used your superpowers or super-advanced martial arts training (which can be considered a deadly weapon under legal circumstances) you made him the victim.

    You're not telling me that the only way to incapacitate someone is to hit him real hard on the head until he passes out, are you?
    biffsig.jpg
  • ashensnowashensnow Posts: 2,048 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    So, in a nutshell- that guy you 'knocked out cold'? You've ruined his life.

    To be fair, "you may have ruined his life," would be more accurate.

    'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
  • biffsmackwellbiffsmackwell Posts: 4,739 Community Moderator
    edited June 2013
    ashensnow wrote: »
    To be fair, "you may have ruined his life," would be more accurate.

    That's completely beside the point. This whole "head injuries can kill someone or straight up ruin their lives," is completely flying off the rails. It's not the only place you can hit a person.

    Honestly, at this point in the conversation it's starting to sound like punching someone is way worse than trying to put a sword through them or filling them full of buckshot because you might cause permanent damage. How about we talk about what happens when you punch someone in the head versus shooting them in the head? Or a punch to the stomach versus a shot to the stomach? A punch to the chest versus a shot to the chest? Nah, let's just victimize the guy who got bipped in the face.

    Yay I get to do one of these now.
    tumblr_mlmdu6Zvko1soeql8o1_500.gif
    biffsig.jpg
  • ashensnowashensnow Posts: 2,048 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    That's completely beside the point. This whole "head injuries can kill someone or straight up ruin their lives," is completely flying off the rails. It's not the only place you can hit a person.


    My response was not beside the point. He attempted to portray a KO punch as automatically life ruining. Such is not the case and so in an effort to be fair, I pointed out the inaccuracy.


    Honestly, at this point in the conversation it's starting to sound like punching someone is way worse than trying to put a sword through them or filling them full of buckshot because you might cause permanent damage. How about we talk about what happens when you punch someone in the head versus shooting them in the head? Or a punch to the stomach versus a shot to the stomach? A punch to the chest versus a shot to the chest? Nah, let's just victimize the guy who got bipped in the face.


    I'm not sure of the point of comparing a normal person punch to a gunshot as there is no such thing as a normal person punch in CO. There is however superhuman strength punches. I don't think that they are worse or more lethal than a gunshot, but I also don't think they are necessarily less so either.

    'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
  • cybersoldier1981cybersoldier1981 Posts: 2,501 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Are you insinuating that one cannot deliver a gunshot unless it is specifically to kill someone? I mean, maybe I missed something.

    Just like you can 'not hit someone in the head' a gunslinger can 'not shoot someone in the head'. It keeps seeming like you're trying to validate (A- A game designed to amuse us with mindless entertainment and is not meant to be taken seriously and (B- push aside anything that is gee-willikers 1960's superhero justice.

    Like I said, not everyone with a gun/sword/blade is a 'murderous psycho'. Hell, I think Telepathy borderlines on the same level as sexual assault.

    My original point of this thread is that fighting claws need more- power wise and costume wise. It's gotten so far off that rail because it doesn't appeal to some people. Well, magic doesn't appeal to me and I wouldn't really notice if they deleted half of it. But I'm not pushing back against peoples' playstyles.

    If you play characters in Roleplay who write anyone off who is willing to use lethal force, that's fine by me. I see it often and I love roleplayer out the counter arguments. ("Oh, you have super powers and you're doing what, fighting bank robbers? Well, when you get done wasting your potential on safe things that can't hurt you, the rest of the world needs someone that has a pair to deal with legitimate threats.")

    It also doesn't mean comic books that feature deadly force are bad writing or 'childish'. In fact, I find people who are unwilling to let go of a dead era in comics more childish than the ones who want more vigilante antihero stories from another dead era in comics.

    But Spawn sucks.
  • jonsillsjonsills Posts: 6,314 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    A punch to the stomach using superhuman strength can easily rupture internal organs - it's been known to do so using mere human strength.

    For that matter, there are three places on the front of the human body where a person as weak as I am can strike to kill.

