Quote:
Originally Posted by Troxx
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The argument that anything classic should be in game also is an argument for the multiple plat and item duping bugs that were present in classic to be present on Green99. It is, after all, classic.
|
This is a total misrepresentation and straw-man. These things were NEVER okay with the game developers. People were banned for exploits. Contesting content via damage was not an exploit or a crime. It was part of the actual game, and it was more exciting, more dynamic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nisse
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The point is you can go see your shitty idea in practice and the result is a toxic cesspool that favors the players worst instincts.
|
No. The current P99 policy is the most toxic of all. People being able to own camps without any possibility of contesting means that content becomes controlled by no-life players, locking other players out of even trying, making the game world that much more artificial.
Everquest was at its best in 1999, when the "shitty idea" was in place. Your conception of EQ seems to be Farmville, or brainless superficiality of "achievement" by gaining a pixel in a video game, via a method that requires little-to-no actual skill or interactivity. That's not what the game, and the MMORPG genre, is supposed to be. That's sadly just what it has turned into: hollow boxes with no real soul or adventure left.
---
Quote:
Originally Posted by loramin
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
R&N have run this server for ten years. For ten years they could have instituted classic pre-PNP era policies.
|
Stop and think before writing this shit. They
couldn't have, if being true to timeline, because the server has been in Kunark era for over 8 years. You also ignore the possibility that they didn't know or remember the exact specifics of the classic PNP and the earliest era before it, like most people here, and thus came up with a non-classic PNP (which should be changed).
Quote:
Originally Posted by loramin
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You ignore the topic at hand but use it as an excuse to go off on your pet issue
|
You either need better reading comprehension, or need to stop repeating the same wrong assumptions. If you actually read the content of the thread, then you'll see I was responding to other posters about the subject being discussed, and provided a very detailed discourse on the subject. The conversation naturally developed from there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loramin
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
because the real audience of all this effort is R&N. And if that's the case, it suggests that:
- A) you think they're complete morons who couldn't come up with the idea, but your revelation will enlighten them, and/or:
- B) you think you know better than them how to run the world's most popular emulated EQ server, despite the fact that they've overseen (if not directly participated in, in the early days) tens of thousands of hours of volunteer CS effort
|
Not only fallacy, but also a really bad case of tunnel-vision adherence to status quo. Running the server for 10 years does not mean they have all the best ideas, nor the best policies or attentiveness. It simply means they own something. They were the first to come out with a relatively classic EQ server, which inherently made it popular. Your line of thinking is like arguing that McDonalds has the best food around, by virtue of its ubiquity. Yikes.
If they did know about the classic PNP for years now, and chose to never implement it, then they've never given any
reasoning for why the current P99 system is better or justified. Without any communication of reasoning, there is a lack of clarity. Even then, it still wouldn't mean their decision was objectively the best one to take. They are not infallible, and discussing better solutions is productive. You don't need to be so counter-productive and keep naysaying everything with knee-jerk responses.