And the mask comes off.

[Thunder Glove]

Process of elimination, mostly.  Often when people have discussed CoH analogs to magic users of all kinds controller tended to come up just due to the diversity of effects at your disposal with controllers verses other archetypes.  The other archetypes tend, on average, to be more focused on specific effects.  Eliminating the melee archetypes and Blasters you're generally left with defenders and controllers.  Controllers have defender primaries as their secondary and control sets instead of ranged blasts: that tends to offer far more options for conceptual fidelity.

I've always considered Green Lantern (and other Lanterns) to fall along these lines, too: Defenders, Corruptors, Controllers, and Dominators, with the exact AT depending on the specific Lantern's temperment.  (I could see classic Hal Jordan as a Grav/FF Controller, John Stewart as a FF/Energy Defender, and Guy Gardner as an Energy/FF Corruptor; I see classic - i.e., before all the "emotional spectrum" stuff - Sinestro as a Grav/Energy Dominator, with current "yellow = fear" Sinestro as a Dark/Dark Dominator; etc)

My first Dominator was a Grav/Elec Dominator loosely based on classic Sinestro (the "Elec" part is why it's loosely based, though the Voltaic Sentinel made a nice "construct" thematically), and one of my other Dominators was Fire/Fire, based on Hal Jordan as a Red Lantern.

If I24 had gone live, the new Sorcery pool and its eclectic variety of abilities would have helped create a bit more "jack of all trades" variety for magical characters.

[Twisted Toon]

I've always considered Green Lantern (and other Lanterns) to fall along these lines, too: Defenders, Corruptors, Controllers, and Dominators, with the exact AT depending on the specific Lantern's temperment.  (I could see classic Hal Jordan as a Grav/FF Controller, John Stewart as a FF/Energy Defender, and Guy Gardner as an Energy/FF Corruptor; I see classic - i.e., before all the "emotional spectrum" stuff - Sinestro as a Grav/Energy Dominator, with current "yellow = fear" Sinestro as a Dark/Dark Dominator; etc)

My first Dominator was a Grav/Elec Dominator loosely based on classic Sinestro (the "Elec" part is why it's loosely based, though the Voltaic Sentinel made a nice "construct" thematically), and one of my other Dominators was Fire/Fire, based on Hal Jordan as a Red Lantern.

If I24 had gone live, the new Sorcery pool and its eclectic variety of abilities would have helped create a bit more "jack of all trades" variety for magical characters.

I had an Earth/Energy Dominator she used the crystal animations for the controlery part/ It worked pretty well for constructs and stuff.

[Abraxus]

I had an Earth/Energy Dominator she used the crystal animations for the controlery part/ It worked pretty well for constructs and stuff.

I have created one of those in Icon, and I look forward to calling up those costume, and power modification files when CoH makes its return.....whenever that might be.

[Ohioknight]

Interesting article, I thought about CoH while reading.

http://massivelyop.net/2015/02/13/eff-wants-to-exempt-some-emulated-game-servers-from-copyright-laws/

That needs to be strongly supported.  Intellectual Property rights (patent and copyright) are temporary licenses granted to ensure IP is made AVAILABLE, not so somebody can lock up IP so that nobody can use it. 

[Abraxus]

That needs to be strongly supported.  Intellectual Property rights (patent and copyright) are temporary licenses granted to ensure IP is made AVAILABLE, not so somebody can lock up IP so that nobody can use it.

I completely agree, but as long as the almighty dollar is the driving force behind....well pretty much everything, what's right will always be a step behind what's profitable!

[Arcana]

That needs to be strongly supported.  Intellectual Property rights (patent and copyright) are temporary licenses granted to ensure IP is made AVAILABLE, not so somebody can lock up IP so that nobody can use it.

I should point out this statement is an expression of the legal foundation for intellectual property (copyright and patent) rights within the US Constitution.  It is not the sole legal justification for intellectual property protection worldwide or historically.  There are other legal justifications for intellectual property rights based on the presumption of a fundamental right of creators to control their work.  However, no such specific right exists within the US Constitution itself, and any discussion of the DMCA would of course presume US law.

