Lex Sedet In Vertice: A Supervillain in the DCU CK2 quest

What sort of tone should I shoot for with this Quest?

  • Go as crack fueled as you can we want Ambush Bug, Snowflame and Duckseid

    Votes: 30 7.7%
  • Go for something silly but keep a little bit of reason

    Votes: 31 7.9%
  • Adam West Camp

    Votes: 27 6.9%
  • Balanced as all things should be

    Votes: 195 50.0%
  • Mostly serious but not self-involvedly so

    Votes: 73 18.7%
  • Dark and brooding but with light at the end of the tunnel

    Votes: 12 3.1%
  • We're evil and we don't want anyone to be happy

    Votes: 22 5.6%

  • Total voters
    390
  • Poll closed .
Shows Oswald Loomis worked on before joining LexCorp

Shows Oswald worked on before joining Lexcorp.


Since king crimson showed interest, I'll briefly elaborate on these shows from Oswald's resume. The show titles parody real-life programs from the same years he's listed to have worked on them, though the content itself doesn't resemble those shows. It's an interesting exercise, though I'm unsure if it qualifies as an omake.

The Moderation Patrol
In an era of radical change, an underground movement emerges with a mission so moderate it's extreme. Welcome to The Moderation Patrol, a fringe social movement where passionate centrists wage a tepid war against the cardinal sin of having strong opinions. In their beige-colored safehouse, they plot their most ambitious mission yet: to make the 1960s just a little more like the 1950s.

Set in 1966 America, this satirical dramedy follows Jack Leland, a fanatically middle-of-the-road crusader dedicated to enforcing reasonable behavior at any cost. Armed with suggestion boxes and focus groups, the Moderation Patrol infiltrates both counterculture and establishment circles with a single mission: to ensure nobody gets too excited about anything.

Watch as Jack and his zealously neutral associates mediate between hippies and squares, break up too-peaceful anti-war rallies, and ensure rock bands maintain acceptable decibel levels. But as the cultural revolution intensifies, our moderates face their greatest crisis yet: how far should one go to enforce moderation? From breaking up poetry slams for being "a bit too emotional" to infiltrating conservative groups to suggest more casual dress codes, the Moderation Patrol walks the world's most cautious tightrope, earning universal dislike along the way.

When Jack's right-hand woman Danielle Connors starts organizing increasingly well-structured protests against excessive protest, the group faces an existential question: In a world of extremes, is militant moderation the only answer? And if so, wouldn't that make them... extremists?

The C.I.A
Welcome to the world's most misunderstood cooking school, the Culinary Institute of America, where Chef Julia Preston's biggest challenge isn't just teaching aspiring culinarians – it's dealing with the constant stream of foreign spies who keep infiltrating her classes, convinced it's a front for the other CIA. Between teaching knife skills to trained hitmen and explaining to confused operatives that "deep cover" simply refers to casserole lids, Chef Preston's life never has a dull moment.

What starts as chaos turns into a game of cat-and-mouse as Julia uncovers a surprising knack for counterespionage and a good understanding of when to turn up the heat, secretly outmaneuvers corporate spies, foreign agents, and real operatives—all while teaching the next generation of top chefs.

With a clueless undercover CIA agent believing he's in a high-stakes shadow war, foreign transfer students, culinary aspirants unknowingly caught in the crossfire, and a revolving door of espionage mishaps, The C.I.A. serves up a perfect blend of sharp wit, high-stakes hijinks, and mouthwatering cuisine.

All-Star Jam
In this groundbreaking musical competition, genre boundaries are meant to be broken. Each week, twelve contestants from vastly different musical backgrounds – from classical violinists to heavy metal guitarists, jazz pianists to hip-hop producers – are randomly paired into duos with just 48 hours to create and perform an original fusion piece that honors both their styles.

Mentored by legendary musicians and judged by a panel of industry icons, these artists must push beyond their comfort zones to create something truly unique. As the season progresses, successful contestants must form larger groups, leading to even more complex musical experiments. With elimination looming each week, tensions rise as artists struggle to balance artistic integrity with commercial appeal, all while learning to appreciate and adapt to unfamiliar musical languages.

Tommorow's Terrors
1952: The world has changed. What began as isolated reports of prophetic dreams has evolved into a global phenomenon that threatens to upend the delicate balance of power between East and West. Dr. Matthew Reed, a military police psychologist, is recruited into the newly-formed Project Morpheus, a clandestine government organization tasked with preventing these visions from becoming reality.

Partnered with Dr. James Chen, a brilliant but controversial oneirologist, Reed must navigate a complex web of genuine predictions, deliberate deceptions, and Cold War paranoia. Together, they race against time to prevent impending disasters while questioning which dreams are authentic warnings and which might be planted by foreign agents. As they dive deeper into each case, they uncover a pattern suggesting these visions may be connected to classified military experiments on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

Set against the backdrop of atomic age anxiety and emerging psychic research, the series explores the thin line between prophecy and paranoia, building toward the revelation of what triggered humanity's newfound ability to glimpse possible futures – and the terrible price of trying to control it. As the cold war into the realm of consciousness itself, Reed and Chen must confront an unsettling question: in their quest to weaponize the future, hare they awakening something in the human mind that is better left dormant?

The Quantum Detective
Detective Shawn Cho's investigation of a seemingly routine murder case changes forever when he experiences his first "divergence" – a moment where reality splits, allowing him to observe multiple possible outcomes simultaneously. This extraordinary ability makes him an unparalleled investigator.

As Shawn masters his quantum-viewing abilities and delves deeper into the abstract theory of this unknowable study, he discovers he's not alone – other "observers" exist, some with far less altruistic goals. When a series of crimes begins targeting divergence points themselves, Shawn must confront an adversary who doesn't just commit crimes, but rewrites reality to retcon them into existence outright. After a catastrophic investigation goes wrong, Shawn finds himself removed from his own reality and stuck in another one with no clear way to go back home, forcing him to solve the ultimate mystery: With all of these people messing up with the different continuities of the world, how does he stop them, and how the hell does he get back home?

The Ten Billion Penny Woman
Living in the city of Arcadia, frozen in an eternal 1970s, Sarah Mitchell's life seems almost deliberately mundane – a divorced data entry clerk drowning in debt. But Sarah's world is far from ordinary. It's an elaborate construct, a human terrarium where millions of unseen viewers bid on the inhabitants' fates, their penny votes reshaping reality through invisible frequencies that bend minds and alter destinies.

Sarah's crime? She succeeded in divorcing her producer-favored abusive husband, defying the audience's voted "narrative arc," thanks to a birth defect rendering her immune to the mind-bending frequencies. Now marked for elimination, her only ally is the very assassin sent to remove her: Marcus Jones, a synthetic "citizen" whose robotic nature is masked behind perfectly crafted 70s attire and mannerisms. But Marcus is no longer taking orders from the producers. Hijacked by a mysterious outside force, he now serves as Sarah's window into the outside. Her analog world is a carefully maintained fiction, surrounded by a society centuries beyond anything she can comprehend. Through Marcus, Sarah gains access to technology that might as well be magic and meta-knowledge about the audience and the lives of the other inhabitants of Arcadia, all in an attempt to give her the leg-up she sorely needs.

Sarah must now transform herself from a background character into the director of her own destiny. But in a world where entertainment equals survival and even privilege, will she break the system.. or rise to become its greatest perpetrator?

Charlotte's Demons
Charlotte Ross had always dreamed of seeing her art in the world's greatest galleries. When conventional talent and hard work failed her, she made a deal that would change her life forever. Now, her paintings hang in the Louvre, her sculptures command millions, and her installations define contemporary art. But as her latest exhibition opens, the bill for her success comes due—and the collectors aren't interested in money.

Ten years later, at the opening of her most ambitious exhibition yet, her demonic benefactors crash the gala—literally through the skylight—to collect their price: her immortal soul. But Charlotte is no longer the desperate artist who once begged for success. Armed with the supernatural gifts they gave her, she turns her artistry into a weapon.

Alongside her reluctant but loyal team—her no-nonsense agent, who gladly takes on the role of bodyguard in exchange for never having to reschedule a show; a pretentious art critic with an unusual knack for deciphering demonic scripts and making Faustian bargains; and an assistant with a terrible habit of being seduced by demons—Charlotte fights to outmaneuver the hellspawn while keeping the art world blissfully unaware.

Starsector Convergence
When humanity discovered the Zero Mass Relay Gates on Mars, it seemed like destiny was calling. Within decades, colonies spread across dozens of worlds, each one a new chapter in human history. Then came the Shattering – a catastrophic event that destroyed the Relay network, stranding each colony in isolation. Now, three hundred years later, Captain George Jason and the crew of the Starship Convergence navigate the fragments of human civilization, each port of call revealing a different vision of humanity's future.

