UberGuy

That's correct. Originally, there was no limit on how many critters you could aggro by whatever means you had of drawing aggro. Provoke, Rad Infection, you name it.

My in-game friends and I didn't know there were actual geometry-style bugs with Eden until its rewards were changed, because we were clocking exploit-grade times without actually cheating. Well, no more than stacked buffs and the like let us all cheat all the time, at least.

Not really. All the Paragon staff have access to are existing tools and assets. They cannot code up new things for the end of the game. That's not directly comparable with the other examples here. The other studios did stay open and development changes were possible. That's not the case here. That aspect of this was up to NCSoft.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Folks who have long-term subscriptions paid past the sunset date should have had a response before now. That's the kind of info NCSoft should have had on-hand the day they closed the studio.

Wow, holy crap. Thank you for not listening to them. Navigating via the compass blows. There's something about the way it displays, after 8 years of using it, I never can look at the compass heading and turn the correct number of degrees to correctly face a waypoint without visually monitoring the compass as I make that turn. I don't know why that its - there's somethng about the number of degrees it displays left and right of center that screws up my ability to translate what it's showing me into a rotation of my character.

Hopefully you didn't design the compass too. >.>

I know you were posting this in response to WHF, but I did want to mention on this specific that those of us who did this (I did it too on my second account) did get something out of it. We gained extra Paragon Rewards benefits on our accounts.

Even if I never get to spend the points I bought doing that, I did get at least partial value out of that expenditure, and still am getting benefit out of it now.

Overall, I'm pretty unconcerned about points never spent. I mean, I'm not crazy bout it, but I wouldn't consider going after NCSoft relating to points even if it were easy to drag them into some sort of process for such claims.

Lost subscription time is a different beast all together for me, and I would consider going after them for that even knowing what a pain in the *** it could be.

I don't really think that makes sense as the reason. The EULA can't transfer to NCSoft the ownership of a trademark that someone else owns, so it would have no power over Marvel if they sneaked in and recreated their own characters. What was really needed there was a clear statement that trademarks owned by others would not be allowed in CoH, in order to protect Cryptic/NCSoft from lawsuit by other companies.

It does depend on how they choose to reimburse us, assuming they do. I have paid months yet to come. If I play here for those months, I would sort of expect the points.

I'm not going to pitch a fit if I don't get them, just because I understand that how they're handling this, seemingly with zero planning, is all kinds of F'd up in general. However, I don't feel bad about pitching a fit about how F'd up it is in general, as opposed to this specifically.

Said clause is virtually unenforceable so long as any use of the character outside the confines of CoH is purged of all CoH trademarks, possibly including distinctive costume elements.

Heh. Nice. My friends and I had another bud in beta who leaked it to us, but it would have taken longer for sure to percolate from us to the larger forum community. It would have made its way through several rounds of friends first, most likely.

He mailed a copy of the explanation that .. Posi, wasn't it? ... posted on the beta forums to the rest of us at our work mail accounts, heh.

Yes, a simple CRC32 would be an armature way to "sign" the file. Where did the idea come from that this is all that was done? Edit: I'm guessing it's because the checksum looks like a 32-bit number.

I've actually defeated CRC32 checksumming in (old) games. I know how to do it, so I agree that it would be very poor as a defense mechanism.

Yeah, I don't give much credit to it being in the EULA. That isn't really proven protection.

Here's the thing. I am completely on board with them having cover with the EULA for things like...

• Someone bought something they did not like after they tried it and they want to "return" it.
• Someone bought something they did like, but it was changed after they bought it to something they no longer like (or like as much).

While it would behoove companies to have less than draconian approaches to such cases, there are defensible, if unfortunate, reasons why they usually take a black-and-white approach to them.

This case is not like those cases. This is a case of someone having paid in advance for a service that is being discontinued. I believe there is merit here in fighting for something better than "here, take this non-equivalent service in compensation".

Note that we do not know what, if anything NCSoft is planning to offer. Apparently some formal reply about the general compensation question is forthcoming. But if it amounts to "here's some complimentary time on other games", I think people have a place rejecting that (assuming they actually don't want to try the other games).

Note that, assuming there's any chance of getting a refund instead of free time with another title (possibly a significant assumption), even trying other games using offered account codes likely would be counted as acceptance of the offer, and thus would relinquish any rights to a refund.

Dude.

Doooooood.

That is awesome. No, really, not the tired, overused version of that word. I mean it in the dictionary meaning of "inspiring awe".

I just shared that all over Facebook with links to this thread.

For what its worth, the same thought crossed my mind reading Kitsune's post. (The thought in your reply here, not the one Kitsune expressed.)

Yes, they were. If it wasn't what they paid for. If they decided to accept an offer of such, then that's fine. If they didn't, and NCSoft said "OK, sorry, then we're just keeping you're money", then that's beyond lame.

There is no other industry where I would accept that behavior from a vendor of any good or service. If I pay for something and they (a) can't deliver what I paid them to give me and (b) I am unwilling to accept any substitute, then they owe me my money back, prorated based on any goods or services actually provided. The end.

The act of making me an offer of substitute goods does not free them from this debt unless I explicitly accept the offer.

I will not be faced with this issue with CoH, as I paid my subscription on a 3-month cycle which will expire before Nov. 30.

There's a counter-example here. Sounds like it's a crapshoot.

Ascendant-O's