If they put Dark Aura up for sale would you mind Wisp Aura going for sale too?

First, I'm not offended. I'd like to write "I hope you aren't offended either", but clearly you are as this has escalated. If you'd like to chat by PM, I'd be glad to do so.

So secondly, you wrote all of that to essentially agree with me when you wrote:

"As I said before, I'm OK with you keeping your misbegotten DVD Edition stuff. That's not a big deal. Even though my fundamental belief goes against it, I'm not that much of an extremist to be unable to make an exception. Fine, keep it, it's not a problem. So long as it's that one thing, it's fine. So long as it's an exception to the rule, that's fine. "

My contention has been that the legacy exclusive items should remain that way and if there's a philosophical change to no longer create exclusive items going forward, so be it. That should really be the end of the discussion between us...

But, since you opened a can of worms, let's go through things....

A. Responding to you -- well, you quoted me, so a response seems polite. If I don't respond to a quote that probably should have a response, it's likely because I've been distracted by the real world and lost track of it...

B. Regarding responding to "you" versus the "argument" -- my argument time and again has been to change things going forward, but honor the past. That view has not ever changed, even from years ago when talking about Veteran rewards not being pushed down (not that I expect anyone to recall my stances on anything outside of this thread). Furthermore, in this thread I stated the complications it causes for Paragon as my argument is not entirely egocentric.

C. Regarding examples -- Capes, Auras and Vanguard Costume and Roman Pack -- those items were always available in game, just like enhancements. Now they're sold in the Paragon Market as a convenience. Arguably, not your best examples.

D. Regarding examples -- pre-order sprints and helmets -- those items were exclusive to stores where they were purchased....Best Buy, Circuit City, Gamestop, Amazon, etc.....in order to shape consumer retail purchase.

E. Regarding status in general -- you can make the argument that the game should be level-less then, since levels 2 through 50+3 are all signs of status versus someone entering the game. The rularuu pieces and the 5th column shield are unlockable. Titles are unlockable. I understand your view about accomplishment on the one hand, but clearly the designers see it slightly differently. If somone chooses to perceive level 2, capes, ascension armor, or the black wand as prestigious and a status symbol, that's a personal thing, but rest assured, not everyone thinks that way.

F. "Other people" -- (And this does get more argumentative with you personally...) I see hypocrisy that you can write in one post " that people only care what THEY have, not what other people have" and in the following post write "I don't want to see people using a specific costume piece because it's seen as prestigious in cases where it really doesn't fit the costume".

In fairness, the first quote was to convince Paragon that the Collector's Edition purchasers should be disregarded in order to make those items accessible to all on the paragon market; the second quote is about eliminating motivation by status. Nevertheless, although we're both spouting off opinion, you've served up two conflicting statements, one of which really shows some brass in dictating what people should or should not use based on your perception.

G. Regarding character assassination and demonising -- considering your choice of vocabulary and tone has been: "stoop", "misbegotten DVD edition", "steal your stuff" -- it does appear that you are trying to paint a picture of me (and others that share this opninon) for your benefit.

G*. Some people may say, well, Texarkana, you did throw out that "Gen-Y/Whining" comment to the public that started it. My response would be, do people understand the reference? Generation Y is the '80s crowd of American children that were overly coddled and given trophies, regardless of deed. Warning, sweeping statement: The level of entitlement seen in that generation is unprecedented and actually preesnts quite a challenge to American business.

The ironic thing is, in making an argument that all "status" items should go away (e.g. capes), you validate my statement while simultaneously invalidate the "straw man" accusation you leveled at me.

H. Intellectual Property -- I 100% agree with you regarding intellectual property, artificial scarcity, and replication as well as honoring licensing. But, as a matter of process and respect, a shift in philosophy going forward has to account for the past (even if it means grandfathering). Again, I think we're in agreement overall about availability of items on the Paragon Market.

Going forward, I don't think thread replies are really appropriate as I think we've both made our views pretty clear, but if you want to PM me and discuss something further, I'll be glad to respond.