I have often wondered what a Constitutional scholar would say if someone attempted to argue that while the copyright clause itself limits Congress to limited times and limited purposes in granting IP protection, the Commerce clause theoretically grants significantly more power to do so in an unlimited fashion under the right conditions.  There exists no constitutional legal doctrine I'm aware of that implies the reach of one constitutional clause is automatically limited by an enumerated power in another clause even if not explicitly stated.  That might be an interesting test case for a Supreme Court that wanted to do so to curtail the reach of the Commerce clause.  Although the current court doesn't seem to be such a court.  The Commerce clause seems to consistently be the hammer that drives the Necessary and Proper wedge through Constitutional Gordian Knots (now that's an odd mixed metaphor).

[Brigadine]

 

I should point out this statement is an expression of the legal foundation for intellectual property (copyright and patent) rights within the US Constitution.  It is not the sole legal justification for intellectual property protection worldwide or historically.  There are other legal justifications for intellectual property rights based on the presumption of a fundamental right of creators to control their work.  However, no such specific right exists within the US Constitution itself, and any discussion of the DMCA would of course presume US law.

I have often wondered what a Constitutional scholar would say if someone attempted to argue that while the copyright clause itself limits Congress to limited times and limited purposes in granting IP protection, the Commerce clause theoretically grants significantly more power to do so in an unlimited fashion under the right conditions.  There exists no constitutional legal doctrine I'm aware of that implies the reach of one constitutional clause is automatically limited by an enumerated power in another clause even if not explicitly stated.  That might be an interesting test case for a Supreme Court that wanted to do so to curtail the reach of the Commerce clause.  Although the current court doesn't seem to be such a court.  The Commerce clause seems to consistently be the hammer that drives the Necessary and Proper wedge through Constitutional Gordian Knots (now that's an odd mixed metaphor).

What I can say is it does result in money/buying/selling across state lines. The supreme court has ruled it becomes federal once multi state sales become involved among other things. In this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbons_v._Ogden It was 'permits' in question. It sounds comparable to Ips if you ask me. Both end up as a piece of paper with semi unreal product I think. Close to equal if you ask this scholar.

[Ohioknight]

I should point out this statement is an expression of the legal foundation for intellectual property (copyright and patent) rights within the US Constitution.  It is not the sole legal justification for intellectual property protection worldwide or historically.  There are other legal justifications for intellectual property rights based on the presumption of a fundamental right of creators to control their work.

But all the international structures include the concept of time limitation on IP as opposed to every other form of property. 

The historical basis of US/English/European law on IP as applied to world trade is the core of all IP law as it exists.  The recognition is that artistic works are not "property" in the sense of lands or resources and that the value to society involves their use as opposed to their suppression.

[Balince]

The silence killing anyone else? lol..Although over the last month I've become more positive for a CoH return. I think the silence is a good thing but it's also a real patience tester. A general update from someone would be welcomed, I know the NDA's but something really general where maybe we could read between the lines. ;D

[Blackout]

The silence killing anyone else? lol..Although over the last month I've become more positive for a CoH return. I think the silence is a good thing but it's also a real patience tester. A general update from someone would be welcomed, I know the NDA's but something really general where maybe we could read between the lines. ;D

Agreed and double agreed on this. I understand the reason for the silence, but my god I wish we had some news, especially with everyone being worried by the whole nexon thing

[Noyjitat]

The anticipation is driving me nuts. Man this is such a drag...

[Arcana]

But all the international structures include the concept of time limitation on IP as opposed to every other form of property. 

The historical basis of US/English/European law on IP as applied to world trade is the core of all IP law as it exists.  The recognition is that artistic works are not "property" in the sense of lands or resources and that the value to society involves their use as opposed to their suppression.

