Quote:
Originally Posted by ELance
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Alas some people don't seem to understand what has happened here. This is not some natural or understandable outgrowth of a different game or the natural outcome of a private server. These policies are 1) the polar opposite of Everquest in 1999-2001, 2) highly exclusive and controlled in a way that Everquest was not then (Everquest was not only guildies, campers, raiders, and powergamers in 1999-2001. Not all players logged on to sit in a zone doing nothing while waiting on a list. There were roleplayers, many various and not rigidly defined camps, evil players that would not group with good players and soloers) There would have been a tremendous outcry back then if a policy like this had ever been enforced... players told that their only ambition in a zone was to join a list for a group whose only claim to it was that they were there first. What if that group had a Shadow Knight in it and it was a paladin in the zone? The GMs would not have told the paladin to do nothing or be suspended, they would have told the group to share with him. These policies are the antithesis of an MMORPG as it was then and of Everquest in 1999-2001. They are documented as detrimental to the diversity of a playerbase in an MMORPG and thus to a virtual world. It's shameful to excuse them, and any attemps to do so (as far as I have seen) can be seen as pleas for the GMs to make the game a controlled environment rather than a virtual world.
|
Ok, first off, Jesus man, press ENTER occasionally! Paragraphs are your friend.
Second, let's start with:
Quote:
|
These policies are 1) the polar opposite of Everquest in 1999-2001
|
What is your evidence that that is the case. I gave you a link to the guide book from back then: quote something that clearly demonstrates what you're talking about.