Liquid

Hmm. I wonder if it's because I was a Vigilante. I ran all of the new arcs heroside using Ouroboros in a duo, with the other person leading. I never got any of the badges, and had to go back and solo them again to get them.

I then ran Dr. Graves' first mission with the same character, teamed with a native level 5 Villain that had the mission, and another Vigilante. We didn't get the badge, the owner did. I assumed it was due to mission ownership, since for everything else in the game, alignment doesn't matter as long as you can actually run the content when it comes to getting badges.

I'm not sure why it would be designed to not give you the badge as a Vigilante unless you're the mission owner, though. I guess this calls for some more testing to determine the exact situations that prevent you from getting these badges.

I've not tried the Freedom Cracker mission yet, but based on my attempts for all the new missions heroside and the first Dr. Graves arc, the badges from the new low level missions appear to only award to the mission owner (or the leader if run through Ouroboros).

They may not be able to help him start the Ouroboros arc and then quit to give him leadership, either, as when I've tried to run them with someone on the team that hasn't done the lower level ones, it gives those same messages about everyone on the team needing to have run the earlier stuff. So he'll probably be in the same boat.

That change also hit my DM Scrapper that skips Midnight Grasp due to concept pretty hard, since it affected Shadow Punch as well. The difference was very noticeable.

Except for Karolina Kurkova!

I disagree with the complaints about the price of Street Justice, but the cost is not always zero for a subscriber.

In real world money, Street Justice costs $10. However, VIPs get a variable discount on it that is inversely proportional to how much other stuff they purchase during a 2 month period, and people who pay for very large amounts of points in advance also get a variable discount on it that increases as they buy more points at once. If a VIP doesn't want anything else in that 2 month period, they get it for free. If they want other things but choose not to buy them in favor of Street Justice, they get it at the cost of the opportunity to buy those other things. If they want other things and purchase the points to buy them, they get it at some discount based on how many things they buy and how many points they paid for at once.

This it why it makes a lot more sense to leave dollars out of it and just talk about points. Personally, I think 800 points is a fair price for something that allows me to experience the entire game again while, in the words of Jagged circa 2004 when we first were asking for a punching Scrapper set, "punching the bejeezus out of everything". Am I going to get it for free? That depends on whether something else I want shows up in the store in the next two months.

That is very nice. Thank you for this.

I see you're sellin' 400 points for five dollas! How 'bout 10 points for 12 cents?

Oh... now I feel like the one with the naughty mind!




You dirty, dirty algorithm, you.

I agree that it's a strange thing to name it after, but why does Big O make you blush?

As I've said repeatedly, I was trying to make sure that I was understood.

What did I do to you, exactly, that made you feel the need to pile on?

I have offered proof that, beginning in November and from that point forward, one player is getting their points 27 days before the other, despite the first player having subbed at an earlier date. This is not imaginary. It is fact, given the information we have been provided, and that you have accepted.

You clearly understand me, but have decided that this is an argument for some reason, and that you must win it.

I didn't know that, by the way. I read the forums a lot, but it was never at all clear to me that if I didn't "adjust my billing date" (which I couldn't do in June, by the way, because I had a year sub, and my sub renews in October), I would receive my points at the end of the month instead of the beginning.

How civil.

Once again, this is not that big of a deal to me. I asked for clarification, got it, and expressed minor disappointment. I was then told that I was wrong. I clarified. I was again told that I was wrong. I further clarified. Now I am being insulted because I tried to explain myself. Poor form. I don't see any need to continue speaking with you.

Yes it does, that sets the billing date. People who subscribed prior to July, and happened to subscribe toward the end of the month, are getting their points later than people who happened to subscribe toward the beginning of the month, even if the people subscribing toward the end of the month actually subscribed in an earlier month.

