Quote:
Originally Posted by derpcake2
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
This isn't how it works.
You want staff to change things, you provide the proof in order for them to do so.
|
Both the staff and I want classic EQ, and whether I'm make a logical or evidence-based argument, either way I'm arguing for "more classicness".
Look, lots of people, much more knowledgeable and harder working than me, have done their best to recreate the classic mechanics. I don't know as much as them, so I can't say what might be off about that recreation.
All I know is that in
any video game ... let's say you make an "ice ball throwing" class. People who pick that class are going to want to throw ice balls.
Even if I
never played that game, if I read that ten years ago ice-ball-throwers actually threw rocks and not ice because rocks worked better ... but in some recreation of that game everyone actually throws ice ... I don't have to be an expert in that game's mechanics to see the emulation isn't right. The only way it could possibly make sense is if there was a clear and strong factor preventing people from throwing ice balls before which got removed and wasn't part of the games mechanics (eg. bad coloring made it impossible to see where your ice was going, but modern monitors make that no longer an issue).
While factors like less info ("No youtube"), or "no items to make it a little easier" surely
contributed, they aren't clear and strong enough factors. They're not "my ice balls used to not work and now they do", so they don't explain why we have all these ice balls.