From the techno-organic fusion society of New Darwin to the quantum-computing theocracy of Turing Prime, every colony has evolved in radical and unexpected ways. Some have embraced biological modification, others have merged with AI, while some have regressed to pre-industrial societies with their own unique twists. Captain Jason and his diverse crew – including a historian obsessed with preserving pre-Shattering culture, a diplomat raised in a hive-mind society, and an engineer who is also a priest of a machine-worshiping religion– must navigate these disparate human cultures while working toward their ultimate goal: reunifying humanity and ushering a new golden age.

As they journey from planet to planet, they uncover clues suggesting the Shattering wasn't an accident, but the deliberate act of some unknowable power. Each episode combines anthropological exploration with space opera adventure, as the crew faces the challenge of bridging vast cultural gaps while racing against a clock they aren't fully ware of toward a threat they're only beginning to comprehend.
 
Last edited:
Since king crimson showed interest, I'll briefly elaborate on these shows from Oswald's resume. The show titles parody real-life programs from the same years he's listed to have worked on them, though the content itself doesn't resemble those shows. It's an interesting exercise, though I'm unsure if it qualifies as an omake.
So I was and remain somewhat interested. This also does 100% qualify as an omake, though I do feel a little wary of giving it 500 exp. I want a little more time to think things over.

I'll give commentary which I hope isn't too mean but I'll say that as TV shows not all of these felt like winners and a lot of them felt very recursive of one another.
The Moderation Patrol
In an era of radical change, an underground movement emerges with a mission so moderate it's extreme. Welcome to The Moderation Patrol, a fringe social movement where passionate centrists wage a tepid war against the cardinal sin of having strong opinions. In their beige-colored safehouse, they plot their most ambitious mission yet: to make the 1960s just a little more like the 1950s.

Set in 1966 America, this satirical dramedy follows Jack Leland, a fanatically middle-of-the-road crusader dedicated to enforcing reasonable behavior at any cost. Armed with suggestion boxes and focus groups, the Moderation Patrol infiltrates both counterculture and establishment circles with a single mission: to ensure nobody gets too excited about anything.

Watch as Jack and his zealously neutral associates mediate between hippies and squares, break up too-peaceful anti-war rallies, and ensure rock bands maintain acceptable decibel levels. But as the cultural revolution intensifies, our moderates face their greatest crisis yet: how far should one go to enforce moderation? From breaking up poetry slams for being "a bit too emotional" to infiltrating conservative groups to suggest more casual dress codes, the Moderation Patrol walks the world's most cautious tightrope, earning universal dislike along the way.

When Jack's right-hand woman Danielle Connors starts organizing increasingly well-structured protests against excessive protest, the group faces an existential question: In a world of extremes, is militant moderation the only answer? And if so, wouldn't that make them... extremists?
So I hope this doesn't come off as mean, this seems like a much stronger movie than a tv show. There's only so far you can stretch the joke of "trying to make things boring" before it gets old, and I can see it getting very frustrating very quickly. It could work, but I don't see this as a series with an especially high episode count and the concept would probably be better explored in a movie.
The C.I.A
Welcome to the world's most misunderstood cooking school, the Culinary Institute of America, where Chef Julia Preston's biggest challenge isn't just teaching aspiring culinarians – it's dealing with the constant stream of foreign spies who keep infiltrating her classes, convinced it's a front for the other CIA. Between teaching knife skills to trained hitmen and explaining to confused operatives that "deep cover" simply refers to casserole lids, Chef Preston's life never has a dull moment.

What starts as chaos turns into a game of cat-and-mouse as Julia uncovers a surprising knack for counterespionage and a good understanding of when to turn up the heat, secretly outmaneuvers corporate spies, foreign agents, and real operatives—all while teaching the next generation of top chefs.

With a clueless undercover CIA agent believing he's in a high-stakes shadow war, foreign transfer students, culinary aspirants unknowingly caught in the crossfire, and a revolving door of espionage mishaps, The C.I.A. serves up a perfect blend of sharp wit, high-stakes hijinks, and mouthwatering cuisine.
This is actually the one I consider the strongest of the bunch as its got a set up that can lead to a lot of comedy for a long time and it's not too reliant on a long running plot while also being able to do seasonal plots. It has enough flexibility that I can see it being really solid
All-Star Jam
In this groundbreaking musical competition, genre boundaries are meant to be broken. Each week, twelve contestants from vastly different musical backgrounds – from classical violinists to heavy metal guitarists, jazz pianists to hip-hop producers – are randomly paired into duos with just 48 hours to create and perform an original fusion piece that honors both their styles.

Mentored by legendary musicians and judged by a panel of industry icons, these artists must push beyond their comfort zones to create something truly unique. As the season progresses, successful contestants must form larger groups, leading to even more complex musical experiments. With elimination looming each week, tensions rise as artists struggle to balance artistic integrity with commercial appeal, all while learning to appreciate and adapt to unfamiliar musical languages.
Very reality tv and likely very expensive but I could see it being a cult classic with a few seasons under its belt.
Tommorow's Terrors
1952: The world has changed. What began as isolated reports of prophetic nightmares has evolved into a global phenomenon that threatens the fabric of society. Dr. Matthew Reed, a military police psychologist, is recruited into the newly-formed Project Morpheus, a clandestine government organization tasked with preventing these nightmares from becoming reality.

Partnered with Dr. James Chen, a brilliant but eccentric oneirologist, Reed must decipher cryptic dreams and misleading details and race against time to prevent impending crimes, tragedies and catastrophes. As they dive deeper into each case, they uncover a pattern suggesting these visions are more than random glimpses of possible futures – they're warnings of a coming darkness that transcends human understanding. Set against the backdrop of Cold War paranoia and emerging psychic research, the series explores the thin line between prophecy and paranoia, all while building toward the revelation of what triggered humanity's collective nightmare.
This could work but it and the three other "unknowable horror" centered shows kind of blended together and made me like all of them less. This probably was the most horror focused and least episodic of the bunch.
The Quantum Detective
Detective Shawn Cho's investigation of a seemingly routine murder case changes forever when he experiences his first "divergence" – a moment where reality splits, allowing him to observe multiple possible outcomes simultaneously. This extraordinary ability makes him an unparalleled investigator.

As Shawn masters his quantum-viewing abilities and delves deeper into the abstract theory of this unknowable study, he discovers he's not alone – other "observers" exist, some with far less altruistic goals. When a series of crimes begins targeting divergence points themselves, Shawn must confront an adversary who doesn't just commit crimes, but rewrites reality to retcon them into existence outright. After a catastrophic investigation goes wrong, Shawn finds himself trapped in the wrong timeline, forcing him to solve the ultimate mystery: how to find his way back to his own reality, and how much does he care about it in the first place when infinite identical versions of it exist?
There are clearly differences in tone and setting but this feels really similar to me. It also feels like it kind of fails to take advantage of its premise, focusing on serious drama and existential horror instead of more out there "what-if" type stories? To hopefully explain a bit better, it feels like it starts barreling head first into a fairly obtuse existential drama over originality instead of exploring what I think is the stronger concept of just having the detective hoping between realities and he's unable to find his own. Rather than having the conflict be about infinite identical realities, it feels much stronger to have it be about the detective being stuck in visibly different realities whilst trying to get back home.
The Ten Billion Penny Woman
Living in the city of Arcadia, frozen in an eternal 1970s, Sarah Mitchell's life seems almost deliberately mundane – a divorced data entry clerk drowning in debt. But Sarah's world is far from ordinary. It's an elaborate construct, a human terrarium where millions of unseen viewers bid on the inhabitants' fates, their penny votes reshaping reality through invisible frequencies that bend minds and alter destinies.

Sarah's crime? She succeeded in divorcing her producer-favored abusive husband, defying the audience's voted "narrative arc," thanks to a birth defect rendering her immune to the mind-bending frequencies. Now marked for elimination, her only ally is the very assassin sent to remove her: Marcus Jones, a synthetic "citizen" whose robotic nature is masked behind perfectly crafted 70s attire and mannerisms. But Marcus is no longer taking orders from the producers. Hijacked by a mysterious outside force, he now serves as Sarah's window into the outside. Her analog world is a carefully maintained fiction, surrounded by a society centuries beyond anything she can comprehend. Through Marcus, Sarah gains access to technology that might as well be magic and meta-knowledge about the audience and the lives of the other inhabitants of Arcadia, all in an attempt to give her the leg-up she sorely needs.

Sarah must now transform herself from a background character into the director of her own destiny. But in a world where entertainment equals survival and even privilege, will she break the system.. or rise to become its greatest perpetrator?
Again I hope this doesn't come off as mean, but this comes off as the Truman show without as much comedy or heart. The story's not bad but I don't see the constant existential dread and unknowable background looming threats as particularly engaging. I think this would be a really cool episode in an anthology series, I think this might have severe problems if you try to stretch it out to ten episodes or more.
Charlotte's Demons
Charlotte Ross had always dreamed of seeing her art in the world's greatest galleries. When conventional talent and hard work failed her, she made a deal that would change her life forever. Now, her paintings hang in the Louvre, her sculptures command millions, and her installations define contemporary art. But as her latest exhibition opens, the bill for her success comes due – and the collectors aren't interested in money.