Don�t say things. What you are stands over you the while, and thunders so that I cannot hear what you say to the contrary. - R.W. Emerson

That is complete nonsense.
He did nothing of the sort!
You came into here with your demeaning argument and are still trying to twist things around to make it "true". It's not and inverse logic like that won't gain you any ground.
I'll point it out...
My first response is, yes I understood the reference and it was misplaced and an obnoxious argument to start.
No one was whining about wanting stuff that they can't get or shouldn't have.
Most of the people here are people that HAVE all of this stuff and have said that they'd love to see that stuff open for anyone who wants it.

So, then you take THAT obnoxious stance and say that Sam's (and anyone else's) insistence that these items should be available to all proves YOUR point... LOL... So, you are exactly saying that Sam's opinion (and mine and almost everyone else that has posted in here) is a RESULT of being a whiny, greedy, coddled Generation Y'er.
LOL...
Okay, now I see how you've been misunderstood and are a voice of reason in this thread. (psst, that is sarcasm).

That's simply not true. It may be your opinion, but it is not a fact.
First off, exclusives do not necessarily remain permanent. More importantly, to me, Collector's Editions are generally more about the physical swank - the box, the book(s), the statues, maps, DVDs, and whatever else they throw in.
The fact that they continued to sell the in-game rewards on their own, for a while afterward, could be evidence against your claims that these things should never be attainable through other means. They already have been.

Regardless, it is just opinion. You claim you'd be upset. You claim some others would be upset. And there are plenty of posters in here that HAVE the exact same stuff that you're talking about stating that we'd be 100% perfectly fine with making that same stuff available to new customers.
I have the collector's edition. I would not see it as any breach of trust (nor contract) if they sold (or even GAVE AWAY) the rewards that I got from that, however long ago.

There is certainly no lock-solid RIGHT (legal or moral) way for the business to go about it. It's just opinions. In this tiny sample so far, you seem to be the only one that'd be against opening those items up (I know you're not the ONLY one in all of the playerbase, of course).

Sam wasn't just replying to you, he's saying things for all of us to see. And they are things that I completely agree with and I suspect are true of the majority of this community.
Regardless, I believe they are great ideals for any community to set sights for.

The Electric-Knight ______ Malfaz _____ Zox'Oculox

@Zethustra

"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan

www.pauldamonthomas.com - Original Music

That seems... Excessive. Maybe you don't post too often (I neglected to check your post count), but I know if I tried to respond to everyone who responded to me I'd be up to my neck in work. Seriously, I'm not being difficult here. If you can manage it, then kudos to you, but this seems like a daunting task, and I suspect it might turn the forums into work. As far as far as responding to me in the future - while I appreciate a response, please don't feel obligated to. The last thing I want to do is waste other people's time arguing on the forums. And I mean that.

And had you stuck to that argument instead of arguing about people being greedy or entitled or "whining," then we'd have moved forward with it. I don't want personal quarrels on the forums, believe me, so if we can stick to arguing a specific point and not trying to say who has the right to argue it and whose character reflects what flaws for arguing which point, it'd go much more smoothly.

When it comes to collector's editions, yes, the examples aren't good. I wasn't giving them as examples of collector's editions specifically, however, but rather as examples of "exclusive" items. Perhaps not exclusive to out-of-game purchases, but exclusive to specific unlocks or specific player account status levels. My point is that they were, in various ways, locked and are no longer. Well, technically they're still locked - behind money - but if we are to accept the "free to play," or rather "pay to have," mentality of the Market, then they are "available."

I'm not sure what you're saying here. As these were marketed at least to the best of my understanding, those were to be exclusive to people who pre-purchased from those vendors precisely for the purpose of showing status, as a token to people's faith. I get that that's not precisely a collector's edition, but it's still an edition that includes items which come with the promise that they WILL NOT be available to people who DID NOT purchase those special editions. Now, I don't agree with that practice, either, but that's what was presented to me at the time, and this is a decision the studio went back on.

