Was Having Two Servers More Fun Than One?

[Smellybuttface]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Go look at Tecmos’s signature it has the quote right there

It is a somewhat strange sentiment from Nilbog. It begs the question, why build it of no one wants to play it? Of course we know that people do want to play it, but even if no one did I wonder if Nilbog would change his tune, or whether he’d still go through the rigamarole of recreating “classic” regardless if he’s the only one that wants it.

[HandOfFate]

So, is this supposed to be fun?

PoFear consists of pet classes camping every single spawn location spamming /pet attack, or Bards AEing. When you do get a mob, every one in the zone shouts that they got FTE knowing that the GMs can't check them all.

Dragon raids are shite shows where everyone trains each other and cries to GMs about how the other guy did it. Then we spend 10 hours looking at video trying to lawyerquest pixels.

Fun > Classic

[cd288]

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

It is a somewhat strange sentiment from Nilbog. It begs the question, why build it of no one wants to play it? Of course we know that people do want to play it, but even if no one did I wonder if Nilbog would change his tune, or whether he’d still go through the rigamarole of recreating “classic” regardless if he’s the only one that wants it.

I mean, back when Blue launched wasn't it only a couple hundred people for a long time?

I think he does it because he enjoys doing it not because he wants people to necessarily play it

[Silverfalcon]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Go look at Tecmos’s signature it has the quote right there

Now this doesn't make sense to me. You've been saying all along that the high populations on servers is part of what classic EQ is. So, by that logic you would think you would want to keep players playing the game not telling them goodbye. If the server population dies down then by the same token the "Classic EQ" you so dearly claim to want will by default not be there.

By the same token that statement by Nilbog was about the actual in game mechanics of EQ it had nothing to do with him saying "I don't care if anyone plays my game or not". All he was saying is that if the in game mechanics of the game bothered people he was not worried about losing some of them because he was trying to faithfully recreate the EQ classic game. I didn't see anything in that statement about wanting to have a certain population on the server. Which by his statement of players leaving he doesn't seem to care if the server level is 37 (red server) or 1000 (green server) he just wants to recreate the actual game play. So from that viewpoint it shouldn't matter if Green and Teal were separate.

Essentially you can't have it both ways. Either server population is important to capture the classic EQ feel. Or it is not important and therefore people can leave and you don't get to recreate the classic EQ feel.

I standby my statement if having to many servers is the issue just drop red and add Teal back. You can funnel the players from red into blue. Both Teal and Green had more players than either Blue or Green. There is only 39 players on red atm. Is it better to loose 100s of players because of a merge or keep hundreds of players instead of a dead server?

[TripSin]

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

Now this doesn't make sense to me. You've been saying all along that the high populations on servers is part of what classic EQ is. So, by that logic you would think you would want to keep players playing the game not telling them goodbye. If the server population dies down then by the same token the "Classic EQ" you so dearly claim to want will by default not be there.

By the same token that statement by Nilbog was about the actual in game mechanics of EQ it had nothing to do with him saying "I don't care if anyone plays my game or not". All he was saying is that if the in game mechanics of the game bothered people he was not worried about losing some of them because he was trying to faithfully recreate the EQ classic game. I didn't see anything in that statement about wanting to have a certain population on the server. Which by his statement of players leaving he doesn't seem to care if the server level is 37 (red server) or 1000 (green server) he just wants to recreate the actual game play. So from that viewpoint it shouldn't matter if Green and Teal were separate.

Essentially you can't have it both ways. Either server population is important to capture the classic EQ feel. Or it is not important and therefore people can leave and you don't get to recreate the classic EQ feel.

I standby my statement if having to many servers is the issue just drop red and add Teal back. You can funnel the players from red into blue. Both Teal and Green had more players than either Blue or Green. There is only 39 players on red atm. Is it better to loose 100s of players because of a merge or keep hundreds of players instead of a dead server?

Population has been fine and stable post merger and the game is also more classic for it.

[Silverfalcon]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I mean, back when Blue launched wasn't it only a couple hundred people for a long time?

I think he does it because he enjoys doing it not because he wants people to necessarily play it

That's a lot of love for something for not caring if it is being used and enjoyed. I mean by it's definition a MMORPG is designed for group play. You cannot even do end content without multiple groups in the classic game. One group on green currently could not drop Vox or Naggy.

