Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > Red Community > Red Server Chat

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-18-2012, 03:38 PM
SearyxTZ SearyxTZ is offline
Planar Protector

SearyxTZ's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,408
Default

Two teams (evil / good) makes the most sense given both the existing city structure of the game (ie: FV outpost and OT outpost) and the history of classic teams servers. Both Vallon Zek and Tallon Zek evolved into this two team structure (even though it was actually 3 teams versus 1 team).

Needs players to be in the same zones or doesn't work, but then again that also applies to FFA. Territory/zone control is a foreign concept when everyone has entire zones to themselves because there's 100+ zones and little incentive to be in the same ones outside of chasing the best loot at the high end.

It's always been unfortunate that virtually every red emu server copied the least popular classic red server which had the most problems and the least amount of pvp (Rallos Zek).



It would not require a relaunch. If Rogean is trying to familiarize himself with classic red EQ, then that is as good of a starting point as any: which of those server rulesets worked best (popularity), and why did they work? How can I make that foundation work with what I have available to me (~5-10% of live server populations)? What design considerations should be made to compensate for that difference?
  #2  
Old 09-18-2012, 03:41 PM
Nirgon Nirgon is offline
Banned


Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ruins of Old Paineel
Posts: 14,465
Default

Quote:
least amount of pvp (Rallos Zek)
Yeah ok. There wasn't a day I didn't have several PvP fights on RZ, that includes on alts. SZ? LOTS of time solo xping in Highkeep, no pvp.

As far as teams:

Searyx planning on making Iksar monk? Or would you roll human to be the "lone wolf"?
Not to mention almost every shaman is going to be evil..

Do you realize if you split this current or even the population at launch up what it would look like? Again, it would be a solo fest... people dropping off etc. This kind of population doesn't support a teams server, even if it is a cool ideal to hold.

I'd stand for a teams remake because people might actually come back and play it, but then again, with the reasons listed above... there just isn't a population to support it.
  #3  
Old 09-18-2012, 05:36 PM
Aerist Aerist is offline
Kobold


Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SearyxTZ [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Two teams (evil / good) makes the most sense given both the existing city structure of the game (ie: FV outpost and OT outpost) and the history of classic teams servers. Both Vallon Zek and Tallon Zek evolved into this two team structure (even though it was actually 3 teams versus 1 team).

Needs players to be in the same zones or doesn't work, but then again that also applies to FFA. Territory/zone control is a foreign concept when everyone has entire zones to themselves because there's 100+ zones and little incentive to be in the same ones outside of chasing the best loot at the high end.

It's always been unfortunate that virtually every red emu server copied the least popular classic red server which had the most problems and the least amount of pvp (Rallos Zek).



It would not require a relaunch. If Rogean is trying to familiarize himself with classic red EQ, then that is as good of a starting point as any: which of those server rulesets worked best (popularity), and why did they work? How can I make that foundation work with what I have available to me (~5-10% of live server populations)? What design considerations should be made to compensate for that difference?


The teams concept has been and will always be the most debated argument at least in regards to what type of pvp server it should be.

Let me be the first to say while i would LOVE the implementation of a teams concept, let us not forget that the actual teams concept didn't last long on live other than sullon zek. VZ and TZ were both team based but people will find a way to group with who they want to, thus cross teaming began.

So what you are really saying is you want a server like SZ (the lowest pop server of the pvp servers at their respective primes).

While I would love a clear set "these are your enemies", it also gives you the "these faggots are your allies deal with it" atmosphere.

If we were pushing 200 to maybe even 300 actual players it would be possible if we had 3 to 4 guilds on each side, however the current population doesn't support it. if we got 75 people on usually, and you split that in half to about 37, then split that even more so into level range, you literally will be soloing your way to 60

Shody
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:36 PM.


Everquest is a registered trademark of Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Project 1999 is not associated or affiliated in any way with Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.