I will prescribe double dose of vitamin at breakfast for everyone involved in the last posts about the “give me all the quests in the game” controversy!! No alcohol and 10 pushups a day for 3 weeks, too!!! SERIOUSLY GUYS !!!!
No clue where you're going with this one, I'd rather them not mess with this at all and move on to other things.
It's amazing how people aren't understanding the point of the question. By asking it, and not a single person being able to indicate more than a few quests, it shows how little impact it really would be to flip the switch to ALL/ALL. We aren't talking major widespread changes that would need to get implemented that would drastically affect day to day gameplay if not corrected like some past implementations (FTE, Vaniki spell functionality, Mischief loot to name a few). Lack of animations? Nothing is stopping them from putting up a warning banner letting people know about non standard class/race combos. Aradune has a banner still about its ruleset and those rules don't even exist anymore. Heck, DBG charges people money for illusions that come with no animations. Are people grabbing their pitchforks and torches over those? Waring's argument is they made a choice to use those. Well, didn't the people make a choice to choose thei race/class? How is that different at all?
I don't really care about them implement all/all, but after watching Asohka I can't lie, I'd love it if I could make my barbarian warrior have a barbarian shadowknight persona instead of DE or Iksar or whatever I'll chose, even if I had to deal with some awkwardness around quests. RIP
all/all is a way to fix the lack of barbarian paladins, iksar berserkers, iksar rogues, barbarian paladins, dark elf rangers, guktan mage, or barbarian paladins.
It means you cannot say or claim to KNOW because you don't. If I forget how to ride a bike I can't say I know how to ride a bike. You're a bad-faith poster if you claim knowledge about things you forgot all about which is exactly what you did here, you can't claim to know a thing other people know but you had forgotten either. This is one of the things you do frequently, make claims based on something you think may be true but do not actually know, and it is absolutely infuriating that you then defend it to the hilt afterwards. Stop it & get some help or do your damn research.
Nope. My guess is that the developers don't have the answers to the questions because they are scrambling to implement as much as possible and aren't sure what will make it in. The answer that's been given for a month or so is there hasn't been time to collect the questions is probably just a distraction, due to how trivial it'd be for someone from the CRC (Or anyone else familiar with the game) to organize the questions. Design questions are much eaiser to answer when the implementation is complete. #designedasimplemented
The questions have already largely been organized in a comment, in the relevant thread on the Beta forums. I presume, same as you, that they are still not sure what will work, on time or ever.
Maybe it would be a good idea to inform potential customers of what they may or may not be purchasing instead of hiding it away on a forum only for people who pay?
Well... it only pertains to people that pay. So... EDIT: There's no NDA, info IS being shared, this thread proves it.
It's a product they're selling on their site right now and they don't know what's in it. Maybe they should run things past their legal department first?
Because I can't remembers the various quests that I did 20+ years ago? Why it matters because people would expect those things to be working and the would rightly complain that they don't. Just because you don't care about them doesn't mean that others agree with you.
Please quit acting like quests are the only problem that would come up from enabling all races to be all classes. You seem to think because I have problems naming quests that all the other issues I raised are not relevant.
Even if people complain about it, they may accept it for the benefit it brings. If everyone could play all/all, they may enjoy that even though certain things aren't perfect. EQ could state as much in a disclaimer when setting up an unconventional combination. They could say that there will be missing visuals, animations, quests, etc. for the unconventional race/class combination and that customer service will not address any such issues. If someone doesn't like that, they can stick with the supported combinations. But someone else may want to be a DRU/TRL more than they care that some DRU armor doesn't have a TRL visual component or that they won't be able to complete some quest lines.
What benefit would be worth the complaints about things being broken or the work needed to fix them? With how personas are working what reason do they have to do this?
Who would be complaining? If someone picks DRU/TRL even with the disclaimer that it's not fully supported, they can't really be too upset about the things that aren't supported. Getting a fully supported DRU/TRL is very unlikely. Their choice is either to play a partially supported DRU/TRL or not play DRU/TRL at all. Given those two options, some people will pick a partially supported DRU/TRL and accept the limitations.