You're kind of jumping in here-- the reason I'm specifying the exact subscription date is because Forbin is saying that "people who subscribe earlier get points earlier", but that's not true. It's arbitrarily assigned to the day of the month that you first subscribed at. So people who subscribed at the earliest possible date, April 28th, 2004, are at a disadvantage.

Correct. This is an advantage. Steve gets his points 27 days earlier than Joe. 27 more days to use something purchased on the market with the stipend is worth something. Do you disagree with that?

That's nice, but I'm not planning on cancelling until the servers shut down. I don't think NCSoft wants me to cancel either, so that doesn't really help.

Sure, maybe NCSoft will decide to end the game on the 27th and not give Steve his points on the 1st, which would technically result in the same number of points, but would be kind of a dick move to Steve, and still doesn't make up for years of Joe getting points 27 days later than he could have if he'd only subscribed 3 days later than he actually did, or cancelled his sub for 3 days at some point prior to July 2011.

Based on these two statements, I think you're still misunderstanding what I am saying. Joe subscribed before Steve. Steve did not subscribe first.

Joe subscribed on April 28th, 2004. Steve subscribed on May 1st, 2004. Yet despite subscribing 3 days before Steve, Joe gets his points 27 days later than Steve does.

Thanks for answering my question. That's too bad.

Oh well, I lucked out anyway, because someone was nice enough to give me theirs. Thanks, Aggelakis!

I paid for my account the earliest possible date anyone could ever pay for their account (April 28th, 2004). If someone paid for theirs 3 days after me (May 1st, 2004), they get their points 27 days earlier.

Joe subs on April 28th, 2004, and never goes inactive. Steve subs on May 1st, 2004, and never goes inactive. Due to the length of their vet status, they get 550 points a month once Freedom goes live. Both also receive the 1200 bonus points for being active before Freedom went live.

Date, Joe's point total, Steve's point total
9/14, 1750, 1750
10/11, 1750, 2300
10/28, 2300, 2300
11/1, 2300, 2850
11/28, 2850, 2850
12/1, 2850, 3400
12/28, 3400, 3400

After all the wackiness with September and October gets sorted out, Steve winds up with 1 month's allotment of points 27 days before Joe. If he got it 30 days before Joe, nobody could argue that he didn't actually get 1 month's allotment of points more than Joe. How is this not an advantage?

Again, it's not that big of a deal to me. I'm just trying to make sure you understand what I'm saying.

Someone with a billing date of the 1st of the month gets their points then. Someone with a billing date of the 28th gets theirs 27 days later. That advantage.

Again, not a big deal, but weird when it means people who have been active since release get their points 27 days later.

Each month? No. I'm talking about a one-time advantage. It's not a big deal, but it's weird to me that someone who has been active since release gets put in that position.

I think the game will end when the point system ends, so that really doesn't help.

That would only work if I had a time machine, and could do it prior to Freedom going live. Doing it now would remove any argument against the idea that Steve got 400 points more than I did, as there wouldn't be a 3 day window where we had the same number of points.

It's weird that the day the game went live is one of the worst possible billing dates to have.

So, am I getting this right?

I've been active since the game went live (April 28th, 2004). Since my billing date is the 28th, I don't get my points until the end of the month. Someone who subbed on the 1st of the month at any point after me gets their points on the first of the month (except in October 2011, when they get them on the 11th). Let's call this person Steve.

So in September, I got my 400 points (I actually get the bonus for being at tier 9, but let's use 400, because Steve is at tier 9 too, and I don't remember what the bonus is), and so did Steve. In October, Steve gets his 400 points on Oct 11th, and I get mine on Oct 28th. For every month after that, Steve gets his points on the 1st, and I get mine 27 days later.

This effectively means that, assuming we both stay subbed for the exact same amount of time, Steve gets 1 month more worth of Paragon Points than I do, simply because he subbed later than I did, and it happened to be on the first of the month. That's kind of weird.

Yeah, but it makes a whole lotta awesome.

"I'm gonna hit you so hard, the dudes standing next to you are going to feel it!"