I'm always astounded at how many people say they stream frequently, or list it as a priority.
I've never done it, I have no ambition to do it, (I don't have the bandwidth to do it), and I don't really care to watch other people play games when I could be playing them myself. I think I'm too old to "get it".
The Mentor/Sidekick system. It just worked. You could be any level, and group with any other level, and it did a decent job of making sure it still worked out ok. It wasn't as robust as a truly dynamic system like One Tameril has, but it also came out a decade before that.
The customization was fun, it got down to the level that you could customize the shaders and color of the particle effects that your powers had. The power sets were varied, and didn't necessarily vie for parity - they were just built for fun. There were definitely FoTM builds, but the meta in the game didn't revolve around spreadsheets and optimal DPS rotations - it was just about what you liked - you could make anything work.
It had an in-game mission builder, and you could run player-created missions that were creative and fun. Neverwinter has something similar now, but CoH had it first.
Open-world missions and events that were common. Rift and GW2 take a lot of pride in their public quests, but CoH was the precursor and did a good job of them.
The lore and story - the world had a rich story, and the quests/story line lead you through it and made you a part of it. And the "sequel" - CoVillains, integrated into the same world, and you could have Villain characters that came at the same world, interacted with Hero characters, and it was awesome. It wasn't just adding "another faction" and enabling some PvP options.
The game had instancing early on (and was one of the first to do so), but honestly, the instancing was one of the weaker points of CoH - it got repetitive early on, and was nowhere near as interesting as the open world events. They were the necessary evil in CoH.
Champions Online, DCUO, and Marvel Online are all super-hero genres, and CO is closest in spirit, but none of them are entirely CoH replacements.
A lot of games have a lot of the good things CoH had, but I haven't come across anything that hits all those points in the same way. I think it's going to remain one of those special games that can't be replaced (like SWG), and if you missed it, I'm sorry, but there isn't anything else quite like CoH was.
First of all, using Chrome on Win10, but appears issue is also on Chrome OS X.
Two issues related to Agree/Awesome/etc buttons on a post
The first deals with posts that I have made. I can see if someone has clicked something, and it appears there's a little icon that's supposed to indicate what they clicked, but I'm old with tired eyes and I can't differentiate between them. Before it would just pop up the button with a click count, and if I rolled over the button, it showed me who clicked it. Now I can't see the buttons at all (I do realize the buttons only appear on rollover now, they don't show up at all for posts I have made), and I just get a few of these icons.
Second, those icons. For posts from other people, when they don't have a signature or there is no Edit flag (like in the above picture) -- the icons overlap the text of the thread.
But it's not because of AMD or Ryzen, or anything to do with their CPU division. That's really the coattails they have been riding for the better part of 40 years now. That, and their server/enterprise division, has been where Intel's value has been traditionally. Stock markets want to see growth, that's what drives stock prices, and it's how companies like Amazon and Tesla can have their stock prices continue to skyrocket even though they are losing money.
They are squirming because Desktop/Laptop CPU sales are stagnant at best, or declining depending on how you look at it. They totally missed the boat on Mobile - ARM locked that up and that is a business that is utterly booming. IoT is also in there, and as of right now, that's following the same footsteps as mobile. Their wireless division hasn't really taken off as they would have liked (althoiugh they are starting to make inroads with at least Apple). Their interface division hasn't really taken off as much as they would have liked (Thunderbolt, which recently went royalty free in an effort to keep it relevent). Non-Intel GPUs have taken a large chunk of the HPC market and now their enterprise market is being threatened. Their Tick/Tock approach has stalled out, largely due to the astronomical increase of developing new and smaller process nodes (the corollary to Moore's First Law is Rock's Law: as transistor count goes up, the production price also goes up exponentially), and Intel foundries have historically been leader of the pack in that regard.
It isn't that Intel isn't trying. They have tried to diversify in the past 10-15 years. They bought McAfee, that didn't pan out so they sold most of it it off again. They bought Havok - same story. They invested a lot into graphics, and it got them still 10 steps behind everyone else with IGP, and Knights Landing, which they just discontinued a significant portion of. They are betting a lot on Optane, but by all early accounts, it looks like a stinker outside of specific server environments. Intel even has a significant VR push, but I won't turn this into a discussion about VR with my opinions about that.
All in all, it makes me wonder if Intel had spent the same amount of resources they had in attempting to diversify-- all that money spent on Havok and McAfee and such, and doubled down on what they do great: their world-leading foundry and x86 CPU technology - where they would be today. If Intel really tried to continue to push the envelope on CPUs even in the absence of competition (not just efficiency or speed or core count, but overall in general), would the landscape look any different than it does today?
It wasn't until Apple slashed their entire product line down to about 4 products that it turned around in the late 90's and focused on what they do great: not hardware or software, but the overall user experience -- and drilled that user experience down into essence of every product they made. Now it flirts with being one of the most valued companies in the world.
Not that I think Intel should parallel Apple, I'm just a general opponent of a conglomerate that tries to diversify so much that it loses focus of it's core, and Apple's story shows at least one company that realized that (if they still do today, remains to be seen). Intel seems like a company running around like a chicken with it's head cut off: they don't know where they are going, so they are just trying a little bit of everything and hoping something takes off, rather than focusing on what they do well and finding ways to apply that.