Gray_Lensman

I love it, myself. The car designs remind me of the retro-future, sort of 'sideways-in-time' city design in Mystery Men. (The visual design in that movie - sort of a 'timeless comicbook city' look - always resonated with me.)

You know, adding these preorder-exclusive enhancements to the other stuff included in the Complete Collection Item Pack would probably smooth a lot of ruffled feathers.

Just my two credits.

Thanks for the info, EarthWyrm. I can't even begin to guess what's going on at this point. I do think it's a pretty safe assumption that I17 broke something, though. Reading about the responses people are getting from tech support are setting my teeth on edge. I know in my case, I've been running the game fine for close to six years on the same machine, and I haven't made any changes to my hardware or OS, or even installed anything new recently. The only recent change to anything has been I17 going live. As of this last patch, the game's mapserving me to the point where it's virtually unplayable. Since other people are reporting similar problems, this is clearly not some mysterious, totally-unrelated rash of hardware or network issues.

Hopefully things will progress beyond denial and excuses soon, and we'll see an actual fix for the problem. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[ QUOTE ]
They're only fair if you're a veteran. If you're a veteran, they're immensely fair. For everyone else, the continued addition of new rewards is inherently unfair - the system is weighted towards the veteran's.

Seriously, this isn't that hard. The system is supposed to be weighted towards the veterans. Admit it, enjoy it, and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

The system's not weighted towards the veterans. Statements like that make me wonder if you even understand what 'weighted' actually means. People have already explained this to you countless times, but it seems like no matter what anyone here says, you'll try to twist their words, or failing that, just ignore things they say outright if that contradicts the point you're trying to make. According to you, the veterans' reward system is unfair, and no amount of logic or reason will convince you otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't arguing for myself personally, however. I was arguing a principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is this 'principle' you're arguing for? Once again, I'll quote a previous post of yours:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying it should be terminated because I can't stand other players receiving a reward I can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, so virtuous you are! Fight for those principles! The way the system's structured means it's possible for someone else to have something that you can't, and the mere thought of that is intolerable to you. 'I want what she's got! I want it! Gimme! Waaaah! Unfair! It's so unfair!' This is the sort of behavior I expect from three- and four-year-olds, not someone who (I'm assuming) is old enough to understand that 'unfair' is not synonymous with 'not getting my way'.

Your argument that the system is unfair because the people who have been here the longest have earned the most rewards is also ridiculous. The system is designed to reward people for staying subscribed. Those rewards are granted at regular intervals. Therefore, the longer you're subscribed for, the more of them you'll get. This is fair, something that you yourself acknowledged. The fact that someone who's been playing longer than you will have earned more veterans' rewards as a result does not represent bias in any way, shape or form, no matter what you want to believe. Neither does the fact that the program doesn't just end after an arbitrary number of months. The rewards are an incentive to stay subscribed. If they were to be stopped at a certain point, that effectively says, 'After x months, we no longer value your patronage enough to encourage you to stay.' And that sends out a message that the existing customerbase is disposable. That runs counter to the whole intent of the program. Aside from being an extremely self-serving suggestion on your part, it's just a stupid idea.

Seriously, this isn't that hard. The system is fair, Eikochan. Admit it, accept it, and move on.

I think Arcanaville might take issue with your... highly creative interpretation of her post.

[ QUOTE ]
City of Heroes is not a job, and Veteran's Rewards are not a salary.

This is a service we all pay for. I pay just as much as you do. You don't pay more because you're a veteran, and you haven't contributed more, because you're not contributing. You're playing.

[/ QUOTE ]


None of that is relevant, and you really need to stop trying to sidestep the point. Whether we're talking about a job or the veteran's reward program, you receive benefits in direct proportion to the amount of time you spend on the activity in question.

Yes, you pay as much as everyone else does. And you get your veteran's rewards at the same rate that they do. The reason you do not get to receive them early by paying extra is because they are a provided as an incentive for maintaining your subscription, and letting people buy them would undermine the intent of the system.

[ QUOTE ]
If the only reason you keep subscribing is for your 60+X month veteran reward, I have to wonder what value you are to the community aside from income, and if your value is income, why aren't the same benefits for sale?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize that looking forward to the veteran's rewards was the only reason the people who like them are playing, or that the only thing anyone who stays on with the game brings to it is their subscription fee. Thank you for clarifying that for me. You certainly have an interesting outlook on things. I also like the notion that the incentive program, which is designed to keep people playing, should stop beyond a certain point. So once you've been with the game for five years, your value as a subscriber and to the community apparently ends, since the devs are supposed to stop providing additional incentives to remain with the game beyond that point. Nice worldview you've got there.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying it should be terminated because I can't stand other players receiving a reward I can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what it all comes down to, isn't it? You'll twist anything and everything people say to you because you're unwilling to accept the fact that somebody else has a shiney you want, and you can't have it. Not even if you offer to pay extra, wail bitterly about the unfairness of it all, or hold your breath until you're blue in the face. Guess what? Life is like that sometimes. Some things are non-negotiable, no matter how much you beg, bargain, or plead. This is one of those things. The sooner you accept that and let it go, the better off you'll be.

