Did this patch modify Gladiator costume pieces?

[ QUOTE ]
Going to quote from all your posts to hopefully make my position absolutely clear.
[ QUOTE ]
I am/was querying why people are complaining about having to pay INF to change costumes. (their major complaint as per quotes).

[/ QUOTE ]
Reading comprehension failure on your part.

What I posted:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That said, the thing that irritates me most about the pieces isn't that they're gone - but that the tailor wants to *charge* us for things we're not willingly changing...or that are simply rearranged on a menu!

[/ QUOTE ]
This happens to be my major complaint.

[/ QUOTE ]
What you failed to do was take the sentence quoted as a whole. Instead you took a tiny part out of the middle and confused yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, so the actual cost isnt the issue, but the mess about having to change it back etc which is what I have been saying all along would be a hassle.

I'm still puzzled by the posters I originally quoted who said the inf cost was the major irritation.

I don't see the cost as a factor at all, pending change tokens, or why you even bother adding it to the complaint list.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because you are completely misunderstanding my position perhaps? The inf isn't a factor. If I was worried about the cost, I wouldn't care how many costume tokens I had or their effect on inflation.

For instance your statement here completely misses the point:
[ QUOTE ]
So, is your main reason for complaining about having to pay inf at the tailors to mandatory change outfits is inflation?

[/ QUOTE ]
Like Bill, I don't want to have to play hide-and-seek to find the same costume piece. However it IS salt in the wound to be charged for the "privilege" of doing so. The other half is that rather than let costume tokens be a fun reward, that role for the tokens has been rendered meaningless due to how many have been given out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm yeah, sure, reading comprehension was my fault for not understanding your text. No comunication problems from your end, no way that's unpossible.

The blame game is easier than going 'whoops I didnt mean that' isn't it?

But lesson learned, In future I wont worry about trying to understand while you might be saying something.

---

I don't suffer from altitis, I enjoy every minute of it.

Thank you Devs & Community people for a great game.

So sad to be ending ):

Look at my posts through this thread, I've been consistent.

---

[ QUOTE ]
Look at my posts through this thread, I've been consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]
I really shouldn't keep this going, as it was stray curiosty that prompted my post in the first place; but what does your consistency have to done with it? Does consistent equal clearly written or correct? Are you changing the goal posts of what we are/were discussing?

This is your quote in full, and your first comment in this thread, and what puzzled me idly.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That said, the thing that irritates me most about the pieces isn't that they're gone - but that the tailor wants to *charge* us for things we're not willingly changing...or that are simply rearranged on a menu!

[/ QUOTE ]
This happens to be my major complaint.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really cant see how you can read as anything other than "the thing that irritates me most about the pieces isn't that they're gone - but that the tailor wants to *charge* us for things we're not willingly changing" or the thing that irritates me most about the pieces isn't that they're gone - but that the tailor wants to *charge* us for things that ... are simply rearranged on a menu" as anything other than the inf being the important factor.
You can now return to being confrontational about my reading comprehension than acknowledging what you wrote wasn't what you intended.

---

I don't suffer from altitis, I enjoy every minute of it.

Thank you Devs & Community people for a great game.

So sad to be ending ):

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look at my posts through this thread, I've been consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]
I really shouldn't keep this going, as it was stray curiosty that prompted my post in the first place; but what does your consistency have to done with it? Does consistent equal clearly written or correct? Are you changing the goal posts of what we are/were discussing?

This is your quote in full, and your first comment in this thread, and what puzzled me idly.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That said, the thing that irritates me most about the pieces isn't that they're gone - but that the tailor wants to *charge* us for things we're not willingly changing...or that are simply rearranged on a menu!

[/ QUOTE ]
This happens to be my major complaint.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really cant see how you can read as anything other than "the thing that irritates me most about the pieces isn't that they're gone - but that the tailor wants to *charge* us for things we're not willingly changing" or the thing that irritates me most about the pieces isn't that they're gone - but that the tailor wants to *charge* us for things that ... are simply rearranged on a menu" as anything other than the inf being the important factor.
You can now return to being confrontational about my reading comprehension than acknowledging what you wrote wasn't what you intended.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the inf. It's changes that we had nothing to do with. Part 4 becomes part 7? Charge 50,000 inf! That's where the problem is.

---