So we got Roman Pack this week and some new sets in the market

Paragon Studios Marketing has done more to alienate me from this game than anything Jack Emmert ever said or did. It has alienated me more than ED, the GDN, more than Inventions (and I ******* HATE Inventions) and so on. I don't know who's in charge, I don't know who's making the decisions, but this trainwreck of a marketing campaign has gone from one disaster to the next, seemingly incapable of making a right choice to save their lives.

I have beyond given up on Marketing to care at this point. I've accepted the simple fact that they're here to make money off of me, and are not above using the ugliest, dirtiest, most underhanded tricks to do so, and failing to hide what they're doing. So if I'm told that they're holding off these weapons for my own good, I don't believe them. If they release a weapons pack with everything in it later this year, I won't be in the slightest surprise.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. It's too late for me to care that someone's trying to manipulate me out of my money, especially since it's clear for all the world to see that that's the case. Because "marketing" is black magic. You can't approach the customer like a rational human being looking for good service, oh no. Because if you do, then you can't scam people. So you have to find ways to trick your customers into buying crap they don't need, like trying to make people buy consumables by bundling them with things people actually DO want to buy.

You know, just for once, I'd like the Marketing department to stop acting like the Wizard of Oz and just level with us. Tell us what they're planning and why they're planning it, what they hope to achieve and what their concerns are, involve us in the process and maybe we'll work something out that benefits everyone. But no, that can't happen, because we can't know the kind of strategies being played out to part a fool and his gold, can we?

Whatever. Upon reviewing the Roman pack, I've decided that there's enough stuff in there to be worth 400 points, and the stuff that's not in there will likely show up in another pack later down the road. As such, I see no reason to not get it. But if I do buy this pack, it will be DESPITE Marketing's best efforts, not because of them.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

This is one of the things I had major misgivings about when the free-to-play model came to light.

In most cases that I've seen, F2P is all about nickel-and-diming players to death. Completely F2P games are the worst because they employ all kinds of sleazy tactics to try to milk every last penny they can.

In a Hybrid model it doesn't necessarily have to be that way, but it can be very tempting to do the same even to subscribers, pushing the line of how much you get can before they decide not to subscribe anymore. I've yet to see a corporate manager that could resist that kind of temptation for long.

The worst part of it is that such a setup puts the developers directly at odds with the players. Instead of both sharing the mutual goal of having a game that's fun enough and engaging enough to want to subscribe to, the developers goal shifts toward making as much money off microtransactions as possible, while the players' goals shift toward getting as much enjoyment as they can for as little money as possible.

Due to those conflicting goals, all it takes is one major misstep for the developers to alienate the playerbase and be seen as dishonest and self-serving. Players no longer trust that the developers have what's best for them at heart, and view anything they do with suspicion. Once that trust is lost, it's almost impossible to regain.

I've seen several people who feel that way already, and it would be sad if it happens on a widespread basis. We've traditionally always had a fairly good rapport with the developers, run-ins with Jack Emmert aside, and that's a major thing that has set this game apart from the others. It would be a shame to lose that.

They're selling a collection of costume pieces at a discount to what it would be if you bought each piece separately. What they decide to offer is their discretion. Just because something exists and would fit doesn't mean you're entitled to it.

They're the ones defining the bundle. Heck they could throw in a minotaur and cyclops-appearance temp power at their discretion if they so chose.

Look at the pack as the sum of all its parts and see if its worth it. If it isn't, don't get it.

Well technically the only costume piece being sold in the pack is the new Cupid's Bow.

The rest of the items are part of a global unlock that allows the purchaser global account access to pre-existing costume pieces that are normally restricted to individual characters that have met the necesarry requirements that unlock the costume pieces.

a. The character is level 35+
b. The character has completed the ITF
c. The character has earned the Centurion Badge


This is just like the Cape and Aura unlocks where the unlock only grants level 1 access to certain capes and auras. While other capes and auras either have to be bought separately or earned/unlocked separately in the game.

That is all perfectly valid as a way for making a decision to buy this particular pack. What it doesn't address is the larger issue of why they aren't offering certain things at all. It's a mistake to miss the forest because of the trees.

Not really.

1) Not offering certain things at all is perfectly valid

Prior to this offering, they didn't offer ANY of these pieces before. They were all restricted to the completion of an event a certain badge in-game and only unlocked to that character when you earned that badge. They've been doing this for years- the ITF has been around for ages- and it really isn't too uncommon for games to put a few "trophy" pieces as rewards for completing certain events.

By offering the costume pieces that they have, they effectively reduced the value of that trophy- making the amount that are truly unique and event tied MUCH smaller. This change effectively reduces the impact of what you're complaining about while still putting (less critically-defining) pieces aside for rewards.

