Just as general commentary and not really agian a debate about good or ill.
I'm not sure I agree with you Wayne. The Box of Alkubar wasn't really the same thing as a retroactive change on the mask, and here is why. The Box change was a change from it's intended use mode to a new mode. There had been no previous warning nor was the box bugged. Verant just decided it was too useful. The Guise on the other hand was an abused item. For as long as I have known about the mask it was Bard/Rogue only. Without getting into the right or wrong of that the guise's power was abused by a oversight by verant that did not require the item equiped to be used. Had that been implimented from the begining it would not have been a problem.
Ergo If Verant had fixed all the Guises it would have been appropriate since it was clearly labeled and could be termed a bug abuse. The Box was a nerf to a useful item for no player benifit.
Adon
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 10:29:10 -0500 eqbards@onelist.com wrote:
> From: "Wayne Sheppard" <mrwayne@...>
>
> > From: Chris Musson <oblivious_the_mighty_confused@...>
> > 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
> retroactively
> > changed the old ones as well.
>
> Verant has learned that changing existing items should only be done as a
> last resort. Some people have spent time or money, or traded valuable items
> away to get their current Guise. It would be completely unfair to take this
> item away from them. Remember the Box of Abu Kar (sp?).....
>
> > What they should have (and should do still) is
> > put in a Bar/Trl/Ogr item that has unlimited charges of
> shrink...something like
> > "Moggok's bracer of not being a big fata**" or some such nonsense. The
> Guise
> > was intended to be Brd/Rog only. They should also put in an ultravision
> item
> > for da hummies.
>
> These are all good ideas for replacement items.
>
> > However, i also think that if the Manastone is "too Powerful" it should
> be > removed entirely (maybe turn it into a diamond so that the people who
> camped
> > for it get some ROI)
>
> Again, do you take something away from someone who may have invested much
> time and effort into getting? I'd say only if it was game inbalancing.
>
>
> > 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 EQ
> > population...Punishing those who did not start early, or were not lucky
> enough
> > to acquire the items before they were removed. In the case of the
> Manastone,
> > it makes casters (specifically clerics and druids) that have them better
> than
> > those that don't, and with the manastone gone, the casters that don't
> have it
> > will always be "inferior" to those that do. I realize this is kind of
> vague,
> > but this message is really long already....
>
> I agree that it's not completely fair, It rewards the powergames who got
> there first. There is no perfect solution. Verant now believes (as I do)
> that items should not be taken from players who already have earned them.
>
> Wayne
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Hey Freelancers: Find your next project through JobSwarm!
> You can even make $$$ in your sleep by referring friends.
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/jobswarm1 ">Click Here</a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please send submissions for the eqbards newsletter to lol@...
> with the subject submissions.