Mazey

Well, that's absolutely fine, if a company releases items you don't personally like, it'd be ridiculous if you did buy them.

Which, again, is why I clarified the statement with the word "given" and the phrase "for that task".

Given I want to visit Japan, my life is required for that task.

No it isn't, you could make the character without the pieces.
Yes, if I wanted to go to Japan and take a very specific piece of artwork with me. Then that artwork would be required. But that doesn't make that piece of artwork any less optional than it was, as I am specifically attaching it as a requirement. I can still go to Japan without the artwork. The artwork is an entirely optional extra to my life and my trip to Japan.

Yes, if you specifically attach the requirement of those costume pieces to a character, then that character requires those pieces, but that doesn't make them any less optional.

Yes, but not entirely optional.

Then you should have no problem with buying the super packs, as you cannot have more options if you deny yourself the chance than you would if you allowed yourself the option of buying them.

Which is why I clarified the statement with the word "entirely".

If I lose my life, I lose all the things that go with it. For example, given that I wish the visit Japan this year, my life is not optional for that task, it is, in fact, required.

If you miss out on those costume pieces or wolf, the only thing you don't have are those costume pieces or wolf. They are entirely optional.

Getting uptight about entirely optional extras just because they're being released in a random way is ridiculous.

No, I don't. That's what I get for trusting the spell checker with typos.

You are technically correct. But I think it was fairly clear that the point of the burden of proof was being directed at the implicit statements behind the claims of belief.
If someone says "I believe there are invisible giant potato people on Mars." the implicit statement behind that is that "It's true that there are invisible giant potato people on Mars." which is a claim that has the burden of proof upon it. Those implicit statements are always there, because we all think that our beliefs are true, even if we aren't certain.

Now, a lot of the time, this burden of proof on the statements behind the claims of belief are ignored, for various reasons. If someone tells you that they believe in God, and you don't, generally you don't demand they prove it, because if you did it likely wouldn't work out very well for either of you. That's not because such a claim lacks the burden of proof, but because it's such a common belief that it has its own specific set of expected social reactions.

However, if one your friends came to you and professed their belief in the invisible potato people from Mars, you probably wouldn't just accept it as a statement of truth about their beliefs, and would instead expect them to try and provide at least some kind of back-up to the implicit claim behind their beliefs.

So, although you're right, and claims about your personal beliefs don't technically require proof, for the majority of intents and purposes, you can treat them as the implicit statements which do have that burden.

Yes, if "I believe Superman does not exist" is true, then it is necessarily the case that "I do not believe Superman exists" is true too.
But, if "I do not believe Superman exists" is true, then it is not necessarily the case that "I believe Superman does not exist" is true as-well.

There-in lies the distinction between those two statements.

Yes, I agree entirely with your clarification there.

Any particular link or book you could recommend? Or should I just Google their names and read each result that comes up one by one?

I don't really care about the argument that's going on, but I would like to confirm that everything said by Xanatos there is correct in every way that matters.

I find it odd that so many people seem to be disagreeing with it, because it is a pretty basic part of logical discourse.

His usage of a word "negative" was referring to negative statements as in formal logic. It was not referring to any statement that included a "no" or "not".

The distinction between "people" and "person" doesn't effect my point at all.


Yes, they're complaining about what they don't like about the super packs.

Yeah, what he was saying was "The reason you're complaining is wrong, you'd only have a good complaint if it was the same complaint as me."

Yep, which is hypocritical given the amount of shallow complaining he's done about the super packs.

Yeah, hypocrites tend not to like it when people notice their actions in different contexts.

That didn't answer my question. No, of course I don't have to, but when people write on forums, it's generally so that other people read it and consider it.

But, given he's just dismissing other people's opinions as less valid than he own, what reason do I have to not do the same with his?

No you're right, his point was to show how invalid rsclark's complaint was by bringing up a much more valid complaint of his own.
That changes everything!
...

That's incredible irony considering how much you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Yep, he was basically telling people who were complaining about something to just shut up and not buy it if they don't like it.
Which is precisely what people who didn't like the super packs have been told repeatedly by various people.

Yes he thinks his complaint is more valid than other people's, everyone does, whether they admit it or not.

Why must I accept his rants as valid when he doesn't accept other peoples?
Because his complaints are "better"? Who gets to decide that?

Yep, those are all the post's I've read before, and checked back on repeatedly.

Yes, you have your reasons for disliking the super packs, and they have their reasons for disliking the coyote power.
Obviously you think your reasons are better than theirs, likely they think their reasons are better than yours.
I personally think you're all making too big a deal of things.

