Miss_Freeze_NA

Cohort
  • Posts

    110
  • Joined

  1. Quote:
    Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect View Post
    You mean the new players who don't know enough about the game to know if something is good or bad, or even if it's working correctly? Those new players?
    New players to the game don't count?

    Incidentally, anyone who is satisfied with seeing a picture and reading some jumble of numbers from Mids before spending their cash PM me. We have a crap ton of beautiful swampland for sale here in Florida that you will enjoy!
  2. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Durakken View Post
    It would be nice if you read what is said and not just go make up things that are not.
    I could read what you wrote a thousand times and you would still be wrong.

    Quote:
    Do I even have to mention Spock's constant struggles to balance his alien and human halves?
    Yes, and Kirk/McCoy were always there to teach/remind him of what it is to be human. I'd agree that the alien of the week types (when done well) helped progress the exploration of humanity, but I personally don't think an alien Captain would work.
  3. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Durakken View Post
    Clearly it is messed up.

    You are mixing "Mankind" up with "Humanity"
    So all that bantering back and forth between Kirk, Spock and McCoy about "being human" was all just some massive ploy to fool the viewers into thinking the show was about an exploration of humanity when it really wasn't. Right... gotcha.

    Clearly, you're a moron.
  4. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Durakken View Post
    See this is where you mess up your understanding...
    Gene Roddenberry would disagree with you. And I believe he would know better what Star Trek is about than you do.

    Back on topic... so long as it is well written and cast, it would be a success. I for one would love to see another Trek series on television. I would like to see them get away from scripts and plot points that get drowned into the technobabble though.
  5. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lone_mutant_ View Post
    Nahh you read it right
    And yet another fine example of a lack of reading comprehension....
  6. Quote:
    Originally Posted by UberGuy View Post
    I am confused as to why you feel my posting a dissenting opinion is me mounting a "high horse". I justify my comment very simply - Shard_Warrior's little jab there attacks the integrity of the poster and not the statements the posters makes.
    I'd have included your own veiled jabs at telling others they aren't playing/built right, but I see you've edited your previous post to remove them since you were called on it. Nice try though.
  7. Quote:
    Originally Posted by UberGuy View Post
    Do you have any idea how much that sort of insinuation just ends up making you look like you have an axe to grind with people who are don't share your distaste for the Regen powerset?
    Having spent the better part of the past few pages adamantly trying to convince people with a dissenting opinion from yours that they're somehow not built right or aren't playing right, I'm at a loss to see how you can justify your comment? Feel free to dismount your high horse at any time.

    Good for you that your Regen doesn't die on iTrials. My experience and the experience of quite a few (7+ year veterans mind you) friends I team with regularly is that /SR and /SD far outperforms Regen any day of the week at endgame. I agree with those who've expressed that while this buff is nice, but it doesn't help the Regen set all that much.

    Sorry... had been lurking this thread and found the reply funny.
  8. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Forbin_Project View Post
    No. We read it right. If she intended to say something else then she phrased it incorrectly.
    LMAO! Holy crap man, you have serious neuroses or something. I think it is hilarious you are trying to pull others into it as well to justify this to yourself. "We" means squat... others read my posts and understood them perfectly. If you thought I was saying something else in the post, YOU (not "we") read it incorrectly.
  9. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Forbin_Project View Post
    No, she's backpedaling. She can see that she was not only quoted but a screenshot was taken so she can't edit the post and claim she was misquoted or that the person that quoted her changed the quote to say something else.
    Holy crap, are you paranoid much? You call it backpedaling or whatever you like. I call it having to dumb it down enough so the likes of people such as yourself can understand it. I will try smaller words and pictures next time.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dalantia View Post
    Vigorous disagreement. A player that has never seen/heard of CoX before will probably do research before dropping any amount of money on a lifetime subscription. The assumption should be that they -will- know that the game is 6 years old and populated mostly by extreme veterans.
    Ok fair enough. Yet if they have never played the game, how would the content not be new to them?
  10. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Forbin_Project View Post
    As everyone can plainly see she took her time to clarify that she was talking about offering lifetime subs to NEW subscribers and not to the existing playerbase.
    Completely and utterly false. The intent was to say that making lifetime subs available upon release of GR is a potential draw to NEW subscribers. Of course it is more of a targeted sales pitch to a newer player than it would be for the existing ones, yet nowhere did I say in specific "only new subscribers should get lifetime subs" and existing customers should be excluded. You misread it entirely. I emphasized new subscribers as in the potential to bring in new subscribers from a lifetime sub if they like the game is there.

