Poll item looting or no?

[greatdane]

We're all just theorizing, whether we say that itemloot will reduce the population or that absence of itemloot will make PvP meaningless. These are just discussions, largely to pass the time, and you said yourself that you won't pay much attention to it when it comes to determining the server's ruleset. That said, you have to at least agree that history clearly proves the problems with itemloot and the obvious connection between any given server's popularity and its presence or absence of itemloot. That's a valid argument. None of us are psychic, but what can we even discuss if past evidence and logical likelihood aren't allowed? Since Rogean started multiple discussions about the server ruleset, I take that to mean that we're encouraged to do just that.

As for your pre-p99 anecdote, I'd have to point out, as one of those people who were arguing in favor of boxing, that you're presenting a somewhat biased view of it. At the time, it seemed unthinkable that the server would end up with a 500+ population, so we proposed that boxing should be considered until such a time as it wasn't necessary. If the server turned out to have a population of 50-100, boxing would have been necessary. The launch numbers weren't even too far from that mark, and it was quite a while before the server population had grown to the point where non-US players didn't suffer from underpopulation. To this day it dips down under 200 when you're asleep. As for the soulbinders and that shit, we simply suggested that if the server population turned out to be so low that people couldn't easily find groups near their starting zones and couldn't find other players to bind them elsewhere, temporary soulbinders were a possible option. There's no need for hyperboles, I don't remember anyone claiming the world would end without soulbinders and translocators. As soon as it became evident that the population had grown to the point where boxing wasn't necessary in order to play the game, it became a moot point. That doesn't mean it wasn't a valid argument at a time when 100+ was almost unheard-of on an emu server.

There's nothing wrong with discussion, and the blind dismissal of all anti-itemloot sentiments is a little primitive, as are most of the arguments presented by the pro-itemloot crowd. You also have to acknowledge that PvP servers have historically been less popular than PvE servers and that itemloot only exacerbates that difference, even if you believe red99 will somehow be the opposite.

[Galanteer]

never played on an item loot server, but what I noticed on an exp loss server (SZ) was that in group pvp, people often tried to ensure that the kill shot was done by someone in level range.

Did people on RZ do ring pulling and stuff like that to prevent pvp death (and thus loot?)

So I think an item loot with a +- two level range would quickly be -big brother does majority of damage, little brother gets kill shot. (or ten zergs do 90% damage and big guardian gets kill).

Level restrictions in the mechanics are quickly overcome by enterprising players.

[Galanteer]

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

if u pulled a ring to die on rallos zek, u basically killed urself, and thus nobody got to loot ur corpse... only the player with the killing blow on another player could loot the body. and yes, especially low end pvp people pulled rings to avoid being looted alot.

people also used to jump off cliffs to die and avoid pvp death... best example of this at high end was in velks lab, and in low end it happened alot in field of bone / kurns tower.... ppl also jumped in lava to die, and avoid a pvp death just so they wouldnt be looted.

did you guys loose exp? on sz we called it ranger gating (for teams that had rangers!) (put all gear in bank, drown self, gate back to bind) There was no exp lose to environmental deaths on sz.

[nilbog]

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

We're all just theorizing, whether we say that itemloot will reduce the population or that absence of itemloot will make PvP meaningless. These are just discussions, largely to pass the time, and you said yourself that you won't pay much attention to it when it comes to determining the server's ruleset.

All of my responses have been from an opinion standpoint, and no, my personal opinion won't ultimately determine the ruleset for item loot. I wouldn't want it to, due to the rule differences on original eq pvp servers.

That said, you have to at least agree that history clearly proves the problems with itemloot and the obvious connection between any given server's popularity and its presence or absence of itemloot.

I would say that is a possibility, but not exclude extenuating circumstances of the pvp server in question. Live servers constantly changed, which is why I ended up here, trying to fix what they already had right at one point :T I mean, tbh, live eq players killed classic. Alternatively, when I played VZTZ it was crazy broken due to content, source issues, and lack of people. I can't singly determine if no item loot was the cause of more players after the fact. And I'm not hating on VZTZ. It was my first eqemu server. I killed people, looted their items and had a great time. This is now a different time, different source, database, scripts, and anti-cheats. An untested combination for classic eq pvp for the first time in a long time.

I guess I try to hope for the best, and if that doesn't work, fall back till it does :P

That's a valid argument. None of us are psychic, but what can we even discuss if past evidence and logical likelihood aren't allowed? Since Rogean started multiple discussions about the server ruleset, I take that to mean that we're encouraged to do just that.

I fully encourage discussion of the rulesets. I would like a lot more of it. I am here as a proponent to debate in favor of my opinion. In the end, my opinion (vote) will only influence/not force the group dev decision of what happens. I don't think its fair to force certain rulesets because of the differing eq pvp rules. I think the community should be mostly in charge of how a pvp server ends up, but not discount possibilities from the start.

As for your pre-p99 anecdote, I'd have to point out, as one of those people who were arguing in favor of boxing, that you're presenting a somewhat biased view of it.

PVE, yes I am biased. I do believe I know how to recreate a classic pve server. No boxing unless 100% necessary. In my initial eqemulator discussions I supported a single boxed character if the population was 50-100 ppl. Hoped for the best.

There's nothing wrong with discussion, and the blind dismissal of all anti-itemloot sentiments is a little primitive, as are most of the arguments presented by the pro-itemloot crowd. You also have to acknowledge that PvP servers have historically been less popular than PvE servers and that itemloot only exacerbates that difference, even if you believe red99 will somehow be the opposite.

I wish constructive discussion would continue, and much more of it. It's hard to find someone to debate with that can type more than a sentence or two.

I do hope r99 is highly successful, and don't want people going in with presumptions that it definitively will be a certain way. There's no way to know.