The difference between the Play Nice Policy on this server and Everquest in 2000 &...

[Nexii]

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

you can play live if you want dps races

move to resolved

[Supaskillz]

I have never had to petition anyone for violating play nice policy and I have 2 level 60s on this server. I have used petition for other purposes and never have I been so lucky as you to get a response in 15 minutes, I think this is an outlier experience you had.

If someone wants to violate norms of eq by not respecting camps and making everyone else’s experience less pleasant, yes I am okay with the hosts of this private server suspending or banning them if they continue to grief others by violating these norms. Dealing with assholes through reputation and having to play their game with them of stealing mobs back is not my idea of fun. Would I understand that they don’t have time to come police any camp dispute also? Absolutely

[Braknar]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Cecily]

Question. If you look a wall of bullshit like the above, it’s still in your brain on some level even if you don’t consciously read it, right?

[Nexii]

Players on live that forced themselves into camps as mentioned would have been blacklisted. It was rare anyone did what was said. Here it's enforced harder.

It's much easier on P99 to just get a port to another camp. So that's kind of the expectation. We're not in classic with 100+ players packed into MM, LGuk, SolB, etc. So I can see the argument for not being forced to split pond camp

[ELance]

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

We're not in classic with 100+ players packed into MM, LGuk, SolB, etc. So I can see the argument for not being forced to split pond camp

That's an interesting point, and something that the newsgroups don't reveal (the number of players in the zones then). By the time I was playing in '01 there was a pretty easy path from Oasis -> LoIO -> Overthere - Frontier Mountains/Dreadlands, and I was too young then (16-17) to appreciate the nuances of dungeons or even know how to reach them without maps or spoiler sites, so I never dealt with this back then. In any case the unit of a "group" does not and should not have to represent an all-inclusive and "democratic" (if you will) thing. This is how you can just know instinctively this wasn't classic. MMORPGs have always been all inclusive games. It's true that one of my characters might have been "blacklisted", but I would rather have had this interesting experience than the more mundane one of a GM suspending me. And it would have been nostalgic, as my SK back in 2001 or 2002 came near this (although "blacklisted" seems to be somewhat of an exaggeration in all cases that I can imagine), which is why I eventually quit. Can't say I ever dealt with or spoke to a GM in all my 54-59 levels (can't remember the exact level I was) though, and I was a terror at that age. The dynamics of the players dealt with this very well, which is another reason I am a proponent of the old style and the free approach to MMORPGs and the virtual world rather than the more controlled ones. I dealt with this before EQ in all the MUDs I played too (where I was banned, for killing without roleplaying reasons on role-playing servers) Well... that's the difference between a private game and a public one. Whether you can successfully graft the structure of a private game onto one that was intended to be all inclusive and public is what Project 1999 is attempting.

[Cecily]

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

That's an interesting point, and something that the newsgroups don't reveal (the number of players in the zones then). By the time I was playing in '01 there was a pretty easy path from Oasis -> LoIO -> Overthere - Frontier Mountains/Dreadlands, and I was too young then (16-17) to appreciate the nuances of dungeons or even know how to reach them without maps or spoiler sites, so I never dealt with this back then. In any case the unit of a "group" does not and should not have to represent an all-inclusive and "democratic" (if you will) thing. This is how you can just know instinctively this wasn't classic. MMORPGs have always been all inclusive games. It's true that one of my characters might have been "blacklisted", but I would rather have had this interesting experience than the more mundane one of a GM suspending me. And it would have been nostalgic, as my SK back in 2001 or 2002 came near this (although "blacklisted" seems to be somewhat of an exaggeration in all cases that I can imagine), which is why I eventually quit. Can't say I ever dealt with or spoke to a GM in all my 54-59 levels (can't remember the exact level I was) though, and I was a terror at that age. The dynamics of the players dealt with this very well, which is another reason I am a proponent of the old style and the free approach to MMORPGs and the virtual world rather than the more controlled ones. I dealt with this before EQ in all the MUDs I played too (where I was banned, for killing without roleplaying reasons on role-playing servers) Well... that's the difference between a private game and a public one. Whether you can successfully graft the structure of a private game onto one that was intended to be all inclusive and public is what Project 1999 is attempting.