Not only could I not make the argument that levels are a sign of status (even if they can be interpreted as such), but I can actually argue that they are a sign of something else entirely. Bare with me here.

There is a distinct difference between gameplay and cosmetics in any game, but most of all in MMORPGs. Let's assume for a moment that we want to make the game into some kind of impossible Mecca of complete customization where a player can have anything he dreams up. Even in this Mecca, characters will still have different levels of power because the growth of character power is the cornerstone of at the very least any traditional RPG's gameplay. In order for an RPG to function even absent of any cosmetics, it needs to have some form of character progression to where a character is unable to solve some situations at an earlier stage but becomes able to solve them later through a non-scripted, non-artificial overcoming of some limitation. Not only is this an unavoidable part of an RPG, it's also a large part of what makes it fun to play. We need progression of some form.

Herein lies the difference between gameplay and cosmetics when it comes to status. Gameplay advantages CAN be interpreted as status symbols, but the significance of this isn't what you interpret it as. This kind of advantage is a cornerstone part of the game, thus this status denotes not a superior player, but simply a player who has advanced farther into the game. This is not at all dissimilar from having seen, say, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King and trying to brag about it to someone who's only seen the Fellowship of the Ring and the Two Towers. Yes, you are farther ahead, but this is not an advantage to brag about, it is a natural part of watching a movie trilogy unless you happen to coordinate your moviegoing with another person specifically. Yes, some people will try to lord their gameplay advantage as a status symbol, such as "Ha! I can solo pylons in 10 seconds!" to which you can simply reply "That's a very short strip show, mate." Because - and here's the kicker - it doesn't matter.

City of Heroes is a game that doesn't exactly require great character power to progress through, thus excess character power is rarely a meaningful status symbol. It can be if excessive powere were your goal, but there's nothing stopping you from reaching it. Copy the other person's build and you're about three quarters of the way there. Sure, gathering the components might take a while, but that's what the game's about - progressing a character. At the end of the day, all a person lording his status is saying to you is "I have played more than you!" which can only ever been a good thing, because it means there's a lot more game left to play before it's over. And I mean that - in a good game, having more of it to go through is a good thing.

Now contrast this with cosmetics. First of all, there is no clear hierarchy of the "quality" of cosmetic items. Your instinct might (MIGHT) be to suggest that newer pieces with better textures and a higher polygon count might be "better" because they're of a higher visual quality, but that's not necessarily true. Better graphics don't necessarily make something look better. They simply give the artist better tools of expression, but it's up to the artist to deliver. Moreover, an artist saddled with working with TOO MUCH detail can still produce works of a lesser quality than one working with simpler designs. There's a reason old 2D spirte-based games age so much slower than 3D games of the time. Half-Life is now an ugly polygonised mess while going as far back as Marvel vs. Capcom gives you a game that's low-res, but still looks and feels damn good.

It's not entirely true that you can't grade cosmetics. The "general public" you can't, because there's no generally accepted scale of best to worst costume piece. However, YOU - you, Texarkana - still can, because that's a matter of taste and I'm sure you have pieces you like more than others. The trouble is that when you grade them from best to worst and compare that list to how I've arranged them, I can bet dollars to doughnuts that they won't match. And therein lies the problem - everybody's objective view of what's "better" is different, thus the pressing need to avoid putting artificial weight on costume pieces by trying to make some artificially more valuable than others. The more "equal" all cosmetics are, the greater each individual player's choice is.

