Quote:
Originally Posted by Tecmos Deception
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
There's no way nilbog and rogean are going to remove such staples of classic EQ as manastones and guises, no matter the arguments you make about them being overpowered or how verant in hindsight decided they should have been done differently.
As I've talked about on these forums 100 times over the years, there's the classic experience and there's classic mechanics. Nobody is going to manage to fully recreate either of those things, and even less so will they fully recreate them simultaneously.
P99 is nilbog and rogean (and many others) working on their vision of the right balance between classic mechanics, including the quirks and "bugs" and "exploits" that they feel help make this era of EQ so memorable for a lot of folks, and the classic experience, as difficult as it may be to give "the classic experience" a definition anyone can agree on. We're just along for the ride.
|
I think the thing is ... for a long time we thought we knew the line: it was something like "mechanics ALWAYS ... unless there is a technical limitation (eg. Titanium can't do a true classic UI), a truly massive environment-altering (and likely staff-impacting) mechanic (eg. mass AoEing), or a one in a million arbitrary staff violation of classic (eg. OOT boat direction).
But that perception is proving incorrect. Green will be missing plenty of classic
mechanics, and as Danth noted, they don't seem to follow that previous pattern. I'm
not in any way faulting the staff on this, and as the
Non-Classic Compendium shows, the staff have
many non-obvious concerns which impact their decisions. I also don't think the staff
owes a "classic line in the sand" (or anything else) to anyone.
BUT ... I think people act better when they have better information. I think people would respond with less negative/"that seems wrong!" posts if the staff could come out and say "here is the general criteria we use to decide whether something is an exploit that we (unclassically) won't implement, or whether it's a classic feature that we will implement (even though everyone hates it, or even though the original Verant devs patched it out a few months later)."
It's not about
where they draw the line: it's their server, draw it how they want. And again, they don't owe it to anyone to share how they draw that line, or to draw it in any consistent way ... it's just that if they
could let us know where the line is, at least with broad strokes, then no one would be surprised when a decision puts their favorite/least favorite thing on the "other" side of the line.
P.S. Simple example: I still don't feel the SG nerf is consistent with P99's past decisions. As I remember it (and memories are crap I know) EVERYONE knew about the SG glitch. I wasn't even a raider then and I knew about it! Being able to get through SG safely without knowing how to make the run or having to wait for a Succor is hardly game-altering, when compared to stuff like item recharging. I truly believe less people even knew how to recharge in 2001 than knew how to glitch through SG ...
... but again, I'm
not saying I'm right and the devs are wrong! I'm just saying that from my limited perspective the decision
seems wrong, and if there was an explicit criteria (even a vague one) that explained why the staff sees that as a glitch and recharging as a feature, I'd better understand their decision. But even if I don't understand it ... hey, free server
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.])