FELLOWSHIP INCREASE

I'm not sure where this is supposed to be posted, and i really havent seen too much about it, but can we pleaseeeeeee atleast double the amount of people we can put in a fellowship? i know just between my main and boxes(which i use the campfire a lot) is 5 slots, if i let one more person i tend to group with frequently join with their alt(s) practically at number their, it really limits how effective the fellowship use can be! i dont care if its like merc slots and you have to buy it off marketplace, but it is time, more space!!! Please, and thank you.

I agree, especially if you aren't going to roll back the body type changes. If I want to swap out one person for another (Fear Itself in this example) that only has one type of invis, we have to break camp and clear the golems and such around the Fear zone in. Imposable no, but with limited playtime every 30min help

How to make grouping in EQ easier:

1. Delete fellowships.
2. Add the ability for 3 players in a group to create a campfire that other group players can teleport to.
3. Add the ability for a player to enable XP/vitality sharing with another player, similar to /shield.

OK tucoh's idea is much better

Wut?

https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/fellowship-size-increase-plz.280072/
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/bigger-fellowship-capacity.277780/
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/embiggen-fellowship.274111/
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq...s-please-increase-the-fellowship-size.269336/
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/fellowship-slots.258701/
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/fellowship-size-request.245876/
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/fellowship.244606/
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/increase-fellowship-members.235220/
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/fellowship-and-campfires.217853/

Do you even EQ man #minntedforprez!

Group function, yes. But 3 person limit is dumb. Just give me a "port to leader" on a ~30 min cd.

I'd drop good DBC on a token that makes characters 'free storage' for fellowships.

Trivializes movement in difficult areas. Rogues, bards and others can dropship anywhere and get people teleported in. I do this sometimes with my mage's corpse

Is this a downside? Seems fine to me. I wouldnt even limit it to group leaders. Just a 30min cd port to group member.

It's been asked before, and the silence has been the answer, but DP dont seem keen on changing this.

I've suggested before but I'd like to add a bit of class flavour - make it so Rogues, Rangers and/or Bards can drop a campfire on their own. A case could also be made for Druids and/or Wizards.

Its not been silence, they just dont answer every time the question has been rehashed. I am pretty sure I can remember at least 2 times they have responded. They do not want fellowships becoming bloated and being used as "mini guilds". By their current design standards they are happy where the limit is.

I'd love to see an Official FAQ maintained, where those questions and answers are documented. Even if the answer is "We don't know, check back later" or "Maybe someday". Without this, we either have to rely on hearsay (the devs told me yes/no). Or spend an hour digging through the forums ourselves.

Also, just because employee A said something back in 2017, that doesn't mean employee B knows about it. Or that policies haven't changed between now and then.

When new forum members asked questions, we could refer them to the Official FAQ, instead of rehashing every time.

OTOH, I'd rather a DPG developer spend time implementing things instead of generating and organizing responses to player requests. These requests are endless, as evidenced by the 98 pages here: https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq...wishes-and-dreams-what-would-you-want.246367/ (where larger fellowship sizes was one of the first things listed!)

There used to be an issue tracker with this kind of feedback, but that was deleted without announcement, including all the content, when the bug forum was created. https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/dbg-issue-tracker-down-or-gone.260202/

maybe this 100000th post for this might be heard ?

While I'm sure that a lot of fellowships are strictly for boxes and alts, I don't think fellowships should be tweaked for boxes since that's not their purpose. The design of fellowships should be based around what a loose group of separate individuals would need. However, I would like to see something be done so that boxes and alts could be more effective. The reality is that many groups have just one person behind they keyboard. It would be nice if there were features that were more box-friendly rather than boxers having to crowbar other features to fit their needs.

One thing that fellowships should change is the exp sharing flag for vitality. The current implementation is too confusing and fluky. Just make it so that each person can say if they are giving or receiving exp. This single 'sharing' flag is clunky and doesn't enable what people want. People want to either give or receive exp, but generally not both. They typically don't want a single flag that sometimes means they give and sometimes means they receive. They don't want to remember to toggle the flag when they log in and again when they log off. They want a set-and-forget flag. Change the sharing flag to be three separate flags: "only give", "only receive", and "give and receive". The first two are self explanatory. The "give and receive" flag would be the way "sharing" currently works, where you give when you're online and you receive when you're offline.

Been a few people making posts about invis making it too easy to travel around and we shouldn't let every class have it so some think it is bad.

@OP I am once again saying....

....no.

Tucoh's idea has done the rounds on a few of these & still makes more sense than faffing about with fellowship limits.

I like Tucoh's idea but drop the number to set it to 2.

I totally agree that developers should be developing and implementing.
However, not everyone at DPG is a developer.
Thus I'm hopeful that some might be interested in championing these types of non-developer tasks.