[America]

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

That's an interesting point, and something that the newsgroups don't reveal (the number of players in the zones then). By the time I was playing in '01 there was a pretty easy path from Oasis -> LoIO -> Overthere - Frontier Mountains/Dreadlands, and I was too young then (16-17) to appreciate the nuances of dungeons or even know how to reach them without maps or spoiler sites, so I never dealt with this back then. In any case the unit of a "group" does not and should not have to represent an all-inclusive and "democratic" (if you will) thing. This is how you can just know instinctively this wasn't classic. MMORPGs have always been all inclusive games. It's true that one of my characters might have been "blacklisted", but I would rather have had this interesting experience than the more mundane one of a GM suspending me. And it would have been nostalgic, as my SK back in 2001 or 2002 came near this (although "blacklisted" seems to be somewhat of an exaggeration in all cases that I can imagine), which is why I eventually quit. Can't say I ever dealt with or spoke to a GM in all my 54-59 levels (can't remember the exact level I was) though, and I was a terror at that age. The dynamics of the players dealt with this very well, which is another reason I am a proponent of the old style and the free approach to MMORPGs and the virtual world rather than the more controlled ones. I dealt with this before EQ in all the MUDs I played too (where I was banned, for killing without roleplaying reasons on role-playing servers) Well... that's the difference between a private game and a public one. Whether you can successfully graft the structure of a private game onto one that was intended to be all inclusive and public is what Project 1999 is attempting.

same dude, i can really feel that

[Wonkie]

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

That's an interesting point, and something that the newsgroups don't reveal (the number of players in the zones then). By the time I was playing in '01 there was a pretty easy path from Oasis -> LoIO -> Overthere - Frontier Mountains/Dreadlands, and I was too young then (16-17) to appreciate the nuances of dungeons or even know how to reach them without maps or spoiler sites, so I never dealt with this back then. In any case the unit of a "group" does not and should not have to represent an all-inclusive and "democratic" (if you will) thing. This is how you can just know instinctively this wasn't classic. MMORPGs have always been all inclusive games. It's true that one of my characters might have been "blacklisted", but I would rather have had this interesting experience than the more mundane one of a GM suspending me. And it would have been nostalgic, as my SK back in 2001 or 2002 came near this (although "blacklisted" seems to be somewhat of an exaggeration in all cases that I can imagine), which is why I eventually quit. Can't say I ever dealt with or spoke to a GM in all my 54-59 levels (can't remember the exact level I was) though, and I was a terror at that age. The dynamics of the players dealt with this very well, which is another reason I am a proponent of the old style and the free approach to MMORPGs and the virtual world rather than the more controlled ones. I dealt with this before EQ in all the MUDs I played too (where I was banned, for killing without roleplaying reasons on role-playing servers) Well... that's the difference between a private game and a public one. Whether you can successfully graft the structure of a private game onto one that was intended to be all inclusive and public is what Project 1999 is attempting.

[Tethler]

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

It's true that one of my characters might have been "blacklisted"

Can't say I ever dealt with or spoke to a GM in all my 54-59 levels (can't remember the exact level I was) though, and I was a terror at that age.

So, you've been as asshat for 20 years. It's not a recent development.

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

The dynamics of the players dealt with this very well

Getting youself blacklisted is your ideal solution?


Look, this isn't hard.

If. Someone. Is. Killing. Mobs. Go. Kill. Different. Mobs.

There are so many empty zones/camps with mobs nobody is killing. Go find one. That's what everyone else does. You whine about the server staff having to enforce camps here, but they have to enforce camps because of people like YOU.