The older European antecedents of IP law are based on the "moral rights" of creators (cf: droit moral).  This concept did not and does not contain the same presumption that the purpose of artistic protection is to ultimately benefit society or that such works should ever, at any time, necessarily escape the control of the creator.  As a practical matter those rights tended to have expiration dates, but not because of the reason you give as a foundation of the legal justification.  Because that concept did not find its way into the US Constitution, US IP law tends to focus more on the issue of proper financial compensation to creators balanced against the net overall benefit to society, while in many other parts of the world copyright is coupled with other rights not generally recognized in the US, such as the right to preserve the integrity of published works (i.e. to prevent other people from modifying the original work itself, even if financial control is transferred).

[Ironwolf]

To take the pressure off - I thought I would share this review of 50 Shades of Grey by an MMA fighter - Yves Edwards:

Here's a Valentine story for you guys. On Thursday afternoon My wife asked me if I want to go see "50 Shades of Grey" with her. My response was, "I have 0 interest in seeing that movie." She said okay and sounded disappointed. So I texted her and told her if she really wants to see it then go ahead and get the tickets I'll go with her. From this point on it's all about the movie and my experience and I won't be tagging anything "Spoiler Alert" because either you're a woman that's already read the books or you're a man and you don't give a damn.

The movie starts at about 9:15pm and about 10 minutes in I'm like, "Yup this is pretty much what I expected, my misery has begun." The scene that leads to the male and female leads meeting each other is like a bad juiced up version of "Mad Men". She goes to his office, big wall street type corporate office, where all the employees are tall leggy blondes dressed the sexy secretary role, and here comes Annastasia (I don't remember her last name just I like I don't remember Grey's first name) who sticks out like a sore thumb in this environment. Fast forward through a ton of forced(cinematically) sexual tension, some manufactured conflict as the segue to get into some Whatshisface Grey character development.

They hang out a little one day and he decided, they're not going to be a good fit. Of course as a woman she is devastated because her "Prince Charming" is getting away. So she goes out with her roommate and a guy friend, gets wasted and calls Grey drunk to do the typical TV show, "I'm a girl and you hurt my feelings, so I'm going to call you when I'm drunk" move while she's in line for the bathroom at the club. Of course him being the young go-getter that he is, when a young drunk damsel calls him he must rescue her from herself and the guy friend she considers family, but who now is admittedly all into her and rapey. At this point I'm thinking, okay everything that is happening in this movie is freaking ridiculous and how can women enjoy this crap. I'm doing mental gymnastics now trying to justify or at the very least comprehend how my wife could be enjoying this; maybe it's because she read the books so what's happening on screen has a different meaning to her than it does to me; like when I watch a superhero movie with someone that didn't grow up on comic books. This movie is extremely bad, it's what you get when Nickelodeon decides to venture into the world of pornography. I have paid money to sit in a movie theater and watch garbage that is simultaneously destroying my brain cells, perpetuating the Prince Charming myth, decreasing my faith in humanity and portraying women as irrational and incompetent. I am negatively multitasking on a cosmic level.

I do not want to be in here watching this at all at this point, and I'm sitting in the back corner of the theater (small audience capacity about 30) when I have this thought that had me giggling uncontrollably for the next 3-4 minutes and intermittently for the next 15 minutes. Mind you I'm still miserable and I'm a bit disappointed in my wife because, in my head, she's into this foolishness. Then out of no where she drops a beautiful bomb on me by leaning over and whispering to me, "FYI, I liked the books but this movie is ridiculous, we can leave whenever you want." What!!! It's Christmas already? Hallelujah!!!!! I put up a card asking for our check (The Alamo Drafthouse for you non-Austin folks has a full service menu and wait staff) but no servers come soon enough and we're now both at our limit. So we stand up and walk out; and as we're leaving I'm giggling because all the men are looking at me like, "Can I go with you bro?" and their SOs are looking at us like "Why would you be leaving?"

