Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Exactly!
Typical copout by OP saying EQ PvP is a failure or that Red 1999 is an experiment and not classic. Red was just like Blue in terms of being classic -spoiler alert- they aren't. Red was just like Blue in every way except attempts were made to balance PvP by nerfing or limiting certain clickies and other changes like resists. Quality of life improvements could be made but it's clear that Red 1999 isn't a priority and never was nor will be.
You can see the end result in it's current population. Blame the scumlords of Red if you want, but the servers failure is wholly on the staff.
|
There was never a "Red server" on live. Since it's inception
here on Project 1999, the server has been an unclassic experiment, with a ruleset unique to Project 1999.
If it was classic it would have had the same rules as Rallos Zek, Tallon Zek, or Sullon Zek ... but it didn't, ergo it's not classic. This isn't me hating on Red or hating on EQ PvP, it's a simple statement of fact.
As for PvP "succeeding" on Live ... I think the simple ratio of Non-PvP to PvP live servers speaks to EQ PvP's (lack of) success ... even more so if you factor in the populations of those servers.
Again, I'm not making any value judgements on EQ PvP personally: I'm just saying that if it had been successful there would have been a lot more live PvP servers (as many, ratio-wise, as a game like WoW). And while I can't speak for the devs, this was likely a factor in
why they decided to try a new (unclassic) ruleset with Red instead of adopting a classic one.