The demons who granted Charlotte her artistic genius have returned to claim their price: her immortal soul. Shadows whisper from her canvases, her own creations twist against her, and the demons have come to collect. Yet Charlotte is not the same desperate artist who once begged for their favor. Armed with the very gifts they gave her and considerable financial resources, she turns her artistry into a weapon—trapping demons in cursed paintings, sculpting artifacts from blood and clay, and weaving nightmares into reality itself.

If they want her soul, they'll have to pry it from the very tapestry of horrors they helped her create.
This felt to me like the biggest missed potential of a show. Even as is the premise could work but the description is so self-serious and kind of dour that it kind of sucks the fun out of it for me. It feels very action movie-esque and I think it could work but I also feel like so many more interesting things could have been done with this idea.

I don't know how familiar you are with the movie series "final destination" but it feels like a show attempting to do that, only the main character always survives. I'm not the biggest fan of this and I feel like it would've benefitted a little more from not committing fully to being serious and dark.
Starsector Convergence
When humanity discovered the Zero Mass Relay Gates on Mars, it seemed like destiny was calling. Within decades, colonies spread across dozens of worlds, each one a new chapter in human history. Then came the Shattering – a catastrophic event that destroyed the Relay network, stranding each colony in isolation. Now, three hundred years later, Captain George Jason and the crew of the Starship Convergence navigate the fragments of human civilization, each port of call revealing a different vision of humanity's future.

From the techno-organic fusion society of New Darwin to the quantum-computing theocracy of Turing Prime, every colony has evolved in radical and unexpected ways. Some have embraced biological modification, others have merged with AI, while some have regressed to pre-industrial societies with their own unique twists. Captain Jason and his diverse crew – including a historian obsessed with preserving pre-Shattering culture, a diplomat raised in a hive-mind society, and an engineer who is also a priest of a machine-worshiping religion– must navigate these disparate human cultures while working toward their ultimate goal: reunifying humanity and ushering a new golden age.

As they journey from planet to planet, they uncover clues suggesting the Shattering wasn't an accident, but the deliberate act of some unknowable power. Each episode combines anthropological exploration with space opera adventure, as the crew faces the challenge of bridging vast cultural gaps while racing against a clock they aren't fully ware of toward a threat they're only beginning to comprehend.
This is what I consider your fourth "looming unknowable background threat mystery" show and it's nominally my favorite. I like that it has room for some goofy episodic nonsense and isn't seemingly nearly as dour in tone as a lot of the other shows.

That being said a lot of the appeal was kind of lost for me when I saw that you were touching on similar themes for a fourth time. The biggest problem for this collection of shows is that four of them feel similar enough that the returns diminish pretty quickly. It's fine in smaller quantities, but I personally found it kind of boring after a while.

Personally I feel like some of the shows were misses in terms of plot development and the collection as a whole could be improved by altering a few of them (especially since it would solve my issue of a lot of them feeling pretty similar, though admittedly part of that is quite likely because you wrote it fast).

Give me some time to mull over how I want to handle this because I want to respect your vision and ideas and give you the full 500 exp (because you did do the work) but at the same time I kind of want to suggest my own take on these same titles and potentially hybridize things since I do genuinely feel like some of these are not great or missed a lot of potential.

I hope it doesn't come off as mean or self-centered but that's kind of where my brain is at. Regardless, thank you for your understanding, I'll come to a decision on how much exp to award tomorrow (you're definitely getting some).
 
So I hope this doesn't come off as mean, this seems like a much stronger movie than a tv show. There's only so far you can stretch the joke of "trying to make things boring" before it gets old, and I can see it getting very frustrating very quickly. It could work, but I don't see this as a series with an especially high episode count and the concept would probably be better explored in a movie.

It's a short series, focusing on '60s cultural trends in an episodic way.

This could work but it and the three other "unknowable horror" centered shows kind of blended together and made me like all of them less. This probably was the most horror focused and least episodic of the bunch.

I think that's unfair. Many shows have an underlying mystery or threat that aren't always obvious. Writing them out like this might make them seem similar, but that doesn't make them less valid, especially since they've been released over the span of a decade.

it feels much stronger to have it be about the detective being stuck in visibly different realities whilst trying to get back home.

While existential questions are in the background, the core premise is about blending theoretical sci-fi physics with investigative work and exploring situations from normally impossible angles.

Again I hope this doesn't come off as mean, but this comes off as the Truman show without as much comedy or heart. The story's not bad but I don't see the constant existential dread and unknowable background looming threats as particularly engaging. I think this would be a really cool episode in an anthology series, I think this might have severe problems if you try to stretch it out to ten episodes or more.

It's closer to The Promised Neverland, with Sarah hiding her knowledge and trying to play the circumstances, with a bunch of sci-fi drama mixed in. I might write an outline for some plot points and conflicts to clarify, but you're going to hate the ending—so maybe I shouldn't.

As Sarah fights to escape the suffocating control of her world, she finally uncovers the truth—she was never immune to the hypnotic frequencies. Instead, her so-called "resistance" was just another layer of the show. When the producers realized she was an unpopular character, they didn't discard her; they repackaged her into something new, crafting an entirely new meta-narrative around her struggle. The Escape from Arcadia wasn't her rebellion, it was simply more content for the audience to consume.

When she finally reaches the outside world, she's met with an unsettling revelation: no one is stopping her from leaving. In fact, no one is letting her go back in. The showrunners don't need to chase her down or erase her existence. They simply lay out the truth—she has no skills for the modern world, no money, no connections, and no safety net. Outside of the artificial world she fought so hard to escape, which is a purposefully idealized version of the 70s, she is nobody. But they offer her a choice. She can take her chances in the real world, struggling to survive in an existence that never prepared her for reality… or she can become part of the system, and work for the producers as a host and commentator.

And so, Sarah makes a choice. She walks away from the cameras, refusing to play their games any longer. She and the operator ended up exposing just enough shady shit that the producers aren't completely unscathed, and there is some fighting to be done. She moves in with Marcus's operator and ends up being forced to rely on her celebrity status from the show to survive, but as time passes and the stress gets to her, something ironic happens—Sarah begins watching the show herself.

The final scene lingers on Sarah and the operator watching one of the recurring characters from the series go through their own life, drily commentating on it to one another. Ultimately, while being opposed to this system, she still benefits from it an engages with it herself and thus perpetuates it.

This felt to me like the biggest missed potential of a show. Even as is the premise could work but the description is so self-serious and kind of dour that it kind of sucks the fun out of it for me. It feels very action movie-esque and I think it could work but I also feel like so many more interesting things could have been done with this idea.

I don't know how familiar you are with the movie series "final destination" but it feels like a show attempting to do that, only the main character always survives. I'm not the biggest fan of this and I feel like it would've benefitted a little more from not committing fully to being serious and dark.

The description is intentionally stylized to match the era and oversells the show's tone. It is a serious show, however, centered on a shadow war between the demons and Charlotte while exploring the art world and Charlotte's career as an art celebrity. If it's not your taste, that's fine, but I don't think that makes it inherently flawed.
 
It's a short series, focusing on '60s cultural trends in an episodic way.
That makes sense.
I think that's unfair. Many shows have an underlying mystery or threat that aren't always obvious. Writing them out like this might make them seem similar, but that doesn't make them less valid, especially since they've been released over the span of a decade.
I can kind of agree with that. I feel like if I had any one of those shows on their own I wouldn't have the problem I do with them. The problem is that to me outside of the universe of the quest, the way they were written made them feel fairly similar in terms of tone and thematic explorations. They clearly weren't one to one, but there was enough overlap that it made me less interested and engaged with them all as a collective.

To make what might be a weird comparison, I broadly like David Lynch films and I think they're good. However if you made me sit and marathon David Lynch films back to back I'd probably be less engaged interested and excited the more of them occur.

I don't have an issue with underlying threats or mysteries (I generally think they're good for shows), but for four of them you seem to be touching on broadly nihilistic existential nightmares/threats that can't possibly be defeated or overcome. That's all fine, it's just that the presentation was similar enough that I bounced off of them after a certain point and it was enough to the point where collectively I just kind of tuned out.

Is this unfair? Yes but that's the unfortunate part about me giving commentary, I want to share my thoughts and feelings. Objectively none of it is wrong or bad and I think I would've liked any one of them if they were in isolation. Subjectively though it feels very similar to me and as a collective it's made me feel like some potential was wasted.
It's closer to The Promised Neverland, with Sarah hiding her knowledge and trying to play the circumstances, with a bunch of sci-fi drama mixed in. I might write an outline for some plot points and conflicts to clarify, but you're going to hate the ending—so maybe I shouldn't.
I have not read The Promised Neverland so I don't really know too much about that comparison.