Anyway we get to the lobby and it's 10:10pm I grab a server, and asked for some help. This is the conversation I had with him almost verbatim.
Me: "Excuse me, can you please help us get our check?"
Server: "What theater were you in?"
Me: "'50 Shades of Grey' in theater 10."
Server: He smiled and said "That movie is pretty bad huh?"
Me: Thinking about how bad that movie was made me remember why I was laughing so hard in the theater. "Horrible is a better word. I didn't want to go to jail for yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater, but I was sitting in the back and I literally thought 'if I take a crap in the corner we would all have to leave'".

Moral of the story: 1. Don't see "50 Shades of Grey", unless you want to seriously consider taking a crap in a crowded theater.

This is extremely well written for a guy who has 60 professional fights and gets hit in the head for a living.

[Reaper]

LOL!  Pretty much what I would have expected.  My wife just read the book in preparation of maybe wanting to see the movie, but even she said the book was unrealistic and not that well written.  She said that the movie was bound to be worse so she had no desire of seeing it any time soon.  I was happy to hear that as I also had 0% interest in watching that.

Very funny excerpt though!

[Arcana]

The Twilight series itself is silly juvenile pulp romance and 50 Shades is the even more ludicrous fanfiction based on that.

Having said that, I think 50 Shades is for many woman what the Transformers movies are for many men: its silly and ridiculous, but then again there's robots and explosions.  Or maybe Pacific Rim is a better comparison.  Its childhood goofiness made (semi-)real.  Everyone knows they're not seeing great cinema, but robots and monsters?  Sure, why not.  Twilight and 50 Shades are many women's juvenile fantasies visualized.  And I think most women know that, but then again, where else are you going to see that on the big screen.

Also, we all know World of Warcraft is not the pinnacle of game design, and yet we've all played it. And we've all played it for much the same reason: our friends were playing it.  50 Shades is a safe outlet because its commonly accepted that everyone "had to read it" or at least "check it out for a few pages."  You're not a pervert for reading 50 Shades, you're just one of millions of other women.  We all have guilty pleasures (Silk Stalkings, anyone?  Anyone?) and I'm not one to judge.  Still not going to see it, because eww, but not going to judge.

On the plus side, I hear it gets that Frozen song out of your head for a couple hours.

[Reaper]

The Twilight series itself is silly juvenile pulp romance and 50 Shades is the even more ludicrous fanfiction based on that.

Funny you should mention that, she had also said she could see HUGE similarities between those two stories.  :D

[Codewalker]

The Twilight series itself is silly juvenile pulp romance and 50 Shades is the even more ludicrous fanfiction based on that.

Reminder to potential authors writing awful fanfic: The Internet never forgets!

No matter how much you wish that it would.

[Kaos Arcanna]

Reminder to potential authors writing awful fanfic: The Internet never forgets!

No matter how much you wish that it would.

I'm sure the author is crying all the way to the bank. :D

[blacksly]

I'm sure the author is crying all the way to the bank. :D

Exactly.
I remember a pretty good modern fantasy/vampire series by Laurel Hamilton. It was solid, largely because it didn't give in too much to the "let's add porn to the plot" syndrome. But after a good amount of books, it shifted pretty strongly to the sexual fantasy side of the aisle. to the point where I stopped reading it.

And I always had the feeling that many of her readers were female, and her editor kept getting suggestions about adding more sexual scenes to the books. So I wonder if it was the author who shifted her style, or the audience who told her that's what they want. And in most careers, well, money talks.

[Arcana]

Exactly.
I remember a pretty good modern fantasy/vampire series by Laurel Hamilton. It was solid, largely because it didn't give in too much to the "let's add porn to the plot" syndrome. But after a good amount of books, it shifted pretty strongly to the sexual fantasy side of the aisle. to the point where I stopped reading it.

And I always had the feeling that many of her readers were female, and her editor kept getting suggestions about adding more sexual scenes to the books. So I wonder if it was the author who shifted her style, or the audience who told her that's what they want. And in most careers, well, money talks.

Based on her Merry Gentry series, I'm thinking it was the author that shifted steadily more kinky rather than being pushed to do so by readership.  Also, from Mary Sue-lite to Mary Sue: the post-doctorate edition.