Take Ascension, for example. A couple of years ago, Matt Miller put his foot in his mouth by saying that the Ascension set was so good that enabling it for characters lower than level 50 would be "an insult to the art team. Now look at Ascension and tell me what's so good about it that me using it would insult the people who made them. Is it that they have a higher polygon count? Is it that they look like standard-issue Fantasy armour? Is it that they have inbuilt auras? Because all of that stuff has been present in other sets that aren't level-locked to 50. But Matt Miller said the set is "better," and so it was essentially taken out of circulation. Many people simply don't like it and many who do like it want it for characters that aren't level 50. A number of people have, since, used it on costumes that have been drastically out of place with Ascension pieces put on them, as well. As a result, this artificial exclusivity of a costume set has more or less ruined it in my eyes and you know what? I barely see people use it these days. Maybe it's just my luck, but it seems to me that wanting to make Ascension exclusive to Incarnates as a representation of their status was a massive miscalculation.

Let's look at the "why" if it for just a second before I move on. Why is Ascension as an Incarnate status symbol a bad idea? Because... Is that what an "Incarnate" is supposed to look like? Why? Madamme Bellarose doesn't look like that. Hero One doesn't look like that. The Statesman doesn't look like that. Lord Recluse... OK, I'll give you that one. But the idea that "an Incarnate" had a specific look was the mistake that nearly tanked the entire lore behind the Well of the Furies. The attempt to turn our characters into their vision of what a god should be was the mistake, and the exclusivity of the Ascension pieces - born of that mistake - is what ultimately ruined the set. And to be quite honest... It's not a bad set if you have the character for it, which is all the more disappointing.

That's not what I said, though. Or rather, it doesn't mean what you infer that to mean. No, I don't want other people to be making horrible costume. Yes, I'm using my own judgement to determine what a "horrible costume" constitutes. But that doesn't mean I want to control what people wear, I'm merely pointing out a flaw in the system which incites people to take decisions based on values OTHER than what looks good to them. That's the whole problem. I've actually spoken with a number of people who put a cape on their character exactly because they unlocked the think, so they felt like they should, even if they themselves admitted to me they weren't too happy with the look. Mind you, my sample size isn't large, but at the very least it proves that this notion exists.

Again, I'm not trying to control other people. I'm trying to extract from the game the factors which try to shape how other people express themselves. I want to take away the artificial weights from the various costume pieces such that a person's only driving priority is making something that looks good. What "looks good" is, obviously, up to the person to define and if that person chooses only what looks good and STILL comes up with something hideous... Well, that's the nature of taste. However, I still want to take out the artificial inflation of the value of costume pieces.

Looks in this game are not loot, and they shouldn't be treated like it. What a costume piece "cost you" should never factor into how much you want to use it on a character.

Again, that's not what I said. I'm not trying to control what people do. I'm trying to control the artificial values the game's structure puts on costume pieces. I want to ensure that no costume pieces are made to appear more "important" just because of how they're obtained. If all pieces are equal in value, then what a person chooses is that much more reflective of that person's actual personal expression.

And this does get into the subject of personal expression and "status," as well. I never meant to say that I'm against status in general, merely that I'm against status acquired by non-representative means. What I mean by this is I don't want people to buy their way into status or luck their way into status. I don't want people to have status because of what they own. I want status to represent a person's actions in the actual game, or possibly out of the game in terms of community interaction. A person with a great costume, a person with a great story, a person who helps other... Hell, even a person with a great build if he's the one that came up with it. I want status to mean that this has actually done something remarkable, not that he owns something artificially limited.

I actually quite like status as a general concept. It tells me who the people are I want to look at and draw inspiration from and who the people are I want to try and inspire. It doesn't have to be a rigid power structure and it doesn't have to be in my face, but I do want to know who's good at what. And again, when I say I want to inspire people, that doesn't mean I want to show off. Far from it - if I've found an idea that I think is great, I just want to share it with people and maybe they'll think it's great, too, and use it. Really, everybody wins that way.

You present me as wanting to control people, when the exact opposite is true. I want to put as much control as I can in the hands of the player without liming their toolset or giving them cues as to what's good before they have time to judge for themselves.