I actually like the ending a lot. I think it's very "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream" and I don't think it'd fly on network television but as a conclusion to a story I think it's pretty solid and ends on a strong thematic note. It's bleak and depressing and it feels miserable but it works for the story you wanted to tell.

I don't hate darkness so much as I hate repetition without a break.

Edit: I'd probably hate it if it took sixty episodes getting to that point but if it was say just ten episodes I'd probably think it was great. Length and format play a factor in how I'd probably feel about this as a completed product
The description is intentionally stylized to match the era and oversells the show's tone. It is a serious show, however, centered on a shadow war between the demons and Charlotte while exploring the art world and Charlotte's career as an art celebrity. If it's not your taste, that's fine, but I don't think that makes it inherently flawed.
Again I don't want to be mean and I'm by no means an expert on media in 1976 but this reads wildly different to me than something like "Happy Days", "MASH", "Hawaii Five-O", or "Charlie's Angels". The style and tone seems like a total miss to me if you were trying to emulate it.

To me the tone and description feels like it matches way better with late 90s early 2000s supernatural action like "End of Days" or "Buffy" or the aforementioned "Final Destination" than anything from the 70s. The tone and style would've been exactly right for the Charlie's Angels films but that's different than the TV show.

I do want to state that it's by no means an inherently flawed product but I personally feel like it missed the mark and there was missed potential. We can agree to disagree on things but I think something clearly went wrong here and you oversold too much because it personally felt way off the mark for emulating the era.

I do want to say the idea I am coming around to (though I do want to sleep on it before concluding), is that I'll give the full 500 exp and canonize it. I'm much less of a fan of some of these than I was before I read this piece but there's nothing really wrong with it. I'll (maybe a little arrogantly) do my own unthreadmarked version of the same exercise to hopefully explain why I feel like the repetition in tone/thematic ideas felt disappointing and made it less engaging than I thought it otherwise might've.

Edit: For context my "ideal solution" off the top of my head would be to make 'Tomorrows Terrors' an anthology series and have its plot, the retgonning existential dread of "Quantum Detective" and the bleak aspects/narrative of the "Ten Billion Penny Woman" all be long episodes akin to movies in this anthology series.

Edit #2: to clarify the reason why I need to sleep on it has nothing to do with me not liking the show summaries all that much. It's more to do with consideration for how potential bad actors might exploit the decision I make on how to count this as an image.
 
Last edited:
I don't fully agree, but I've adjusted the summaries and will explain the changes here.

I clarified the quantum detective's reality-jumping and how each case expands into more realities. I also adjusted the tone of Charlotte's Demons but left Starsector Convergence unchanged since its themes fit the setting perfectly.

For Tomorrow's Terrors, I rewrote the summary but will elaborate on the core concept below:

Core concept:

Instead of an unknowable enemy, the phenomenon is linked to a previously unknown aspect of human consciousness that emerged due to decades of trauma and Cold War tensions that now humans, thanks to developments in psychic research and into the collective subconscious, are capable of detecting. The struggles of the world wars and the increased global anxiety and fear of nuclear war have been creating rippling changes that allowed scientists to discover the collective subconscious, so that when some people are planning to do bad things or are aware of bad things that could happen, others can become unknowingly aware of them hrough a phenomenon called "the feedback loop", which typically manifests in supposedly prophetic dreams. This can be misleading as well, since just because someone feels very strongly about something or worried about a particular outcome it doesn't mean that they will act on it or that it will actually happen.

Some story elements:

  • The "prophetic dreams" are not necessarily dreams and are highly varied and useful. For example, some people witness possible technological breakthroughs as certain pieces of unrelated knowledge can mix between people and form new ideas and discoveries. This creates a race between the US, USSR and other global factions to identify and recruit these "dreamers" and learn more about the psychic phenomenon and how to influence it.
  • There is an overarching threat of any single faction finding a way to take control over humanity as a whole.
  • Dr. Reed and Dr. Chen discover that the dreams are not warnings from some external force, but rather manifestations of humanity's collective unconscious responding to unprecedented global tensions and due to being constantly poked at by a bunch of scientists.
  • Project Morpheus competes with its international counterparts to prevent disasters and leverage the phenomenon or the benefit of the U.S. while also trying to identify potential security leaks
  • There's an ongoing media conflict as several organizations and individuals try to use people's increased sensitivity for personal gain, for example businessmen who try to create brand loyalty for their products, effectively "brainwashing" people into becoming customers.
  • Dreamers are not inherently unique existences. While some people are more sensitive to the collective subconscious, no one is outright exempt from it.
  • Major events can act as a feedback loop of negative or positive emotions that can result in subtle but quick and potent societal changes
  • The psychological toll on the dreamers themselves becomes a major plot point
  • Certain individuals possess a higher awareness of the collective subconscious, allowing them to influence other people directly and in extreme cases even outright override their will.
  • The very research into psychics and the attempts to interact with the collective subconscious is what made it into an active force and opened that particular Pandora's Box.
  • As the series goes on, Dr.Reed and Dr.Chen betray the U.S. and join a secret organization meant to stop humanities tempering with the collective subconscious, acting as double agents within project Morpheus
 
I'll (maybe a little arrogantly) do my own unthreadmarked version of the same exercise to hopefully explain why I feel like the repetition in tone/thematic ideas felt disappointing and made it less engaging than I thought it otherwise might've.

It'd be more interesting to see what characters think of these shows in-universe tbh

Again I hope this doesn't come off as mean, but this comes off as the Truman show without as much comedy or heart. The story's not bad but I don't see the constant existential dread and unknowable background looming threats as particularly engaging. I think this would be a really cool episode in an anthology series, I think this might have severe problems if you try to stretch it out to ten episodes or more.

I don't know. I think you could do a lot with this sort of idea.

Maybe Sarah could try and play the game and do stuff for the audience to increase her popularity and platform and gain the priviliges of people voting for stuff to go her way, maybe you can make up a group of other people who are aware and either collaborate with the showrunners, play the game and such. It's pretty hard to imagine anyone outright running a resistance when everyone is under watch almost all the time but then again since the entire escape premise is fake then maybe there can be some kind of a resistance where they do stuff in an attempt to plummet ratings and push for the show to be canceled or for the audience to be less engaged and thus gain more freedom to act within the city.

Hell, maybe you could have her use the meta knowledge about the other people in the city to solve her personal pre-existing dramas and learn facts about people that have been taking advantage of her and such and have that feed into her growing popularity.

I'm just throwing ideas but I feel like you could probably make like a 2 seasons, 15-20 episodes per season, series out of this without dragging things out. It'd depend on how you pace it, but loosely having most episodes focus on increasing popularity and freedom within the systems and learning about the city and the systems that run it at the meta level with a couple of mid season and end season finales to raise the stakes and to sort of tie things back together is pretty solid imo.
 
Last edited:
So broadly here's what's happening with regards to what AizenMD wrote regarding the shows. The post counts as an omake and gets 500 exp and canon status. However I reserve the right to deny similar or near identical posts from being counted as omakes if I suspect that someone is deliberately seeding an entry with media so they can do something similar.

In other words, this is good and others can try similar things, but people should be aware that I reserve the right to reverse course on similar entries in the future.

The threadmark and exp will be provided sometime after 12 pm PST after I've gone to class and handled some IRL stuff.

Edit: I just got notice that class was cancelled so I can do it now.
I don't fully agree, but I've adjusted the summaries and will explain the changes here.

I clarified the quantum detective's reality-jumping and how each case expands into more realities. I also adjusted the tone of Charlotte's Demons but left Starsector Convergence unchanged since its themes fit the setting perfectly.
So I appreciate the changes. You didn't need to make them (it had no impact on my decision to give you 500 exp and canon status) but I still broadly like them. I do think the extra bit of variance helps things from feeling too repetitive (the changes to the description of Tomorrow's Terrors and Charlottes Demons helped break things up IMO), but if you want you can edit it back to what it was before if you like that better, it still would've been canon without issue.
It'd be more interesting to see what characters think of these shows in-universe tbh
That sounds like a full-on omake and one that requires a decent amount of thought put into it if I want it to be canon. It also requires me to make assumptions about the shows which is very dangerous since my thoughts clearly did not align with AizenMD's and so there's a lot of room to get offensive or to hem things in unfairly if I were to do it.

Imagine how much it would suck if I had a character canonically conclude that a show was "schlocky miserable trash" and made up a bunch of stuff on it based off of a little blurb which I myself potentially was not the biggest fan of. Alternatively imagine if I had Jinx praise the show but then used her praise as a way to make subtle digs at the quality of the work (Jinx's favorite Shakespeare play is Titus Andronicus and it's easy to impugn her tastes a fair bit). There's a lot of ways it could turn out excessively mean.

