Luclin models...a poll

[fwaits]

Whatever the devs decide is fine with me, but it seems odd that the whole point of this server is to re-create the game in it's entirety as it was in that time frame (Classic through Velious) to the best of their ability and then add an option that was not available during that time. That being said I liked some of the Luclin models, but they came out with Luclin, which will never see the light of day here.

[Rasterburn]

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

the whole point of this server is to re-create the game in it's entirety as it was in that time frame (Classic through Velious) to the best of their ability and then add an option that was not available during that time.

We're already seeing some very significant options which were not available at that time, by virtue of the fact that we're using a 2005 client. Updated and improved ground textures, UI features, etc. The whole "if it wasn't there in 1999, then I don't want it" stance is already moot because of this fact.

Notice that nobody is complaining about having an in-game compass, or improved chat features, or a more logical UI arrangement, or nicer looking zones and buildings. I find that glaring lack of consistency in their attitudes to be rather hypocritical.

And I am further amused by the people who in one post say things like "It's just a cosmetic difference and hence it is unimportant." And then in another post, that same person will say "I want everyone else to see the same character on my screen as I do." Well, wait a minute... if cosmetic differences are "unimportant," then why is there such a concern over what everyone else sees when they look at your toon..? And if cosmetic differences are "unimportant," then why do you care whether or not other players can have the character models that they prefer..? Again... we see irrational and dictatorial hypocrisy from the status quo.

What we are REALLY seeing in this thread is a lot of "I want everyone else to think, see and do things exactly the same way that I do." Uh huh. So much for individuality. Let's all be single-minded, group-thinking sheeple together. No thanks.

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

And lets not forget the most important point...THEY ARE NOT CLASSIC.

Luclin is every bit as "classic" as Kunark and Velious. Same exact dev team, same exact era, same pre-SOE rule set.

[Sarkov]

Not really... in fact you are making an excellent point in favor of not ever allowing anything the devs can control that wasnt there in classic EQ: people will see one minor deviation and start mentally justifying major leaps of discontinuity.

For my part, if we could completely remove everything that wasnt there in the classic experience, I would be 100% in favor. I suspect you would see a similar majority as you see in this poll in favor of the classic experience on every issue, no matter how small.

Do not confuse policy with technical possibility.

[Rasterburn]

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

Do not confuse policy with technical possibility.

And what you are forgetting are the very reasons for why those things were changed and enhanced, as each successive expansion was released: it was because the overwhelming, VAST majority of players back then were DEMANDING those upgraded models and UI features. Verant didn't go to all of the trouble of making those revisions for shits and giggles. They did it because back in the classic days that everyone is touting here, the majority of EQ players WANTED those changes to be made.

I'll give you a related example that I remember, from back in early 2003...

A lot of old-timers were complaining that they preferred the animations of the original models to those of the Luclin models. As usual, their nostalgia was clouding their common sense. But in an effort to appease everyone, SOE reprogrammed the Luclin models so that they would run and jump more or less the same as the original models did.

One month later, they restored the Luclin animations. Wanna know why..? Because after seeing the difference, most of the players changed their minds and asked to have the Luclin animations put back. The older animations simply looked lousy.

This is why I am suggesting that many of you are suffering from selective memory. I mean no disrespect when I say that, because I'm guilty of doing the same thing sometimes. But I was there, for the whole deal back in the day. And my memory is still fairly sharp, so far as when and why certain changes were made by Verant. In the majority of cases, those changes were made in response to strong and ongoing requests by the larger EQ player base. And that player base probably included many of the people who are posting in this thread. They are conveniently forgetting what we all went through, back in the day.

[nilbog]

This poll, from December of last year, was created as a courtesy to a player. Some were convinced that the majority of the playerbase wanted updated character models. I said then, and since then, if work is put forth to enable Luclin models, it won't be done by the developers here. I believe one of the players has posted a method of allowing Luclin models to be displayed, with some limitations.

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

We're already seeing some very significant options which were not available at that time, by virtue of the fact that we're using a 2005 client. Updated and improved ground textures, UI features, etc. The whole "if it wasn't there in 1999, then I don't want it" stance is already moot because of this fact.

Notice that nobody is complaining about having an in-game compass, or improved chat features, or a more logical UI arrangement, or nicer looking zones and buildings.

This isn't necessarily true. Just because we cannot change it, doesn't mean that we wouldn't change it if able.

Here is a quote I made a few months ago in regard to the removal of global auction/ooc. Some of the same discussions are happening now, so to clarify :

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

I hope it is known that the server will become more classic as time progresses. As live servers would patch in new content or features, we patch out newer content or features.

