Umber

Looks to me like you are reading too much into Zamuel's post, I see no suggestion of conspiracy, he merely stated that i17 brought new TF content blueside and none redside and that perhaps redside could stand some new content of its own. Hard to see how that is not a fair critique. The players did indeed request the Posi TF revamp and now this user is making a request of his own, no harm no foul.

Marauder does look pretty darn sweet altho its unfortunate the screenshot so prominently displays a rather ugly clipping issue between his right hand and upper arm.

The screenshot showing him from another angle seems to reveal the laser doo-hickey on his left hand is simply strapped in place with some cord or rope. Quirky and cool.

I've 10 or so 2bil bids of my own serving as convenient inf storage (if any of them get lucky I can easily enough turn around and sell it on the forums for 3-4bil), can't help but imagine that there are others doing the same thing. Would be considerably surprised to see one of those items sell for less than 2bil on the market barring a change in the drop rate or how the IO operates.

Agreement with the whole post, this is an expansion on my comments on efficient leveraging put to a finer point. Altho I should say the hording aspect is holding hands with the multi-alt "I have 19 merits left, oh well they will just sit there until I remember to run a short ouro arc" scenario. People are sitting on merits until they get 200 for the LotG or 20 for the random roll, either way its sitting outside the market that pooling would allow improved efficiency. That was my point in comparing to emailing inf and how many alts sit on small amounts of such.

But "entering the market" can be taken from a broader perspective here. Yes, being able to email inf around won't actually add a single inf to the game world that wasn't already there but it will make it easier to shuffle around that inf to a single character as a better-leveraged resource. Not everyone has multiple accounts to make such inf transfer easy. Even getting a friend or SG mate to mule inf between two alts involves resources that players might not always have (trust, or SG/friends for that matter).

I believe results of the shift to merit drops as TF rewards is a concrete example of this behavior at play. We saw a recipe shortage after the merits change, but why would we if merits equaled out to the same if not more ability to create random rolls? Because people sit on small merit amounts, there is no easy way to leverage the few merits across multiple alts to a reasonable pool of merits on a single alt. If folks could trade merits I've no doubt that "merit efficiency" would increase significantly.

Its really both. There was an Issue 5 preceding CoV and an Issue 7 following it, either the box was considered Issue 6 or the devs decided to skip that issue like it was the 13th floor. Heroes that did not buy CoV still got a new Issues worth of content with the PvP zones being the big chunk as well as SG-graphics-UI changes that bled over from the CoV labor. Likewise, all signs point to GR being considered Issue 18.

Even if counting all the Green Lantern Corps as a single naming entity you'd probably need to acknowledge the existence of the Alan Scott Green Lantern separate from the GLC. On an added note, there are currently three Flashes running around (Jay, Barry, Wally) and there were three Supermen (Earth-2, -1, and -Prime) until Kal-L was killed. Then there are cross-company dupes like Scarecrow, Daredevil, Hercules, etc.

Hmm... <goes back and reads my post> I'm not seeing the condescension, dismissal, or claims of shortsightedness/stupidity. I dunno, maybe you took brevity as dismissal? Didn't feel the need to post an lengthy thesis covering every single detail of the global-naming debate within a Quick Reply listing my personal opinion. There are a couple of anti-global posts in the thread that are equally short if not moreso, was the "that is all" posting condescending? I didn't find it so just because the poster and I happened to be in disagreement, one player's opinion in a spectrum. Not sure why I'm being held to some imagined higher standard here.

At least I can somewhat understand the confusion with the above but I'm totally at a loss over this supposed dev-mindset claim. My comments presumed the devs will make the *best* financial decision fitting their plans for moving forward with the game, how did that get turned completely around into allegedly calling them stupid?

Anyways, this old-timer would be fine seeing character names tied to globals as long as a competent job was done in hiding the globals until needed for conflict resolution. Other applications have proved capable of handling conflicts well, my workplace literally has eleven John Smiths working here but we muddle through somehow But I'm not picketing Paragon Studios for this feature to be added, I'm mildly for it, would not complain if it happened, won't be shedding many tears if it doesn't, and believe what could be a good decision in some scenarios might be a bad decision in others (retention-focus vs growth-focus).

Sorry that my opinion rubbed ya so wrong this morn.