Why not switch?

[tnttoken]

Bump

[stormlord]

I do think Vallon/Tallon Zek were better. Wasn't it the case those on the same team couldn't attack each other? Either way, it was more controlled PvP on top of hte level limit, making it friendlier. I think it was also more RP-oriented.

I think with the pops being so low on red, maybe htey should try a team server.

Keep in mind my PvP server of choice was Sullon Zek. I loved that server. I did have some alts on Vallon/Tallon. But to be curt, I liked hte mayhem on Sullon. It was a special thing to be able to kill and be killed by anybody.

If it were me, I might alternatively setup a top 100 page for those who kill others the most, and also organize by guild. I know numbers can be a probelm, but you got to remember PvPer's are very competitive and love numbers. It's worth noting you don't get high numbers if you kill somebody lower level than yourself. You also can't kill the same player repeatedly for points.

Back in the day, eqplayers.com kept PvP stats for all the PvP servers. It was part of the fun.

Beyond that, it might also be worth wiping the PvP servers now and then. I've noticed in PvP MMO's wiping is a tool increasingly used to combat the wealth of top guilds. It resets the field, giving everybody a more equal chance. In Everquest it has an even bigger relevance, since twinks are commonly made to prey on the leveling population. A wipe eliminate them.

One of the probelms with server wiping is when the server is approaching a wipe players may lose interest and wait for the wipe to finish before playing. This can be countered by only announcing the wipe date a week early and not making it too predictable when it'll occur. There migjht be other methods. Server wiping as a tool to counter unfair fights is still evolving.

[Lhancelot]

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

Keep in mind my PvP server of choice was Sullon Zek. I loved that server. But to be curt, I liked hte mayhem on Sullon. It was a special thing to be able to kill and be killed by anybody.

Well, I think you mean RZ or Rallos Zek. RZ allowed you to attack anyone, period. SZ was teams, goods, newts, and evils.

SZ you were limited with who you could attack, being limited by the fact you could not attack your own team.

Later on they combined servers I believe, into Zek. And, it carried the rules of RZ iirc, allowing you to attack anyone.

[stormlord]

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

Well, I think you mean RZ or Rallos Zek. RZ allowed you to attack anyone, period. SZ was teams, goods, newts, and evils.

SZ you were limited with who you could attack, being limited by the fact you could not attack your own team.

Later on they combined servers I believe, into Zek. And, it carried the rules of RZ iirc, allowing you to attack anyone.

Hmm yes Sullon Zek had teams, I forgot. I can't recall whether we could attack each other on the same team. But I know for a fact there were no level limits. So a max level could kill a level 6. The "Play Nice" rules also were not active on Sullon Zek, as they were on all other PvP servers, so you could train others repeatedly and even bind camp them. It wasn't easy. I remember being hunted in Blackburrow as a noob. PvP was very common, so even if we were part of a team and in home territory, it's not like I was playing in a safe zone.

More information here:
http://web.archive.org/web/200308011...al_servers.jsp

(There was a larger exp hit on PvP deaths as well)

I started on Rallos Zek when I first played EQ in 1999. When I came back in 2001 I started on Tallon/Vallon and eventually Sullon. I periodically revisited Tallon/Vallon, but spent most of my time on Sullon. I didn't like the Zek merge.

From playability standpoint, I do think a team-server would be a good path to go for this red server.

[MiRo2]

Tallon/Vallon were also +/- 8 levels for PvP range.

[tnttoken]

Bump

[branamil]

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

you failed to enjoy taking your p99 experience to the next level.

Remember, if the game is boring, frustrating, and unbalanced; it's not the game's fault. You just "failed" to enjoy the game properly.

[Ivah]

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

Remember, if the game is boring, frustrating, and unbalanced; it's not the game's fault. You just "failed" to enjoy the game properly.

If that's how you look at it why even bother playing. Sounds like you failed.

[Lhancelot]

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

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

Swish, this post with the baby and the dog seems to indicate you finally have got it!

It's time you start up your campaign for Blue and hit FB, Instagram, all other platforms of media with the gusto you hit these forums with when you used to recruit for Red.

I think with your tenacity, after 6 months of you campaigning you will have hundreds of thousands of players logging into Blue p99.

This will then force Daybreak and Rogean to consider doing p99 on a much larger scale, perhaps creating 30 more new p99 servers just to keep up with the demand.

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

[Troxx]

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

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

I think this post accurately reflects the discussion. The baby wasn't interested before the discussion, during, or after. Clearly --- not interested.

The expression on the dog's face is also eerily accurate! The final portion of the picture demonstrates the absolute pathetic aspect of touting 'not waiting in line' when really it just boils down to 'i end up playing by myself'. It's a pretty sad realization that the dog's face captures quite nicely.