Yeah, it would be great for inventory. So many things I'm hanging on to not because I have plans for them but purely because I may never see another one drop if I throw them away now.
Yeah, it would be great for inventory. So many things I'm hanging on to not because I have plans for them but purely because I may never see another one drop if I throw them away now.
Talked about this a while ago with FC mates.
If SE refuses to do it on current dungeons they should at least turn it on when a new expansion comes out and the dungeons are obsolete.
This is 100% why my inventory is bloated with gear that won't fit into the armoire anymore. I don't want to deal with the RNG of obtaining things again.
OH you're right, I forgot all about that feature but that's also a great idea. And if they want to keep people running the dungeons, it's fine not to include the pieces while the dungeons are relevant. But glamour is the true endgame and I swear I absolutely hate the Grand Cosmos now because I've done it so many times.
Agreed.
I think SE latch onto the "glamour is the true endgame too much" and assume people will happily chase after whatever ugly dungeon sets they throw out. As we learned with the Bozja sets, many people aren't that interested in glamour. It's usually the Map fashions, skimpy items and clothing sets that are chased after more often than the typical fantasy gear.
All it really serves is burning out a small handful of players who are looking for the one half-decent item among the new dungeon sets that matches their specific glam.
You're contradicting yourself. People aren't chasing the "ugly" sets, they're chasing the sets (or pieces of sets) that they like.
And how did Bozja demonstrate that people aren't that interested in glamour? The most you could learn from it is that people aren't interested in that specific piece or don't think it worth the hoops they are expected to jump through to acquire it.
Though I've seen people wearing glamours from the Bozja sets in any case, so I'm not sure what you're claiming is the proof.