Originally posted by Dum Dum DuganYou tried having it in the wrong thread so I bumped the proper thread to which you parachuted out. That means you conceded. Keep your personal feelings out of the threads you disagree with posters about it seems to be a regular occurrence with you.
you keep on pretending you won some debate we never were going to have 😆Now I understand why some many people dislike and make fun of you. Your just plain awful.
Originally posted by quanchi112
You tried having it in the wrong thread so I bumped the proper thread to which you parachuted out. That means you conceded. Keep your personal feelings out of the threads you disagree with posters about it seems to be a regular occurrence with you.
Originally posted by praying-mantis
superman is suseptable to magic like spiderman is to bullets but for as tough as superman is one good attack like one good bullet and hes done for i do not think magic is the end all but it is certainly an equalizer
Sadly, that's kind of a misconception. It's not nearly as effective as it used to be. He's gotten stronger and better at resisting it. It still works on him, but it's not necessarily an equalizer.
Originally posted by Mindset
I wont name names, but someone in this thread got quanned.
Honestly, I think we all did. 🙁 If you replied to him, you got quanned. And that includes me, Phil, Leo, Pr, Carver, etc.
Originally posted by TricksterPriest
Sadly, that's kind of a misconception. It's not nearly as effective as it used to be. He's gotten stronger and better at resisting it. It still works on him, but it's not necessarily an equalizer.Honestly, I think we all did. 🙁 If you replied to him, you got quanned. And that includes me, Phil, Leo, Pr, Carver, etc.
[QUOTE=13309863]Originally posted by TricksterPriest
[B]Sadly, that's kind of a misconception. It's not nearly as effective as it used to be. He's gotten stronger and better at resisting it. It still works on him, but it's not necessarily an equalizer.
You right about that, just last week in the latest supes comic the sun in the future is powered by magic and guess what, supes developed magical powers
Originally posted by leonidasI think on a personal note it has to do with writers.
gracias.i think the heart of why smurph and i--and i guess quan as well--seem to think the way we do is because it seems..... wrong to remove the character from what are comicbook CHARACTERS. you can argue that we're NOT just using powersets, that the characters must still fight in character, however, all 'heroes' under this format will essentially be the same. NONE will blitz-to-kill. so when we say 'fighting in character' what we're really saying is--no good guy will kill, but using all their powers in any other way is fine. in that sense, there is no real differnce in 'character' among any of the heroes. aa general rule that covers all heroes NOT killing at the outset would cover this as well as the 'fighting in character' fallacy. fighting in 'character' would take into account the vast wealth of evidence that supports how characters are usually depicted.
the high-end feats are really all that are used. high-balling and low-balling occur ALL the time. but.... if low-balling is pis, why not high-end feats? what makes them immune to the pis moniker? maybe a high-end feat is performed strictly for sake of plot. instead though, high-end feats are seen as 'full-capacity', and low-end feats are tossed out. not sure--never really understood--the disparity in relevence.
and quan, you're right--great to see a flame-free thread.
We hear such and such times that character X holds back cause he is a hero and he's not gonna go all out. So that's generally what most people equate to low showings. The character holding back or not going all out.
While we hear such narration for the same character X issues later that such and such high end feat is them no longer holding back and giving it everything they've got.
Low-End unfocused hero while High-End becomes totally focused hero.
Of course we hear narration like that no matter the feat sometimes but I think in general that is what has given rise to idea that low-end feats should be tossed out because they are not the character going to the best of their abilities while that is what high-end eats are supposed to represent.
So what does "You got Quanned" stand for?
I ignored him for almost 2 years until I got tired or watching people argue with him on and on and decided to take him off. My tolerance grew a lot since then. So I'm curious...is it some sort of "You got served" thing where he breakdances and mindrapes someone?
Originally posted by leonidas
gracias.i think the heart of why smurph and i--and i guess quan as well--seem to think the way we do is because it seems..... wrong to remove the character from what are comicbook CHARACTERS. you can argue that we're NOT just using powersets, that the characters must still fight in character, however, all 'heroes' under this format will essentially be the same. NONE will blitz-to-kill. so when we say 'fighting in character' what we're really saying is--no good guy will kill, but using all their powers in any other way is fine. in that sense, there is no real differnce in 'character' among any of the heroes. aa general rule that covers all heroes NOT killing at the outset would cover this as well as the 'fighting in character' fallacy. fighting in 'character' would take into account the vast wealth of evidence that supports how characters are usually depicted.
the high-end feats are really all that are used. high-balling and low-balling occur ALL the time. but.... if low-balling is pis, why not high-end feats? what makes them immune to the pis moniker? maybe a high-end feat is performed strictly for sake of plot. instead though, high-end feats are seen as 'full-capacity', and low-end feats are tossed out. not sure--never really understood--the disparity in relevence.
and quan, you're right--great to see a flame-free thread.
I think some confusion exists as to what is classified as low feats. What do you assume they mean?
Originally posted by TricksterPriest
That's............dubious at best. Given that marvel kind of ignores speed, or at least doesn't have it the way DC does. 😂
They don't ignore speed. They don't quantify as often as DC does. Marvel just addresses it differently.
Take Gog and Thor for example. Both can deal with speedsters. DC just likes to quantify speed more often than not.
For example: It's safe to say Gog is not a speedster. He does not go around rapestomping everybody with "super speed". But when the situation calls for it, he can perceive and react to it. DC's infatuation with quantifying super speed even in a show of perception/reaction is quite evident here.
http://s272.photobucket.com/albums/jj172/galan007_pics/?action=view¤t=gog_powers2.jpg
http://s272.photobucket.com/albums/jj172/galan007_pics/?action=view¤t=gog_powers4.jpg
http://s272.photobucket.com/albums/jj172/galan007_pics/?action=view¤t=gog_powers5.jpg
Thor likewise has dealt with speedsters and attacks against him that needs great reaction and perception. Marvel just shows it without having to quantify it all the time.
http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo326/OneDumbG0/Thor%20Stats/ThorSuperspeed21475.jpg
"reflexes honed in a thousand deadly battles"
http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo326/OneDumbG0/Thor%20Stats/ThorSuperspeed18428.jpg
The statement by Thor alone "I have vanquished fleeter foes..." is a perfect example of Marvel letting readers know that to a being as powerful as Thor, super speed used against him is not a big advantage.
http://s980.photobucket.com/albums/ae289/ankur2292/?action=view¤t=TMA034020.jpg
http://s980.photobucket.com/albums/ae289/ankur2292/?action=view¤t=TMA034021.jpg
It is clear the two address speed in their own respective ways.
