P99 is a Meritocracy, not a Democracy

[Croco]

p99 is a dystopian shithole, if you think competition is classic you're playing the wrong game

[SantagarBrax]

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

p99 is a dystopian shithole, if you think competition is classic you're playing the wrong game

The entire design of the game is competition based. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Brad, Steve, and Bill..along with all of the other dev's from said era.

[Ennewi]

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

The entire design of the game is competition based. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Brad, Steve, and Bill..along with all of the other dev's from said era.

https://web.archive.org/web/20010302...t/aradune.html

(4/11/00)

<Lum> Do you think the new zones are less "campable" then the zones we've seen so far in EQ? (and is "campable" a word?)

<Aradune> More so yes, but we certainly haven't 'fixed' camping per se, and I'm not sure we ever will totally with the current incarnation of EQ. We are using more 'randomized' loot and many dungeons require players to commit to them more so than older dungeons. Also, we're hoping there will simply be less crowding and therefore less competition for camp sites. So, overall, I think things will be a lot better, but people will still camp something they really want

...


<Lum> We've heard a lot from you guys about something called "The Vision(tm)". Can you go into some detail about this vision thing? Is the Vision really trademarked?

<Aradune> Heh, no, I think a player started adding TM whenever he used the term and it caught on. I thought it was pretty funny so I started using it myself. The Vision(TM) is really, in a nutshell, what we (the EQ teams) always have wanted EQ to be... When we sat down and designed EQ years ago we all had a vision in mind, and it really came together. Basically, we wanted to bring MUDs to the masses, attach graphics to them, and also to recreate that feeling of playing D&D or some such with your friends around the table, but online and in a 3D world.

...

<Lum> I'm trying to avoid specific "class issues" here but there's one thing I just have to ask, if only because it seeming contrasts with "The Vision(tm)" EQ has done an overall good job of controlling grief players, and has tried to continue refining that with such things as showing what players are looting, the "Play Nice" policy of camp policing, etc. Given that, why do rogues have a pick pocket skill that basically steals money from fellow group members?

<Aradune> Part of the challenge we wanted Rogues to encounter is the trust issue. Rogues, traditionally, are not very nice fellows and don't get along with others, except perhaps other Rogues. EQ, though, is a social game, based on interdependence in many ways. So Rogues by design have more of a challenge grouping as well as with other aspects of the game (faction issues, and such). I guess to me, that question would be akin to asking 'why do so many NPCs hate Trolls?'

...

<Lum> If you could go back a few years and redesign Everquest from scratch, what changes would you make?

<Aradune> I'd try to positively address some of the following problems: camping, players outleveling their friends, kill stealing, attributes not mattering enough, bottom feeding, assaulting encounters with too many people, trains, downtime, etc. But I won't say how [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[cd288]

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

https://web.archive.org/web/20010302...t/aradune.html

Lol my dude you just absolutely destroyed OP

[slard271]

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

https://web.archive.org/web/20010302...t/aradune.html

It's convenient that you stopped the boldface of "less competition" right before "for camp sites." Gimme a break, are raid mobs "camp sites?"

[Tethler]

Originally Posted by slard271 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's convenient that you stopped the boldface of "less competition" right before "for camp sites." Gimme a break, are raid mobs "camp sites?"

Haven't you camped out at a zoneline with 70 of your closest friends while waiting for hours upon hours for the boss monster to make its appearance before?

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by slard271 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's convenient that you stopped the boldface of "less competition" right before "for camp sites." Gimme a break, are raid mobs "camp sites?"

The bold text merely emphasizes the most relevant info, no different from a bug forum post. As Tethler pointed out, raiders do set up camp while waiting for raid targets. Once those targets have spawned, they need to move in and establish a presence elsewhere to begin clearing their way towards those targets. Of the guilds I've been in, all officers have referred to that designated location as camp. River during ring war? That's camp. West wall in plane of fear? Camp. "What's camp looking like?" A puller will often ask in discord, always referring to where the rest of raid is currently killing the most recent pulls. Raid mobs aren't camp sites, no, but then fungi king isn't engaged and killed right on his spawnpoint either. Yet most everyone knows where groups set up camp in order to pull that named.

Another quote from McQuaid:

https://web.archive.org/web/20081201...p/t-21705.html

Of course, we all (hopefully) agree that too much competition is bad. Overcrowding is bad.

...

Now we may debate when crowding becomes overcrowding, where that line is crossed, and we do, and everyone has different tastes. But despite arguing over where the line is, I think it’s safe to say that almost everyone agrees that in principle too much competition is not a good thing. If you don’t, well, stop reading this and do something else.

