|
|
|
|
#1
09-04-2011, 08:54 AM
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
| |||||
|
|
||||||
|
#2
09-04-2011, 08:59 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
As for Xz, I think alot of the drama with him could have been resolved simply by him stepping down from leading IB a long time ago. Hell, he could even reroll as a "new developer" now with a completely new name and no ties to TR and nobody would be any the wiser.
__________________
"Anger is
 ne letter short of danger." --Unknown | |||
|
|
||||
|
#4
09-05-2011, 12:45 PM
|
|||
|
I don't think instancing should be used as a solution and here's why...
a) It would increase the influx of raid items into the economy b) EQ was developed with the raid limits in mind Whether we like it or not, the raid limits were probably intentional. Just like how some items were no drop or some items were expensive or how named didn't pop whenever we wanted them too. Now, whether it's a good idea or not to limit the rate of incoming raid items by having a limited number of raid targets AND a long spawn time, THAT is a question for another project. If we... * instance raids * add more of them by creating additional zones/spawns * decrease spawn times * increase the number of items per loot * some other method ...to increase raid item accessibility for guilds (with some methods, like decreased spawn time, having the caveat that GM's and players will restrict their play so that other guilds have a chance to kill the raid targets), then we must also account for the increased abundance of raid items in the economy and how that will change the game. EQ was not made with that in mind. So, if there're going to be more raid items or more ability for people to raid then it's likely that the rest of the game would have to be altered in some way to accommodate it. Ofc, changing EQ as it was to fit our desires is not what p1999 is about. I have a million things I'd like to change and could go on and on about it, but to have at least one server that attempts to be true to history is too valuable to me. First, it serves as a recording of what was and is useful when trying to retrace what we did and trying to figure out where we went from there and which is the best course to take when resolving old problems. Second, it's a source of nostalgia for many of us to go back in time and to see some of the things we didn't get a chance to see the first time around. It's like having a second chance to relive history. The server is not a huge success, as the live servers routinely had 2000 or more players on them, but we are able to marshal 700+ at peak times. That far exceeds the other eq emulated servers when considering that boxing is a ban-able offense here. IMHO, interest for this server would be a lot greater if it was actively supported by SOE rather than opposed. But, essentially, I don't believe any failures in the raiding scene are reason enough to change the game. And another issue is that most people aren't raiders. And we all know EQ classic is OLD. Not everything about it is fun or engaging. Like I said, there're many things that could be improved. But to be honest, it's a carcass - not worth it. If most people raided then a change like this would be implemented almost immediately. Take travel/communication, for example. Everyone needs to do this things. So back when the population was lower there was an obvious need for global chat, even though that was not how EQ was during that point in time. When the population was higher, the server decided to remove global chat until global chat channels were introduced OR the population fell too low again before chat channels are implemented. It's the majority that matters because anytime you change hte game you risk losing some of yoru population. If you go with a minority and change hte game you risk losing your majority. It's basic, simple logic. I know I've made some baseless assertions here, but we all do. Thanks for reading.
__________________
Full-Time noob. Wipes your windows, joins your groups.
Raiding: http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...&postcount=109 P1999 Class Popularity Chart: http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...7&postcount=48 P1999 PvP Statistics: http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...9&postcount=59 "Global chat is to conversation what pok books are to travel, but without sufficient population it doesn't matter." | ||
|
Last edited by stormlord; 09-05-2011 at 01:04 PM..
|
|
||
|
#5
09-05-2011, 01:11 PM
|
|||
|
I'll post my instancing idea that i had posted on my guild site...
Have an NPC in the zone before the raid zone like TT for Seb, LS for Solb, etc. There will still be the public normal version of the zone but also an NPC that will respond to a command allowing a guild to enter an instance of the zone. Within the raid zone, have it be a full pop will all mobs...make it where the guild must fight their way down...meaning if they try to skip mobs, at a certain interval random mobs from the zone will be summoned to the raid...all trash mobs should have something like 40 min repop timer... No trash mobs will drop any items and only the raid mob will have its loot table...this way it doesn't draw away from grouping in public versions of solb/seb/etc...however you still must kill all the mobs... Well what about raid targets in huge outdoor zones? Not sure...haven't thought that through...instance the entire zone? *shrug...i'll let other contributors chime in. What about Naggy/Vox? U can't enter instance if above 52...and BnB's/Freeti and Terrors, etc. mobs will still pose a threat if not kept in check. Or hell leave these 2 raids uninstanced...since their loot tables are mostly on Kunark dragons too anyways...and top tier guilds probably won't waste time on them...opening them up to public raids or whatever guild doesn't really want to instance their own stuff... I think this will draw people to come back to the server...other than griefing and taking up GM time, why else was instancing brought to EQ? I'll gamble a theory that a lot of the EQ players grew up with families and jobs. We don't have the time like the other top guilds on the server to poopsock...instancing broadened the range of agegroups able to enjoy this game for everything it has to offer. Is it EZmode? maybe to a certain extent...it allows easier access to raid content, but just because you have easier access to raid content doesn't make the content themselves easy. Just my 2 cents... <3 bubbles. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#6
09-05-2011, 02:08 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Fun to think about how to improve classic EQ while keeping it's spirit. The goal on this server is to be 100% classic so I doubt it would happen. Later Nilbog and others mentioned a custom server. I would like to see how Nilbog, Rogean would envision a Everquest 2.0 while keeping in the spirit of classic. Instancing raid targets would be a neat addition, as would custom AAs, customizing each class to where they could still be unique and solo monsters, bigger grouping xp bonuses, lesser solo xp, maybe a few auctioneer npcs in E common tunnel? I imagine with their skill they could do some really cool stuff without altering the trilogy game world too much. I think it still should be the same lore, zones, etc but 2.0! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] | |||
|
Last edited by mokfarg; 09-05-2011 at 02:14 PM..
|
|
|||
|
#7
09-04-2011, 03:19 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
It's not the best-made game, but it was one of the most entertaining in terms of being a competitive player-vs-player-via-enemy game (ie softcore PvP where you grief others through PvE). What are your best EQ memories? Mine were shit like kiting raid mobs around for hours, training people, shit talk. What's the point of an MMORPG? Oneupmanship. If you instance everything, it just becomes a matter of who can look up/best remember how to kill raid mobs, which is going to get boring as fast as WoW did for people. We've all killed this shit before; that's not what we care about. We want to kill the shit so that some one else can't. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#8
09-04-2011, 03:28 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
To myself and I imagine many others, EQ was less about competition and more about cooperation. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#10
09-04-2011, 09:40 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
