Zyphoid

Originally Posted by Sermon

I expect the Chinese set will launch after Staff fighting because, unless I am mistaken, it includes one or more custom weapons.

Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei

From my BETA runs the amount of merits given in those packs is pretty attractive as well as the XP boosters for those with altitis. GL on the next pack, it will be the one.

Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei

Heyas Zyphoid. I hope nobody is bothered by their purchase since it is all optional. There are some not so overly pleased with the Black Wolf drop rate, but hey that's the RNG Gods at work.

Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei

He he WAI!

Originally Posted by Blue Rabbit

As per usual the RNG keeps hating me. After 9600pts spent on Super Packs, no Black Wolf Pet. Coincidentally a friend who was opening theirs next to me got the pet on the 3 pack.
Do I begrudge them? No. Do I hate the RNG just a little bit more? O h-e-double hockey sticks yeah!

Originally Posted by BellaStrega

I don't think any of the pieces are slutty since "slutty" is a subjective opinion of a woman's behavior.

I do like the Witch set, though. I've used it on three or four characters now. I was disappointed at the lack of certain other options for female characters in the magic set, however.

Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven

Well hey, you decided to go there. So I followed you.

Originally Posted by FoxLee

I think that is overstating your case a little. Every "costume equality" thread I have ever participated in has included long hair, dragon bracers, padded gloves, buttcapes et al along with everything we wanted ported the other way. Perhaps you should view this as a step in the right direction, since it will show that porting unisex pieces between models is a worthwhile action. It certainly gave me renewed hope for a few male ports.

Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven

That's OK. I don't care what you think, either.

Kind of makes you wonder why anyone is bothering to post anything here? Maybe we all hope there's a chance that we'll find someone who agrees with us and we'll make a new friend.

But that... is a gamble.

Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven

You mean paying real money to play a game, and then get a chance to win in-game items? I think that used to be called a "subscription". These new F2P models to kind of dial that up to 11 though, so I can see where it might get confusing for a lot of people.



It apparently bothers a subsection of the rather vociferous minority who engage in, ahem, "healthy" discussions on this very bulletin board, LOL. It bothers them so much that they won't shut up about it even when that wasn't even the original topic of the thread.

I'm surprised any one of them even bothers to respond to my posts, even. It's not like I have any kind of influence over the devs... or do I? >.>

Originally Posted by Arcanaville

Perhaps this is one of those times when being wordy diluted the sentiment. I've never been opposed to respectful discussion under any circumstances. That's always a good thing. However, just plain sh-tting on the effort is something else, which perhaps more directly addresses the point in a less ambiguous manner. I was specifically reacting to an earlier post that was not a discussion post, just an expression of blanket disappointment:

Everyone is free to express their disappointment in whatever venue they wish, but that right comes bundled with my right to express my own opinion of its appropriateness. Intelligent discussion is a separate matter.

Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven

Yes, thank you! I was starting to wonder if maybe I was suddenly on a ship filled with crazy people, lol.

CCGs are not even gambling in the general sense, let alone the legal definition.

Originally Posted by Oliin

Doesn't that definition pretty much apply to almost anything in this game? From combat rewarding you randomly with salvage, recipes, shards and whatnot all the way to the Incarnate trials. Oh, and don't forget the whole rolling for random rewards using merits and AE tickets.

Originally Posted by Ironik

I feel the same way about Street Justice. I like it, but it doesn't feel terribly different from my Martial Artist who uses the alternate (subtler) animations and the fighting pool.

Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven

Using their own logic, I've already pointed out that everything is gambling. And since gambling is wrong, that means that everything is wrong. And the universe is one giant duck.

Originally Posted by Aura_Familia

EDIT: Personally I find folks that get butthurt about costume issues (like in that thread where Dink is posting) versus actual game mechanics, to be silly. So to each there own about what they find "unacceptable in a video game"

Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven

Being that it's part of a videogame, I'm inclined to continue calling it that. Is there any a reason why a videogame should stop being called a videogame because it includes a CCG theme? Which, as far as I know, isn't even its main theme? We're all still playing hero and villain characters that defeat enemies and gain XP, right?



It's certainly not my fault that the AGA is afraid of the social taint surrounds the word "gambling". As well, the argument over the morality of gambling is entirely beside the point, because if we're going there then you're assuming that everyone already agrees that these Super Packs are a form of gambling, in the legal sense, and I'm pretty sure I've already expressed my opinion about that.

