This is a minor change but one that should have been in place from the start. I've noticed that if I wish for my character's face to be uniform I'm almost forced to pick brown or black due to the eyebrows inability to change colour. It wouldn't be too hard to create molded eyebrows (like the hair and beard) then place them onto anchor points across the existing texture. This would not only improve character appearance but would also give a greater range of expression they could present due to the fact the eyebrows would be actual features rather than just painted blotches. Now I know this isn't something of major importance but if there are any other players like me who are avid roleplayers it's quite distracting to be forced to create a character that appears younger than our intended persona simply based on this one minor oversight. Personally I play a wise old Sith with deep silver hair and I can't get past the fact every feature on his head says old with the exception of his eyebrows which convey a horrible application of Just for Men hair and beard colour. Please remedy this issue; whether it be by the sculpted eyebrows suggested or even a multiply mask overlay on the current eyebrows (fairly simple to script into the game.)

The title should be self-explanatory but if it's not, what I want to be added is more singular dye modules. I personally love Deep Red and Dark Red but they always come tied to other colours which ruin the particular outfit I like them on (Concealed Bodysuit) as it has a unique base texture and when a primary colour is added it becomes muted and off-colour. Whether these be from Cartel packs or crafted doesn't matter just that more options are added.

Again, this same stupid argument when the advertisement clearly states "UNIQUE GREEN COLOUR CRYSTAL", it doesn't say Unique named crystal or Unique level restricted crystal, it explicitly says GREEN COLOUR. Seriously you people need to learn to read.

It says "Stride into combat in style with this unique green Colour Crystal!" actually.

Again, the crystal here in question is listed as part of the packaged product and the package does not say "Exclusive named crystal" it states "Unique green colour crystal". As the simple fact that a Bioware employee had to step in and sit here stating the RGB values along with screen shots with no backlight they are practically showing that there is a problem, they are too close to be different under most lighting unless one stares at them a moment but passing glance you'd merely say "Oh look another event crystal".

I'm going to point out your misconception and be done with this, per the BBB; the intentional misrepresentation of goods/features even if in a virtual environment still constitutes false advertising. Review the recent action under scrutiny currently where the BBB ruled that Bioware was guilty of false advertising due to Mass Effect 3's in-game ending not conforming to their advertisement. Now then, I know exactly where your comment came from and I can tell you that it's an essay from years ago on the legalities of binding contracts, terms of service, end user licensing agreements, and virtual goods. That particular essay you read was in reference to in game items being sold for real world within the virtual world, I.E. cash shops (items purchased within the world which directly require outside funding). Let's stop being so juvenile and arguing with me just for the sake of argument. My point is valid based on a multitude of rulings over the years, beyond that we didn't ever say we wanted to take them to court we merely stated we wanted either the product or the item corrected. Not a big issue. But you however, you're the one who keeps pushing this "get a lawyer and sue them" nonsense as if you have a personal vendetta and wish for someone else to enact your retribution. So in summation... Quit butting your head in where it doesn't belong.

This is the requirements to prove an advertisement as false, I'd read them carefully because you'll find that all stipulations are met. To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things: (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience; (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. False statements can be defined in two ways: those that are false on their face and those that are implicitly false. As follows... (1) They claim it is unique still regardless that it is no longer. (2) As it remains stated and the event crystal is in the system then it is deceiving on future customers and prior customers alike. (3) The crystal DOES affect purchasing decision, many have stated such. (4) This applies also. (5) It results in excess expenditure by consumers due to the advertisement being misleading as I've shown previously with the identical products (not SW:ToR branded) being substantially less costly.

It's not false accusations as long as they still have the advertisement up claiming it as a unique crystal. That's the problem, if they were to change the advertisement on the product and all future products that would nullify the argument for future customers but past customers whose products still say it's a unique crystal are still technically covered by false advertising as the item was part of the packaged product.