    Offering a lifetime sub with GR might draw a large number of new players to give the game a try (hence where I said it may draw in another 120,000). Not every one of those new people will opt for it, yet the offer helped bring them in.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sharker_Quint View Post
    and answer this question please, why would a new subscriber plunk down $200+ for a video game they have never played that is/will be 6 yrs old by the time GR comes out?
    First, a new player never having seen/heard of CoX before will not know the difference of it being 6 years old. To them, the content is all new.

    Second, simple mathematics. $200 or $300 (assumed) for a lifetime sub vs. $800+ and counting over 6 years is fairly simple to understand.

    You are also assuming a new player would buy one right at the get go. A new subscriber may see the GR box set on the shelf at the store advertising a lifetime sub, which in their mind is a good deal if they like the game. That incentive may get them to try the game for a month (which I am thinking the purchase of GR will include a free month of gameplay) and then pay for a lifetime sub if they like it.

    People are also assuming the majority (existing and new players) would buy a lifetime subscription. Some will, some will not. No one knows for sure what the exact figures would be.
  11. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill View Post
    I wouldn't mind seeing it - kind of an "auto homing butt" when you use the current sit emotes.
    WoW uses something similar to this concept. You can click on chairs within the environment and your avatar will sit on them.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CapnGeist View Post
    Seems like a lot of work for an effect that no too many really care about.
    Where are you getting "not too many care about" from? "Not too many" cared about Walk either... yet we have it now.

    I'm all for this idea. I would like it to be coupled with chairs our toons can fit in though. The ones we have now seem to be either too small or ridiculously large.
  12. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Steampunkette View Post
    Well... Obviously someone isn't paying attention! let's go over this, again.
    Obviously.

    Quote:
    Offering a $200 Lifetime subscription within one month of Going Rogue's Release would be a bad idea. Why? Because those 120,000 new players aren't going to plop down $230 on a game they've never played before.
    Read above where I am referring to NEW subscribers, not the existing base. Offering a lifetime sub is a good deal and can be an incentive for new subscribers.

    Quote:
    Now. Let's assume ....
    All you are doing is assuming. You are assuming offering lifetime subs would negatively impact the game when you have no idea whether it would or not. Sure, it might. Then again, it might not.

    Quote:
    How long would you continue working 40 hours a week without a raise or bonus, regardless of how many new innovations you've created?
    I happen to know quite a few people who have not received any pay raises in the last 3 years, let alone EVER receiving any kind of bonuses.
  13. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Forbin_Project View Post
    STO has at least 500,000 subscribers less than a month from launch and can afford to keep offering lifetime subs. If handled right STO could easily be Cryptics version of WoW with millions of customers.

    CoH on the other hand has maybe 120,000 subs. Do you think server transfers and booster packs are going to make up for the lost income from monthly subs after 80% of the players buy lifetime subs and CoH no longer has sub fees coming in a year later?

    Lifetime subs would be a death sentence for the game at this point.
    And for all anyone knows, offering a lifetime sub along with a new, boxed expansion like GR potentially could bring in another 120,000 more subscribers to play the game because it is a "good deal". You are guessing at what the impact would be.

    You are also guessing that 80% of the playerbase would buy a lifetime sub. For all anyone knows, it would be less than 1% who would.
  14. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fleeting Whisper View Post
    In fact, for a game that has been out for years, suddenly offering lifetime subscriptions can be interpreted by the industry as a white flag, and a mad dash to grab some extra cash before the game goes under.
    You mean like paid expansions (CoV, GR), server transfers, booster packs, character slots etc?

    You are guessing that offering a liftetime sub would be interpreted as any kind of "white flag" to the industry.

