As someone who primarily plays on FV nowadays, I spent longer than I'd like to admit genuinely confused why you thought these were two different things. Anyway, it's fine on FV/Mischief. I've never heard complaints about group players burning themselves out mega-grinding missions on all their alts just to equip their main in group gear on day 1. While I agree that it would be a slight change from the status quo (on servers other than FV/Mischief), someone with 10 personas is still going to want 11 sets of gear upgrades eventually. Letting them get fully upgraded sequentially rather than in parallel is not a game-breaking difference. It does seem like it may be counter to the intent of APs. In most other places, they've taken the decision that prevents playing one persona from benefitting another. I just want to say that it's actually a pretty reasonable request. APs currently occupy a confusing (to me, at least) middle ground between actually being the same character and being an alt. These sorts of disagreements probably aren't going to disappear any time soon.
Personas are kind of lame as they are now. The only benefit I see right now is that alternate currency wouldn't be worthless after getting all the gear on your main persona, and you might be able to use it to free up some fellowship spots. I'd really like if you could swap in any zone as long as you are completely out of combat.
I didn't use personas at first because of the initial reports we have all seen. But I also play on vaniki sometimes, they are really good there. Personas are very popular on vaniki so many of us are familiar with them, and how there are a few best practices to have the best experiences with them...one example of this is to never fast camp. I think it's strange they didn't have the persona selector be something you choose from the character select. Sure, it's faster to be able to do it from within the game but it seems much less likely to have an issue come up if it was selected at character select.
So far my experience with Personas is that I’m underwhelmed. It’s mostly due to class balance issues and abilities. They functioned fine for me, but it just served as a reminder why I chose the classes that I did.
A lot of classes suck or lack desirable utility or synergies. So, it felt underwhelming to make another class when some classes are head and shoulders above others. It just reinforced why I made the classes that I did originally.
Things like "never fast camp" are pretty scary/irritating actually. It's not a great feeling that you could suddenly break your character if you unthinkingly hit "yes" on a popup box that used to be safe. The selector thing is clearly intentional though. They've made it pretty clear that traveling to a camp/spawn with one persona and then killing with another is not intended. Letting you select your desired persona from character select would be a loophole around that desired restriction. If they ever relent on that and let you switch in any zone out of combat, then choosing at character select could potentially be back on the table.
So far my experience with Alts is that I’m underwhelmed. It’s mostly due to class balance issues and abilities. They functioned fine for me, but it just served as a reminder why I chose the classes that I did. Fixed
There is already a dragon hoard, where AP gear can be stored. No need for a second one. As the dragon hoard is only accessible from banks, that is a contradiction to "allow the swapping between Alternate Personas allowed in any zone WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RAID ZONES". Banks could be added as areas where APs can be swapped. Good for Runnyeye, Chardok, Sanctus Seru, Katta Castellum, Fungus Grove, Sarith and other locations. Soulbinders should be also added to have a spot in each expansion. Limiting it to starting cities and fast camp zones is just the lazy way to do it as it is much less work than adding zone areas to dozens of zones or dialogues to hundreds on NPCs. For consistency and simplicity I would limit AP swaps to just banks and soulbinders and remove starting cities and fast camp zones. Each starting city has a bank and a souldinder, and most fast camp zones also.
#1 It really is not scary. It's just that if a person is switching persona's and then immediately camping out using fast camp, it can be done before the save. A person could also just simply zone. People are really blowing things out of proportion, they literally acknowledged that there was an issue and six people required GM intervention. #2 Having a persona selector at character select does not have to mean they would be at the position the other persona or main was. This is a forum so I guess I have to be more specific, but if a persona is in shadowhaven and the main character is in plane of growth when they camp out, if they selected the persona at character select they could be in shadowhaven on the persona. As things are now, I have been coming across multiple ways of persona's making playing a second toon less of a chore and lot more fun.
6 hour lockout from individual missions was fine when there was more than 6 hours of current missions in the game (like COTF)
If they were the same character you would not have argued for days on how they should be considered alts on raids for bidding purposes. Lockouts remain pointless. It discourages cooperative play in a game designed around socialization. Control the rate of currency and loot? Why does that even matter? What is the detriment? I know why they were created, I'm asking why does that even matter on the fiest place? Something you or anyone has yet to answer. Furthernore, there are functionally better and more engaging ways to accomplish this goal besides slapping on an arbitrary 6 hour timer onto the win.
Just because they are the same character doesn't mean that they can or should be able to bid on anything during raids. The issue is that raiding forces control loot in order to ensure that it is used to help improve the raid force and allow them to complete raids more efficiently. A priest main looting a top dps weapon for a persona that won't be used at raids isn't going to help the raid in any way. As for controlling the rate that things enter that is what the devs want as you might have noticed in the past that the price of items increased on raid/group merchants as the rate currency entered the game increased. Or that the amount of currency that is rewarded for LS missions is higher due to the fact that there are only two of them. Just because you don't agree with the lockouts and the reasons that have been presented doesn't mean that is the goal of the devs in creating them.
Just because...the most iconic Waring phrase. Either APs are the same char or not. You can't eat your cake and have it too. If you want to restrict them like alts, you should call them alts. You can't call them alts for one topic and the same character for another. And continung your trend of answering none of my questions and repeating the same garbage. Typical Waring. It's a good thing nobody takes what you say seriously. I know the reasons the why they were created. I am asking why does that reason even matter? What is the detriment of giving players the ability to do content faster a bad thing? They are literally making the game less engaging and forcing people to play less. That seems counter intuitive.
Why would you make it more restrictive than it already is? If I origin I don't want to be running to an NPC just to change to persona before I campfire back. That just makes it take even longer for no reason.
I can understand them wanting to limit the amount of loot entering the game, but I would rather have no lockouts and no chest loot and just currency with all the old chest items on the group vendor.
DBG wants money. If I can get all my loot and gear within two months, and not subscribe the remaining ten months, that is $170 lost revenue. Lockouts are there for reasons. One of which is to control how quickly someone can outfit themselves and be "done" with the expansion. It ensures a monthly stream of revenue for DBG that I cannot get all my type 5 augments and raid gear within the first couple weeks.
Then the devs can acutally do their jobs and "develop" some other way to keep people playing than just just mindless farming of missions and/or raids for months at a time.
What a baseless claim. But again, that still doesn't answer the question. What actual detriment would removing a lockout cause? Them to possibly lose some money? You have zero evidence to back that up. It's nothing but a hypothesis. You know how they can fix that problem? Actually making engaging content rather than arbitrary lockout timers that literally restrict you from playing the game. Besides, you can do what you say. Wait til 3x currency in the summer and unsub again til the summer. Oh look, all your gear achieved in 1/3 the time!
There are ways to prevent loot from entering the game without restricting the players from actually playing the game. And I still have yet to have a valid explanation why limiting gear actually matters.