    Let's face it - no matter what attack method you're using, you can kill somebody. In true comic-book fashion, though, we handwave the entire thing.
    "Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"

    - David Brin, "Those Eyes"
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • shieldtowershieldtower Posts: 1,208 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    ashensnow wrote: »
    -snip-


    I'm not sure of the point of comparing a normal person punch to a gunshot as there is no such thing as a normal person punch in CO. There is however superhuman strength punches. I don't think that they are worse or more lethal than a gunshot, but I also don't think they are necessarily less so either.

    One can argue that not taking Strength as a Super Stat would make your punches relatively "normal". Feasibility of a STR-less melee build is subject to interpretation.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________
  • cybersoldier1981cybersoldier1981 Posts: 2,501 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    One can argue that not taking Strength as a Super Stat would make your punches relatively "normal". Feasibility of a STR-less melee build is subject to interpretation.

    I don't even know how to go about doing this, considering that Ego basically says that how awesome I think I am makes my gun work better.
  • fudgemonstafudgemonsta Posts: 1,591 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    I don't even know how to go about doing this, considering that Ego basically says that how awesome I think I am makes my gun work better.

    Hey, works for Orks don't it?
    @HangingDeath

    Deliciously nutritious!
  • biffsmackwellbiffsmackwell Posts: 4,739 Community Moderator
    edited June 2013
    ashensnow wrote: »
    My response was not beside the point. He attempted to portray a KO punch as automatically life ruining. Such is not the case and so in an effort to be fair, I pointed out the inaccuracy.

    I'm not sure of the point of comparing a normal person punch to a gunshot as there is no such thing as a normal person punch in CO. There is however superhuman strength punches. I don't think that they are worse or more lethal than a gunshot, but I also don't think they are necessarily less so either.

    No, your response was fine, but what you responded to was pretty far off course. We're steering right into the territory that all Super Strength attacks are viciously deadly because the only thing you can do with them is smash a guy in the head at full power.

    Regarding the normal person punch, are you implying that a guy with super strength does not have the capability to punch someone in a non-lethal - hell, non-injuring - manner? Again, it's about controlling your strength. Just because you have more of it doesn't mean you've lost access to the lower levels of it.

    Yes, a Might character can punch a tank into pieces. That doesn't mean he can't dial a telephone without showering the neighborhood with quarters.

    EDIT: Yes I meant a payphone, those things they had all over the streets 20 years ago.
    Are you insinuating that one cannot deliver a gunshot unless it is specifically to kill someone? I mean, maybe I missed something.

    No, I'm stating quite plainly that I think it's a lot easier to kill a person with a gun than it is with a fist.
    Just like you can 'not hit someone in the head' a gunslinger can 'not shoot someone in the head'. It keeps seeming like you're trying to validate (A- A game designed to amuse us with mindless entertainment and is not meant to be taken seriously and (B- push aside anything that is gee-willikers 1960's superhero justice.
    I'm not the one trying to validate anything. All I said is that I don't find using weapons that spill blood as being very heroic (in so many words). You and others are the ones trying to validate guns and swords as being no more lethal than gee-willikers 1960's superheroes because everyone has such precise control over their weapons that they can shove a blade straight through someone and hardly make them bleed, or shoot into a group of people with an automatic weapon and only graze them, causing no kinds of serious injury whatsoever... but don't ever punch anyone, you'll kill em!
    Like I said, not everyone with a gun/sword/blade is a 'murderous psycho'. Hell, I think Telepathy borderlines on the same level as sexual assault.
    Never said that, I don't think.
    My original point of this thread is that fighting claws need more- power wise and costume wise. It's gotten so far off that rail because it doesn't appeal to some people. Well, magic doesn't appeal to me and I wouldn't really notice if they deleted half of it. But I'm not pushing back against peoples' playstyles.
    Once again I'll offer to discontinue the conversation because it veered off topic.
    If you play characters in Roleplay who write anyone off who is willing to use lethal force, that's fine by me. I see it often and I love roleplayer out the counter arguments. ("Oh, you have super powers and you're doing what, fighting bank robbers? Well, when you get done wasting your potential on safe things that can't hurt you, the rest of the world needs someone that has a pair to deal with legitimate threats.")
    My characters have saved the world from a death ray and countless other threats without spilling any blood. I'm pretty sure I don't stick to Grab Alerts and those three random bank robbery missions. I also never said I write off anyone who is willing to use lethal force. I've stated plainly that my characters would, if they felt it appropriate.
    It also doesn't mean comic books that feature deadly force are bad writing or 'childish'.
    Never said any of that, either. Again, I gave my opinion on what I find to be heroic and not heroic.
    In fact, I find people who are unwilling to let go of a dead era in comics more childish than the ones who want more vigilante antihero stories from another dead era in comics.

