TrueGentleman

And one that apparently took the lion's share of that season's budget, too.

The good news is that the episode is the earliest intact one from Troughton's tenure, so we can finally see how he took over from Hartnell and not only made the role his own but also established that it was possible for the Doctor to be played by multiple actors.

In this sneak peek, Troughton shows how his performance could differentiate itself, even in the face of a scenery-chewing mad scientist villain.

Then all we need to do is consider how Architect Entertainment affected the game and its economy for a pessimistic scenario...

Look around you, do you seriously think that comics controversies aren't bread and butter to posters here? I have my own somewhat prickly opinions about the value of Robinson's work on Batman, but this isn't the venue to air them. If you had serious views about them, then why did you wait for an obit thread to indulge in them in the name of candor? Hastily glossing over the numerous issues over creative credit that Robinson, Finger, and Kane had here doesn't show respect to anyone involved.

You didn't say much of anything about Robinson here while he was alive, either. Bringing up the whole Conrad Veidt-vs-playing card debate over the Joker now is neither appropriate nor news. (This is a comics-related forum - most of us know all about it.) "Just saying" is a shrug of would-be candor that doesn't have a place in an obit thread.

So Robinson helped create Two-Face and Alfred Pennyworthy and now is dead while you're alive and "frank"? Is that your point?

RIP, Mr. Robinson. De mortuis nihil nisi bonum.

And if you think Inf. inflation is bad now, just imagine what it will be like if ATIOs were tradeable. That would make purples look like penny candy.

That's Facebook working as intended. That company really is the worst thing to ever happen to social networking. Here's hoping Paragon Studios doesn't come to rely on it.

The official forums are a far better place for allowing constructive criticism.

No, the issue is that Paragon Studios is suddenly and unexpectedly planning to add a probabilistic sales option to the deterministic ones the CoH playerbase is accustomed to. Whether buying the old Booster Packs under the old subscription model or current items on Paragon Market under 'Freedom', we could count on knowing exactly what we were purchasing for our money. The proposed Super Packs will change all of that. Tweak the parameters of the equation to the Coupon Collector's Problem if necessary, the concept still reflects basically what we're dealing with.

It's encouraging that the devs are listening to our feedback about the Super Packs here on the forums, and they've made several changes to the model since it was announced at Pummit. Here's hoping they'll continue to compromise and will offer alternatives to players who, after all, would be perfectly happy to purchase the items at a fair price on the regular Paragon Market.

That's the kind of deal Paragon Studios should be advertising to promote VIP subscriptions. The opportunity to buy costume packs would of course be only one of the many benefits VIPers receive. If subscription marketing tells us anything, when someone signs up, even for the minimum length, there's a psychological propensity to stay subscribed after the initial period expires. And as the devs assured us numerous times before CoH Freedom launched, VIPers are the ultimate focus for the game, and their preferred outcome for the hyrbid F2P-MTX-subscription model is for Preems to convert to VIPers.

Besides, at 80 PP a throw, what's the betting that $15+the costume set price would be the better deal for someone who wanted a complete costume set? (Spoiler: Very good odds.)

Thank you for the clarification. VIP-only benefits would surely be a sufficiently worthwhile longterm investment for both players and Paragon Studios to make such a code-change advantageous. CoH Freedom was a significant enough change in the business model that such considerations will naturally arise.

Why would that be an argument? Players were able to keep their assorted pre-Freedom benefits, after all. In principle, this is the same.

This kind of sales technique is nothing new, either in the real world - from baseball cards to CCGs - or in MMOs, especially F2P ones. Anyone paying attention to such things has already got a good idea whether or not they're acceptable to them. To judge from the swift wave of informed and well articulated responses here on the forums, many players do not like the concept of the Super Packs in general, based on review or experience elsewhere. To discount what they've had to say, often at length, as "snap-judgments" seems like a precipitous response in itself.

In any case, Paragon Studios has been paying attention to the feedback on the forums and seems willing to work with the playerbase to find a broadly acceptable way of implementing the Super Packs. We shall see how it goes.

Hear, hear. I'd also like to see the return of the Snakes missions on Red Side for some variety (while we certainly grew tired of them when they were the only option, there was no compelling reason to remove them completely.

Please, to reiterate an earlier request, use new GR-style options, such as fixed-door missions, glowies, and exta dialogue options for immersion, and update lore references to take the last several years into account. When the devs at Blizzard decided to roll out their recent ambitious expansion for the end game, they also redid the early content for all eight starting zones, knowing that would not only draw new players, but also retain veteran ones. The alternative is grinding Death from Below to avoid the worse monotony of CoH's current single-path starting environments.

80 points is still likely to be too high when the final calculations are made for what it will cost players looking for completeness. The Coupon Collector's Problem comes into play here. Please consider reducing the Super Pack individual cost further and the bulk discount even more proportionately.

So far, the preference in this thread seems to favor DarkGob's idea of gating costume sets for market purchase behind VIP status over Samuel Tow's of delaying them. Some combination of the two might be an intriguing sales tactic, e.g. VIPs could purchase the proposed costume sets upon release at the Paragon Market while Preems would have to wait until, say, the release of a subsequent Super Pack costume set to have that option.

This is welcome news. Although it raises potential issues with raid grinding and pay-to-win scenarios, it's far preferable to either Super Pack exclusivity or auction house saleability. Just to re-emphasize, the overall playerbase does not want real money transactions to be tied to inf. in any way.

Thanks again for keeping us informed about Paragon Studios' decision-making, Zwillinger. We look forward to providing further feedback.

Exactly. And add to this:

• OS X support issues: client's stability, market reliability, and NC Launcher bad patching
• Erratic server behavior and downtime
• Unscheduled server maintenance

(The last two have improved lately, but the first is an ongoing general problem.)

Mr. Positron, flip the bit in the market data base come next Tuesday so that we can actually buy this item in addition to seeing it for sale.

It's a huge mistake to reproduce those sketches as even quasi-official artwork at this stage.

On the other hand, Noble Savage started a terrific workshop thread to continue to poll players about what they wanted from this work-in-progress costume pack.

Frankly, it's an unforced error for the Paragon Market to set limited availability on virtual goods, even if they're themed for a holiday. In the real world, holiday items are offered to coincide with the event, produced in the carefully estimated amounts to meet demand, and then greatly reduced afterward to clear whatever remaining stock in time for the next holiday. None of that matters with virtual goods since production and inventory aren't concerns at all and marketing/advertising is only a nominal cost.

If Paragon Studios' marketing department would consider these factors, the most profitable strategy is to offer holiday-themed items at a reduced price during the event and then keep them available at full price for the rest of the year. (Since this is a for-purchase only item and can't be achieved in game, we're talking about a different case from holiday-themed virtual events, which are designed to promote community activity and attendance.)

Really, this is online marketing 101.

While the Pilgrim Hat is still clearly being offered by the Tailor and can be added to the shopping basket, checking out at the market results in an UNKNOWN ITEM IN SKU error.

Come on, Paragon Studios, get your act together. This is absurd.

Thanks for the tailor tip - I'll try that later. Originally, I tried to purchase it through the Paragon Market interface, which naturally crashed my OS X client (but that's a help ticket for another thread).

More to the point, it was listed on the official web site as being "Available now [November 22] through 29 November", but when I checked the Paragon Market on the 29th, it was nowhere to be found. I still have an open support ticket about this glitch.

Also, whose dense idea in marketing was it to have an item available for only a week during one of the most-travelled holidays of the year in the US? It's likely a lot of people simply didn't have the time to check in with the game because of real-life responsibilities.