The point is, that it is all a matter of opinion. Yet, despite that, you can't see how you're being hypocritical at all by criticizing someone else for their complaints while refusing to see how the exact same point can be applied to you.

Yes, you think your reasons are good enough to "pass", but they think the same about their opinions. Ultimately, whose opinion is more justified is just a matter of opinion itself. If you think you should be allowed to voice your opinion without criticism, you should think the same about theirs.

It's not any more clear than it was, because already understood all that, it doesn't effect what I'm saying in the slightest.

And no, I'm not just "taking digs" for the hell of it. I'm trying to point out the absurdity in you trying to claim that is okay for you to complain about the super packs whenever you feel like it, in whatever thread just comes to hand, while at the same time criticising others for complaining, while their complaints are at least in an appropriate thread, just because the super packs are so bad they somehow absolve you of any hypocrisy.

As are FalconX_NA and rsclark.
But you're quite happy to tell them off for criticising the coyote power and then move right on to criticising the super packs yourself.

Yeah, he thinks that it's fine to criticise the super packs, but not the coyote, because he likes the way the coyote is sold and he doesn't like the way the super packs are sold.

I understand the situation perfectly.

I can fathom it fine, doesn't mean what they say is right or not, in this case, outright hypocritical.

Are you just trolling, or do you actually fail to see the inconsistency in what you're saying?

One minute you're telling people that whether or not they like the coyote is just an opinion, and no-one's forcing them to buy it, and the next you're criticising the super packs in the exact same way as the people you were telling off just a moment before. Worse even, as you're insisting on bringing up the super packs in threads they don't even relate to, as an example of things "just done wrong", while the people you're telling off are at least complaining in a thread about the thing they're complaining about.

What exactly was the point of that? This topic has nothing to do with the super packs.
That was just a random rant in an inappropriate thread.

Statesman's not being deleted from the game either. At the very least he's going to continue being in the SSA.
I also suspect he'll remain in the tutorial, as that is definitely set before the SSAs.

Being removed from Independence Port is not the same as being deleted from the game.

Wow, that's a whole lot of whinging.

Obviously they're going to start selling "Midnighter Access Tokens" in the Paragon Market.

Yep, from the sounds of things, you need to do more alignment tip missions, that's where most of her story lies.

That seems like something that should be on the top of your list of things to rectify.

Her continuity is level 1-50 style, not 2005-2012 style.

At level 5 she's a new hero, she joins a supergroup and tries to fend off a new villain robbing Atlas Park bank, by level 50, she's turned evil in her desperate quest for attention.

She's had the bank robbery part of the story since Issue 7, the turning evil part got added with Going Rogue and her early supergroup shenanigans were added with Issue 21.
As the issues have passed, her story hasn't "progressed" but has instead been fleshed out where it was lacking. Each time you make a new character, her story restarts anew for that character.

Actually, Flambaeux has been one of the heroes that you fight in mayhem missions since they were introduced back in Issue 7.

Edit: Dammit, ninja'd.
At least I can claim a point for accuracy on the issue number as, although CoV released with Issue 6, mayhem missions weren't added until Issue 7.

Well, yeah, except that 30 merits are worth at least 5 million inf, while those bits of salvage are currently worth at most 4 million.

And those are my most conservative figures. It probably more like the merits being worth 15-20 mil and the salvage worth 2.5.

No it isn't.
To the developers, this is just an aside for now. Sure, if they sell 10 times better than anything before them, they might give the packs greater focus, but as things stand, they're just another item being added to the store soon, along with many other items. Yeah, the packs are probably getting more developer time than any other upcoming store item, but they're not getting more than the other items together, and certainly not more than the game as a whole or the upcoming Issue 22.

All the importance of these packs has been given by the players, not the developers. They're the ones making them into a big deal.

Good for you. Others haven't been so lucky.
I, for one, haven't ever had the inclination to farm iTrials to get enough iMerits to unlock more than a handful of the incarnate locked costume pieces.
So I'm left with a choice, give up on the pieces, or spend significant time doing something I don't want to. Either way, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
But it's something I just have to accept, and accept that those costumes are ones that weren't put in the game for my sake.

If you haven't come across any pieces that were put in the game in a way you didn't like before now, then you're the lucky one.

If you want the things in the packs, then you'd probably be better off if you just stop worrying about them and buy them. Whatever happens with the packs is going to happen regardless of if you personally buy them. I do understand the concerns people have about the packs, but whether or not those concerns come to pass won't be affected by one person. If you abstain from buying the packs, even though you want to, you'll only be hurting yourself.