[Silverfalcon]

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

Your "argument", I hesitate to call it such because it's not very good, here is completely null. Population has been fine and stable post merger and the game is also more classic for it.

My point is...everyone has been saying the populations back in 1999 were much higher than what they are now currently on green. By definition that is not classic is it? If your whole argument is that having high population is part of classic EQ.

[Silverfalcon]

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

Population has been fine and stable post merger and the game is also more classic for it.

Also define fine and stable in relation to 1999 EQ server populations?

[cd288]

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

Now this doesn't make sense to me. You've been saying all along that the high populations on servers is part of what classic EQ is. So, by that logic you would think you would want to keep players playing the game not telling them goodbye. If the server population dies down then by the same token the "Classic EQ" you so dearly claim to want will by default not be there.

By the same token that statement by Nilbog was about the actual in game mechanics of EQ it had nothing to do with him saying "I don't care if anyone plays my game or not". All he was saying is that if the in game mechanics of the game bothered people he was not worried about losing some of them because he was trying to faithfully recreate the EQ classic game. I didn't see anything in that statement about wanting to have a certain population on the server. Which by his statement of players leaving he doesn't seem to care if the server level is 37 (red server) or 1000 (green server) he just wants to recreate the actual game play. So from that viewpoint it shouldn't matter if Green and Teal were separate.

Essentially you can't have it both ways. Either server population is important to capture the classic EQ feel. Or it is not important and therefore people can leave and you don't get to recreate the classic EQ feel.

I standby my statement if having to many servers is the issue just drop red and add Teal back. You can funnel the players from red into blue. Both Teal and Green had more players than either Blue or Green. There is only 39 players on red atm. Is it better to loose 100s of players because of a merge or keep hundreds of players instead of a dead server?

Er what? Now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about wanting higher population because it’s more classic or anything like that. I cited the classic server populations just to point out that you’re whining about Green being crowded when it’s not even close to what classic servers were back in the day.

And I completely agree with Nilbog. I’d rather this server reflect classic EQ in its mechanics instead of pandering to people who essentially want instances (which is effectively what creating more servers is) so that they can easily farm their items and plat whenever they want. If you don’t like it and want everything handed to you, go play the EQ TLPs where you can have your own instance. Or play literally almost any other MMOs in the modern era that have instances.

This is the way it is on P99. Don’t like it? I guess it’s not for you. Thanks for giving it a try and good luck finding an MMO you enjoy.

[loramin]

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

Now this doesn't make sense to me. You've been saying all along that the high populations on servers is part of what classic EQ is. So, by that logic you would think you would want to keep players playing the game not telling them goodbye. If the server population dies down then by the same token the "Classic EQ" you so dearly claim to want will by default not be there.

By the same token that statement by Nilbog was about the actual in game mechanics of EQ it had nothing to do with him saying "I don't care if anyone plays my game or not". All he was saying is that if the in game mechanics of the game bothered people he was not worried about losing some of them because he was trying to faithfully recreate the EQ classic game. I didn't see anything in that statement about wanting to have a certain population on the server. Which by his statement of players leaving he doesn't seem to care if the server level is 37 (red server) or 1000 (green server) he just wants to recreate the actual game play. So from that viewpoint it shouldn't matter if Green and Teal were separate.

Essentially you can't have it both ways. Either server population is important to capture the classic EQ feel. Or it is not important and therefore people can leave and you don't get to recreate the classic EQ feel.

I standby my statement if having to many servers is the issue just drop red and add Teal back. You can funnel the players from red into blue. Both Teal and Green had more players than either Blue or Green. There is only 39 players on red atm. Is it better to loose 100s of players because of a merge or keep hundreds of players instead of a dead server?

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

That's a lot of love for something for not caring if it is being used and enjoyed. I mean by it's definition a MMORPG is designed for group play. You cannot even do end content without multiple groups in the classic game. One group on green currently could not drop Vox or Naggy.

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

My point is...everyone has been saying the populations back in 1999 were much higher than what they are now currently on green. By definition that is not classic is it? If your whole argument is that having high population is part of classic EQ.

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

Also define fine and stable in relation to 1999 EQ server populations?

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