Aura_Familia

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 TrueGentleman

When did I, or anyone in this thread apart from you, start talking about the legal definitions of gambling? I brought up the AGA precisely because that was the direction you were detouring this discussion with your objections over using the general term. Because of such reactions on the other side of the argument, I've taken to calling the Super Packs a "game of chance", which is a little euphemistic but at least is intended to avoid this kind of pedantic objection to describing the business model behind them. Painting your opponents as Gamblers Anonymous advocates is just handwaving.

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 Coyote_Seven

How very pedantic, engaging in a semantic argument like that. And then topping it off with a meme designed to short circuit any semblance of rational discourse or thought. How underhanded of you. Er, I mean clever. Yeah, it's clever. Golf clap.

I might as well cut to the chase.



Since we're gonna play the dictionary game, I might as well point out one part I put in bold. Did you know there's a chance you could get into a serious accident on your way to work every day? If you live where I do, there's a chance that a major earthquake might hit, and that might kill you. Perhaps you might get struck by lightning during a storm, and you might die. Why, there's a chance that a meteor could strike you right this very moment, or maybe tomorrow. Maybe never!

I daresay that living in the universe is a "gamble" for each and every unit of time you exist in it. Looks like everything is a gamble, hmm? I guess the universe is just one great big duck then, eh?

Quack!

Originally Posted by Remidi

I realize I'm stating the obvious, but there isn't a single player version of COh available for us to buy. Therefore to play COH we have to take part in an MMO. Enjoying this game is not predicated on any desire to play with strangers.

Originally Posted by TonyV

MMORPG does mean teaming.* Not 100% of the time, not even most of the time, or even frequently, if that's your preference. But I don't know how to say it any clearer. There is a difference between asking the developers to cater to people who like to solo (which is reasonable) and asking the developers to cater to people who only solo (which is not).

Contrary to how others wish to redefine the genre, it does not mean, "A single-player game in which other players are merely background decorations to see between missions." In order to fully experience the game, including perks that from time to time you're probably going to think you have to have, you are going to have to team up. I'm sorry if you think this is a terrible thing, but again, it's an MMORPG. You should have known.

If you're able to enjoy the game without the perks that come through teaming, then by gummy, you have my blessing. Because City of Heroes is a solo-friendly game, it's very possible to do so. But yeah, it does bother me when people come here and constantly post requests to destroy one of the main draws of the game, the team-oriented experience.



*Or at least, interacting with other players at a high level. City of Heroes implements this primarily through teaming.

Originally Posted by Mazey

Damn right, there's no reason we should accept any business practice we don't like.

Did you know they charge money for food. How can they do that?!? Don't they know people need food to live?!? Just because it's profitable doesn't mean it's acceptable!

Originally Posted by Anchor

For me, it ended up being a bit more expensive. I burned through about 1500 points trying to get the whole Elemental Order set unlocked. Those pesky pants didn't want to drop.

Originally Posted by truegentleman

eh, if you really want to caricature the opposing argument, there are more suitable images:


"the only monster here is the gambling monster that has enslaved your mother. I call him gamblor."

Originally Posted by Chad Gulzow-Man

I think women are, for the most part, dressed terribly in comic books. I also know they're dressed that way because there are men who specifically buy those comic books to look at slutty super ladies. And that history is a big part of why I. personally, have no real interest in making female characters.

I would generally ignore a female character wearing a corset as a costume in this game, because sadly that is within the realm of what a female superhero could be expected to wear, and thus would neither arouse nor disgust me (because it's not real).

I would look at a real-life girl wearing a corset in public and wonder why the hell she's wearing her underwear in public, and I would think she should go put some damn clothes on.

... You know, basically the same way you'd look at a guy walking down the street in tights and a cape.

Originally Posted by rsclark

Yes, it will make them plenty of money. It is a very effective technique. You know what else is effective? Cold calling people and pressure selling them crap they don't need. "Listen up Gandma, go get your checkbook and write what I tell you."

