Ah, I see =P -- I suppose that could be good to do, I was thinking you could quest 1.5 AGAIN not exploit to get it again, which would be pretty cool, IMO =P

As a matter of fact, I am, and yes it is that simple. I know c++ and working with openGL, the two most prevalent languages used in coding games,MMORPGs anyway. It is simply an inventory script that runs through each toons inventory and searches for certain criteria, if the criteria is met, it takes a certain action.
As far as making two seperate items lore to each other, no that would not be exceedingly difficult. The lore tag works in much the same way, an inventory script. If an item is lore, when a toon attempts to loot/receive the item, the script is run to see if the player has the item already in inventory, so they add a second criteria as to which to check against.

As for angry players leaving, anyone remember FoH, Afterlife(the guild responsible for the submission to allah's of the majority of high-end raid drops and the first to enter Time.) Well they are a memory due to the fact that they got angry for SoE releasing content that was broken/bugged, well the majority of whom scooted off to WoW at the first opportunity.

How about Conquest from the Lanys server? They were originally banned for using a so-called exploit to wake Kerafyrm(the Sleeper). After PoP was released, they were invited back and quickly moved back to elite status on their server, where are they now, last roll call I saw they were over on WoW also. So as far as the dare to get them to quit playing, just a few of the higher profile examples.

As far as exploits/workarounds, SoE if your content is broken and it adversly affects your players, you give us the "the content is working as intended." However when the bugs allow for an expoit that positvely affects/grants too much power to your players, you say "this was never intended and we are fixing it with the next patch." Does anyone else see something "working as intended" with this philosophy?

Edited, Wed Aug 31 04:26:40 2005

If you read the post correctly, you would notice that the poster is not saying that it has anything to do with the 1.0. What he is saying is that Paladins have already had to deal with turning in what seems to be epic (at the time of release) to get the real epic in progression, much like the turning in 1.5 to get 2.0 progression.

You do NOT get a 'Drop' for Ghoulbane off of 2 different mobs. The only 'Drop' is from Shin Lord in Guk, the other method is a quest method.

I agree on letting people keep both 1.5 and 2.0 but couldnt believe SOE would RANDOMLY delete one if you had both. I dont know why they dont just make each epic LORE by itself. Then you could save ALL the work people have done and they could have their 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 that they worked so hard to get.
BUT, if SOE feels that they HAVE to undo what paying customers have accomplished, then they should have the decency to do the job RIGHT and not randomly destroy peoples' hard work because SOE is too LAZY to do their change properly.

I am sort of a hipocrate about this.

While I agree that handing in the 1.5 to get 2.0 is an unfortunate but necessary quest progression, I feel that should anyone wish to go through the pain and suffering of attaining their 1.5 over again, they should not be disallowed to.

The rationale behind that, is that each of the epic weapons differ in their stats and abilities. To most people they are sort of a novelty, a collector's item if you will, and also a status symbol.

Yes, I agree that they were not supposed to 'co-exist' per se. But no, I do not agree in disallowing them to co-exist. I feel that players should be given the option to still go back and do their epic 1.5, after their 2.0 achievement, but be flagged at the end of 2.0 so that they cannot go through to do 1.5 in the formal route. They should be discouraged, not disallowed, to repeat their 1.5 quest, by having to do a much more difficult progression. Make the second time around something that will be equally difficult to the 2.0.

This would disgruntle a lot less people, than just simply saying "You can't have both." Because being one of those people that treasure the novelty, I'm naturally tempted to say, "But, but..."

2 cents.

---------
Edited:
That is, should it be possible to repeat the quest again. My feeling is that they should be - though not quite exactly the same way.


Edited, Mon Aug 29 11:12:37 2005