will exp on r99 be like p1999

[nilbog]

Hurting server population no longer has any validity for me.

That rationale, with nothing to back it up, has been overused.

[Nirgon]

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

Hurting server population no longer has any validity for me.

That rationale, with nothing to back it up, has been overused.

Classic xp. Makes the lower levels and class struggle matter.

[Macken]

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

Hurting server population no longer has any validity for me.

With all the "rules" presumably to protect red99 population,(yt etc..) i guess the staff meetings are pretty unbearable for you then?

[nilbog]

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

With all the "rules" presumably to protect red99 population,(yt etc..) i guess the staff meetings are pretty unbearable for you then?

You presume too much and your guess is wrong.

[Macken]

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

You presume too much and your guess is wrong.

So all these dumb oppresive rules like no yt, staff-suggested play nice rules etc... are not to protect server population according to nilbog.

Maybe nilbog wants to elaborate?

So while you are convinced there are is nothing to back up the arguement that rules or no yt have any postive effect on population, you sit through meetings keeping your mouth shut about the most important thing effecting the hypothetical new red server?

[nilbog]

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

So all these dumb oppresive rules like no yt, staff-suggested play nice rules etc... are not to protect server population according to nilbog.

Maybe nilbog wants to elaborate?

So while you are convinced there are is nothing to back up the arguement that rules or no yt have any postive effect on population, you sit through meetings keeping your mouth shut about the most important thing effecting the hypothetical new red server?

You presume too much, yet again. You don't speak for me. If I have something to say, I'll say it for myself.

If you read my initial reply, I said, "that rationale, with nothing to back it up, has been overused." Did this not make sense to you? It means stating something like "This will hurt server population", with no supporting evidence or reasoning is no longer a response I will consider valid.

You sound mad.

[Sniperfire]

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

You presume too much, yet again. You don't speak for me. If I have something to say, I'll say it for myself.

If you read my initial reply, I said, "that rationale, with nothing to back it up, has been overused." Did this not make sense to you? It means stating something like "This will hurt server population", with no supporting evidence or reasoning is no longer a response I will consider valid.

You sound mad.

we all have 5 or more years on emulated pvp servers to "back our claims"
we know what hurts population

item loot as much as some of us love it
exp loss in pvp
long grinds
rude know it all gms to name a few

i also agree with lasher if theres 300 people you will have pvp in all lvl ranges and that will be fun

[Convict]

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

we all have 5 or more years on emulated pvp servers to "back our claims"
we know what hurts population

No, you don't.

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

I think its going to be more of a grief box. YT only caused grief to those with thin skin. EXP loss in pvp imo will cause more widespread grief

I wont disagree with this, because it's true. But people saying that its going to kill the population are delusional.

[Macken]

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

You presume too much, yet again. You don't speak for me. If I have something to say, I'll say it for myself.

If you read my initial reply, I said, "that rationale, with nothing to back it up, has been overused." Did this not make sense to you? It means stating something like "This will hurt server population", with no supporting evidence or reasoning is no longer a response I will consider valid.

You sound mad.

You sound trolled.

...and mad.


Reading comprehension.

google it.


"no supporting evidence" is the key. The staff has signaled their intention to make rules which they in so many words state is for the express purpose to maintain a high population with no supporting evidence.

I believe i speak for everyone by saying that much is crystal clear. If that is not the staff's position. It would be wise for them to state so now and furthermore, state their reasoning for offering up such short-sighted, ingorant and god-awful rules.

[Sniperfire]

boom for president