Emberly

The extent of the "positive peer pressure" and "recruitment" that you're talking about is to play with people on F2P accounts, have fun, and not be an ******* to them. Is that such a challenge? Nobody is telling you to pester F2P players to go VIP. Nobody expects VIP players to engage in any behaviour other than to play the game and be nice. Why is this such a terrible future? Why is it so awful to have more players to play with, some of whom might choose to convert to VIP? You're just being petulant.

Amen. The kind of person who flees to that server to avoid new/F2P players is exactly the kind we don't want acting as ambassadors for the game.
hey Night the game is going F2P check the announcements section.

So an AoE hold with a -regen/-recharge/-recovery side effect then?

Christ amercy, wouldn't it just! I don't know if it will happen though, being as MMs wouldn't benefit much from it, and it is just too awesome.

I'm fulling expecting this to be a set like Cold, in that it will provide a wide variety of buffs and debuffs. I'm juse praying they dodge the temptation to throw in the stinkers like intangibility powers and what not.

At least you have the best nuke in the game as consolation

Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy. Delicious.
Look at how wrong you are.

Hahaha! Excellent!

Happily I am neither applying for a job nor attempting to survive the business world, whatever that means in the context of me playing internet superhero video games. I don't know what that has to do with me being irritated with the idea that some account that hasn't been subbed since the owner ragequit when ED came out is sitting on a name that I want.

I'm pointing out that as a current, paying customer, I have the strange sense that my desires should have a greater effect on the company's decision to release or not release names than someone who doesn't pay a dime and theoretically might continue not paying a dime whether or not their names are released to the wild.

To me, people who don't pay now are indistinguishable from people that have never paid at all, except that the former customers are actively tying up names that I and other paying customers might like. The idea that we can never ever step on these former customers' toes just in case they up and resub sometime in the future is ridiculous. They're already not subscribed for their own reasons; adding one more isn't going to be the disaster you seem to want it to be.

No they don't. They have the subtext of "noncustomers don't matter as much as customers do." Nobody is suggesting taking names from players, because in order to be a player in CoX, you must pay a sub fee. The suggestion is to free up names held in limbo by people who are not players, are not paying a sub fee, and yet inexplicably hold valuable resources* tied up against the possibility they might one day return. The basic premise here is that customers should trump noncustomers. Nobody could take anyone's name or names as long as they chose to maintain his sub.

*if you don't agree names are a valuable resource, then why argue against their release? If you do agree they are a valuable resource, why should they be held by people who do not pay a sub fee?

Yes, it is. Just because you don't want it to be doesn't make it thus. You're ceasing payment for a service; why should the service provider be obligated to do anything whatsoever for you? The fact that they do hold names is nice, but it would be nicer for the people that actually pay for a sub if they released names held by people who didn't pay for a sub.
You're really convinced this is about you, huh? Nobody is trying to steal any particular name or names, and certainly not yours. The argument is that noncustomers, regardless of their reason for not being customers any longer, shouldn't be allowed to squat on names. Get over yourself. Besides, as noted upthread, the devs have a reason to not run the script, so I imagine they have something good up their sleeve.

This sure makes me wanna help you out!

Greetings from [SERVER REDACTED]!

The analogous situation is not "going on holidays" but "ceasing rent/mortgage payments and vacating the premises."

I don't feel that the two are analogous. If you stop paying for a service, why should resources (any resources, including names!) be withheld from actual paying customers in case you decide to return? Not quite the same thing as breaking into someone's house and stealing their possessions. That said, I understand that people get possessive about their names; if that's the case, they shouldn't let their sub lapse.