Jophiel

Hanging around Atlas Park and seeing the female models, I think "shiny, scanty, cutout" would be a definite profit victory.

No, Bikini 1 didn't come with the set. It is, however, the default bottom option (top of the list) and the least visible when you don't want to step on the new set pieces.

Off the cuff, my guess would be because they want to restrict showing the set parts to purely the set parts as much as possible. A long "gunslinger" skirt would have been nice but, in its absence, they'd rather remove the visual bottom entirely than add in parts from other sets while showcasing this one.

Obviously this doesn't preclude you from adding in your own skirt, leggings, etc.

When it's one out of ten, we can decimate them and it'll be problem solved.

No. I have no idea where you got that from so color us both confused.

I've said before that I have no issue with giving female models various parts (jackets, etc) but that I'd hate to see it deter the artists from the exceptional work they've done on some of the uniquely feminine bits.

What I object to is people acting as though those bits are somehow forcing themselves onto their models or something. If you think Part A looks like prosititute-wear, throw a shirt or pants on under it.

Edit: Really? The casual "h-word" for prostitute is censored?

Ask me when she can throw fire and/or command legions of robots.

Once again, no one forces you to use Eden under that corset or Bikini 1 under that skirt except you. Every inch of skin shown is an inch you decided to show.

I think the last time anyone actually cared about using it in that manner was in ancient Rome

Ok, so Zwill's link says it was first used in 1660 but you get the jist.

I referenced this briefly before, but I think the amount of detail and variance of designs may make the set feel more limiting in some ways. If I'm making a guy with a sword, there's a number of swords to choose from and they're all "swords" for most purposes. Especially if I'm just looking for a sharp bit of metal and not some tech blade, you could remove any particular sword and I could find another "close enough" for my concept.

On the other hand, a giant jet turbine on a stick or torn up railroad signal pretty much defines the character rather than the other way around. You need (or at least I need) a fairly narrow concept to go with most of the weapon designs. So you mentally eliminate the ones that are way off concept and feel as though there's less options than the list shows.

I'm not saying this as some grand criticism or anything, just pointing out some issues of perception perhaps they didn't consider.

You sure? I think it was "Rage!"

But there was more. They just broke them out as a separate purchase.

As others have noted, the "mistake" here may have been offering the booster immediately which makes it look like you're only getting offered half a plate for the basic price.
That and too many people can't read an opinion they don't like without dismissing it as "whining" to make themselves feel better (or try to shame the other guy into silence... or both)

People can try to sell reasons why you only get six choices but, at the end of the day, it's still only six choices.

It doesn't really bother me but I can see why other people would object to getting six initial skins and the option to buy four more.

The base power set comes with... 4(?) skins. That's less than the other power sets as other have pointed out. Even with the "booster", the options feel a little limited but I think that's a case of each piece being so distinctive that you mentally eliminate most right off the bat.

Venting and rage is half the battle. The other half is overblown hyperbole in calling every comment you dislike "Rage" (or hysteria, crying, screaming, etc.).

I don't really care much one way or the other but my understanding is that some people feel that they were given a stripped down set for the "Regular" price just so the remainder could be sold back to them.

Everyone loves analogies!
"Hey, Mr. Burger Man! This burger with large fries is great! Wish I could buy cheese sauce for my fries though..."
"Right ho! From now on, for the same price as before you can get a burger and small fries and for an extra dollar fifty, I'll give you a cup of cheese sauce!"
"..."
"I listened to my customer and fulfilled your request! Hooray!"

Of course it was intended. It wasn't "a" veteran reward, it was broken into three or four veteran "rewards". You think it was an accident that the whole F2P/cash shop just happened to roll out with an exclusive and very distinctive VIP costume that required you to be at the top tier (good thing you can buy your way up) and then spend multiple tokens once you get there?

Can you name another veteran reward costume set that required four different rewards to collect it all? Boxing set? Sleek tech?

I'm not even arguing right now whether it was right or wrong but there's a very valid argument to be made for including the Celestial set in a discussion of paid costume sets.

Or maybe have a "Barbarian pack" with other themed parts that aren't already included via other sets. If we can already make armored barbarian women, why not a Barbarian pack with different styles of pieces?

I think you had missed part of my point.

Thank heavens that for every time the issues DOES come up, there's a vigilant Junior Mod guardian ready to throw a princess-hissy over the topic being raised.

God salute you, Good Sir.

The beauty being that you're allowed to mix and match parts between sets.



That's not perfect (and it can't be due to CC limitations such as asymmetrical parts, skirt lengths or hair with helmets) but that took me all of two minutes to whip out. Going back to my earlier remarks, people act as though each costume set exists in a bubble or that they HAVE to use Eden tops under their corsets or something. I'm not against women models getting more armor bits and stuff but I don't feel that the complete argument is an honest one.

Edit: In retrospect and I'm not about to reopen CoH, but I should have used some semi-obscuring strappy leg option under her skirt to cover her exposed thighs rather than the default Bikini 1. Again, an option that was open to me even if I didn't think of doing it.

"Option" being an important word here. People were crabbing about the Steampunk corsets and ignoring the fact that corsets are a chest detail. They're only revealing if you go out of your way to hide the mandatory top underneath them. Likewise, no one is forcing you to use a skirt with Bikini 1 underneath instead of putting one of the other myriad of leg options under it.

Hit random a few dozen times and see how many costumes come out as overtly sexy. You actually have to intentionally set out to do it. It's not hard to do it, but it's not accidental either.

I'd rather see the designers try to hit a few marks (jackets, a pants option) in each pack assuming it holds to theme (we don't need an astronaut open jacket) but then treating each set as a separate entity. I'm in the minority on that though and it seems to be counter to the way things are moving.

And yet Fabio-esque characters keep making the covers of pulp romance novels.