    Quote:
    why? we all know that most everyone would take it. fine. but what happens when the money generated from the group that didn't take it isn't enough to keep development going? the game shuts down. i will repeat: THIS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA FOR THIS VERSION OF COX.
    See above. NCSoft has been making money in numerous other ways to "keep the game going".
  15. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sharker_Quint View Post
    and STO just recently came out. this game has been around for 6 yrs almost and is to far in to offer anything like this for this game. if they make a CoX2 then fine, offer it for that for the first month or so. for this game, NO.
    They could offer one with the release of Going Rogue. Offering a lifetime sub would not signal the deathrose of this game as many seem to believe it would.
  16. Quote:
    Originally Posted by RoboBug View Post
    the best part of this thread is that people think this is debatable.
    I think the reply about Shatner's toupee was the highlight of the thread.
  17. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow View Post
    ...but if THIS is what bothers people about rep comments... Let's put it this way, you have to go FAR out of your way to see it.

    It's not an ideal comparison, but to me, the effort required to actually find these insulting rep comments is somewhere on the order of scanning someone else's e-mail to see if he's not saying bad things about you.
    Exactly.
  18. Quote:
    Originally Posted by BBQ_Pork View Post
    You have to click on the "add Rep" button of each and every recent post you've made until you find the one with the comment.
    This speaks volumes about players who are complaining about rep comments. In order for you to see these, you literally have to click the rep icon in every post you made. Just think about that for a minute.
  19. Miss_Freeze_NA

    An Arch Nemesis

    IIRC Positron mentioned this as a possibility ages ago. It is a fun idea, yet I am inclined to agree with those that AE is the route to go in terms of creating an Arch Nemesis for your toons. The player has much more creative control over their design and story than they would if this was "pre-programmed". Good suggestion though.
  20. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Crim_the_Cold View Post
    Have some dignity and dont respond or even notice them.
    Well said.
  21. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tokyo View Post
    I love this statement...

    "No offense, but your sister is a skank."

    "No offense, but you look really fat."

    "No offense, but you're so ugly it looks like you fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down."

    As if these two words suddenly excuses the individual from the proceeding denigrating remark. *eye roles*

    "no offense" doesn't excuse you.

    I find your post to be "bullying" and "harrassing" so I'm going to report you to a Mod.
  22. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Silver Gale View Post
    So if someone uses forum posts for bullying, then we should disallow forum posts?
    Please don't give the OP any ideas....
  23. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    I said if they violate forum rules which are personal insult or threats. Maybe try reading comprehension before you attack someone's post. I have reported it when have been called profane names and have been threatened. I do not report when someone disagrees with me or leave coward comments like my most recent one "we hate you, go back to freedom"
    To start, I was not "attacking" you or your post. I simply disagree with some of the things you posted. Perhaps you might extend some of that reading comprehension you suggested to others before typing a reply...

    Second, I was not referring to you alone (as anyone with some reading comprehension can see) in that I was citing some of the wording mentioned by the OP in my reply. My apologies if that was unclear, yet it is also to some degree proving my point.

    Lastly, I will repeat that I personally believe people like yourself and the OP should consider growing thicker skin and just learn to ignore the nonsense. If someone saying they "hate you" and want you to "go back to Freedom" truly bothers you that much or (like the OP) feel "bullyed" because someone negative reps you or leaves a snarky comment or tag, then perhaps you should consider another social outlet.
  24. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    Just as a reminder tags, rep and PM's are all subject to forum rules. If you get/see one that violates these rules PM a mod (i suggest Mod08) and let him know. Just because you can't see who tagged/rep'd doesn't mean they can't.
    No offense meant here but you should consider growing thicker skin.

    Sure, posts/tags/whatever should be removed if they are truly offensive or outright threatening to someone, yet the majority of ones I see are nothing I would consider all that terrible.

    Spamming the Mods to remove posts/tags/comments because someone said you were dumb or disagreed with you or negative repped you is just plain silly and a waste of Mod time. It is also my personal opinion that it is a far cry from "bullying" or "graffitti" or whatever else you want to call it.

    If posting on an internet forum really bothers you this much, perhaps you may want to consider not surfing the internet anymore.