He elaborates on quite a bit, some of which could be used to prop up opposing views/playstyles but only so much. A brief summary of his perspective can be found in another interview about Vanguard...

http://gamestudies.org/0901/articles...uaid_mcpherson

BMQ: With Vanguard, however, we are making a significant effort to introduce mechanics and content that better entertain people with varying time commitments. There will be areas more geared towards the casual gamer, the traditional ‘group with your friends’ player, as well as the ‘hard core’ player who enjoys ‘raiding’ and playing for many hours at a time. We also want those different types of players to co-exist in an environment where they can interact better, and definitely don’t think these different play-styles are mutually exclusive in any way.

And piggybacking off an argument in Discord earlier...

hulkanowski — Today at 3:10 PM
competitiveness for simple dungeon mobs is different than competition for raid mobs. Hope this helps

To the point made by McQuaid, many of the traditional high level PUG zones did contain at least one raid target. Kedge Keep. Nagafen's Lair. Chardok. Burning Wood. Karnor's Castle. Lake of Ill Omen. The Hole. And most of the old world raid targets have been reduced to group/solo content thanks to years of Velious gearing.

Also, what was considered raid content back then isn't given a second thought today. Classic screenshots and captions depict Sir Lucan as being a raid target, but on p99 he's soloed regularly without issue by certain classes. A simple mob, not even requiring a dungeon crawl. But when soulfires were all/all on p99, there was some fierce competition over that non-raid target.

hulkanowski — Today at 3:21 PM
they wanted to reduce mob competition in dungeon CAMPS

hulkanowski — Today at 3:21 PM
they didnt discuss raid mobs in that interview

Yet their actions indicated that the same want also applied to raids, with Brad and company releasing Scars of Velious, the expansion that offered more raid-related content than before, to spread out that portion of the playerbase across massive zones on a separate continent, thereby reducing competition. The original devs also widened some of the least casual-friendly epic bottlenecks.

[SantagarBrax]

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

https://web.archive.org/web/20010302...t/aradune.html

Ahh you chose to completely ignore the context of this interview and the reality of p99.

<Aradune> "..we're hoping there will simply be less crowding and therefore less competition.." Is that the case here on p99?

<Aradune> "EQ, though, is a social game, based on interdependence in many ways." You've just proven the point I was making. This game, the very best parts of it, rely upon interdependence with one another. You, nor any other player, hast the right to dictate less interaction with other people on the server simply because you don't like it.

<Aradune> "I'd try to positively address some of the following problems: camping, players outleveling their friends, kill stealing, etc.....But I won't say how [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] "

Again, you choose to ignore the context as well as the vision for the future that Brad was attempting. He never knew there would be any time locked server based upon what many consider the best Everquest experience timeline ever.

You are neglecting the time locked server that you play on, the very reason for being here. If you truly wanted no interaction outside of those you want to play with, you'd be on Live or another server instead of here and agreeing with those that want less interaction.

[Ennewi]

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

The entire design of the game is competition based. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Brad, Steve, and Bill..along with all of the other dev's from said era.

https://web.archive.org/web/20000623...y2_Page1.shtml

Brad McQuaid Interview - Day 2, Page 1 (11-9-99)

Arr: EQ is by far the most popular Massively Multi-player On-line RPG, what do you think has been one of the biggest keys to it's success?

Brad: Hmm... I think it's a combination of... well with EverQuest, there is a short term and a long term focus, and I think we, in terms of bringing a player in and getting him or her really into the game and addicted and committed to playing the game do pretty well at that. There is that first hook of bringing them in and attracting them and the second part is keeping them playing. And I think we pulled that off. We achieved both of those really well. The first thing is bringing them in is the graphics. I think it’s a very immersive world and I think we really pulled off the 3d environment pretty well. A lot of people said it couldn't be done, you couldn't have a massively multi-player 3d game. And with the multiple camera views and the fantastic artists we have on the team and the world builders and the real stark contrast between the different areas of the world, I really think it makes people want to explore. They really feel like they're there. I think that sucks people in and gets them really interested. And then what keeps them playing is the cooperative nature of the game. Where as some of our competition in the past focused more on player versus player and really felt that, well, I've heard statements like to have a community you need to have that kind of conflict, which I don't agree with. Instead we focused on cooperation and people meeting friends on-line and going out in parties together and working together -- those friendships and that cooperation keeps them playing. And then there’s all the stuff that keeps people playing any RPG: character development, acquiring items, and treasure, and stuff like that. I think all of these points together is what brings people in and keeps them playing.

[Arvan]

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

https://web.archive.org/web/20000623...y2_Page1.shtml

Wow this totally smashes OP's argument. Love it.