Well, you're wrong. My language is harsh, but the logic jump between harsh language and character assassination is a big one, not to mention a very unfair one. I find you to be stubborn, insulting (whether that was your intent or not) and dismissive, but none of that has anything to do with the merit of exclusivity. I'm not sure how you're reasoning that this assessment extends over to other people who share your opinion when not a single one has spoken up in this thread or been addressed in a similar way, however. You are, in effect, making a self-fulfilling prophecy. You posted to insult another poster with accusations of whining and now you're crying foul when others have done this to you. Yeah, that kind of comes with the territory. I'm trying to keep a civil tone, but look at what I have to work with.

I'm TRYING to stick to discussing the topic, but you keep rolling character assassination into it and using it as an argument. Considering I have to then untangle that ball, I kind of have to address it whether I want to or not, and I can't really state that you're intentionally insulting my intelligence without saying you're insulting, can I? Again - if you'd simply accept to stop with the character assassination and stick to the topic, then I wouldn't have any reason to keep talking about it, will I?

Which is funny, considering so many of us weren't born in America and have never been there, nor are we even that keenly aware of that particular cultural phenomenon. And regardless of the above - you're clearly using it as a derogatory term. All this does is remind me of Will Smith as Jim West explaining to the lynch mob why calling them "rednecks" was actually a compliment so they don't hang him: "But let's break down that word redneck. First word, red - colour of passion, fire, power. Second word - neck. Neck... All right, I can't think of anything for neck right now."

Somewhat sideways of the point, you can call somebody a "nice, kind person" and wish "nothing but the best" on him and still make that into an insult given the right context. And your context, I'm sorry to say, was one of using a term to insult another poster for holding an opinion different from your own. And I'd be OK with it, we all have moments like that, were you not continuously trying to justify it.

Which I didn't do, but supposing I did - how? A straw man is the act of attributing an easily-refutable argument to another person that this person never actually made and then refuting it, which you proceed to use as proof that the other person is wrong. That's a good few of my paragraphs here start with "That's not what I said." When did I attribute to you an argument that I proceeded to bash and prove you're wrong? When did I indeed prove you're wrong in regard to anything I've brought up? When did I even discuss you being wrong or right when I have repeatedly stated that IT IS MY BELIEF that what I described is how the game should work?

Unless this involves loss of service or loss of virtual goods, I don't agree. I'm sure that where you will disagree will be that you consider exclusivity itself part of the service and that losing it is tantamount to denial of service. I'm sure you can put it better than I can, though, but I'm also sure we simply won't see eye-to-eye on the matter. Yes, I said before that I'm willing to accept with a grandfather exception, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to agree with it. I accept this as a necessary evil - and before you correct me, that's just a regular expression. I don't agree that the right decision is for this to be done, but I recognise that what I see as the right decision can't always be made.

Again, I'm willing to give you specific case, but I'm not willing to agree with you on it. Luckily, all we need is a workable solution even if it doesn't stem from ideological agreement.

And again - the subjects we're discussing are relevant to the thread. If we can keep the personal jabs to a minimum, there's more to be said on these subjects and I intend to say it whether you want to participate or not. If you want to make it a personal problem, feel free to take it to PMs, but I'll only move that side of it to PM exchanges. I intend to keep talking about exclusivity, status, expression and cosmetics.

*edit*
Took out the tags from my quotes to combat my post's erratic spacing.

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.

To be fair, I don't feel confident quoting numbers at this time. In fact, the overwhelming majority of responses against exclusivity here surprise me, just because there's usually a much higher percentage of people who insist on their exclusive items staying exclusive. The shift in opinion in this thread seems like an appealing proposition to draw conclusions over, but it's just too aberrant from my own personal experience that I'd actually like to give the thread more time to develop so more people have a chance to chime in. I can't imagine we've lost this many people who'd otherwise argue for exclusivity.

And again, Tex has a point - we probably shouldn't be arguing for absolute unlocking of everything. Even though I disagree with the concept of exclusive software just on a principle level, I keep thinking we ought to draw the line somewhere short of the other end. Let's be fair and say that people did indeed pay quite a bit of money for a purported "collector's edition" and focus on the game moving forward without going AAALL the way back. If we were making an official request, I'd feel comfortable requesting everything AFTER the old DVD Edition.