That's not to say it couldn't be done, but if I were to write that sort of thing I'd want to be very careful as I'd need to deliberately try and balance things well. I have written omakes about people's in-universe media ideas before, but generally those were ones I was more positive on and had much more knowledge of the show, so I felt that when I did write from a character's perspective, my omake felt a lot more fair and not like potentially veilled criticism or insults.

TLDR: You're right it would be more interesting, but I'm potentially overcautious about how I want to canonically depict other people's work and so it'd be more work on my end than attempting a similar exercise myself and posting that so people can compare why my opinion might be the way it is.
 
Last edited:
[X] [Crock] Spend more time with key employees
[X] [EB] Brag to her friends that she totally knows Cassandra Luthor
[X] [NCJ] Get pizza with Centurion
[X] [Raven] Go rock climbing with Tora and Beatriz
[X] [Lex] Mail the Joker an I ❤️ Metropolis baseball cap and tee-shirt
[X] [Rose] Attempt to talk with her mother
[X] [Cass] Use zeta beam transmat stations to take a day trip to Rome with friends
[X] [Mercy] Take a brief trip to Coast City
[X] [Cent] Watch a popular blockbuster movie
[X] [Chaytan] Get to know the other members of Bastion
[X] [Helena] Supervise a trip to Rome with Cassandra Luthor
[X] [Jinx] Learn the basics of martial arts from Cassandra
[X] [Monkey] Discover heated blankets
[X] [Cub] Speak to the strange lady who is all the animals (talk to Mina Chaytan)
[X] [Next] Tora
[X] [Next] Caitlin
[X] [Next] Frost
[X] [Next] Nygma
 
This is an unusual post, but I thought it might be fun.

This is a basic system to demonstrate how well hero units can work together with one another. Here's the code for the program but I'll touch up on the important parts of the methodology.

The Basics: How Cooperation Is Valued


  • Basic Threshold: Scores below 0.5 are considered poor cooperation and get no points
  • Decent Cooperation (0.5-1.0): Gets some points, but not many
  • Good Cooperation (1.0-1.5): Gets substantial bonus points
  • Excellent Cooperation (above 1.5): Gets higher but diminishing returns (offsets other bonuses later on).

Example:

  • Character A has a cooperation score of 0.7 with another character → Small bonus
  • Character B has a cooperation score of 1.2 with another character → Large bonus

Two Main Factors: Breadth and Depth


Breadth: How Many Good Relationships?


The system rewards characters who cooperate well with many others. Like someone who gets along with everyone in class, not just their best friend.

Example:
  • Character A gets along well with 5 other characters
  • Character B gets along extremely well with 2 characters but poorly with everyone else
  • Character A would score higher on "breadth"

Depth: How Strong Are Your Best Relationships?


The system also looks at your top 3 relationships. Having extremely strong cooperation with a few characters matters a lot.

Example:

  • If your top 3 cooperation scores are 1.8, 1.6, and 1.5, you'll get a high depth score
  • The system gives extra points if these top relationships are consistent (not one extremely high score and two low ones)

Special Bonuses


  1. Consistency Bonus: duos who more consistently score above 1.0 get up to 20% extra points
  2. Position Bonus: Your strongest relationships count more than weaker ones
  3. Good/Great Relationship Bonus: Having many relationships above 1.0 or 1.5 gives substantial multiplier bonuses

This system values both having many good working relationships AND having some exceptionally strong partnerships, with the highest rewards going to those who demonstrate both qualities.

Depth: Overview of scores?


To break the numbers down a bit, here's what they mean

  1. Exceptional: 50.0+
  2. Very Good: 40.0-49.9
  3. Good: 30.0-39.9
  4. Moderate: 20.0-29.9
  5. Bad: 10.0-19.9
  6. Awful: 0.0-9.9

I did some guesswork for Edward Wells, but it amount to little.

Now, here's the table itself

CharacterAggregate Score
Cassandra Luthor71.9
Lex Luthor69.6
Starfire54.0
Carol Ferris53.9
Tora Olafsdotter49.0
Pamela Isley47.8
Jinx47.6
Siobhan McDougall45.2
Oswald Loomis45.1
Nathan Craig Jones44.5
Helena Bertinelli44.2
Caitlin Snow42.8
Zatanna Zatara41.4
Roxanne Sutton40.7
Mina Chaytan40.6
Beatriz Da Costa39.7
Mercy Graves38.4
Karl Helfern37.8
Rene Carpenter36.7
Mari McCabe35.5
Talia al Ghul34.9
Marcus Aelius33.2
Eve Eden33.0
Mick Rory31.5
Lisa Snart29.7
Brittney Meld29.6
Enoch Brown27.1
Meena Dhawan26.6
Lucy Lane26.4
Samuel Scudder26.0
Katherine Kane24.9
Paige Monroe24.8
Marie Louise Dahl24.8
Elaine Marsh-Morton24.7
Robert Frost24.5
Rose Wilson23.4
Arthur Villain22.3
Leonard Snart21.1
Rebecca Carstairs20.8
Lana Lang20.4
Raven20.2
Constance d'Aramis19.0
Felicity Smoak17.4
Vivian d'Aramis16.8
Edward Nygma15.8
Livewire15.7
Carl Draper12.9
Nathan Warbow11.6
Catherine Deverux9.4
Dr Moon6.3
Fixit5.1
Edward Wells5.0
Louise Lincoln2.5
 
Interesting layout on co-op scores!

I was a bit surprised that Carol had such great co-op scores, but it makes sense given that she tends to win respect from people, especially women, both for her business talents and for her reputation as a superhero. It's still odd to think that she's basically the Wonder Woman equivalent role model in this setting, possibly even a bigger name than Wonder Woman in canon.

Mina Chaytan came off surprisingly well in her co-op scores - she's pretty easy to get along with so long as she gets what she wants. It's kind of gimmicky, but I love the fact Mina can get Janus and Snowy to work with her on projects. It's nice to have them a bit more involved in things.
 
This is an unusual post, but I thought it might be fun.
It is an unusual post. It's really neat and I don't understand the programming but it was really interesting to check out this kind of analysis.

The Basics: How Cooperation Is Valued


  • Basic Threshold: Scores below 0.5 are considered poor cooperation and get no points
  • Decent Cooperation (0.5-1.0): Gets some points, but not many
  • Good Cooperation (1.0-1.5): Gets substantial bonus points
  • Excellent Cooperation (above 1.5): Gets higher but diminishing returns (offsets other bonuses later on).
So having seen the basics of how you're valuing things, you actually did it a little different than I might've. The main point we kind of differ on is the basic threshold.

Assuming I understood what you were doing correctly under the current system a coop score of 0.3 and -1.5 would be valued the same and given no points. However this skews the data somewhat unfairly in my opinion since a 0.3 coop score, while not necessarily great, is nowhere near as actively detrimental as a -1.5 coop score. As such your results are likely to make units with actively terrible cooperation scores appear the same as a unit with mediocre coop scores and it reduces the impact of extreme edge cases.

Again this is assuming I understood your methodology correctly, but there are almost certainly problems in how things below the basic threshold that causes skew to occur in the datasets and actively makes really bad scores seem comparable to alright but not great scores.
Now, here's the table itself

CharacterAggregate Score
Cassandra Luthor71.9
Lex Luthor69.6
Starfire54.0
Carol Ferris53.9
Tora Olafsdotter49.0
Pamela Isley47.8
Jinx47.6
Siobhan McDougall45.2
Oswald Loomis45.1
Nathan Craig Jones44.5
Helena Bertinelli44.2
Caitlin Snow42.8
Zatanna Zatara41.4
Roxanne Sutton40.7
Mina Chaytan40.6
Beatriz Da Costa39.7
Mercy Graves38.4
Karl Helfern37.8
Rene Carpenter36.7
Mari McCabe35.5
Talia al Ghul34.9
Marcus Aelius33.2
Eve Eden33.0
Mick Rory31.5
Lisa Snart29.7
Brittney Meld29.6
Enoch Brown27.1
Meena Dhawan26.6
Lucy Lane26.4
Samuel Scudder26.0
Katherine Kane24.9
Paige Monroe24.8
Marie Louise Dahl24.8
Elaine Marsh-Morton24.7
Robert Frost24.5
Rose Wilson23.4
Arthur Villain22.3
Leonard Snart21.1
Rebecca Carstairs20.8
Lana Lang20.4
Raven20.2
Constance d'Aramis19.0
Felicity Smoak17.4
Vivian d'Aramis16.8
Edward Nygma15.8
Livewire15.7
Carl Draper12.9
Nathan Warbow11.6
Catherine Deverux9.4
Dr Moon6.3
Fixit5.1
Edward Wells5.0
Louise Lincoln2.5
So looking at the table I can kind of see the skew coming into play a bit with the bottom half of the entries. The top half isn't as affected by it but there is some weirdness going on. Notably Elaine Marsh Morton, who has several absolutely awful coop scores is higher than characters like Fixit, Leonard Snart and Rose Wilson, who trend away from these extremes and tend to have more just mediocre coop scores.

