Blue Lanterns Powers? Easy solution...

You started your statement with 'There are no healers in comic books' and followed the statement up with 'But I know there are healers in comic books'. That's all I'm gonna say, because logic dictates that's all I *need* to say here. You wanna defend Blue Lanterns, fine. You don't know the entire history of all comic books off to top of your head, fine.

But you can't say something like 'There are none of these here' and immediately follow it up with 'There are some of these here'. That's like saying you've never heard of a pocket knife, but you have a pocket knife on you right now. See how that might undermine your veracity somewhat?

That's not you arguing with him, me, or anyone else at this point in this conversation.

That's you disagreeing with yourself.

Not really, no...because I also know that it is extremely easy to pick apart somebody's paragraphs. It's extremely easy to do when you take something that somebody says and take them literal to the very word. I did not use a character name that was considered to be a dedicated healer, because until you showed me those links to known dedicated healers, I knew of none that existed. My point, which is still valid, regardless if you think you have invalidated my point or not, did and still does stand.

Edit: Also, to get back to the point I made with that statement, is that a full on, dedicated healer, would make for a boring read. Which would probably be a good reason as to why I have never even heard of any of the Healers you linked me to. Another point to what I was mentioning, is that Blue Lanterns are not known as full on healers, they have far more capabilities than simple healing, and to my knowledge have only healed in rare occasions....which brings me to my original point, that sometimes you have to think outside the box, because out of all the Lanterns, which is what this discussion is about....Lanterns, Blue/Hope makes the best choice for a healing class Lantern.

My point was never about saying there are no healers, and then naming off a healer, because technically, even though they have shown great capacity to heal, they are not considered a "Healer" as such. So no...I did not contradict myself to the degree you imply.

Haha, okay. Now you're just trying too hard.

Ehh, I'm not the one opening holes in my own statements and then using semantics to attempt to defend my own abbreviation of logical process.

If you're gonna be defending your desire to see a Blue Lantern Power Set in a manner that might eventually see some sort of manifestation in reality as opposed to its current status - which is currently that even mere mention of it creates a reaction somewhere between a vague 'meh' and an arguably justifiable 'rolled-up newspaper to the nose' response (considering that there is an active developer statement saying 'There is no plan to do this') - then you might consider an approach that doesn't come off as 'arguing just to argue'.

Like, try winning over supporters with thought-out discussion instead of shooting your argument in the foot while attempting to dispute their claim.

Insisting that someone else is trying too hard after pointing out an egregious contradiction in what was an attempt on your behalf to establish validity for the concept seems like 'arguing just to argue'. So, since - like I said - I have no horse in this race? I'm done now. But you can either continue digging your hole or consider that a different approach is more likely to work.

Kimone, before you argue with me further, you really need to first admit to yourself, that semantics is exactly what you used to pick apart my post. Until then, I said all I need to say.

I used 'observation of a self-contained, direct logical contradiction' to pick apart your post.

In a dictionary-defined sense of the word semantics : being -

"the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning."

So yes, I used semantics to pick apart your post because there was a direct failure in the logical application of sense contained within your statement available to dissect, even though it was fairly - by which I mean immediately - apparent and thereby required no effort to perform its dissection.

By the same definition, I'm finally incorrect in one respect.

You're actually not using semantics as a tool here - you're using the straw-man approach instead.

Misrepresentation of this exchange as debate and continued defense of your argument's validity based on a claimed lack of personally available evidence disputing your initial statement 'There are no healers in comic books' (which was immediately disproven by your own claim in the same statement, being that there are examples of Blue Lanterns healing people in comic books) as being acceptable grounds for your claim, as opposed to ceding the point that your own statement disputes itself and moving on to something else instead.

My apologies.

See my above edit in my previous post. Let's hope that clears this fun little debate between the two of us up. I'm sleepy.

Blue Lantern powered characters.....

is it defined by those who have hope that SOE hired the right engineers to run the PSN and its hardware?


PSN, i think i know the issue.... it looks like this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...aries-e-mail-as-no-end-to-leaks-in-sight.html
Sony games vs Sony movies? 0o (who is payed more? is someone using engineering skills to take it to movie department execs and lower the revenue of the brand before they run off into a sunset after making millions over a few years? Did MS pay for this?)

Okay....

... Editing a post to maintain a claim of certitude after directly contradicting yourself is one thing...

