Shared Bank Slots

[Taryth]

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

...which is the exact opposite of what should be allowed in the game.

Shared banking should not only be disabled, equipment should also have level restrictions on it.

Twinking completely ruins the economy, bastardizes the low-level game experience, and devalues tradeskills (and those are already too weak to begin with).

So, you want the classic feel of EQ, yet . . .

You want classes rebalanced/outright changed.
You want mobs rebalanced
You want/think item lvl restrictions should be in currently.
You even want casting times changed.

Yet you whined (with great zeal) when you noticed maps were in game for newbie zones/cities . . .because they're not Classic. How self-contradictory can a single person be?


If P99 was a bible, you'd have a lot of cherries.

[Zuranthium]

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

So, you want the classic feel of EQ, yet . . .

You want classes rebalanced/outright changed.
You want mobs rebalanced
You want/think item lvl restrictions should be in currently.
You even want casting times changed.

Yet you whined (with great zeal) when you noticed maps were in game for newbie zones/cities . . .because they're not Classic. How self-contradictory can a single person be?

It's not self-contradictory, I just don't think you see the entire scope of what "classic EQ" actually means (at least in the way I speak of it).

Classes were rebalanced in classic EQ because of existing problems. If the game had continued along it's trajectory instead of devolving into the Luclin-and-further era nonsense, there would have continued to be changes until the most desired system was in place that allowed all of the classes to retain their uniqueness while still being valuable.

Everything else you listed was in classic EQ as well. Mobs were changed. Spells were changed. Items had procs that were level-required. All of the changes I would want to see to the game are merely a further extension of the improvements that were continually being made to classic EQ.

EQ was still a primitive game when it was released and Kunark/Velious created new issues and/or deepened already existing ones. You can liken the game to being the first gun ever invented. It was a one-of-a-kind accomplishment that vaulted an area of civilization (gaming in this case) forward, but it wasn't a perfect creation. Early guns in history could backfire on their users. They were very inaccurate when fired and the bullets could fly out in a direction nowhere near the target they were aimed at. They could only fire one shot at a time and they had long reload times.

People who used those guns back in the day marveled at how "magical" they were, but those guns had vast room for improvement, and indeed they continued to evolve throughout time. You can make something better without changing the essence of what something is. "Classic EQ" can be improved. The important thing is maintaining the kind of game experience the original designers (who had an excellent vision) were striving for and continually making that game experience as good as it can possibly be.

[Taryth]

Because, just as obviously, your way is superior, correct? You must be either very young, or very stupid. Both, of course, aren't mutually exclusive.

The purpose of emulating the state of the game in Classic is to re-experience the game as it was in Classic. You can argue semantics all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you're arguing for changes that aren't classic. Perhaps, though, if you type more; create more tautologies, you will magically be correct and everyone will go along with your silly ideas.

The goal of P1999 isn't balance, or improvement. You have to be willfully obtuse to not see that.

[baalzy]

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

I'm aware that this isn't classic.

[Ele]

People have more than one character on an account now days?

[lanystvyl]

I voted yes, because its easier to do trade skills. If you have a necro for farming and a shammy for trade skills it will all make perfect sense.

[Reodd]

I wouldn't be for this if they allowed dropping coin.

But they don't.

Therefore, shared bank should be in.

[shdwdrake8]

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

I wouldn't be for this if they allowed dropping coin.

But they don't.

Therefore, shared bank should be in.

Good point. Also, to all the "its not classiclolherpderp" there are other things we enjoy that aren't classic. We don't talk about those though, do we?

I support this... its not hardly gamebreaking/changing at all.

[Deathrydar]

Originally Posted by shdwdrake8 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Good point. Also, to all the "its not classiclolherpderp" there are other things we enjoy that aren't classic. We don't talk about those though, do we?

I support this... its not hardly gamebreaking/changing at all.

I've seen it before. Once you let one thing slide and state how non game breaking it is, then another thing gets propsed and another, and another.

Been there done that, bad idea.

[Ishio]

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

I've seen it before. Once you let one thing slide and state how non game breaking it is, then another thing gets propsed and another, and another.

Been there done that, bad idea.

Can you elaborate? I think newbie maps is a bit much but it there and shared bank slots is a sense of security. Otherwise that's it. It's not game breaking or anything. It's not like we are asking for PoK. Bleh [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]