    But Spawn sucks.
    Sigh. I grew up with 90's comics and had morals before I read them, had morals after I read them, and only started reading 60's comic books like 5 years ago, and my morals haven't changed since then. What I find heroic or not has nothing to do with what comics I read or what era I prefer. But if you want to think that I picked up all my morals five years ago when my brother made me read his Essential X-Men, I guess there's not much more I can do to convince you.
    biffsig.jpg
  • jennymachxjennymachx Posts: 3,000 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    If I'm expected to suspend my disbelief to the point where Looney Tunes physics apply, then that's where I draw the red line.

    If I'm using a rocket launcher using explosive rockets designed to cause mass casualties, I'm not going to fool myself into believing that all I'm doing is creating a "concussive" blast that at best, knocks somebody out while sending them flying into the air Wile E. Coyote style. That's not how explosive, incendiary ordnance works, especially when a direct hit is involved. That may work with certain "concussive" energy attacks that provide that level of believability, because I could very well say that I'm able to control just how much force I'm using with those, thus having restraint.

    Claiming practice of restraint while bringing explosive rockets to a fight is something that I'd expect Deadpool to do, morbid sense of humor and all.
  • biffsmackwellbiffsmackwell Posts: 4,739 Community Moderator
    edited June 2013
    jennymachx wrote: »
    If I'm expected to suspend my disbelief to the point where Looney Tunes physics apply, then that's where I draw the red line.

    If I'm using a rocket launcher using explosive rockets designed to cause mass casualties, I'm not going to fool myself into believing that all I'm doing is creating a "concussive" blast that at best, knocks somebody out while sending them flying into the air Wile E. Coyote style. That's not how explosive, incendiary ordnance works, especially when a direct hit is involved. That may work with certain "concussive" energy attacks that provide that level of believability, because I could very well say that I'm able to control just how much force I'm using with those, thus having restraint.

    Claiming practice of restraint while bringing explosive rockets to a fight is something that I'd expect Deadpool to do, morbid sense of humor and all.

    Why "fool" yourself into believing that? It's comic book technology. Look at all the stuff Iron Man can do with his suit. Do you have to "fool" yourself into thinking that he can take artillery to the face and not just die from it? What about all the lasers and crap he shoots? If any of that is believable within the confines of a comic book universe, why is non-lethal ordnance so wild a thought?
    biffsig.jpg
  • shieldtowershieldtower Posts: 1,208 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    I don't even know how to go about doing this, considering that Ego basically says that how awesome I think I am makes my gun work better.

    It very well could do that in the Champions Universe. That sort of nonsense can even be backed up by the setting's lore. There's plenty of examples of things working a certain way that shouldn't rightly work at all much less the way the do. Juryrig alone violates all known "how things are actually supposed to work" laws.

    We can accept that the guy made a time machine out of literal heaps of junk but can't accept that the normal laws of physics are mutable in this game?
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________
  • ashensnowashensnow Posts: 2,048 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    No, your response was fine, but what you responded to was pretty far off course. We're steering right into the territory that all Super Strength attacks are viciously deadly because the only thing you can do with them is smash a guy in the head at full power.