The +/-5% comes from taking their RGB swatch numbers and putting them into Photoshop then adjusting the Hue scale. I.E. if you do -5% yellow to the original colour you get the green event colour and do +5% yellow you are returned to green with hint of yellow. As for the unique comment, unique by definition means either rare, one of a kind, limited in quantity, or one of a kind (without going into in-depth dictionary definitions) and the exclusive remark was made by a Bioware employee in response to a ticket questioning their adding of the controversial crystal as an event item. Furthermore in response to the crystal being unique at the time remark, that can be questioned as I'm still awaiting my Keyboard's delivery (ran out of stock) and when I recieve it, the package I can assure you will still contain the same message, if I were to add another code to my secondary or third account then the crystal given would not be unique so that is perspective.

While for the most part you are correct, from a technical standpoint they are indeed in the wrong and guilty of false advertising due to the wording of their product package. What we want is our crystal to meet the product description that both Razer and Bioware/EA have stated. Which per their response/product package is a unique and exclusive colour crystal (The key word to note here is colour). A +/-5% hue change on either crystal yields the exact colour matching the previous and as such it is not sufficiently unique or exclusive as not to be mistaken for the event crystal. This invalidates the claims of them being unique and exclusive and as such is false advertising. As I mentioned before it's the simple issue that it's on the package as being included and unique/exclusive is where the problem arises. The fact they gave away a product that was mentioned as being only available through the purchase of peripherals is the entire issue. If they had said it was a perk, bonus, free, or extra then this debate would be null and void, even I will admit that. However as it stands the label states it's included and thus they are guilty of false advertising. As a consumer it's only reasonable to expect a grievous (and costly) error fixed.

The line that you have quoted is your own fallacy. It states "Unique green colour crystal", this line leads one to believe it's COLOUR is what is unique, as it is no longer then the defense presented fails. Beyond being a mechanical engineering major and digital illustration student, I also happen to be the top student in my Philosophy courses so setting up straw man arguments and logical fallacies against me is about as useful as throwing an egg at a brick wall. All you will accomplish is making a mess.

If you'd please keep the juvenile comments to a limit please, we're trying to be civil but if you insist on provoking you can expect a harsh and lengthy retort. Now then, we don't want supremacy over the colour green, neither do we want a refund; what we want is our crystal to meet the product description that both Razer and Bioware/EA have stated. Which per their response/product package is a unique and exclusive colour crystal. A +/-5% hue change on either crystal yields the exact colour matching the previous and as such it is not sufficiently unique or exclusive as not to be mistaken for the event crystal. This invalidates the claims of them being unique and exclusive and as such is false advertising. On a side note, I'd also like to point out that the terms of service and rules of conduct you agreed to when creating your account state explicitly that any act of "Trolling" is a breach of your contract and can result in account suspension or termination depending on the level of harassment taking place.

The thread keeps being sidetracked by person(s) wanting to divert the issue and mention that the colour and the definitions of unique and exclusive. The real issue here is a claim of false advertising as the product (Razer SW:ToR branded peripherals) state on the box that they include a unique (also exclusive per Bioware's employee) crystal that cannot be obtained by any other means. The event crystal released shortly after (two months for myself since purchasing of the product) is the same with the exception of a +/-5% hue change, to the untrained eye they are easily mistaken which in turn means ours (the reference to copyright was exactly that, reference for comparison of how something is classified different) is no longer sufficiently unique or exclusive as it is so easily mistaken for the event item. This all semantics in the end as anyone who has not purchased the peripherals is inherently biased as they (most at least) only see the argument through the point of view "They are crying because they aren't special anymore." and fail to see that the issue here is that we were misled and charged an extra premium on the basis that the peripherals would affect both the real and in-game worlds via exclusive perks that were unobtainable through any other means.

As the following image demonstrates, if one takes either colour mentioned assuming a saturation level of 100% and changes the hue by +/- 5% (I have rounded this because the exact number has far too many decibels to bother with) then the result is the EXACT colour of the aforementioned crystals. Colour Comparison (Side by side) http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g355/kiregean/44283525.jpg

You can but at a cost of 250,000 credits (as opposed to the free for the event crystal) but we have no option for mid level crystal.