rsclark

If that's what he meant, why would he say "solo only play style", given that those words in no way imply anything you just said?

Not sure, but I know the reverse works. If you take a tumble off a sky scraper and turn on SJ before you hit, you take no/less damage.

What are you talking about, it's not like adding 3 new power slots would make the game explode or something. Oh Shi...

I'm sure if CoH were to write him a nice paycheck at his going rate, he would be happy to.

Doing repetitive tasks in order to get a reward is not the same thing as playing the game.

So, in your world, the entire endgame is "a few minutes"?

Yea, it clears up that you are only interested in arguing against the most transparent strawmen imaginable. Yup - pretty clear.

Please explain what you find whiny about wanting to have fun in a game you pay for.

What still bothers me is that they needed to be told. It still seems like it came as a huge shock to them that not everyone wanted massive cluster ***** for new content.

If you've got two throw away powers in the medicine tree, it's much less likely you got to softcap without sacrificing something else.

Then they are fools and if they would come out and say it openly we could stop giving them money.

Oh look, he dared you. In all caps no less. He must be serious.

Oh look! It's that stupid argument again.

Nope. Without an area fear to stack with it's effectively worthless.

5% recharge + ED on the regen bonus + near cap recharge to keep it up on more allies at the same time

Sometimes slotting helps the base effects of the power and not just the global bonuses.

Why not just buy them off the market and spend my time with my friends doing things I enjoy instead?

Then we would have some pieces with rings and others without. I like easy questions.

Then people could make costumes using a rocketpack with rings?

Given that we are just as likely to be using that rocketpack with tights pattern #3 as with the new space suit, it won't fit the new non-ring item any less that it fits with the hundreds of non-ring items we already have to potentially combine with it.

And the game is being improved by removing that needless limitation. This is no different than the way the game was improved by the removal of the needless cape limitation or the needless travel power limitation.

It is a question of why they choose to improve the game a little when they could instead improve it by even more with no additional coding requirements. It's effectively a free boost in the quality of the game at no real cost.

And most games also require that you be wearing this particular blue hat or that pair of ugly shoes at max level if you want to be effective. The fact that this game does not require that is its greatest strength. Trophy pieces are for games that are about bragging about your uber gear, not for games focused on freedom and creativity. It's a question of which one we want this game to be.

Good.

Part of your implication here is that a sword is less "critically defining" than a chest piece is. I'm not sure that I agree with that, but even if I did, I would prefer to leave it to the individual to decide what is "critically defining" for their own characters.

It is a question of where they place value in the game - ie a larger issue. Gating costume content is placing value on bragging rights - on some people having something that others do not and being able to "show off" that fact - and I find that to be an overall harmful attitude for them to want to encourage.

That is all perfectly valid as a way for making a decision to buy this particular pack. What it doesn't address is the larger issue of why they aren't offering certain things at all. It's a mistake to miss the forest because of the trees.

It's not "needed" now, but it certainly would have made the game better on day 1. Being on at the same time as 2 friends and not being able to do anything together without relegating one guy to getting no XP was not fun.

And from this we can answer the OP question with "It's so good because it has significantly improved over the years."

Heck, I still remember trying to tetris an 8 man group together before super sidekicking. The choice to take something that's already good and make it better makes the game good.

I clipped down to these two "facts" since they are the only ones relevant here and the others are you just fluffing the word count of your post.

The first one isn't a "fact" so much as it is a choice. A decision they made. No one denies that you accurately described their choice, only whether it is a stupid choice or not.

And as for the second one there, yes, you are correct again. That does accurately describe what would be true if they did include the weapons for sale. Of course, it does not go on to give any reason why that would be a bad thing, so it approaches the same level of irrelevance as the other "facts" you listed.

What are these two hypothetical groups? No, really, presumably there is a group out there that would be upset if people could access certain swords at level 1. Who are these people? What rationale do they have for that opinion and why should that rationale be respected by anyone?

Maybe you should have a talk with them about respecting their customers more.

To appease those who are (how do you say) "inadequate in the pants" who need something to brag about.