    NO. Not steering there at all. Just showing that the same logic being used to declare a gun or sword to be non heroic could be applied to just about any power in CO.
    Regarding the normal person punch, are you implying that a guy with super strength does not have the capability to punch someone in a non-lethal - hell, non-injuring - manner? Again, it's about controlling your strength. Just because you have more of it doesn't mean you've lost access to the lower levels of it.

    Not implying anything of the sort. Just pointing out that you were comparing a normal person punching someone to someone being shot. In CO guns are superpowers. Normal person punches are not.
    Yes, a Might character can punch a tank into pieces. That doesn't mean he can't dial a telephone without showering the neighborhood with quarters.

    And a swordsman can slice a tank to pieces, or cut a button off of a target's coat without harming the man wearing it.


    No, I'm stating quite plainly that I think it's a lot easier to kill a person with a gun than it is with a fist.

    In the real world using real world levels of strength...yes. In a setting where the strength is perhaps capable of delivering more kinetic energy to the target...perhaps not.


    I'm not the one trying to validate anything. All I said is that I don't find using weapons that spill blood as being very heroic (in so many words). You and others are the ones trying to validate guns and swords as being no more lethal than gee-willikers 1960's superheroes because everyone has such precise control over their weapons that they can shove a blade straight through someone and hardly make them bleed, or shoot into a group of people with an automatic weapon and only graze them, causing no kinds of serious injury whatsoever... but don't ever punch anyone, you'll kill em!.

    The point of describing the potentially lethal, if you apply real world physics, capacity of superstrength and other superpowers was to show that the logic being used against guns and swords can be applied readily to other attack options as well. It just seems odd to apply real world logic, physics, physiology, etc to one set of attacks while exempting others from the same scrutiny.

    'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
  • jennymachxjennymachx Posts: 3,000 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Why "fool" yourself into believing that? It's comic book technology. Look at all the stuff Iron Man can do with his suit. Do you have to "fool" yourself into thinking that he can take artillery to the face and not just die from it? What about all the lasers and crap he shoots? If any of that is believable within the confines of a comic book universe, why is non-lethal ordnance so wild a thought?

    Yes, I can believe that he can take an artillery round to the face because it's established that he wears a technological suit of armor that gives him that capability. The suit is made of some sort of alloy, and apart from the mention of gold and titanium, it isn't established what other metals are involved, or exactly how the suit functions to better support that protection, but at least it's believable on a certain level that he can take it.

    Compare that to firing that in the face of a purple gang mook dressed in nothing more than a suit and fancy hat. Instant-gib.
  • cybersoldier1981cybersoldier1981 Posts: 2,501 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    ashensnow wrote: »
    NO. Not steering there at all. Just showing that the same logic being used to declare a gun or sword to be non heroic could be applied to just about any power in CO.

    Not to mention- Directed Energy Weapons? Even the 'Non-Lethal' kind are against the Geneva Convention.

    Granted, we have to have some suspension of disbelief here. But even 'Non-Lethal' as a word requires me to suspend disbelief, as no such weapon exists. 'Less-than-lethal' is the correct term. Any weapon or attack can be lethal. Non-lethal implies it lacks the capability to kill, Less-than-lethal means that the purpose of the weapon is to not deliver the required amount of force/energy to kill the average healthy adult human being (usually male).
  • ashensnowashensnow Posts: 2,048 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Not to mention- Directed Energy Weapons? Even the 'Non-Lethal' kind are against the Geneva Convention.

    Granted, we have to have some suspension of disbelief here. But even 'Non-Lethal' as a word requires me to suspend disbelief, as no such weapon exists. 'Less-than-lethal' is the correct term. Any weapon or attack can be lethal. Non-lethal implies it lacks the capability to kill, Less-than-lethal means that the purpose of the weapon is to not deliver the required amount of force/energy to kill the average healthy adult human being (usually male).

    Yeah, but that is not really the issue here. I think that anyone who uses the term nonlethal, in this context, means less than lethal. Its just easier to type or say.

    We all know that Supes can kill with a punch or that the Human Torch could fry a mook if he wanted.

    Also consider the possibility that some things really are nonlethal in some circumstances in a superhero setting.