*laugh* First of all, I'm not demanding anything. I'm not the one calling for the developers to change the veterans' reward system because I'm frustrated that I can't have everything. That's you.

Second of all, having the veteran's rewards cap out after an arbitrary length of time is about as 'fair' as suggesting that companies stop paying salaries to their workers after five years, so new employees won't feel slighted that their seniors have earned more money for being with the company longer, and it makes about as much sense. Which is to say, none whatsoever. 'Everyone puts in five years, and everyone gets five years of rewards. The guys who put in ten years? Oh, they get only five years of rewards, the same as the five-year vets do.' That's more 'fair' in your mind?

The rewards are there to give both old and new subscribers something to look forward to, and for most of us, they do. As incentive to stay subscribed, they're working as intended. Just because you're frustrated that some players have earned more rewards than you'll be able to doesn't mean the system needs changing.

Third of all, newer players shouldn't 'have a chance to get more rewards' faster than one every three months. Everyone has to wait the same amount of time to get each reward. No one deserves to get them any faster because that would mean giving that person preferential treatment. And that brings us back to the issue of 'specialness' again.

In the end, all that matters is how long you've been subscribed.

Play the game for two years, and you receive two years' worth of veteran's rewards.

Play the game for six years, and you receive six years' worth of veteran's rewards.

Why do you seem to feel that you somehow deserve more than you've earned? You keep insisting that 'they're treating me like a less-valued customer' because the people who were here longer earned more rewards, rewards that are given out based on consecutive months subscribed. You argue that you should be entitled to everything the older vets have gotten, despite the fact that you weren't subscribed long enough to earn them yourself (or cancelled your subscription and restarted later, as the case may be).

What makes you so special?

It's a question I think most of the people here are too polite to ask, but it needed to be said. All I keep hearing from you is 'I want' and 'it's not fair' and 'they're treating me like a less-valued customer'. Earning the exact same perks other players have at the exact same rate makes you less-valued? It seems to me that you want to be treated as better than everyone else, not the other way around. You want everything the long-time vets have, and you want it without putting in the time they put in to earn it. And you've yet to provide any explanation for why you think you're more deserving than other people, aside from 'I want it' and 'I'm frustrated with waiting' and a lot of doubletalk and tapdancing around the question.

I can sympathize with someone being impatient or even frustrated over having to wait for a veteran's reward they want (in your case, wings). What I take issue with is the sense of entitlement you seem to have. The system's fair. Make peace with the fact that when you have a seniority-based rewards system, the people who are here longer are going to have more of those rewards, and that there is no option to 'catch up'. Just like in real life, if somebody's two years older than you, they'll always be 'ahead' in the age department, and no amount of complaining is going to let you 'catch up'. That's just how things are. Look forward to the rewards you'll be earning for yourself and stop obsessing over 'catching them all' and people who have earned more than you. This isn't Pokemon. At the very least, try admitting that you're just frustrated because you can't get something you want, and stop trying to paint it as some kind of horrible slight or injustice being done to you by the developers.

I can understand why you might not like that, but not liking something doesn't make it unfair. It just means you don't like it.

You receive a new veteran's reward for each three months you play. You seem to agree that this is a fair system. But then you turn around and say that it's unfair for the later rewards in the set to be forever out of your reach. You seem to feel that because those rewards exist, you are automatically entitled to have all of them. You're not. You're only entitled to the ones you've been subscribed long enough to earn. This is not inherently unjust. You're not being mistreated or devalued as a customer because some things are out of your reach, no matter how much you want them. Wanting something isn't the same as having a right to it.

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine the game continues for another five years as it is now, and a new player comes along thinking they might want to play. Can you imagine how learning that there are forty items - costumes, powers, base options, pets, everything that makes the game great - they will never receive simply because they hadn't heard about the game ten years ago (or are too young to have ever possibly played the game ten years ago) might be discouraging, enough that they might decide to try a different game instead?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't. Normal, non-OCD-afflicted people generally look forward to earning whichever vet rewards they happen to want most. At worst, they might be a little envious of the people who already have them. Since they don't feel an overpowering need to have every single item, the thought of not ever getting every last one isn't a big deterrent. Certainly not to the point of making them pass up a game they're otherwise interested in.

