Selina_H

They're not VIP only, but VIPs do get them for free while the subscription is active. Everyone else needs to pay for them.

Tangent here, but it's not a good idea to use the wikia; it's not maintained and can infect your system with malware. Use the Paragon Wiki instead: paragonwiki.com or wiki.cohtitan.com (both addresses are the same site).

Just a note: Paragon Rewards tier-based unlocks, such as global chat, consignment house and inventions access and archetype unlocks, don't actually require tokens to be spent. The account just needs to have earned the appropriate number of tokens and these things should unlock themselves automatically.

Now, whether or not the correct number of tokens has actually been credited to your account...

The same page also lists Tier 3 as increasing the cap for Premium players to 1 billion.

To be fair, it's possible that the phrase "In my mind" was meant to apply to the entire remainder of the paragraph, not just to the sentence it was used in. Most posters probably aren't going to put in multiple, potentially redundant disclaimers just to prevent a few people from misinterpreting the post.

That said, the way David has said they'll try to design costumes from now on satisfies me. It sounds like we'll be getting more unisex parts as well as some pretty, feminine pieces. And they know now not to create matched sets which heavily imply different gender roles for different character models, which was my big complaint with the Gunslinger pack.

Those arguments *were* brought up in other parts of the game. This is why we now have a deterministic option to spend merits for selected IO recipes instead of only random end-of-TF drops (Crap of the Hunter, anyone?). This is why we have Empyrean merits instead of having to rely solely on random salvage drops for Incarnate progress.

Yes, the primary reason people dislike this one is because it's random. That's the entire argument. "We don't want forced random item purchases without an included deterministic option; please include a direct purchase option." You keep trying to blow off the fact that it's random and focusing on other aspects that you *think* they're objecting to, when the crux of the matter is that people don't want a random option to be the only way to get these items.

It's not preposterous. It's a preference. People might not like all the costume items in other sets, but they have the option of deciding whether or not to purchase based on what they know will be in the pack. It's not like there's some surprise (except if people haven't done their due diligence, in which case caveat emptor). There's no roll of the dice; the pieces are predetermined.

With the Super Packs, you can't be sure at all what's going to be in the pack. Many people prefer not to spend money on a *chance* to get the pieces they want; they would rather purchase the pieces outright, knowing exactly what they'll get.

And for both the consumer and Paragon Studios, this is a bad thing. The player ends up not getting what (s)he wants, and Paragon ends up not getting money. Lose-lose.

They have been. See above.

Boosters were NOT rolls of the dice; they were predetermined items in a set, packaged together. Players had the option to research the contents of the pack before making the decision whether or not to purchase. The packs are not comparable. Nobody can research the contents of the Super Packs, determine what exactly will be in any given pack, and decide whether or not to purchase based on that information.

First of all, given the sheer number of different items reasonably expected to be in the packs, it's not going to be anywhere near a 50/50 chance. There have been posts detailing how, in other games with similar "CCG" mechanisms, some players have spent as much as $70 or even $250 to complete their sets.

Second, the fact that people prefer a "sure thing" isn't a fallacy. It can't be, as it's a purely subjective preference. And people who don't want random packs and would prefer to simply purchase the pieces they want are arguing that the devs should include a deterministic option, because it gets both the players and the company what they want.

At least part of that argument must have been compelling, because they *are* adding deterministic options for at least some items.

So you've defined the essence of life as gambling, so anyone who hates gambling hates life? What if I define the essence of life as pie? After all, pie is a large slice of life (horrible pun intended). Clearly, then, anyone who hates pie hates life.

I certainly don't want you to get hit by a bus. This isn't personal. What I take issue with is in your trying to take a preconceived notion you have ("People are being dishonest about why they dislike the packs") and using all kinds of convoluted leaps of logic in order to make it seem true in your mind.

I don't think people are being dishonest about why they don't like the packs: They simply don't like spending money on a random option. In fact, it seems that many of these people don't even have a problem with the packs per se, but the fact that they were originally introduced without an additional deterministic option to purchase.

As a final note, I regret to inform you that trying to get people to be better people by making posts on an Internet forum may not have the degree of success you're hoping for. But I get the feeling you already know that.

Not buying the packs is a viable option. Not getting of bed (for most people) or not breathing (for all people) are not viable options. The two aren't comparable.

No one made the same complaints before because the situations are not equivalent. We've never had a booster, a pack or an individual costume piece where the items you paid for were not predetermined and could reasonably have been known to the buyer. Posters are complaining about the random nature of the packs, not having to spend money per se. The "CCG" concept *is* a new concept for Paragon Studios in regards to paid content. What was that you were saying about a brick wall?

You're not going to get people to realize they're being something they're not by positing ridiculous comparisons and logical fallacies.

The arguments are not invalid and don't apply to any other paid content. Because the argument is "We don't want to be forced to pay for a pack of RANDOM items in order to get what we want."

Again, glossing over the fact that it's precisely the method that's being objected to, not the fact that it is paid content.

No other *paid content* require the purchase of random rather than predetermined items.

Making the same specious arguments over and over again isn't going to make people suddenly see the light and agree with you.

People are not complaining about having to purchase costumes, per se. These kind of complaints didn't exist with the Celestial set because spending the reward tokens got you a predetermined, set number and type of pieces. People don't know if they will immediately, eventually or ever get the pieces they want from a Super Pack. Is it really that hard for you to see the difference?

