UberGuy

Yeah, while it's a PITA if you're trying to join a RWZ raid and get locked out, the limit exists to keep the zone from croaking under the strain of letting too many people in.

What most of us really want is for them to find ways for the zones to allow more people in without crippling lag. But as long as they can't do that, lower limits are going to be appropriate.

All that said, I was absolutely blown away at how many entities were being spawned in Atlas for the "invasion" on Justice yesterday. There were whole parking lots crammed as full as they could be with Seedlings, and that was in a near continuous loop all around city hall, as well as extending down side streets. Not only have I never seen so many entities in a zone that wasn't brought down to a slideshow, I have also surely never looked at so many rendered entities at a time in this game. Normally, even if they're there, they won't all render. I was duly impressed.

Prompted to look at them based on this mention of having to log in every time, it seems all our vb session cookies are set to expire at the end of our current session, which means "until we close the browser".

I didn't notice this until it was mentioned, as I tend to leave my computer on and my browser open all the time. I thought the need to log in on restarts was related to the old bug, but now I don't think so.

However, it's remotely possible this may have been changed as a workaround to whatever was causing the sessions to incorrectly expire previously.

Worse, it's actually a violation of the new forum rules to post other people's globals. I realize it's not likely being done in a malicious way, but as others have said, it's not a good idea anyway, so risking running afoul of the forum rules just makes an already ... suboptimal thing worse.

It seems odd to me that they would reject someone's PayPal payment. But I don't use PP for much of anything, so I have little experience with it.

What Mac said. Basically, anyone who does want this for PvP purposes is going to have to pay more for it just because there aren't very many for sale compared to most melee damage sets that drop in PvE. The supply is very low, and the market rewards whoever has the largest bid out with the purchase. So even if not many people are buying those hard-to-obtain PvP drop goods, the ones that do are still motivated to bid high, to try and make sure they get what they are looking for when it comes along.

Looking at the set's bonuses, I would be a bit surprised if anyone making a PvE-centric build would be forking out higher costs for pieces of this set.

I'm fairly laid back about what other people type, and I pretty much never correct them. Like some others here, it irritates the crap out of me when people type stuff like "r u lft". I don't know why it irritates me so much, because I can't really justify it logically, but I really don't like that kind of typing. I refuse to type like that personally even when sending text messages, and I have an old phone where using that sort of shorthand would speed it up considerably.

Sometimes I get it. If you're calling for help in chat and need to be mashing attack keys, spending the extra moments to spell out a correctly spelled/capitalized/punctuated sentence isn't the right priority, especially if you're a poor typist. I think a good example of that kind of thing is calling for help in the BAF prisoner phase when a prisoner is about to get away.

I notice lack of punctuation, but it rarely irritates me as long as it's happening in otherwise mostly correct typing, as context is usually sufficient to piece together the ambiguities that result. Likewise, I notice lack of capitalization, but it rarely irritates me. Mixing lack of capitalization and lack of punctuation starts to irritate me very mildly, but I am mostly inured to it after all these years of online gaming.

However, names that lack capitalization bother me.

If somebody named "fire.bomber" and send me a tell like "cn u oro" I am very likely to ignore them. Admitting it makes me feel it's petty, but it's true. It gives me the impression that the person is lazy, dumb, or both. That may be neither fair nor accurate, but it makes me not want to interact with them.

Edit: Full disclosure - I tend not to put periods on my ending statements in online chat. There's something about doing so that strikes me as too proper. I have concluded that this is partly because chat has another delimiter in the form of the rather obvious <end-of-line> break that ends a chat entry. Therefore, putting a period isn't usually necessary to convey <end-of-statement>. However, that's true only if the statement is the last one on the line. If I put multiple statements on a single chat line, I put periods at the ends of leading ones. Also, periods are the only terminating punctuation I omit this way. For example, I don't end questions without a question mark (except accidentally).

On Justice they are relatively common to see formed after Hamidon raids on Monday or Wednesday. As far as I know, they are impromptu, with that very loosely fixed post-Hami timing being a good time to snag people who were already all doing something in common.

I know what they're talking about, and had no idea this was done. It seems pretty poor, especially with regards to Face 1. It's really not the same face.

It seems to me that you're viewing everything provided by the service, ever, as something that's included when you consider "what you get" when you buy the product. The problem with that is that they're pretty orthogonal when you contrast buying a boxed product (even if you buy it as a download) and a subscription service. You clearly consider what you get when you buy a box indistinguishable from the service itself. But that's only one possible way to view it.

If you bought an old-school CoH boxed product, it had a feature list on it, along with a disclaimer saying "online experience subject to change". Few people would complain if the online experience added more things than just the ones on the box, so the disclaimer is primarily there to defend against people who would complain against things that are removed or dramatically altered.

That disclaimer, though, isn't going to protect the game maker if the product is significantly different than the box feature list at release. There is an expectation that, when the purchased product bundle is new, the actual features of the onine game will line up with the advertised features of the packaged product. If the features do not line up, buyers have some recourse to complain and probably be refunded.

Despite that, no one would reasonably hold the game maker accountable if that packaged product was bought a year after it was released and someone complained that, a year later, the game didn't match the packaged product.

So there is a distinction allowed between the features of the game service accessed by a buyer of the packaged product when it was new, and the features of the service at a later time. That distinction has to exist to protect consumers in the short term and game makers in the longer term.

When I say "Going Rogue", the product, I am talking about the feature set of the CoH game service that existed when GR was brand new. When I bought GR, that's what it got me. It specifically unlocked certain things in the game that I couldn't access witout buying it, even though I had a subscription at the time. What I got when I bought it was some combination of the advertised features, plus any unadvertised features that were active when I started using it.

One of those things was not Incarnate access, because that wasn't yet accessible to anyone.

From my point of view, discussing "what you get" when you buy a packaged expansion demands looking at the time-frozen feature set the way I am. Looking at it the other way - as a service that evolves over time, makes any effort to discuss what was "included" with a particular release meaningless. It suggests the validity of statements like Inventions were "included" in I6, because ED was a prerequisite for them. From a certain, very oblique way of looking at it, one might make the argument that such a thing is true, but I don't find it useful when discussing what was "included" in a paricular product or release.