And another thing: Prestige Power Slide. This is the only power we have that's compatible with travel powers and yet alters the animation with which we run. In order to stop people from seeing it as more valuable than it is, we need to make it non-unique. My suggestion is to institute an alternative of it that has NO stats and NO vfx, but alters the running animation in the same way, then sell that in the Paragon Market. This way, Prestige Power Slide will still be unique in general, having a non-replicable visual effect and being a replacement sprint, while the rest of the people will still get access to a base-run-animation-altering power at the same time.

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.

I'll jump in with this side. I've been here since pre-launch. Period of exclusivity, period of For Sale, then acquirable in game.

That works perfectly fine by me.

I'm not sure why anyone would argue otherwise, and am therefore uncertain as to the point of this thread.

Edited to add: Oh yeah. This argument. Teach me to respond to post 5 or 6 without reading through to be reminded how it would inevitably devolve. I forget how good you are at inciting this kind of stuff.

I am using it right now reading this

I am fine with this as well

Works for me too.

Also, I'd like to see the "power aura" that the Trolls have in the latest SSA. So far, we have Battle fury and Dark Matter, but they're two separate auras. Plus, Atta got a fancy glow eyes aura, on top of the "power aura".

The best I can kludge together is either fire(I think one style of fire works better than the other, but I can't remember which is which offhand) armor with dark matter or regen with the toggle running.

Me too, if they feel like making it avail to paragon market. I aint joining that Facebook thing not with all them security/privacy leaks. Then of course as the saying goes, dont put anything on there you want to get out, hell then that is anythign dealing with my personal life thus it wont exist there.

When they make it avail on the paragon market, I'll gladly buy it. If not, then I'll gladly go without as I've been doing. Guess they figured everyone here has FB and twitter. They didnt even bother posting the problems about victory server stability on this forum, only on twitter and facebook.

Originally Posted by mauk2 Evil_Legacy became one of my favorite posters with two words. "Kick Rocks." I laffed so hard. Never change, E_L!

@Oathbound & @Oathbound Too

This.

So as far as the thread is concerned i don't really have that much more to say. There is nothing i've gotten/unlocked over the years as one perk or another that i would be bothered if it was added to the market for points or even if it was given away through some other means. That includes my n00b Scooter and Jump Pack.

Anti-Matter has THREE Auras going at the same time: Alpha, Gaseous, and Atomic.

This is what I've always said about what a VIP subscription should mean: freedom from Marketing gimmicks. Right now, being a VIP means being a budget customer because the bulk of the VIP perks is getting things for "free" as part of your relatively cheap subscription. VIP being the "cheap" option does not sit well with me. As far as I'm concerned, VIP should be the option which allows me to spend more to get out of the petty mind games that the game's marketing is playing on its customers. A lot of sites allow you to subscribe to get rid of site ads, and this is more or less what I want to see happen with CoH's VIP subscription - let me buy stuff that you'd normally jerk people around to get via Super Packs or special promotions or "Log in today only!" promotions or garbage like that.

I'll make this simple - let VIPs buy everything that is otherwise tied up in some indirect acquisition way, and make that a part of the service of being a VIP.

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.

I have both of the auras and the facepalm /em (Which I love enough to have key-bound on almost all of my crew- ), as well as a lot of the other "exclusives" that have gone out over the years, and it wouldn't bother me *at all*... not one little bit... to see ANY of that stuff show up in the Market. The Tier 9 VIP and Elemental Order costumes and the Black Wolf, likewise.

If you guys feel like you just HAVE to have exclusives for what-ever reason, that's fine... But making them non-exclusive after some period of time is more than fair in my opinion. The "Special Snowflakes" among us would still get to show off and feel unique for awhile that way, without locking out other players who might want those items down the line.

No problem whatsoever.

this is a really good idea, Sam.