We will restore prekunark, Kunark, and Velious to the best of our abilities. We will put polish on them, and they are free for you to roam. Some content and features may be patched out before others, but do not be of the mindset that present non-classic elements are here to stay. It is only a matter of if they can be fixed, how they can be fixed, and when we can fix them.

I am a classic purist. The biggest mistake everquest ever made, in my opinion, was automating and simplifying the player's experience. Seemingly every new feature or change that was implemented post Velious was something to "benefit" me, that I didn't need to begin with. There are PLENTY of other games that encourage perks and things that are easier. Classic Everquest was widely-known to not be one of them.<team npc=""><team npc="">

We make the best, most well-informed decisions we can, with consideration to the feedback we receive.

</team></team>If there was a switch to immediately and completely revert this to classic, I'd flip it. Until there is, we will occasionally ask you for your feedback.

[Kutter]

Now that Nilbog has stepped in and answered you, howabouts sharing that workaround for everybody?

That is if you have it, Rastusburn.

And oh god, talk about rose colored glasses, Sheesh.

[fwaits]

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

We're already seeing some very significant options which were not available at that time, by virtue of the fact that we're using a 2005 client. Updated and improved ground textures, UI features, etc. The whole "if it wasn't there in 1999, then I don't want it" stance is already moot because of this fact.

Notice that nobody is complaining about having an in-game compass, or improved chat features, or a more logical UI arrangement, or nicer looking zones and buildings. I find that glaring lack of consistency in their attitudes to be rather hypocritical.

And I am further amused by the people who in one post say things like "It's just a cosmetic difference and hence it is unimportant." And then in another post, that same person will say "I want everyone else to see the same character on my screen as I do." Well, wait a minute... if cosmetic differences are "unimportant," then why is there such a concern over what everyone else sees when they look at your toon..? And if cosmetic differences are "unimportant," then why do you care whether or not other players can have the character models that they prefer..? Again... we see irrational and dictatorial hypocrisy from the status quo.

What we are REALLY seeing in this thread is a lot of "I want everyone else to think, see and do things exactly the same way that I do." Uh huh. So much for individuality. Let's all be single-minded, group-thinking sheeple together. No thanks.

Man you are really vehement about having these models aren't you? Anyway, as I said, if it's decided they are allowed then great, I won't cry about it. I gave my opinion on why it makes more sense to not have them. The other items you cited are beyond the devs ability to control so they are not in the same boat as the player models. So why is our opinion so "irrational" and yours is not? Just because it is not yours doesn't make it less valid. And you trying to demean others opinions just makes yours even less substantial because your being an ass about it.

Luclin is every bit as "classic" as Kunark and Velious. Same exact dev team, same exact era, same pre-SOE rule set.

That's great and all, but classic as defined by this server is up to Velious as the devs HERE have stated many times. Same reason you won't see Vah Shir players on Project 1999.

[Rasterburn]

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

Man you are really vehement about having these models aren't you?

Nope, I am more vehement about stating the facts of the matter, without allowing my opinions to be unduly colored with nostalgic, selectively remembered visions that simply do not hold water.

If you were actually there, full-time, from 1999 up through Luclin, then you need to think back objectively and try to remember the actual things that most of us were saying and doing at that time. And what I remember most of all in relation to this topic is that MOST of the players were bitching about the obsolete appearance of the original models. That's why Verant changed them in the first place: because most of the players wanted them to be upgraded.

[fwaits]

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

Nope, I am more vehement about stating the facts of the matter, without allowing my opinions to be unduly colored with nostalgic, selectively remembered visions that simply do not hold water.

If you were actually there, full-time, from 1999 up through Luclin, then you need to think back objectively and try to remember the actual things that most of us were saying and doing at that time. And what I remember most of all in relation to this topic is that MOST of the players were bitching about the obsolete appearance of the original models. That's why Verant changed them in the first place: because most of the players wanted them to be upgraded.

That's fine, but as the poll shows, most DON'T want them here. Whatever the reason(s) may be.

[Humerox]

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

It's about a luxury feature of the end user client... not about game mechanics.

I don't really care what people see me as, lol. I do think any time spent on unnecessary stuff is a waste...maybe later on down the road when content is pretty much wrapped up? I mean the development team here isn't a room full of paid programmers, lol.

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

We're already seeing some very significant options which were not available at that time, by virtue of the fact that we're using a 2005 client. Updated and improved ground textures, UI features, etc. The whole "if it wasn't there in 1999, then I don't want it" stance is already moot because of this fact.

I don't think they CAN tamper with the client. Copyright issue...and before anyone gets all fired up and runs "copyright" in another direction, the EQEMU servers are in a gray area, and the explanation of why they can run them -at least P99 -is pretty good. Tampering with the client is a clear violation...no gray area at all. They'd have to recreate their own client...something that isn't really feasible.