[Next Message in Time] |
[Previous Message in Time] |
[Next Message in Topic] |
[Previous Message in Topic]
Message ID: 11736
Date: Mon Dec 13 15:29:10 GMT 1999
Author: Wayne Sheppard
Subject: Re:Re: Guise of the Deceiver (Longish)
> From: Chris Musson <oblivious_the_mighty_confused@...>retroactively
> Subject: Re:Re: Guise of the Deceiver (Longish)
>
> My personal opinion on the Guise change (i hope not inflamatory) :
>
> I think that the guise change is a good one, but they should have
> changed the old ones as well.Verant has learned that changing existing items should only be done as a
> What they should have (and should do still) islike
> put in a Bar/Trl/Ogr item that has unlimited charges of shrink...something
> "Moggok's bracer of not being a big fata**" or some such nonsense. TheGuise
> was intended to be Brd/Rog only. They should also put in an ultravisionitem
> for da hummies.These are all good ideas for replacement items.
> However, i also think that if the Manastone is "too Powerful" it should becamped
> removed entirely (maybe turn it into a diamond so that the people who
> for it get some ROI)Again, do you take something away from someone who may have invested much
> While i'm at it...JBoots should have to be worn to be used IMSO.Agreed.
> Leaving the old items on the people that already had it stratifies the EQenough
> population...Punishing those who did not start early, or were not lucky
> to acquire the items before they were removed. In the case of theManastone,
> it makes casters (specifically clerics and druids) that have them betterthan
> those that don't, and with the manastone gone, the casters that don't haveit
> will always be "inferior" to those that do. I realize this is kind ofvague,
> but this message is really long already....I agree that it's not completely fair, It rewards the powergames who got