Green/Red99

[Lowlife]

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

I predict if green99 is extremely popular, purple99 will shortly follow. Or at the latest be what green99 becomes after it is complete, and then again and again. again and again and again.

purple99 is that what we're calling this? lol

[Thomacles]

There is an enormous amount of work to set up a server. There is even more work involved setting up a PvP server. Their hands will be full enough working to get a green server going.

I highly doubt there will be any time to invest into a server that will have less than 50 people total.

But you can keep dreaming.

[Lowlife]

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

There is an enormous amount of work to set up a server. There is even more work involved setting up a PvP server. Their hands will be full enough working to get a green server going.

I highly doubt there will be any time to invest into a server that will have less than 50 people total.

But you can keep dreaming.

there is more factors to reds population issues than you seem to be aware of.

red had 500+ people at launch, i think a fresh pvp server where people could compete for guises and manastones could see similar numbers. red had double the pvp level range at launch and a number of other quality of life issues that have since been implemented which i think could contribute to greater retention. and hopefully this time a former staff member implicated in RMT doesnt ban entire guilds and turn the server into a one guild fest just as the server begins to raid dragons.

[Keza]

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

there is more factors to reds population issues than you seem to be aware of.

red had 500+ people at launch

Red's population was 500 at launch and then became 50 for the same reason you played 'x' game for 20 minutes before uninstalling it. Not because it was good and then became bad, but because it was shit and only a few shitbrained people liked it. I actually don't have anything against a pvp server, despite my belief that 'play red' posters are braindead. I just don't think it's feasible as EQ is horribly imbalanced even as a PvE game, let alone as a *FFA PvP game.

In other words this is another 'play red' thread and I believe I've made my beliefs clear.

A teams server is something else entirely which I would like to see, even if unclassic. I'd at least give it a go, although it might eventually be shit, it wouldn't be as predictable - and easily avoidable - as the catastrophe that is 'red'.

[Osprey39]

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

There is an enormous amount of work to set up a server. There is even more work involved setting up a PvP server. Their hands will be full enough working to get a green server going.

I highly doubt there will be any time to invest into a server that will have less than 50 people total.

But you can keep dreaming.

You're underestimating how many would play on it based just on red's current pop (which you still understated.) There's plenty of people like myself that are currently on blue but would switch if there was a pvp teams server. Pvp servers will never be as popular as pve but they can still be pretty popular when done right.

[walfreyydo]

Originally Posted by Osprey39 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're underestimating how many would play on it based just on red's current pop (which you still understated.) There's plenty of people like myself that are currently on blue but would switch if there was a pvp teams server. Pvp servers will never be as popular as pve but they can still be pretty popular when done right.

I am one of those people

[Jimjam]

Red had hundreds of players in Kunark.

Maybe I am seeing causation where there is only correlation, but the more thinly spread the playerbase, and the higher the potential disparity in equipment, the more that is at stake in each encounter, the less people are interested in playing a pvp version of Everquest.

PvP works as a fun afterthought, not as something that defines the server.

[Vexenu]

People always talk about how EQ is not a game designed with PvP in mind, and yet if you ask anyone on Blue who also played on TZ/VZ/SZ back in the day they will tell you flat out that EQ with Teams PvP is by far the better and more memorable experience. I literally have not met a single person who actually has a lot of time on a Teams server and a Blue server (and who can therefore make a fair comparison) say that Blue EQ is more fun. Not a single one.

Red even at its best was far inferior to the Teams servers and its low population isn't a good argument against a potential p1999 Teams server. The great irony of it is that most of the diehard Blue players would probably enjoy a Teams server more than Blue anyway, because the things they like about Blue EQ (socializing, guild camaraderie, acquiring meaningful loot, competition between guilds) are greatly amplified on a Teams server by necessity. A Teams server would do more to breathe new life into this project than anything else by far. And it could be done with a ruleset that was 95%+ classic (meaning more classic than current Blue).

[Kirdan]

+1 to SZ ruleset, SZ was amazing (and required no customer support staff!)

[Thomacles]

Except what inevitably happens is that one team surges in numbers, and the whole thing turns into a gang mentality. With one side always winning, and the other always losing, interest in continuing fades fast.

WoW has encountered this now for several years. Just look at the imbalance with Hoarde vs. Alliance. They have tried MANY diff things to try to balance it out, and none so far have worked. Thats why they kinda killed off the PvP seasons that used to occur years ago.

PvP in EQ was NEVER popular. Not on live, not on p99. Just because Red USED to have more players than now, that didn't make it popular. The numbers were never even close.

There simply isn't enough interest in it to warrant the vast resources to provide it.

Quit kicking a dead horse. That horse died long, long ago.