Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueTigeR
interesting idea.... but i dont think i like it... and it gets confusing...say with switching opposite styles of play... for instance, suit 1 could be dw whips w/ bow set for enchants... set 2 could be mainly ranged w/ 2h piercer for enchants... and set 3 could be caster (staff) w/o bow set b/c inable to do so.... see what i mean?... this raises issues... trust me.... i haz 3 sets... fully enchanted, fully tempered (very very expensive in gold and more notably in tokens... u think u haz enough tokens??? try enchanting 3 full sets) and 2 of the sets are completely identical except for enchants. Just suck it up, make the gold, and buy your way into the 2nd and 3rd set you want.
I vote no for proposition change.
|
Umm.. you can do both. Add a toggle on each set's screen. If "on" and your sets are full, they would not swap, if they not, they would.. and if there is a subtlety I am missing, then.. if it only works in straight analogy.. where the switches work one to one... and the coding is 'easy'. other wise it just wouldn't work.. but why deprive the benefit? (just for the gold sink)?
I came up with the same idea but never posted it.
I have also though the same thing for gem pouches, too... where, if a slot is filled in pouch one, and empty in Pouch two, then, IF and ONLY if you click a toggle, then the gem from pouch one is used. Same for pouch three.
Since you could very well want a largely empty pouch, for free escapes, the toggle is important.
Of course the current system works well as a gold sink...