Item linking is not classic

[Gustoo]

Staff confirmed 100% selective with classic implementation. Easier for them, A-OK. Easier for you to play game, NOT-OK

Its a custom classic oriented emulated server, thats how it is.

There is no extra EC spam without item linking. Only psychos posted stats for their items. You would make a macro with item names typed out. You would then put bags into trade window for people to inspect.

People would walk to vendors and see their bags to get inspired by cool items, and then buy them.

Prices would be the same. Item linking 100% not needed for normal EC tunnel rat activity to be prosperous.

Lazy folks just say "TONS OF EXCITING ITEMS COME TO T1 TO SEE" and active and clever buyers would show up check out that shit and buy the stuff for good prices. The guys with elaborate detailed built into their auctions had way too much time on their hands and were selling for loser status reseller prices to make 100pp on the transaction.

So yeah if anything it rewards the fully active tunnel rat for his vigilance. I had a great time during the pre link era.

[El-Hefe]

CSR nightmare. Not classic but a good adaptation for running the server with limited volunteer staff.

[Ahris]

I think people arguing about this, pro or con, are idiots. Item links are completely irrelevant to the classic experience.

[cd288]

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

I think people arguing about this, pro or con, are idiots. Item links are completely irrelevant to the classic experience.

Couldn't agree more. I honestly can't tell if this is a troll thread or not lol

[fadetree]

I don't care about item links. I do care about the hypocrisy I'm seeing in this thread. So all the times people made the 'shit's classic' argument, I was like, well yep, that's the deal. I knew about item links and always thought it was a hard client limitation. That's cool. However, if it's NOT really that, and there are other ways that wouldn't cause worse problems....it's gonna make me look at shitsclassic warriors a bit differently.

*Edit*
I mean 'worse problems' in a technical sense, as in break something. It being an annoyance to us or staff is not what I meant. Staff certainly has the right to do it anyway, but it seriously weakens the 'shit's classic' argument.

[Wwen42]

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

I don't care about item links. I do care about the hypocrisy I'm seeing in this thread. So all the times people made the 'shit's classic' argument, I was like, well yep, that's the deal. I knew about item links and always thought it was a hard client limitation. That's cool. However, if it's NOT really that, and there are other ways that wouldn't cause worse problems....it's gonna make me look at shitsclassic warriors a bit differently.

*Edit*
I mean 'worse problems' in a technical sense, as in break something. It being an annoyance to us or staff is not what I meant. Staff certainly has the right to do it anyway, but it seriously weakens the 'shit's classic' argument.

The "classic" "not classic" argument is just bad and should be abandoned. It's not a great defense for anything they are doing/not doing. Just say what your vision is and why you're doing it and be done. I don't have to agree, but at least I won't feel like I'm getting bullshat. It's clear that things are dependent on the whims of the devs, for good reasons sometimes, but don't blow smoke about the classicness.

The core of what everyone likes about "classic" EQ is going to vary and you can't please everyone.
My core is
1. Death means something
2. Travel is not instant and/or has a cost.
3. Not an endless skinner-box Sure, we're all working on levels and items, but it's generally slow rather than constant timed rewards every 10 minutes. You're putting work in.
4. Plenty of interaction with others good or bad. WoW feels like a single-player game.

Any change that doesn't affect this is ok in my book. Making the UI less intuitive and useful seems really grognard to me. Just because we didn't know what good UI or player controls were in 1999 doesn't mean we should go back to it. Removing linking is just silly and doesn't affect aspects 1-4, but makes the game just a tiny % more tedious for no reason. There's overall a just a bunch of tiny QoL control and usability improvements I'd like to see. Like "Can I ctrl+m to meditate please?"

Looking at the book doesn't bother me and kinda makes sense, you're suppose to be "meditating."

[fadetree]

Originally Posted by Wwen42 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The "classic" "not classic" argument is just bad and should be abandoned. It's not a great defense for anything they are doing/not doing. Just say what your vision is and why you're doing it and be done. I don't have to agree, but at least I won't feel like I'm getting bullshat. It's clear that things are dependent on the whims of the devs, for good reasons sometimes, but don't blow smoke about the classicness.

The core of what everyone likes about "classic" EQ is going to vary and you can't please everyone.
My core is
1. Death means something
2. Travel is not instant and/or has a cost.
3. Not an endless skinner-box Sure, we're all working on levels and items, but it's generally slow rather than constant timed rewards every 10 minutes. You're putting work in.
4. Plenty of interaction with others good or bad. WoW feels like a single-player game.

Any change that doesn't affect this is ok in my book. Making the UI less intuitive and useful seems really grognard to me. Just because we didn't know what good UI or player controls were in 1999 doesn't mean we should go back to it. Removing linking is just silly and doesn't affect aspects 1-4, but makes the game just a tiny % more tedious for no reason. There's overall a just a bunch of tiny QoL control and usability improvements I'd like to see. Like "Can I ctrl+m to meditate please?"

Looking at the book doesn't bother me and kinda makes sense, you're suppose to be "meditating."

Yep, I agree. 'Shit's classic' ought to be modified to 'shits classic or it's impossible or the devs have decided to not implement it'. The spirit of this server being classic is strong, as this poster points out. The letter of the law is not as important, except when it's being used as a forumquest hammer. We cannot go back fully, even if they were at 100% the same as 1999 we would not be the same excited bunch of idiots who know nothing as we were back then. Yknow what's NOT classic? Us.

[Lulz Sect]

Originally Posted by silo32 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

why dis still in game?

[Jimjam]

Personally I would be rid of them (as not classic), but I can sympathise staff including nonclassic touches that lowers their workload. Lucky for everyone here this idiot Jimjam doesn't get to call the shots!

[Rooj]

Don't understand how this could be a CSR nightmare. Remove linking but keep the log message that states which item was added to the trade window.

Besides that, scamming IS against the rules. Very few people want to risk losing their accounts over easily detectable and logable scamming. If scamming was truly an issue on P99 (it's not), there would be a post outlining each possible scam, what to watch out for, and what to do about it.

For the record I'm not for or against item links, I prefer the QoL stuff but I'd still play if they were removed. But yeah the pick-and-choose mentality 'round here is reminding me of every argument I've ever had with a Christian about the Bible. Always entertaining to see people's true selves!