    Fire cannot kill the Human Torch for example.

    'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
  • biffsmackwellbiffsmackwell Posts: 4,739 Community Moderator
    edited June 2013
    ashensnow wrote: »
    NO. Not steering there at all. Just showing that the same logic being used to declare a gun or sword to be non heroic could be applied to just about any power in CO.

    Should have made it clear that it was what you quoted that was heading that direction, not what you said.
    Not implying anything of the sort. Just pointing out that you were comparing a normal person punching someone to someone being shot. In CO guns are superpowers. Normal person punches are not.

    I'm not sure how this really pertains to anything. I guess we're talking strictly in-game terms now, and nothing outside of that reality exists? Now I'm really not sure where we're headed.
    And a swordsman can slice a tank to pieces, or cut a button off of a target's coat without harming the man wearing it.

    And stuff his sword straight through a person and leave them feeling fine.
    In the real world using real world levels of strength...yes. In a setting where the strength is perhaps capable of delivering more kinetic energy to the target...perhaps not.

    Sigh. Yes. But unless you have the super power to control the velocity of a bullet you just fired, it's much easier to punch someone in the chest and allow them to live by not putting all your strength into it, than it is to shoot someone in the chest and hope all it does is give them a nasty bruise.
    The point of describing the potentially lethal, if you apply real world physics, capacity of superstrength and other superpowers was to show that the logic being used against guns and swords can be applied readily to other attack options as well. It just seems odd to apply real world logic, physics, physiology, etc to one set of attacks while exempting others from the same scrutiny.

    I'm not sure how many times I have to say that I understand that if someone with superstrength used all their strength to punch someone in the face, their face would explode, something like how an elephant stepping on your head might just explode your head. I get that. I never said otherwise. So can we stop implying that I don't think that superstrength can be deadly? I feel like such a broken record here. A person can control his strength to the degree that he can hit someone without making it hurt. However I've never seen any kind of control with a warhammer that allows you to shove it straight through someone and not killing them. I can also believe that a person can control his strength enough that he can slap someone on the head without murdering them, yet a bullet to the brain is more often than not a death sentence.

    Real world logic, physics, and physiology:
    Strength: Nudge someone in the nose. They don't die.
    Comic book logic, physics, and physiology:
    Punch someone with the force of a freight train. They die.

    Real world logic, physics, and physiology:
    Swords: Run an eight-foot-long, one-foot-wide sword gently as a kitten right through someone's chest. It's going to cause some discomfort. The person might even die of shock or just pass out before you're done killing them with it.
    Comic book logic, physics, and physiology: Run an eight-foot-long, one-foot-wide sword through someone's chest. They die.

    I mean, if you're just gonna point out, once again, that a master sword guy can cut someone without causing any kind of real damage, so it's the same thing, then I give up. There's no other way to explain that nearly cutting someone in half is going to ruin their day.
    jennymachx wrote: »
    Yes, I can believe that he can take an artillery round to the face because it's established that he wears a technological suit of armor that gives him that capability. The suit is made of some sort of alloy, and apart from the mention of gold and titanium, it isn't established what other metals are involved, or exactly how the suit functions to better support that protection, but at least it's believable on a certain level that he can take it.

    Compare that to firing that in the face of a purple gang mook dressed in nothing more than a suit and fancy hat. Instant-gib.

    But all you're doing is placing belief that a suit of armor can exist within that reality. It's technology we don't have. Why not any other technology that we don't have? Rockets don't have to explode into a giant ball of fire and shrapnel just because that's what they do in the real world. I can take just about any weapon in Munitions and give it the ol comic book makeover and turn them into non-lethal versions.

    I mean, we have things like Flashbang grenades and beanbag rounds for shotguns already*, why not other forms of ordnance?


    *Yes, I know, these things are tremendously deadly and can murder thousands of people every day.
    biffsig.jpg
  • ashensnowashensnow Posts: 2,048 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Real world logic, physics, and physiology:
    Strength: Nudge someone in the nose. They don't die.
    Comic book logic, physics, and physiology:
    Punch someone with the force of a freight train. They die.