... but flat denial of the other thing that you said, that's scoring the trifecta. Or, You're the one who insists they're Healers, and I doubt you're the only one reading those comic books. 'Straw Man II - Revenge of Fallacious Reasoning'.

Why is it soooo hard for you to understand, that just because I proved that Hope Lanterns have healed, that doesn't make them "Healers"? See what I did there? I placed the word "Healers" in parenthesis. That indicates that the word can't be taken too much to heart. It was in my original post as well, even before the edit. So why on Earth, would you take it to be literal, even though I clearly showed that it should not be taken to be literal?

Having the ability to heal, which I have clearly proved they can, does not make one a "Healer". A Tank in this very game can heal, but it sure as hell doesn't make a Tank a "healer", now does it? I even further indicated, that in order to make a healer power set in an iconic game such as this, which requires the conversion of an existing iconic power in to a healing power set, requires a bit of imagination and slight alteration. Much the same as they gave many of the Iconic Legends weapons that they never commonly used in comics. The Developers thought outside the box, and made the characters work within the provided system available. Well, this is exactly how the word "Healer" was implied when I used an example of Hope Lanterns "healing" and that they were the best choice to integrate in to a healing role, within the game.

No, Kimone, as hard as you try to make it sound like I contradicted myself, I most certainly did not. You dissecting my post, has not changed it's meaning one single bit. The only thing you have accomplished here, is that you have proven to anyone who is reading this, that you are so hell bent on an argument, that you will argue semantics and attempt to make something appear to be something that it was never intended to be. I have given you the benefit of the doubt that you simply misunderstood my meaning, and attempted to show you the meaning of my post, and you refuse to listen because you are absolutely stuck on trying to prove to me, that what I implied with my statement, is what you thought it implied. I don't know how to explain it to you in any other way that will make you understand.

I mistook you for somebody of intellect. But since you seem to lack basic comprehension of things you read, because you are too busy taking everything you read to be literal, even when words are put in parenthesis to show that it should not be taken literal, then I must stand by myself, bewildered at your failure to produce some minor function of comprehension. You continue to argue the same argument, over and over, even though I have showed you that it is nothing to argue about, simply because your interpretation of what you read, is wrong.

But alas, I feel like I am beating my head against a brick wall with you, because I am most certain you will only come back with the same exact argument you have been coming at me with, no matter how many different ways I have tried to show you that your interpretation of my post was incorrect. The only thing you have accomplished here, is derailing my thread....and something tells me this was your plan all long.

Three Things,

First?

Don't insult someone simply because they dispute a point that you did not bother to clarify until faaar into the discussion, especially not when the actual wording of your initial disputed post indicates a direct logical contradiction. You could have simply clarified your alleged intentions quite some time ago, and chose to argue your innocence instead of embarking upon that clarification. It displays your focus quite clearly in the discussion - being that verifying your appearance of certitude is held as important before establishment of a level field for discourse - and has little to do with my inability to comprehend things that were not explicitly contained in your original statement. This is a forum for written dialogue, I'm not sure if there IS an environment were literal meaning holds more sway.

Second?

My contention here has more to do with the fact that you demanded leeways and allowances for yourself in this discussion that you were not allowing to other people. I kept coming back to the same point because you keep insisting that your actual meaning is something else; you claimed ignorance after I refuted your point with an observation, whereas the observation made by you that I was refuting was in itself predicated upon non-allowance of ignorance on the prior poster's behalf.

I said this QUITE clearly.

You had an opportunity to clarify this IMMEDIATELY, and instead of doing so you continued to insist that my observation of your obvious logical fallacy was invalid because of ignorance ....

then because of a difference in initial meaning that you failed to clarify until well over an hour into the discussion.

And Third?

My original point was to see whether or not you were aware of the flaw in your own statement - which exists because it could not have been identified otherwise - and which, I might also add, you did not correct or otherwise approach until over an hour later, and then only after repeated insistence on your behalf that you were still correct, even if the actual point that you claim your statement now has had yet to be revealed.

I'm still arguing now because it's a long night at work and to be frank? I think if you're going to make such pejorative statements you should at least be in the right, instead of continuing to retroactively correct yourself regarding the undisclosed minutiae of your original statement after dismissing the opinion of a prior poster out of hand using their ignorance of a topic as a reason to do so and then later claiming that as a defense for your own lack of information. Like I said before...