If I'm allowed to hate the people who do that, I see no reason not to extend it to practices like this. Profitable doesn't automatically equate to acceptable.

Originally Posted by DumpleBerry

I can't disagree with that. But you can probably see how it is a deliberate pack incentive for income.


Ooh, I could see that. Like a hybridization of the costume pieces, just uniquely weighted. Hrm.

Originally Posted by TrueGentleman

And when you paid for them, you always got the costumes you expected and never random items you didn't necessarily want. And of course costume bundles these days on the Paragon Market are around 400 points, or five bucks.


And if you're unlucky, you pay more and instead have a lot of items you didn't necessarily want.

Really, it's that simple.

Originally Posted by Chad Gulzow-Man

When did I ever say I was complaining about the Pocket D pack?

You want to know my complaints? The fact that they made a female-only Carnival of Light pack at all is a start. That they're giving females just about all of the previously male-only costume pieces from the Magic, Steampunk and Gunslinger packs and giving males exactly nothing is a pretty obvious one too.

There are costume options that females have had for years that shouldn't have been kept from males. The female headbands and even tiaras are largely plain and wouldn't be out of place on males as circlets. Females have those nifty cloud and dragon bracers and padded gloves that have no reason to be limited to one gender. Shoulder kitties and pandas (and add the damn parrot that the ghost pirates get already), anybody? Girls have a lot of "tops with skin" and "bottoms with skin" options that males don't get access to (excluding the obvious things that they don't want us to have, like corsets and bikinis).



... Heck, I could even think of a few uses for the regular skirts to make costumes for space aliens, though I wouldn't expect those to ever get ported to males.

Originally Posted by Chad Gulzow-Man

I agree. Going on numbers alone, there are 9 unisex options, 1 male-only hairstyle and one female-only hairstyle, plus 3 metallic dress options (top, skirt, shoes) for females. That's 13:10 female to male costume pieces, and it's within reason.

Originally Posted by Chad Gulzow-Man

This isn't reality. This is a video game, a SUPERHERO video game.

We're talking about a genre where the majority of people where spandex. I know I've seen male superheroes wearing tutus before.


I agree. Going on numbers alone, there are 9 unisex options, 1 male-only hairstyle and one female-only hairstyle, plus 3 metallic dress options (top, skirt, shoes) for females. That's 13:10 female to male costume pieces, and it's within reason.

Originally Posted by El__D

Except...that isn't what we're getting, AFAIK. The Costume Pack strategy for the future, as I understand it: There is ONE uni-sex costume in the pack (or possibly two, depends on what the Devs decide to do). The Female avatars just get additional bits (like skirts, bustiers, etc.) that only make sense on Female models. They aren't getting an additional, completely separate costume set.

Edit: Can't believe I forgot to put this in here. Dink? <hug> You are AWESOME! Thanks for taking time to work on these pieces! Very much appreciated!

Originally Posted by Chad Gulzow-Man

You might want to rethink your argument when they're creating one costume for all models (male, female and huge)... PLUS an entirely different costume specific to females-only.

THAT sounds to me like an unrealistic expectation for the usage of developer time, yet it's apparently what we get.

Originally Posted by Chad Gulzow-Man

I'm cool with that, too, if that's how they want to play it. Don't have a use for that stuff personally, but at least it'd be fair.

Originally Posted by Chad Gulzow-Man

Absolutely, yes. It's not a question in my mind of "what's in the costume bundles," it's "HOW MUCH is in the costume bundles." For every ten pieces that females get, I believe that males should get at LEAST eight.

.

Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei

Now that Supergamble Packs are live, I eagerly anticipate the first complaint thread crying about how much more money someone has spent in relation to how much they had planned to spend. Brilliant.

Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei

Touched is pretty accurate for those overly concerned about what other players do in the game they pay to play...yeppers "touched".