2) I really can't see how this is a "larger issue" when so few pieces are locked away (and even LESS with this change). This seems much less a "missing the forest because of the trees" and more like "mistaking a shrub for a forest."

Sometimes I feel like "voting with my money" and refusing to buy a pack even if it meets my absolute minimal requirement for things included into it. The Circle of Thorns pack was exactly like this. They had the pieces, and they just didn't put them in for God knows what reason. I didn't buy that pack because I wanted to make a data point by not doing so.

Again, though, the Roman pack is different. This has a HUGE set of clothing items as well as a lot of shields as well as a brand new item. It's a big pack. I dare say it's too big to release all at once, so if they want to split it in two, I'm fine with it. I just wish they'd tell that to my face instead of making up excuses.

I want it to be known that I don't mind being nickel-and-dimed as long as that's through things I actually really want. Sell me cape and aura unlocks, sell me the Roman gear, sell me the Rularuu weapons, sell old stuff that's been taken off the editor for no reason. I'll buy it, just like I've always said I would. I mind being nickel-and-dimed only and solely when Marketing are trying to sell me something I don't want, and are looking for reasons to make me feel like I need it, so I'll buy it even though I don't want it. The Super Packs are a prime example. I don't want consumables, I do want costumes, so they're bundling their consumables in with the costumes in a manner not dissimilar to how my mother used to hide my medicine in tasty food. Ugh!

Sell me stuff I want and I'll pay for it, but be honest with me. Don't try to twist my arm to buy crap I don't want, and don't try to sugar-coat it when you feel something should cost more than we expect it to. Let US decide what we want to buy.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

And the game is being improved by removing that needless limitation. This is no different than the way the game was improved by the removal of the needless cape limitation or the needless travel power limitation.

It is a question of why they choose to improve the game a little when they could instead improve it by even more with no additional coding requirements. It's effectively a free boost in the quality of the game at no real cost.

And most games also require that you be wearing this particular blue hat or that pair of ugly shoes at max level if you want to be effective. The fact that this game does not require that is its greatest strength. Trophy pieces are for games that are about bragging about your uber gear, not for games focused on freedom and creativity. It's a question of which one we want this game to be.

Good.

Part of your implication here is that a sword is less "critically defining" than a chest piece is. I'm not sure that I agree with that, but even if I did, I would prefer to leave it to the individual to decide what is "critically defining" for their own characters.

It is a question of where they place value in the game - ie a larger issue. Gating costume content is placing value on bragging rights - on some people having something that others do not and being able to "show off" that fact - and I find that to be an overall harmful attitude for them to want to encourage.

With that said and Statesman dead... can we please move on to Marketing now?






Dear Marketing Team,
if you get the impression that we don´t like you... maybe you should think about why that could be.

I could definitely get behind a Rularuu weapon pack. (And I'll just toss in the standard 'want a rularuu titan weapon' and for that matter, 'want a rularuu staff'. ).

As I've said before, I kind of like having some things gated, especially when they're just costume perks with no real effect on the game. MMOs are goal oriented and it's nice to have a few goals of that sort to work towards. But the rularuu weapons gate doesn't work for villains and doesn't even work that well for heroes -- how often do people run the shard TFs? I've run all of them several times each, but it's been several months since the last time, and a large part of the population has probably never run them or might not even know where the shard zones are. And you can always just go kill a bunch of Overseer bosses, but that's a pain even under optimal conditions. (Optimal being my regen scrapper at 50 + 1 with fly. ^_^ )

Also, it leads to some really random looking costume designs on some players because of things like how rare wings and rocket boots used to be or the Incarnate armor bits or the Tier 9 VIP bits.

Heck, I'm half ashamed to have a character that uses some of the Tier 9 bits, even though I think it looks great.

This is true and why I say I want to be able to take them at their word for it.
If the reason the swords and axes aren't included, is to elevate them to trophy status, then I'm all for it. It'll make the quest to obtain them an adventure with something to show for it.

However, if I take them at their word on it, and spend the next few months grinding out the badge only to have the weapons pack with them featured released the next week...

That is my only concern. I haven't been completely burned on the store yet. Like Sam said, fool me once and all that jazz, I'll get the Roman pack and be happy with it. I'll decimate the legions numbers in quest of my sword and display it as a sign of my... being able to go to Cim. I'll know that anyone holding one has fought the good fight etc.

I don't want them to just be doing a clever 'Hey, look over there' while they finish piecing together a weapons pack. I'd rather them reply to all the cries for the weapons with "We wanted to include a large selection of in-game unlock weapons, as a standalone pack due to it's scope. Just to maintain the good will and positive rep we've had all these years.

Others have mentioned there's already a gladius in the powerset, so what they're "reserving" is a specifically-styled roman weapon. You could make a viable centurion without it, thus its not as critical to defining the character as, for example, the roman pack in general.