And in absolute fairness, I'm pretty sure I'm the one banging my head against a wall here, because I just explained 'part of to all' of this *four times in a row*.

Just lock this thread already. Unreasonable players with "give me everything"-threads? We got hundreds of these every day.

Here is my 2 cents. There are 9 Lantern Corps. 7 of them are in the emotional spectrum 2 of them are not. The only power I can see as a healer is the Star Sapphires. Here is why

Green and Yellow: Already in game. Powers are pretty much the same
Rage: in game. Heroes feel rage also. At the end of emotional spectrum
Blue: More than likely not going to happen. No villian counterpart. Gets or gives buff when Green Lantern is there
Orange: More than likely not going to happen. No Hero counterpart. Not really a healing power
Indigo: More than likely not going to happen. No villian counterpart. Villians become heroes
Sapphires: Can be both Hero and Villian healing power. Opposite end of spectrum. Love makes people do Crazy things. Look at Harley Quinn

Black and White: Not going to happen.

Makes as much sense as anything else. I wouldn't really classify Star Sapphires as healers, but it makes as much sense as GL controllers. I've never read a story where GLs gave power back.

More on topic?

I think it's not gonna happen because the developers already said 'There are currently no plans for another Lantern Power'. It's kinda like the Cash Cap thing. It's a moot topic of debate because of that statement alone, not to mention that the next three powers have already been announced and - shock and amazement - Blue Lanterns aren't one of those powers. But setting 'will it happen' aside for the moment to consider the conceptual feasibility...

At present, aside from some instances of traditional 'healing' in comics indicating that they can, in fact, heal? Blue Lanterns are very restricted in both morality and membership, the aforementioned issue of 'no higher Ring functioning without a Green Lantern present' also makes itself problematic, and as buddah points out - there's a more logical choice.

Yeah, point. The 'restriction / CC' part of controlling, perhaps, but power restoration is like... I can think of *one* character off the top of my head who did something fairly analogous to that, and he wasn't a good guy OR a lantern...

Is it just me or is this part of the annoying rotation of topics that won't go away? Blue lanterns, premium cash cap, nerf legends. Why do you feel the need to keep dredging up the same crap. Then get defensive when someone who's tired of seeing the same topic over and over tells you what has already been said dozens of times.

Eh, kind of irrelevant to me game wise. I get your point as it might not fit with anything that has come before in the source material, but honestly that doesn't mean that just because they haven't done it yet doesn't mean that they can't. It's all up to the writers you know, and if the game developers are given such freedom to do so, then they could do it. I was thinking more of a technical reason as if it would be too difficult to code that way and give players the choice of color for their rings/constructs as it's unfair to everyone else and all of the other power sets or something. Someone else mentioned this, as if it wouldn't be fair or too confusing if for example fire users got to change the color of their flames to all sorts of cool colors, then players would have a hard time telling whose power is what because the game is structured to go by the colors of powers more so than the particular animations and effects. Kind of a weak excuse if you ask me, because I don't think that I could ever confuse fire for another power if it was green like the iconic character's instead of the standard orange that it is, but it is what it is I guess. But, perhaps that's the problem right there, they can't have players battling "Fire" and hitting her with their own "green flames" as you couldn't tell which were the ones coming off of her and which ones were yours or something like that. Hence, no recoloring of powers, light or otherwise as much as it would be really cool to do so and something that I and others would like very much.

exactly. now you're understanding.

Blue Lanterns have healing capabilities but they're not healers. they may have shown the potential to be considered or used as a healer class in a video game but they're not healers. canonicly their abilities are more along the lines of a controller in this game.

when you consider that we have a Lantern controller already, Blue Lanterns have no canon villain characters, and there is no villain equivalent corps to Blue Lanterns... AND consider that DC Comics doesn't want Blue Lanterns portrayed in this way against canonical lore, you now understand why Blue Lanterns will not be added as healers.

your thread for a feature request has been answered. that is why it's the end of the discussion. DC Comics has said "no". there's nothing else to discuss.

the devs already told us they have no plans to add any more Lantern powers. there probably won't even be new powers after Serums. if there is a Lantern healer ever, it'll probably be the Sapphires. usually male, but there's been exceptions. and they have a lore basis in both factions and all the same "healing" abilities of Blue Lanterns.