I'm willing to bet that if the process was redone so that negative coop scores and extremely negative coop scores were valued differently from scores between 0 and 0.5, the bottom part of this list would change and shift to more accurately reflect things.

It's still really cool and I'm impressed you made this. I think the system you developed is pretty good at evaluating good coop scores, I just also think that as is it currently doesn't account for actively detrimental coop scores and so it doesn't fully accurately evaluate the metric of breadth (it's not accounting for when characters actively should not be placed together) and that leads to some weirdness on the bottom half of the table.
 
I can see what KC is saying. Felicity for instance is in the bad category but is frequently a part of strong coop teams, some of which in just the last handful of turns have contributed to very major successes, from improving our security against brainiac turn 27, to Odin and quantum computing. Her coops don't go the highest but the ones she has are mostly positive and with high stat characters.

Elaine meanwhile is only good for working with maybe than a handful of characters in a single stat category given our numerous 25 or higher martial characters with better coops, but is a full 8 places above her. It is interesting, but ultimately the info pages KC maintains are a bit better, if denser, for seeing who is great at cooperating. Nice work otherwise.
 
ultimately the info pages KC maintains are a bit better, if denser, for seeing who is great at cooperating.
If I can chime in a little bit, I kind of don't think that the info pages I maintain and this analysis do quite the same thing. Again I could be misunderstanding AizenMD's work so feel free to correct me if I get something wrong.

The post here is more meant to be a system to evaluate how good a hero unit is cooperating with others, attaching a value to them and then ranking them to determine what units work best. My info pages meanwhile are meant to convey all the relevant information about the characters to the thread and give people a sense of who they are and I generally try not to communicate if X hero unit is better than Y hero unit.

I think it's actively unfair to compare one to the other especially considering that AizenMD's work is meant to be evaluative and mine is not.

Edit: I actually think there's aspects in which AizenMD's work is better than the info pages because it's doing something the info pages are very much not.
 
Man Catherine is useless as shit. I just checked her stuff. Remind me again why we haven't fired her?

It is an unusual post. It's really neat and I don't understand the programming but it was really interesting to check out this kind of analysis.

So having seen the basics of how you're valuing things, you actually did it a little different than I might've. The main point we kind of differ on is the basic threshold.

Assuming I understood what you were doing correctly under the current system a coop score of 0.3 and -1.5 would be valued the same and given no points. However this skews the data somewhat unfairly in my opinion since a 0.3 coop score, while not necessarily great, is nowhere near as actively detrimental as a -1.5 coop score. As such your results are likely to make units with actively terrible cooperation scores appear the same as a unit with mediocre coop scores and it reduces the impact of extreme edge cases.

Again this is assuming I understood your methodology correctly, but there are almost certainly problems in how things below the basic threshold that causes skew to occur in the datasets and actively makes really bad scores seem comparable to alright but not great scores.

So looking at the table I can kind of see the skew coming into play a bit with the bottom half of the entries. The top half isn't as affected by it but there is some weirdness going on. Notably Elaine Marsh Morton, who has several absolutely awful coop scores is higher than characters like Fixit, Leonard Snart and Rose Wilson, who trend away from these extremes and tend to have more just mediocre coop scores.

I'm willing to bet that if the process was redone so that negative coop scores and extremely negative coop scores were valued differently from scores between 0 and 0.5, the bottom part of this list would change and shift to more accurately reflect things.

It's still really cool and I'm impressed you made this. I think the system you developed is pretty good at evaluating good coop scores, I just also think that as is it currently doesn't account for actively detrimental coop scores and so it doesn't fully accurately evaluate the metric of breadth (it's not accounting for when characters actively should not be placed together) and that leads to some weirdness on the bottom half of the table.

So on the one hand you are technically correct since if it's a measure of how well you can work in a team then yeah being unable to work with lots of people would reduce that metric.

On the other hand, the easy answer to that is "well just have people be on teams with people that they get along with." And in that AizenMD's thing is more insightful since frankly if two people don't get along they shouldn't be working together and if they are that's indicative of a failure on our part.

Like, if we measure the value of a person that most hero units fucking hate but they have a few people that work super well with them, compared to someone who's just mid all across the board, then who is ultimately "better" at working with people? Conventional wisdom would say the mid person, but practically that data piece is kinda useless since the mid person will never amount to anything potent while the controversial person will need to be planned around but can ultimately be a bigger net positive.

So while I think you're right what I'm trying to say that the data that AizenMD did remove amounts to little other than statistical noise.

I can see what KC is saying. Felicity for instance is in the bad category but is frequently a part of strong coop teams, some of which in just the last handful of turns have contributed to very major successes, from improving our security against brainiac turn 27, to Odin and quantum computing. Her coops don't go the highest but the ones she has are mostly positive and with high stat characters.

Elaine meanwhile is only good for working with maybe than a handful of characters in a single stat category given our numerous 25 or higher martial characters with better coops, but is a full 8 places above her. It is interesting, but ultimately the info pages KC maintains are a bit better, if denser, for seeing who is great at cooperating. Nice work otherwise.

Felicity is in the bad category because her coops are hot garbage lol. Like what are you talking about? Have you seen them? She isn't downright awful but she's pretty damn close. Lady Vic can at least get along with certain people who fit her wacked-up mindset even if is screws her with a larger number of people.

Felicity is super prickly and difficult to work with in her own right. She only really likes Lex and Carol and can handle Catherine and Frost and Meena pretty well and that's pretty much that. She's not at all easy to work with and seems to find some kind of a problem with most people she comes across and it's only her ability to be professional that keeps her from being downright atrocious.

Also you are mixing up utility with coops. Kate and Karl have a good score but it's pretty much useless. Doesn't mean that it's not a good score it's just that we are never going to take advantage of it. This isn't a power ranking or anything.
 
Last edited:
Hello @King crimson,

I ignored values below 0.5, as pairing heroes with such co-op scores suggests a major planning failure. Negative scores were also ignored since they're easily avoidable. Overall, positive relationships are the only ones that truly matter, making the scores the more useful predictor of how likely a recruit is to have a positive score with this person.

That said, scaling the script to -2 to 2 is simple and yields the following table.

CharacterAggregate Score
Lex Luthor70.7
Cassandra Luthor69.3
Carol Ferris55.5
Starfire55.0
Tora Olafsdotter50.3
Pamela Isley49.5
Helena Bertinelli45.7
Oswald Loomis43.4
Roxanne Sutton42.8
Caitlin Snow40.8
Mercy Graves39.9
Karl Helfern39.4
Rene Carpenter38.2
Mina Chaytan36.9
Nathan Craig Jones35.7
Talia al Ghul35.2
Marcus Aelius34.2
Siobhan McDougall30.6
Jinx30.2
Enoch Brown28.4
Lucy Lane28.1
Meena Dhawan28.0
Zatanna Zatara27.2
Beatriz Da Costa27.1
Mari McCabe26.8
Katherine Kane26.4
Mick Rory26.4
Eve Eden26.2
Rose Wilson25.0
Lisa Snart24.0
Brittney Meld23.1
Leonard Snart22.9
Lana Lang22.0
Raven19.7
Constance d'Aramis16.5
Vivian d'Aramis14.8
Carl Draper14.6
Felicity Smoak13.7
Nathan Warbow12.8
Samuel Scudder11.6
Catherine Deverux11.1
Paige Monroe10.7
Arthur Villain10.5
Rebecca Carstairs5.0
Fixit3.9
Robert Frost3.2
Edward Wells1.5
Elaine Marsh-Morton-0.7
Livewire-6.2
Marie Louise Dahl-10.1
Edward Nygma-10.5
Louise Lincoln-13.5
Dr Moon-14.3
 
So on the one hand you are technically correct since if it's a measure of how well you can work in a team then yeah being unable to work with lots of people would reduce that metric.

On the other hand, the easy answer to that is "well just have people be on teams with people that they get along with." And in that AizenMD's thing is more insightful since frankly if two people don't get along they shouldn't be working together and if they are that's indicative of a failure on our part.

Like, if we measure the value of a person that most hero units fucking hate but they have a few people that work super well with them, compared to someone who's just mid all across the board, then who is ultimately "better" at working with people? Conventional wisdom would say the mid person, but practically that data piece is kinda useless.

So while I think you're right what I'm trying to say that the data that AizenMD did remove amounts to little other than statistical noise.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I do see some of what you're saying, but I think it's that "breadth" category which was explained as follows

Breadth: How Many Good Relationships?