Nobody is complaining about having to spend money for costume pieces; in fact, many posters have reiterated their willingness to purchase the pieces a la carte. What they're not willing to do is shell out for some unknown probability chance that they'll get the piece(s) they want. Again, not rocket surgery.

See above. People want to be able to buy the pieces, not buy a shot at getting the pieces. With Super Boosters, you knew you'd get x,y,z costume parts, and you could decide whether or not to purchase based on that. Whether or not buyers disliked or didn't use some of the pieces, they still got exactly the parts they paid for.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, in this thread is upset about actually having to spend money to buy points for costume pieces. Posters are arguing specifically against the random nature of the packs, which you seem to want to gloss over in order to to make your straw man look prettier.

So if I hate the little raspberry they put on top of my brownie, clearly I hate the entire dessert. If I don't particularly fancy the Incarnate system, I hate CoH. Fallacy of composition.

Why would you care about any of that? After all, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow, right?

It still necessitates spending real money in the Market, unless you're Tier 9 and okay with waiting and spending all future tokens for some months to come on nothing but boosters.

QFE. The least they can do is make sure all defeat-alls have that notation in the mission objective bar from the beginning of the mission.

As Zombie Man stated, globals work this way, but procs don't. With procs the power they're slotted in must be active, but the level of the enhancement doesn't matter.

Performance Shifter: Chance for +End is also a proc, not a global.

A global stops working if you exemp more than 3 levels below the level of the IO, but will still be active even if the power it's slotted in is unavailable. A proc triggers off use of the power it's in, but the actual level of the IO doesn't matter - just as long as the power is still available.

The Numina's unique and the Perf Shifter proc work the same way, except the Numina's has a guaranteed (100%) chance to fire.

All parts of the arc are on the same timer, so you can only get credit for one part per week per reward. However, the very first time you run any part of an SSA arc will always allow reward selection. Many players were able to get 3 alignment merits in a single week by running Part 1 for the first time, Part 2 for the first time and then either one again (but not both) for the timed reward table.

This.

It's nice to have the token, but not knowing when to expect rewards makes it difficult to figure out if we're on track or if we need to contact Support (who seem to know as little as we do at this point, anyway).

If September sub time doesn't count due to the official launch being on September 27, then I have the correct number of tokens (with the token received today awarded for October paid time). If we are being credited for September, I'm still behind.

Note that if you're putting the proc into inherent Stamina, and you're already high level, you might as well go with whatever level is available and cheap if you're planning to buy from the AH. Since any level proc will remain active as long as the power it's in is still available, a level 50 proc in Stamina will work exemped all the way down to level 1. The only advantage you'd have with a lower-level proc is being able to slot it at an earlier level.

As I said, you're not *supposed* to, at least as far as the information released on VIP/Premium and Tiered rewards is concerned. EAT access is not listed as a Tier reward, although MM/Controller access is.

But as you've noted, some players are still retaining access despite dropping subscription. There are also reports of free players being able to use /reply, even though we've been told they're not supposed to. On both fronts, we'll just have to wait and see if the devs decide officially to include these as "features," or whether they'll "fix" the unintended access by removing it.

You won't. Or, at least, you're not supposed to - although I've heard some players say they still had access to their HEATs and VEATs after they downgraded.

If you end up without access, it's still available in the Paragon Market. But there's no Tier reward to unlock epics like there is for trollers and MMs.

I remember it working differently before as well.

Everyone gets this token, even free players. I don't consider this an early award token for September, so I'm still behind.

I didn't get a token on September 28. I've been told I'll be getting one on *October* 28, so I'm still behind. The "free" token was not an early award of the September token; it's something everyone gets. Even people who don't pay.

What seems to be happening is that we aren't being given credit at all for paid time during September, since the *official* Freedom launch was at the end of the month (the 27th or 28th, if other posters are correct). If they're only tracking paid time since then as "rewardable," then the date of October 28th as our first post-transition reward makes sense. But it does mean that we've paid for "free" time (in terms of token rewards) since the soft launch - which would not have been quite so bad if we'd at least been told about it.

We already have one:

I was told the same thing, although the 28th makes some degree of sense in my case, since (IIRC) that was my old vet reward date. The problem is we're being told A) Tokens reward on your old vet reward date, *AND* B) You have to play through your entire paid month before getting the token. (Both responses were part of the stock answer I received from Support regarding this issue.)

For me, due to lapses and free time, my billing date is now the 9th; my vet reward date is the 28th. My paid month was September 9 - October 9. A token would normally reward either on my vet date of September 28, or on the last day of the paid month (October 9), but no token was granted. Trying to wrap my head around *why* things are the way they are, I considered the following:

Scenario 1: Since Freedom launched on the 13th, September 9 - October 9 does not count as a full paid month. No token granted for September. The next reward will be for the paid month of October-November.

Scenario 2: The reward date of September 28 falls within the paid period, but tokens must be awarded only after paid time completes. The next reward date *after* the September-October period is October 28, so a token will be granted at that time.

While either scenario *might* be what's going on, neither is acceptable. Reward dates need to be made both timely and consistent.

Except it seems that some of us didn't. For example, my main account, which has the 72-month vet reward, has been stuck at 32 tokens; I should have 33 (24 from vet rewards, 6 from yearly bonus, 1 from box, 1 for having an account, 1 for September).