Shared Bank Slots

[Knuckle]

Honestly twinking is one of the cool things of classic EQ i miss. all these level restricted equipment things are just lame. I played as an auctioneer type on live in EC Tunnel, I didn't level a toon past 50 for about 3 years or so, but I had cobalt armor, high end kunark weapons, and dragon haste. Players like me couldn't enjoy the social 'real world feel' that you get from a game that doesn't impose unrealistic rules on a sandbox.

[Taryth]

Originally Posted by Zuranthium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

...which is the exact opposite of what should be allowed in the game.

Shared banking should not only be disabled, equipment should also have level restrictions on it.

Twinking completely ruins the economy, bastardizes the low-level game experience, and devalues tradeskills (and those are already too weak to begin with).

So, you want the classic feel of EQ, yet . . .

You want classes rebalanced/outright changed.
You want mobs rebalanced
You want/think item lvl restrictions should be in currently.
You even want casting times changed.

Yet you whined (with great zeal) when you noticed maps were in game for newbie zones/cities . . .because they're not Classic. How self-contradictory can a single person be?


If P99 was a bible, you'd have a lot of cherries.

[Zuranthium]

Originally Posted by Taryth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So, you want the classic feel of EQ, yet . . .

You want classes rebalanced/outright changed.
You want mobs rebalanced
You want/think item lvl restrictions should be in currently.
You even want casting times changed.

Yet you whined (with great zeal) when you noticed maps were in game for newbie zones/cities . . .because they're not Classic. How self-contradictory can a single person be?

It's not self-contradictory, I just don't think you see the entire scope of what "classic EQ" actually means (at least in the way I speak of it).

Classes were rebalanced in classic EQ because of existing problems. If the game had continued along it's trajectory instead of devolving into the Luclin-and-further era nonsense, there would have continued to be changes until the most desired system was in place that allowed all of the classes to retain their uniqueness while still being valuable.

Everything else you listed was in classic EQ as well. Mobs were changed. Spells were changed. Items had procs that were level-required. All of the changes I would want to see to the game are merely a further extension of the improvements that were continually being made to classic EQ.

EQ was still a primitive game when it was released and Kunark/Velious created new issues and/or deepened already existing ones. You can liken the game to being the first gun ever invented. It was a one-of-a-kind accomplishment that vaulted an area of civilization (gaming in this case) forward, but it wasn't a perfect creation. Early guns in history could backfire on their users. They were very inaccurate when fired and the bullets could fly out in a direction nowhere near the target they were aimed at. They could only fire one shot at a time and they had long reload times.

People who used those guns back in the day marveled at how "magical" they were, but those guns had vast room for improvement, and indeed they continued to evolve throughout time. You can make something better without changing the essence of what something is. "Classic EQ" can be improved. The important thing is maintaining the kind of game experience the original designers (who had an excellent vision) were striving for and continually making that game experience as good as it can possibly be.

[Taryth]

Because, just as obviously, your way is superior, correct? You must be either very young, or very stupid. Both, of course, aren't mutually exclusive.

The purpose of emulating the state of the game in Classic is to re-experience the game as it was in Classic. You can argue semantics all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you're arguing for changes that aren't classic. Perhaps, though, if you type more; create more tautologies, you will magically be correct and everyone will go along with your silly ideas.

The goal of P1999 isn't balance, or improvement. You have to be willfully obtuse to not see that.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Taryth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The purpose of emulating the state of the game in Classic is to re-experience the game as it was in Classic.

Prob is, most I think that are playing p99 were like 5yrs old in 1999 or not even born yet. A lot of people I speak to in-game are coming from games like WoW, their bored, just want something free to play. The greatest missing element is the classic population, that you cannot replace with another mindset of players. Sure there were still problems, but not nearly as exponential as it is here for a host of reasons.

eh totally understand the connection/similarity between no-maps and having attunable items. I'm no nostalgic player at all, I play for the gameplay which is lost in modern games. Both make the game more challenging. I understand the mind-set of opponents though, that they want their f2p game to be easy, because their real time investment is with like WoW (though they claim to be EQ vets). But I roll with the nostalgic concept, because that is what there is, I know it, even though it's not quite coded right here and certainly has an odd player base for the most part.

[Rotted_Corpse]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Prob is, most I think that are playing p99 were like 5yrs old in 1999 or not even born yet. A lot of people I speak to in-game are coming from games like WoW, their bored, just want something free to play. The greatest missing element is the classic population, that you cannot replace with another mindset of players. Sure there were still problems, but not nearly as exponential as it is here for a host of reasons.

There is a large population of players that played the orig game during the classic era. Check out the thread where people list the chars they played on live.

[Zuranthium]

Originally Posted by Taryth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The purpose of emulating the state of the game in Classic is to re-experience the game as it was in Classic.

1.) The game designers have already taken liberties to change things here and there such that they aren't completely Classic. Not just a "we don't have the time for that yet" (or even a "we aren't able to code that") kind of thing but rather a flat out "that's not how it's going to be" mandate.

2.) You will never re-experience the game as it was in Classic because the way the game is played completely alters it. The game as it was in 1999 or even 2000 simply can not be recreated. The only way to recreate something along the lines of the classic experience is to keep the spirit and atmosphere of the game alive while altering the logistics such that they realign the way people play the game these days with what the REAL classic experience is supposed to be.

[Taryth]

Your new tangent addresses a single sentence. Yes, there have been nonclassic changes. The Enchanter nerfs come to mind, having an Ench as my main.

The changes were implemented in an effort to address your second point. The changes you desire are simply changes to the game, not in any way meant to simulate the classic experience, as the supposed reason for the Ench nerfs is.


I never said it was possible to completely emulate the experience, btw. "Emulate" in itself suggests imperfection. That's putting words in my mouth in order to argue against an easy target . . .hey, wait, that's called a Strawman. How unoriginal of you.

[Hoggen]

Originally Posted by orsk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you have the thought processes of a very insecure fucking douche

You may want to direct that brainless invective to the people that run the server, as what I said is precisely why they made the sever the way it is. Go play on live moron.

[Zuranthium]

Originally Posted by Taryth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I never said it was possible to completely emulate the experience, btw.

Sure, but my argument is that trying to emulate the game exactly as it existed in the past is not the most fruitful endeavor. People want to get the classic experience back, that's what's most important. Eventually this server will go past the "classic timeline" anyway and then what? If changes to the game aren't made now to improve the experience and build/maintain the player base of the server, then certainly in the future it will need to happen.

Originally Posted by Taryth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The changes were implemented in an effort to address your second point. The changes you desire are simply changes to the game, not in any way meant to simulate the classic experience, as the supposed reason for the Ench nerfs is.

No...the changes I want are to simulate the classic experience. Everquest was created as a fully visual MUD. A graphic, ongoing D&D World. Any change I want would be in keeping with the flavor of the already created World and the original intent of the game - which was to constantly adventure around and interact with different people and fight and do new things together.

Game balance is important because you want player interaction to be natural and to fit into the RPG side. You don't want "oh, that class sucks, we need to look for something else." You also don't want a single class or a select few being overwhelmingly dominate or, even worse, completely necessary for even delving into much of the game content. If that's how the game is balanced then it not only detracts from player interaction but also destroys the experience for many people who A.) don't always have the time to find the exactly perfect setup when they log-in, or B.) have put hours upon hours of playtime into a character only to find out down the road that the character is ultimately not very valuable.