No, that's a form of semantic relativism that sounds nice but serves no functional purpose whatsoever. "Critically defining" is used for a specific purpose here. It's the point where an asset is essential to having any chance at representing a character in-game, as opposed to just wanting that asset.

In design, a good "trophy" is desirable-- having a high "want" factor, but is NOT critically-defining- not having it doesn't thoroughly bar you from a concept.

Look at the Vanguard Armor (also now available via the store) and Roman Armor. Before the store additions, I couldn't make a hero that's a vanguard grunt from level 1. I could possibly do is make a paramilitary guy in combat gear that'll eventually earn that uniform... but the visual tie- the critically-defining look was missing.

The lack of roman armor access was likewise an issue, but now I do have an avenue to define my character as a Centurion from level 1 on. While I may not have the specific sword I WANT for that character (yet) nobody would point at my character and shout "that's no a Roman Centurion! He has the wrong sword!" (in part because our mitten-hands can't point... but I digress). The loss of the sword isn't CRITICALLY defining, but lack of access to the rest of the costume really made it tough to create a roman centurion.

Had they made variant set(s) (same mesh, different details, like how we have 3 sets of samurai armor) and gated one of them while making the other available, that would have given them a distinctive "trophy set" but made it less "critically defining." You might WANT that armor variant, but you could have still made a centurion using the other sets.

Indeed, I for one don't think you should be able to buy things that are obtainable via gameplay.

Why? Worried you're paying for something other people can get for free?

Oh, and just for parity's sake, let's invert the question.

Why? Worried that you're investing too much effort into something others can get for no effort at all?

See, this is the trick to good micro-transactions: We're trading money for convenience. Because when appearance insulated from gameplay is concerned, having or not having specific costumes really IS a question of convenience.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

The compromise is not between what we want and what the devs want. The compromise is between the principle that the players should get as many options as can be created and the principle that tying exclusive rewards to content is a reasonable approach to improving the sense of value of both the rewards and the content. Anyone arguing unilaterally that either principle is just wrong, is just wrong. Both have advantages and disadvantages, and like essentially every aspect of this game's design the Roman pack is a compromise between competing principles that are mutually exclusive at their logical extremes.

To put it another way, the compromise is between the developer at Paragon that says "lets release everything" and the developer at Paragon that says "lets keep content-connected rewards content-connected" and I'm sure there is at least one of each. They are both right, and both wrong, and neither is going to get everything they want, and by extention the segments of the playerbase they each represent will likewise not get everything they want.

One of the things I predicted even *before* Freedom was announced and repeated often after it was announced was that F2P would create a schism in the playerbase between those who thought selling things you could not also earn in-game was unfair, and those who thought selling only things you could also earn in-game was pointless.

There will be peace in the Middle East before that gets reconciled.

That's another one of those fundamental dichotomies that this game is going to make repeated compromises on: neither side is going to "win" that particular argument.

Well, to repeat my old 2004 "Capes at 20" argument: Tying exclusive rewards to content is not a bad idea. But there are better rewards to tie to it than costume pieces, because the "worth" of a costume piece cannot be measured, much as the art team might believe that the newer pieces are "better" than the old ones. A costume piece's worth is only measured by how much it improves the look it is used for, and that depends squarely on what look that is. You end up loading costume pieces with a value they don't deserve just so that they're "valuable enough" to work for, and it doesn't have to be this way.

There are plenty of things to hold back as rewards. I remember talking about specific titles and title colours, or specific powers, or you could go the conventional route and just give out practical rewards for tasks and people have proven that they'll do them.

Look at it this way, though - if I want the Romulus Sword, I want it because it fits a concept, and then earning it becomes an obstacle, rather than a sense of pride. If it DOESN'T fit a concept, then I plain and simple do not want it, and earning it becomes an empty gesture. Holding back costume pieces as rewards relies on people wanting to use those pieces as status symbols, and al this does is entice people into making horrid ugly costumes just because they worked for that piece and they want to show it off, good taste and decent design be damned.

I really don't see how that's an unwinnable argument, though. The people who argue that selling things you can earn in-game is pointless have already won - they don't have to buy them, and can instead earn them. They stand to lose nothing at all. In fact, if new store items are given an in-game earnable version per character, they'd only stand to gain, so I really don't see it as that difficult a dilemma.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

We only have to convince the one who makes the final decision to agree with us.

Just kidding. I mean 'me.'

I want the belt and hanging cloth thingy!!!!

It's also a mistake to try to make a forest from a vacant lot.

It doesn't matter why they choose to offer or not offer X. All that matters is whether they choose to offer X. If they do, players that wish to purchase X may do so. If they don't, players cannot regardless of their wishes. Players are in no way entitled to X, and as such they do not need to explain or justify to players why X isn't offered.

The market, like any other, is for customers to buy what they wish from what is on offer... not from what they feel is owed to them.