Who's the mightiest?

Xzasxz

I have come to the article: http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2016/june/who2019s-the-best-equipped-superhero-student-research-settles-2018superpower-showdown2019. May be interesting for You.
So: why Mystique is only 3 while OML is on his proper position?

DTStump

Well, Howard is a while Juggernaut is a , so I don't think the correlation between stars and power is very strong here

johnmcclane

By the way..on which base they chose the characters and the variables (both powers and weakenesses)? They are not exaustive. At all.
And more specifically, the powers allocation is not quite right.

Nightglider1

He's known around the forums as "KD."

Oh, you meant characters.



-- Edited because I named another player. Even though it was in a positive way. Whatevs. --

Calnexin

johnmcclane wrote:

By the way..on which base they chose the characters and the variables (both powers and weakenesses)? They are not exaustive. At all.
And more specifically, the powers allocation is not quite right.

Understand that the game was not designed in its entirety from the beginning. It's been an evolution. Juggernaut is a 1* because they used him as a villain in the prologue. Same for the 2* Dark Avengers characters. They were a starting point - at that point they only had a few 3*. Once it got rolling they added. For certain characters, they thought the popularity and/or content justified adding another iteration in a new tier to reflect both the utility and popularity.

Going strictly by comic canon, Juggernaut really should be at least a 3*, if not 4*. He's a pretty serious threat, much more so than any iteration of Black Widow or Hawkeye. But he was used early and doesn't have significantly different iterations in the comics to justify creating a whole new character for him.

Ultimately, this is a strategic match-3 game with a sprinkling of character personality. It is not a simulator. It makes sense that IM35 would be able to take out Daredevil, but if they did it that way no one would win against Galactus. You'd need fully-covered Silvery Surfer and Phoenix to stand a chance.

Also, just have to add my own comment

linked article wrote:

Seven years of student-led research into superheroes between 2009-2016

I appreciate that students like to have a good time and pursue their interests, but "research"? "Seven Years"? That's an awful lot of time to devote to a "scientific" study of fiction. They could've devoted that time to making the next Broadway hit or curing an early-onset disease. Is this what millenials are doing now? Poring over comic books to provide definitive proof of something that the next comic writer could invalidate in an instant with a reboot?

DeNappa

Sho Nuff!

The SHOGUN... of Harlem.


Sorry, I couldn't resist. For those who don't know the reference, here's a link.

8punch

Shonuff or Jack Burton, lets ask Thor

revskip

Calnexin wrote:

Also, just have to add my own comment

linked article wrote:

Seven years of student-led research into superheroes between 2009-2016

I appreciate that students like to have a good time and pursue their interests, but "research"? "Seven Years"? That's an awful lot of time to devote to a "scientific" study of fiction. They could've devoted that time to making the next Broadway hit or curing an early-onset disease. Is this what millenials are doing now? Poring over comic books to provide definitive proof of something that the next comic writer could invalidate in an instant with a reboot?

During your college days how many early onset diseases did you cure? And how many Broadway hits did you write?

One of my favorite college courses was comparative religion. I've never used anything I learned in that class for anything other than waxing poetic when drunk. Flights of fancy in college aren't a "millennial" problem. And every generation is certain that the one they belong to were so much more erudite, necessary and efficient than the one that follows (ask Tom Brokaw). None of which is actually at all true.

El Satanno

revskip wrote:

Calnexin wrote:

Also, just have to add my own comment

linked article wrote:

Seven years of student-led research into superheroes between 2009-2016

I appreciate that students like to have a good time and pursue their interests, but "research"? "Seven Years"? That's an awful lot of time to devote to a "scientific" study of fiction. They could've devoted that time to making the next Broadway hit or curing an early-onset disease. Is this what millenials are doing now? Poring over comic books to provide definitive proof of something that the next comic writer could invalidate in an instant with a reboot?

During your college days how many early onset diseases did you cure? And how many Broadway hits did you write?

One of my favorite college courses was comparative religion. I've never used anything I learned in that class for anything other than waxing poetic when drunk. Flights of fancy in college aren't a "millennial" problem. And every generation is certain that the one they belong to were so much more erudite, necessary and efficient than the one that follows (ask Tom Brokaw). None of which is actually at all true.

I'll go one step further: Charles Dickens was a pulp writer. Yet we all study his works as part of serious discussion in period literature. Who are any of us to say that comic book fiction is any less deserving of serious consideration? It's a statement very similar to one made in the "video games as art" debate that constantly rears its head across the mediasphere.

Quebbster

revskip wrote:

Calnexin wrote:

Also, just have to add my own comment

linked article wrote:

Seven years of student-led research into superheroes between 2009-2016

I appreciate that students like to have a good time and pursue their interests, but "research"? "Seven Years"? That's an awful lot of time to devote to a "scientific" study of fiction. They could've devoted that time to making the next Broadway hit or curing an early-onset disease. Is this what millenials are doing now? Poring over comic books to provide definitive proof of something that the next comic writer could invalidate in an instant with a reboot?

During your college days how many early onset diseases did you cure? And how many Broadway hits did you write?

One of my favorite college courses was comparative religion. I've never used anything I learned in that class for anything other than waxing poetic when drunk. Flights of fancy in college aren't a "millennial" problem. And every generation is certain that the one they belong to were so much more erudite, necessary and efficient than the one that follows (ask Tom Brokaw). None of which is actually at all true.

It's not like silly scientific studies is a new thing either. Here is an old favorite of mine: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -says.html