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, the Veteran's Reward system as it exist now tells the newcomer "no matter how long you play, no matter how much you put into the system, you will always be worth less to us."

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but you're wrong. Everyone's treated fairly and equally under the current system. You receive a new veteran's reward once every three months like clockwork for as long as you're a subscriber. No favoritism, no one group earning anything faster than another. That's what you're advocating with these 'newcomers should be allowed to "catch up" ' proposals.

Bottom line: They're veteran's rewards. They're meant to incentivize and reward people for sticking with the game in the long haul, and for not letting their subs lapse. In that capacity, they're working as intended. What you're proposing would break that.

[ QUOTE ]
So what you're saying is that heroes get nothing if they don't buy CoV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing besides the new graphics engine, PVP zones, etc., etc., etc. Or by 'nothing' do you mean 'not what you wanted to get for free'?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm disappointed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really shouldn't be. Why do you feel entitled to free access to all the costume options that other people are paying $50 for? Yes, they're making you pay for the ability to use that content when creating your own characters, rather than just seeing it displayed on others'. No, that's not a bad deal, IMO, even if you don't have any use for the other CoV content. (The people in this thread saying that they'd buy CoV just for the added costume options would seem to agree.)

Cryptic's given CoH players five issues worth of content for no additional cost, which is a lot better than most MMO's (*cougheverquestcough*). Asking people to pay a one-time fee for access to desirable new content at this stage of the game is hardly unreasonable of them.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not against some of the options coming over, but everything shouldn't either. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Instead of having 1/3 options in common like they originally intended, why not make it 2/3 or 4/5? Why go from one extreme to the other when a compromise would be a lot easier and satisfy both crowds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because a compromise wouldn't satisfy both crowds. I want it all!</villain> Seriously, though, if you only bring over this hypothetical 1/3 of the new costume pieces to CoH, you then have the question of which 1/3 (or 2/3 or 4/5) to bring, which all but guarantees that some people won't get the ones they're looking for. Better to make them all available so that the players can pick and choose for themselves.


[ QUOTE ]
My 2 cents? More options are good, but it's also nice to be able to tell the good from the bad at a glance. Yes, there are "evil looking" heroes in the literature, but if you open the floodgates, you might as well change the name of the game to City of Skull-Headed Demons (Be They Heroes OR Villains).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you underestimate your fellow players. I seriously doubt the ratio of 'dark' heroes to 'light' ones is going to change just because we have access to more costume options. Sure, there are inevitably going to end up being some villainous-looking heroes - but we already have those now. Despite the alarmists, I don't think we're going to see a sudden population explosion in the CoH antihero community if this goes through. The dark and spiky antiheroes we have now will likely become darker and spikier, but I suspect that most players who want their characters to look that villainous will want to play them as villains, too. The problem's a self-limiting one.

[ QUOTE ]
And perhaps it would be best if many or most of the Villain-exclusive options stayed in COV so Villain players in COV don't cry foul over all of their new and "exlusive" stuff being ported over to the other side?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think that the best solution might be to make all the new costume options available exclusively to the people who own both games. That would give people with only a passing interest in playing a villain or building bases added incentive to pick up CoV.

[ QUOTE ]
* Old style skirts back. New ones are too clingy, don't display textures and clip badly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd second this, just so long as the new ones are left in as well - I rather like the cut of them, and don't feel they're too clingy at all.

[ QUOTE ]
There are many villain options that should not be available to heroes (approximately 500 skulls and 1.37 million spikes, the zombie options, the "evil" faces, etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ghost Rider might disagree. Personally, I think the only villain costume options that arguably shouldn't be available to heroes are the 'evil' faces, and even those I can see valid reasons for a hero to use (for example, creating an 'evil'-faced alternate costume for a 'Jeckyll and Hyde'-style RP plot, for those of us who like those kinds of things). I'd rather see players' creativity given free rein, rather than deliberately limiting options in order to force peoples' characters to fit some preconceived notion of what heroes 'should' look like.

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for noting this Statesman. Honestly, there's no good reason to separate the CoV and CoH costume options as it should be left to the player's imagination how they wish their characters to look as opposed to Cryptic's.

I can sort of understand wanting to leave some of the more "villainous" looking costume pieces in CoV, but even those should be left to player discretion. The character generator is one of the best features of both games (and in the industry). It is a far wiser decision to provide more options to players then less. It's part of what keeps them coming back.

[/ QUOTE ]

/signed!