    Real world logic, physics, and physiology:
    Swords: Run an eight-foot-long, one-foot-wide sword gently as a kitten right through someone's chest. It's going to cause some discomfort. The person might even die of shock or just pass out before you're done killing them with it.
    Comic book logic, physics, and physiology: Run an eight-foot-long, one-foot-wide sword through someone's chest. They die.


    You paint a parallel between nudging someone in the nose and running an eight foot long sword through someone's chest.


    Real World:
    Strength: nudge someone in the nose. They don't die.
    Sword: poke someone in the nose. They also don't die.

    Comic Book World:
    Strength: hit someone with the force of a freight train. They die *.
    Sword: Drive an eight foot long sword through someone's chest. They die *.


    * death of course being a minor setback for a hero or named villain.



    In any case I think I am done with this topic. We are both repeating ourselves at this point. I do want to make it clear that I, in no way, took this as anything more than a couple of comic book geeks engaged in a lighthearted debate not all that different from the all too common, "who would win a fight between..."

    So, cheers and good show.

    'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
  • jennymachxjennymachx Posts: 3,000 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Rockets don't have to explode into a giant ball of fire and shrapnel just because that's what they do in the real world. I can take just about any weapon in Munitions and give it the ol comic book makeover and turn them into non-lethal versions.

    Except that it's made obvious visually that they do just that in the game.

    At this point I'm just going to back out of this, because we seem to have different thresholds on just how much disbelief we're willing to suspend.
  • biffsmackwellbiffsmackwell Posts: 4,739 Community Moderator
    edited June 2013
    ashensnow wrote: »
    You paint a parallel between nudging someone in the nose and running an eight foot long sword through someone's chest.


    Real World:
    Strength: nudge someone in the nose. They don't die.
    Sword: poke someone in the nose. They also don't die.

    Comic Book World:
    Strength: hit someone with the force of a freight train. They die *.
    Sword: Drive an eight foot long sword through someone's chest. They die *.


    * death of course being a minor setback for a hero or named villain.



    In any case I think I am done with this topic. We are both repeating ourselves at this point. I do want to make it clear that I, in no way, took this as anything more than a couple of comic book geeks engaged in a lighthearted debate not all that different from the all too common, "who would win a fight between..."

    So, cheers and good show.

    The point was that by varying the strength of a punch, you can change the amount of damage that you do, in both comics and real life. But sticking your sword straight through someone, as you do with many blade attacks, whether you're doing it in real life or in comics, it looks like it's going to kill you.
    biffsig.jpg
  • slapperfishslapperfish Posts: 92 Arc User
    edited May 2021
    (deleted)
    Post edited by slapperfish on
  • nephtnepht Posts: 6,883 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    You guys are all dumb. Comparing real world and comic books violence .
    Tis be a video game. Video game rules apply.


    Real Life: Touch a red and white mushroom. YEW DIE!

    Video Game: Touch a red and white mushroom. Grow 20 foot tall OTHERS DIE!! :C
    nepht_siggy_v6_by_nepht-dbbz19n.jpg
    Nepht and Dr Deflecto on primus
    They all thought I was out of the game....But I'm holding all the lockboxes now..
    I'll......FOAM FINGER YOUR BACK!
  • chalupaoffurychalupaoffury Posts: 2,553 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Ah... Semantic arguments on a bbs for a comic book themed video game.

    This is such a nerdy thing that I think I just grew a pocket protector.

    I... Have a suggestion. Just say to yourself three times "It's a comic book, I should take myself less seriously", and see how you feel.
    In game, I am @EvilTaco. Happily killing purple gang members since May 2008.
    dbnzfo.png
    RIP Caine
  • ukatoenasniukatoenasni Posts: 224 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Heeey. Some of us like nerdy arguments and debates. :/ I find it infinitely fascinating!

    [SIGPIC]Also, this poster rambles.[/SIGPIC]
Sign In or Register to comment.