Why are p99 devs trying to make Green non-classic and ignoring proof?

[derpcake2]

Originally Posted by Bardp1999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Creating massive trains is not as risk-free or easy as it sounds. Player allowed training encourages grouping (safety in numbers) and Monks/Necro/SK that participate in this behavior quickly develop horrible horrible reputations and find them selves unable to procure rez's. A monk will eventually die when attempting to train another group...or if the group is strong enough its free pulls, either way its no where near as game-breaking as people are making it out to be here on the forums. I guess the exception is solo/duo groups getting shit on - which I approve of anyways because most here on P99 are ellitist assholes who like to min max group content with as little people as possible.

So in a way player sanctioned training would make P99 more group friendly and community based (reputations, ect)... which is the most #classic thing there is.

#WildWildWest

Have to love this guy.

Train virgin, obviously.

[Chortles Snort|eS]

Confirmed

[Zuranthium]

Your server had it. EVERY server did. Facts. The amount is debatable, but it was always there, and sanctioned by the devs of Everquest. It was 100% allowed.

It's not "acting like a scumbag" either, it's playing the damn game, in a much more interesting way. That's how actual fantasy worlds and competitive games work (or even a casual game of Rummy or something), and it's something that creates compelling stories. Did people in Game of Thrones sit around doing nothing but idling a room? Is that what happened in Lord of the Rings? Or in Sword of Truth? Is that what anyone does in any sport or game? No, absolutely not. Those things would all be boring if that's how they worked.

You're basically advocating that every D&D game should be nothing but the dungeon master putting a couple monsters directly in front of the players for them to easily kill, and then doing it again after they've won without challenge. No story, no actual character involvement required, no real risk, no unpredictability. So dumb.

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

I know i would not have gotten into EQ if i was a paying subscriber just getting bullied by other paying subscribers.

You can't "get bullied" (or at least, anything that actually constitutes as such, is not allowed). Nothing in the game is entitled to you and the game is not supposed to be about having a personal NPC vending machine that just spawns in front of you, for you to brainlessly hack down.

The game itself is about adventure, moving through a chaotic fantasy world, and fighting for what you want and your survival. You are thrown into Norrath, like Frodo was thrown into the quest of the ring. If a more powerful team comes and takes your camp, so what? Go to another one. Or form a better team, and strive to be able to outplay them. That is the journey. Who cares if you level slower or get items slower. Levels and items have no actual purpose. You're just there to be transported and experience the game world as it comes at you.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

Your server had it. EVERY server did. Facts.

Which is more likely...

A) you having played on every server during the first year so you know definitively that this was the case and you are not just projecting your own experience playing on what must have been an absolute shitshow of a server to play on,

B) you are Brad McQuaid or Gordon Wrinn himself, or

C) rules for the servers were handled differently by each Lead GM assigned to them, the best practices and lessons learned from each were used to develop the eventual PNP, so your experience during Year 1 was different than players not from your Live server, and therefore it is completely classic to have the devs here minimize sociopathic behavior in the best interests of fostering a healthy community.

You can keep being pedantic and twist my words, but the fact remains that if the ruleset was truly wild west "might makes right" in terms of killstealing or campstealing on Xegony for the first X number of months after release, I would not have put up with that shit and I would not have kept playing the first time I was camping an item with a group and some other group came in and pushed us out. Maybe GM Vedan was more hands on than your GM?

Unless you were a lead GM and you just let all the players fend for themselves on your server since that seems to be your predisposition. What server?

[Zeboim]

If we are just shouting out anecdotal shit here, I played on Veeshan where we would see Brad himself running around on his ranger, and we did lists for everything. I spent about 3 days waiting for my spot for my fbss. Sure the list was player based, but those were very different tomes on the internet.

[Zuranthium]

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

Which is more likely...

A) you having played on every server during the first year so you know definitively that this was the case and you are not just projecting your own experience

Did you read the official EQ forums and other various forums and websites at the time? Did you read the evidence linked?

It seems you didn't and are only projecting your own limited experience. Fighting over NPC's was EVERYWHERE; it was not just a few servers at all. That was the classic 1999 EQ experience, if people wanted it to be. Again, it comes down to the players in the given sandbox. If you happened to mainly just encounter people who wanted to do no-competition camps, which yes many people did just want to play the game in more limited fashion, then you were in a bubble. EQ was never supposed to be limited to that, nor was that ever the rules as given by the game devs themselves in 1999.

UGH, I wish so badly that more archives from the time period existed. Not that more are even needed, since there's already direct statements from the Game Devs, of them saying that fighting over NPC's was allowed and they wanted a hands-off approach to it, and for the players to work it out.

[Hibbs]

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

and for the players to work it out.

LOL have you met some of the special breeds of P99?

[BlackBellamy]

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

UGH, I wish so badly that more archives from the time period existed. Not that more are even needed, since there's already direct statements from the Game Devs, of them saying that fighting over NPC's was allowed and they wanted a hands-off approach to it, and for the players to work it out.

http://web.archive.org/web/200010171..._conduct.shtml

e.g. You must comply with arbitration for contested spawns.

There are cases where two or more groups wish to kill the same thing. In these cases, the groups are required to compromise. If an equitable compromise cannot be reached between the players prior to EverQuest Customer Service Staff involvement, the EQCSR will mandate a binding compromise. Refusing to abide by a compromise mandated by an EQCSR will be considered disruption. It is therefore strongly suggested that the groups make every attempt to reach a compromise that they can live with prior to involving an EQCSR, who may mandate a compromise that does not suit you to the extent that a player-devised compromise would.

The earliest instance of the PNP policy I could find is from Nov 2000, although I bet it was in place way earlier. So your glorious heyday of kill stealing, training, and monopolizing camps lasted barely a year if that. And the reason the PNP was put in play is because people were getting sick and tired of narcissistic anti-social assholes ruining it for everyone else. I'm not sure if your argument of "let everyone be an asshole until Verant historically decided enough was enough" is attractive.

[Sonark]

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

http://web.archive.org/web/200010171..._conduct.shtml



The earliest instance of the PNP policy I could find is from Nov 2000, although I bet it was in place way earlier. So your glorious heyday of kill stealing, training, and monopolizing camps lasted barely a year if that. And the reason the PNP was put in play is because people were getting sick and tired of narcissistic anti-social assholes ruining it for everyone else. I'm not sure if your argument of "let everyone be an asshole until Verant historically decided enough was enough" is attractive.

This is wonderful

[Teppler]

Here’s my proposition to make everyone happy-

Classic discord server. No rules whatsoever. Winners get special prizes so stakes are high.