That's another reason why I think people like Snow Globe are using very underhanded tactics in attempts to enforce their positions. He used the general definition of the word, when the argument was clearly circling around its legal definition (your reference to the AGA bears that out, I say; it implies that's where your thoughts have been for this entire argument, and I've seen others do the same). As soon as I saw that song and dance about "looks and quacks like a duck" I knew he was just more interested in being right than anything else, and he was just throwing everything onto the wall in hopes that something would stick. I'm not about to take someone like that at all seriously.



I'm not at all surprised that these people can't tell the difference between a general and a legal definition, and that it's somehow all the same to them. If they want to be a pack of chicken littles running around and waving their arms about in a moral panic, well I'm not about to stop them. But I'm just as free to point out how silly their reactions are to something like this. I'm sure that'll make me a pariah or whatever, but you know, the ignore function is right there! So, what-ev.

I've played videogames since I was a little kid, and I've played games of chance for actual money quite often. As well, my own family history is filled with problems of addiction. So if nobody minds, I think I'll take my own experiences over those of some guys who are butthurt that they can't just get all their shinies at once and instead have to play a little game of gotta-catch-em-all in order to get them.

Originally Posted by Ironik

More is better. I have more concepts in my brain than I know what to do with, so different powersets allows me to explore those.

What I really DON'T like are powersets that are basically retreads of previous ones. (Time Manipulation is essentially Gravity Control, for instance. Titan Weapons seems to basically be a larger version of Broadsword, from what I can see.) That's one reason why Staff Fighting is exciting: it's different enough from other powersets to feel like a whole new playstyle.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville

It'll change the problem to one that other people will be complaining about.

I mentioned this several times in the other threads discussing this issue, but the fact of the matter is there are large non-trivial contingents of players that want conflicting things that are somewhat mutually exclusive, particularly when factoring in finite-resources. Some players have for *years* asked for more, for lack of a better word, feminine but not overtly sexual costume options. The exact phrase was often "are there any actual women working at Paragon Studios?" In effect, they are asking for a more representative sample of costume options that mimic clothing or fashion options generally considered only suitable for women. In fact, generic versions that were gender neutral would probably violate the request for many of those people.

Then there are players that want all costume parts for all body types regardless of any perceived gender connection or preference. Not all these players want this because of a perception of quantitative fairness: some genuinely do not want the game to reflect *any* gender bias in clothing options at all on principle. And then there are the players that want numerically similar numbers of costume options for the two primary body types even if that numerical similarity comes at the cost of funnelling options, specifically because they are more concerned about resource fairness than costume option breadth.

You're not going to fully address everyone's preferences here, because its not just about preference its about priority. People want to believe their preferences have priority. They'll often say the converse: they don't want their preferences to have lesser priority than anyone elses. But given absolute equality isn't possible here, that's tantamount to saying the same thing.

Personally, and I expressed this thought several times although I don't think anyone was really listening, I think the devs should not have picked a side as they did. They should have said that no one's preferences would ever take priority, but each would be addressed at least in part sometimes. There would be costume packs/bundles that were unisex, some would specifically address the feminine option gap, some would be dedicated to porting gender-exclusive options that were gender neutral, etc. Your preference might come up 12% of the time while someone else's comes up 18% of the time, but everyone would have *some* avenue to hope that an option they want would be added eventually. The only people out of luck would be the people who didn't just want a shot, but wanted priority.

If we have to lose someone, I would prefer it be the player that says they must have things their way, or they quit. I would rather keep the rest.


None of this has anything to do with my reaction when a dev spends their free time between landmarks trying to untangle our irrational jumble of wish lists and decides to try to give us something they think at least some of the players would appreciate. Anyone thinking that that moment is the perfect moment to address the fact that the options being provided highlight a perceived injustice in the game has in my opinion chosen extremely unwisely and I plan to give the assertion a weight as far below zero as I can muster.

Originally Posted by Dink

ZOMG! sooo many posts I'm happy that most are happy with this! in a perfect world I would give everybody what they want but until then I will do my best to make most happy

Now, I have some pm's I must address

Oh and thanks all for the ever so nice welcome, I feel so warm and fuzzy inside

Originally Posted by Sooner

Do you really want pieces that female characters could reasonably used restricted to male characters only for no other reason than to give male characters options that females don't have?