Discussion in 'The Veterans' Lounge' started by Crisqo, Aug 17, 2022.
should've said, "i havent seen much of an ANSWER to this" my bad.
lol, so you're really saying yes, just to a different idea that does the same thing? thanks for the support bruh
this would achieve the same result i am asking for, so it wouldnt matter to me if they did this, or that, just something better than 24 hrs, limited to 12 people.
i think they think that exploits to much on movement of single class, but i would be alright with even splitting that difference, 2 people, fire.
- Rogues and Magicians have entered the chat..
I don't like boxing, so campfires have never ever helped me. Drop the requirement to 2 and I would find a new feature in EQ to use.
They have answered in the past the reasons that fellowships, Campfires and guild banners have the limitations that they do and why they don't want to change them.
I believe you're right.
Still, many don't have the patience to dig around the forums for an hour, just to discover what some employee did/didn't say back in year 20xx. Even if you do, DPG is certainly under no obligation to honor an employee's historic statement.
Even if we can prove what was said N years ago, it's all conjecture and assumptions that those words/policies are still held by current decision-makers today.
They don't have a reason to keep responding with the same answer over the years as this gets asked time and time again.
Just put this one in the same category as Account to account transfers.
It's useful to keep bringing up the same issues over and over, especially if different people are bringing it up. It shows that it's something that a large part of the player base would like to see. Even if the devs of today don't want to change it, that doesn't mean the devs of the future won't. If someone at DB decides that QoL changes would be good to invest in, seeing the ideas that keep showing up would be good changes to start with. Modern EQ has many features which the original devs wouldn't have wanted to implement.
I agree bringing it up isn't bad. Especially for something likely trivial to change.
Remember they originally militantly opposed adding a hide helmet option?
There is a difference between a decision to show/hide a helmet and one to decide the purpose of a fellowship and how many players should be allowed. They have stated time and time again that if you want more people then can be in a fellowship that it is time to form a guild and go that route.
Fellowships have already increased in size from 6 to 9 and now to 12. There's nothing magical or limiting about the current value of 12 any more than there was back when the limit was 6 or 9. I wasn't active when the earlier increases were made, but I would guess there would have been many similar threads as there are now. Some people would want the increase and others were probably saying that the limit was fine, the devs should spend time on other things, make a guild if you want more, etc. If they've made two increases to the size already, maybe they'll make more in the future. From past behavior, it seems like they are open to making this kind of change.
You are correct there is nothing magical limiting it, however they have said multiple times over the year that they don't want fellowships turning into a substitute guild by letting them grow out of control. Sure they can but they have indicated that they don't want to as they have suggested that you form a guild if you need more.
And yet some games allow joining multiple guilds. The reasoning presents a problem without saying why it's a problem in the first place
I don't think people should spam about it, but there is nothing wrong with keeping a request alive.
They should monetize it; previously I suggested a 'free storage' token for $25-50 for characters to not count for the fellowship limit, I thought of another option, make it a Perk providing ongoing income. Corps love subscription income.
Some games allow doesn't mean that is what the developers of Everquest wish to allow.
If they don't want to increase the amount, then at least let 2 or 1 drop a fire!!
I can't even begin to tell you how many hundreds of times we had 2 in a zone but not 3. It's not always as easy as "just run a 3rd out"....
And once again nothing is presented saying why this is a supposed problem.
I do not feel strongly about this, but I don't at all follow at to why it's a problem at all if they increase it.
Separate names with a comma.