The system rewards characters who cooperate well with many others. Like someone who gets along with everyone in class, not just their best friend.

Example:
  • Character A gets along well with 5 other characters
  • Character B gets along extremely well with 2 characters but poorly with everyone else
  • Character A would score higher on "breadth"
Right now as is it's not accounting for "breadth" as I would since it's not accounting for when characters can't cooperate with others at all.

Since AizenMD was actively trying to evaluate characters who work well with many units as opposed to just a few with higher "breadth" to come to an overall higher rating, I felt like not accounting for the negatives was a flaw in methodology that was skewing the negatives and it was different from how I would've done things if I were doing this same thing.
Hello @King crimson,

I ignored values below 0.5, as pairing heroes with such co-op scores suggests a major planning failure. Negative scores were also ignored since they're easily avoidable. Overall, positive relationships are the only ones that truly matter, making the scores the more useful predictor of how likely a recruit is to have a positive score with this person.
That makes sense. Nothing was inherently wrong with your methodology, I was just pointing out how I would've done things differently.
That said, scaling the script to -2 to 2 is simple and yields the following table.

CharacterAggregate Score
Lex Luthor70.7
Cassandra Luthor69.3
Carol Ferris55.5
Starfire55.0
Tora Olafsdotter50.3
Pamela Isley49.5
Helena Bertinelli45.7
Oswald Loomis43.4
Roxanne Sutton42.8
Caitlin Snow40.8
Mercy Graves39.9
Karl Helfern39.4
Rene Carpenter38.2
Mina Chaytan36.9
Nathan Craig Jones35.7
Talia al Ghul35.2
Marcus Aelius34.2
Siobhan McDougall30.6
Jinx30.2
Enoch Brown28.4
Lucy Lane28.1
Meena Dhawan28.0
Zatanna Zatara27.2
Beatriz Da Costa27.1
Mari McCabe26.8
Katherine Kane26.4
Mick Rory26.4
Eve Eden26.2
Rose Wilson25.0
Lisa Snart24.0
Brittney Meld23.1
Leonard Snart22.9
Lana Lang22.0
Raven19.7
Constance d'Aramis16.5
Vivian d'Aramis14.8
Carl Draper14.6
Felicity Smoak13.7
Nathan Warbow12.8
Samuel Scudder11.6
Catherine Deverux11.1
Paige Monroe10.7
Arthur Villain10.5
Rebecca Carstairs5.0
Fixit3.9
Robert Frost3.2
Edward Wells1.5
Elaine Marsh-Morton-0.7
Livewire-6.2
Marie Louise Dahl-10.1
Edward Nygma-10.5
Louise Lincoln-13.5
Dr Moon-14.3
Thank you for doing this as well. This aligns much closer to how I might've evaluated things and it's really interesting to see whose place shifts around the most because of this. I'm not a statistician but I kind of want to see who moved the most places when the scaling was changed as I think that's interesting in and of itself.

Edit: comparing the two lists is super fascinating to me
 
Last edited:
Hello @King crimson,

I ignored values below 0.5, as pairing heroes with such co-op scores suggests a major planning failure. Negative scores were also ignored since they're easily avoidable. Overall, positive relationships are the only ones that truly matter, making the scores the more useful predictor of how likely a recruit is to have a positive score with this person.
I actually found the latter list very helpful as it seems like a much better predictor of how likely it is that any new heroes we hire would get along with an existing hero before we hire the new hero which is an issue that comes up frequently when considering future team-ups. Sometimes it's pretty easy to guess just by the description of the potential hero how they'd fit, but 'x is unlikely to team up with y well even if they both have good stewardship because y does not cooperate well with our other employees based on this analysis' is a valid way of making predictions.

Obviously there are some caveats to that idea, but it does seem a better predictor than the first list on that front.
 
Last edited:
Right now as is it's not accounting for "breadth" as I would since it's not accounting for when characters can't cooperate with others at all.

I guess I have a different read than you are. I read it as "breadth of good options" and "depth of good options" which is too say how many good options there are and just how good the good options are, since that's what I assumed when I read the focus on the good things

Like yeah you're correct that breadth includes the bad relationships too (and arguably the depth of the bad relationships to counteract the depth of the good ones?) but I ignored that

I actually found the latter list very helpful as it seems like a much better predictor of how likely it is that any new heroes we hire would get along with an existing hero before we hire the new hero which is an issue that comes up frequently when considering team-ups.

Obviously there are some caveats to that idea, but it does seem a better predictor than the first list on that front.

It doesn't really measure that though since the impact from bad coops doesn't offset the net gain from good coops or even interferes with it in any way.

Like yeah there's a correlation for that distribution but I wouldn't call it actionable information. Maybe some kind of an aggragate between the two tables could accomplish that though.
 
I think it's actively unfair to compare one to the other especially considering that AizenMD's work is meant to be evaluative and mine is not.

Edit: I actually think there's aspects in which AizenMD's work is better than the info pages because it's doing something the info pages are very much not.
Fair points. I suppose it could be good at separating characters by partnering flexibility to better determine who should be planned around first since their coops are more limited.
Man Catherine is useless as shit. I just checked her stuff. Remind me again why we haven't fired her?



So on the one hand you are technically correct since if it's a measure of how well you can work in a team then yeah being unable to work with lots of people would reduce that metric.

On the other hand, the easy answer to that is "well just have people be on teams with people that they get along with." And in that AizenMD's thing is more insightful since frankly if two people don't get along they shouldn't be working together and if they are that's indicative of a failure on our part.

Like, if we measure the value of a person that most hero units fucking hate but they have a few people that work super well with them, compared to someone who's just mid all across the board, then who is ultimately "better" at working with people? Conventional wisdom would say the mid person, but practically that data piece is kinda useless since the mid person will never amount to anything potent while the controversial person will need to be planned around but can ultimately be a bigger net positive.

So while I think you're right what I'm trying to say that the data that AizenMD did remove amounts to little other than statistical noise.



Felicity is in the bad category because her coops are hot garbage lol. Like what are you talking about? Have you seen them? She isn't downright awful but she's pretty damn close. Lady Vic can at least get along with certain people who fit her wacked-up mindset even if is screws her with a larger number of people.

Felicity is super prickly and difficult to work with in her own right. She only really likes Lex and Carol and can handle Catherine and Frost and Meena pretty well and that's pretty much that. She's not at all easy to work with and seems to find some kind of a problem with most people she comes across and it's only her ability to be professional that keeps her from being downright atrocious.

Also you are mixing up utility with coops. Kate and Karl have a good score but it's pretty much useless. Doesn't mean that it's not a good score it's just that we are never going to take advantage of it. This isn't a power ranking or anything.

I find utility and coops aren't very separate issues when planning a turn. Rare are the points where Felicity isn't slotted into a strong team for a given turn. In that manner, as I acknowledge above, this chart might be useful in marking her as a character with moderate or slightly below moderate flexibility, and thus one who's plausible coops should be considered ahead of other characters to avoid bad pairings.

I find the newer chart more accurate, and better reflective of just how limited Dr. Moons overall coops are, as reflected in how he spends turns in which one of the few heroes he gets along with our just as often on his own.

It doesn't really measure that though since the impact from bad coops doesn't offset the net gain from good coops or even interferes with it in any way.

Like yeah there's a correlation for that distribution but I wouldn't call it actionable information. Maybe some kind of an aggragate between the two tables could accomplish that though.
It actually can since there is some degree of shared language effect in coops. Point in Case, Cassandra only gained a strong coop with Lucy Lane when she gained an interest in law as part of the legal loopholes action, and Karl has fairly good coop scores with people who are doctors and people who have transformed, both subjects he's interested in. Moon is in a terrible relationship with most people and the people he gets along with best are usually people with some manner of rage issues(Karl, Elaine) which he can leverage into cruelty. We hired Meld for DIR, even if that's ultimately not her desired position, and she gets along well with Nygma and Carl.

It's certainly not perfect, but given we can recruit by profession this could simplify matters applied right.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't really measure that though since the impact from bad coops doesn't offset the net gain from good coops or even interferes with it in any way.

Like yeah there's a correlation for that distribution but I wouldn't call it actionable information. Maybe some kind of an aggragate between the two tables could accomplish that though.
It's a rough predictor of how many bad coops an employee has, and thus how likely it is they will have a bad coop with a new employee. It might be more useful to record bad versus good co-op numbers and such while ignoring the severity of bad or good but it's still useful.

You can easily look at the list and say 'Dr. Moon hardly gets along with anyone and thus our potential hire is very unlikely to get along with Dr. Moon, thus any plans to have this potential hire work together with Dr Moon in the future are dubious'. Likewise, if you're trying to figure out if Lex or Cassandra would make for a co-op with a potential hire, you can look at the chart and fairly easily predict that they are both very good at 'managing' people and a good co-op score with the new hire is pretty likely.
 
Last edited:
Also Catherine hasn't been fired because it's only the second turn since she was hired and she was very much hired as build her up doctor with specialties that interested us because no one could agree on a third accomplished doctor. She has the potential to be great but needs a little work, which can happen by being a part of strong successes, training, and therapy to get her over her performance anxiety.

Specifically we hired three doctors that turn. A high stat all arounder, a specialist with decent coops, and fresh college grad with room to grow. It's a very high stakes turn diplomacy wise and learning wise so she hasn't gotten attention this one. That will likely change. In particular resolving her coops issue and getting her into a major learn about genetics action team would do her wonders.
 
Last edited:
I find utility and coops aren't very separate issues when planning a turn. Rare are the points where Felicity isn't slotted into a strong team for a given turn. In that manner, as I acknowledge above, this chart might be useful in marking her as a character with moderate or slightly below moderate flexibility, and thus one who's plausible coops should be considered ahead of other characters to avoid bad pairings.

I find the newer chart more accurate, and better reflective of just how limited Dr. Moons overall coops are, as reflected in how he spends turns in which one of the few heroes he gets along with our just as often on his own.

When it comes to planning for a turn they aren't, but this isn't about planning for a turn. Felicity has bad coops and lacks flexibility so she needs to be slotted with her "partners" first and only then others can be considered. That's how the planning goes I figure. This is smart but it also hurts the flexibility of other people. But what if your best coops don't align with the stats of the other person? What if the person with whom you have your best coops with and happen to align with statistically has a better pair, maybe at a different stat with someone else?

Lady Vic gets along well with Robert Frost. They have zero compatible stats in common. She also gets along with Arthur VIllain, and they have a compatible stat in common (Intrigue) but intrigue is less used than Learning and Stewardship, which are Arthur's other high stats, so that ensures that Lady Vic will stay high and dry on most turns. Her other good coops are with Talia, with whom she worked well in the past but potentially has different priorities, Moon, with whom she also worked well in the past (and is an entirely different bag of worms), and Marie, with whom she doesn't end up working because Diplomacy is more needed than Intrigue.

Lady Vic doesn't lack good relationships despite having a surplus of bad ones. She gets stuck alone ocassionally because her highest stats both aren't really high and she is the victim of being paired up last due to her actions being the least important usually and other people who are even less flexible than she is but are much more useful, like Felicity.

It actually can since there is some degree of shared language effect in coops. Point in Case, Cassandra only gained a strong coop with Lucy Lane when she gained an interest in law as part of the legal loopholes action, and Karl has fairly good coop scores with people who are doctors and people who have transformed, both subjects he's interested in. Moon is in a terrible relationship with most people and the people he gets along with best are usually people with some manner of rage issues(Karl, Elaine) which he can leverage into cruelty. We hired Meld for DIR, even if that's ultimately not her desired position, and she gets along well with Nygma and Carl.

It's certainly not perfect, but given we can recruit by profession this could simplify matters applied right.

predicting these sorts of things is difficult but yeah there's a correlation between past behavior and personality/work alignment.

It's a rough predictor of how many bad coops an employee has, and thus how likely it is they will have a bad coop with a new employee. It might be more useful to record bad versus good co-op numbers and such while ignoring the severity of bad or good but it's still useful.

You can easily look at the list and say 'Dr. Moon hardly gets along with anyone and thus our potential hire is very unlikely to get along with Dr. Moon, thus any plans to have this potential hire work together with Dr Moon in the future are dubious'. Likewise, if you're trying to figure out if Lex or Cassandra would make for a co-op with a potential hire, you can look at the chart and fairly easily predict that they are both very good at 'managing' people and a good co-op score with the new hire is pretty likely.

Yeah that's true but these are the high ends of the chart. Trying that assessment with say Zatanna would kind of blow up in your face.

It is still really useful but once you asked the question of "How likely are they to get along?" the follow-up which IMO is even more valuable is "How likely are they to get along really well."

Predicting these sorts of things is always difficult and multifaceted and some coop scores make little to no sense outside of the narrative they were written in (like Marie and Vic.)

Still, the idea that past relationships are a strong indicator of future relationships is a generally good idea. I'm saying it needs to be used in conjunction with these other things to really be used well.

Also Catherine hasn't been fired because it's only the second turn since she was hired and she was very much hired as build her up doctor with specialties that interested us because no one could agree on a third accomplished doctor. She has the potential to be great but needs a little work, which can happen by being a part of strong successes, training, and therapy to get her over her performance anxiety.

Specifically we hired three doctors that turn. A high stat all arounder, a specialist with decent coops, and fresh college grad with room to grow. It's a very high stakes turn diplomacy wise and learning wise so she hasn't gotten attention this one. That will likely change. In particular resolving her coops issue and getting her into a major learn about genetics action team would do her wonders.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you actively not want Catherine to get therapy and be put on the road of so-called improvement? Or at the very least, you thought other things were more important. What's to say other things won't always be more important?

I don't think that taking a diplomacy action to spread propaganda is "high stakes" at all. It's something you really wanted to do for a made up narrative of getting back at Wayne despite there being already one action to do so (kitchens) so you prioritized it. Next turn there will be a push for maybe a campaign for a presidential candidate. That's also really high stakes, right? And who's to say the turn after that won't be high-stakes either?

Every turn is high stakes and something will always come up. Bottom line? However bad you think Vic is, Catherine is currently worse. If we're doing nothing for her then I'd sooner just get rid of her and free up space for someone who's actually good.

For now I'm merely skeptical of any positive changes with Catherine in the near future, but if by turn 35 we haven't done anything to help her I'll start voting for firing her. Even sooner if we meet someone good at Lexpo.
 
Last edited:
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you actively not want Catherine to get therapy and be put on the road of so-called improvement? Or at the very least, you thought other things were more important. What's to say other things won't always be more important?
I wanted tackling it via therapy put off this turn because of specific opportunities this turn that I considered of higher priority and our required meeting with Ra taking up diplomacy aligned hero units. I did suggest other build up her skills actions which proved unpopular.

Every turn may be high stakes, but not every turn has the same stakes and opportunities. This one the more prioritized diplomacy actions made Catherine therapy unappealing. It's less likely to be the case next turn because we won't have several relatively high stakes situations we want to approach diplomatically.

Either way, it seems a bit premature to insist she's a character that needs to shape up or ship out into the earliest phases of her second turn when we are already shedding 3 parts dead weight without taking anyone else on and working to expand the cap.

I'm certainly interested in putting her on a worthwhile action for self improvement next turn, but in general this perception of being able to consistently trade up in terms of heroes at will and without complications or them bringing problems with them isn't going to pan out well.
 
I'm certainly interested in putting her on a worthwhile action for self improvement next turn, but in general this perception of being able to consistently trade up in terms of heroes at will and without complications or them bringing problems with them isn't going to pan out well.
Especially because finding a hero unit who is better than Catherine and doesn't come with their own issues is far easier said than done, finding one we can mould like we did Rene is even more so.

It's also worth keeping in mind that most of Catherine's issues seem to be a result of her nerves and feeling like she hasn't earned her place so in addition to therapy it's possible that just working on some noteworthy projects and building her reputation up a bit would help out as well.

Maybe we could have her take the lead on gingo fruit research?
 
Every turn may be high stakes, but not every turn has the same stakes and opportunities. This one the more prioritized diplomacy actions made Catherine therapy unappealing. It's less likely to be the case next turn because we won't have several relatively high stakes situations we want to approach diplomatically.

Especially because finding a hero unit who is better than Catherine and doesn't come with their own issues is far easier said than done, finding one we can mould like we did Rene is even more so.

This entire song and dance is very familiar. Since turn 14 people were talking about how Lisa has the metagene and that it needs unlocking, and since 16 people were talking about Sam's Mirror Master abilities, or how they want to go to space and so on and so forth. None of that has ever been acted upon. It's entirely up in the air.

Frankly? Actions speak louder than words. We can all be interested in lots of things that are really cool and useful, but unless people their money where their mouth is then in practice they don't care.

That's fine, but keeping someone who is bad (and let's be abundantly clear, Catherine is very bad. With Moon moved and Wells away, she's bar none the worst hero unit on the roster.) with nothing but the idea of "well, they can improve" as if it justifies anything read like purposefully avoiding hard decisions.

Replacing someone as bad as her with someone better won't be difficult simply due to how bad she is. Maybe she has some kind of an amazing potential. I don't know. Without acting on it it's mostly irrelevant.

The thing is, helping people like Catherine and Nathan Warbow and Mick Rory is really easy and can yield very good results, and there's still a lot of resistance to doing it. There are people who are in a far worse position, like Paige and Coldcast, that will take a lot more effort to help and the end result won't necessarily be really amazing.
 
Back
Top