Proposed new server ruleset: PvE+ [long effortpost]

[Vexenu]

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

You keep saying "you group" but I don't understand how that just instantly works? Even in Classic when Seb was the best place to be getting a group was a chore, so when you say "you'd need to group" it makes me think of long times waiting for others to need to go to where I want to go or I simply won't be able to go there and I have to think how many would like that besides people with a strong group of players they can count on to group with. Also your going to create an elitist attitude because the risk is higher people will be less likely to just pick up randoms in a group.

We both agree that your ideas make it harder, anyone can see that, I just think it absolutely destroys any casual base the first time people log in and realize they have to find food/water then find a group to be able to do anything, then find an indoor zone because anything outside is basically useless experience wise. That sounds very non casual to me. That said I'm probably in the minority as a casual EQ player playing 1999 anyway so it very well could appeal to the masses.

I think this would be a more likely scenario:

- Log in
- You are camped in a city, because that's where people congregate for safety, is the only place people can bind and is where you can buy food. There will always be other players around for these reasons
- You go buy food from the merchant, summon some yourself (Priest or Mage) or ask another player to summon some for you
- You interact with other players and form a group to travel together and adventure in a nearby dungeon

Something like that would feel a lot more like classic than Blue currently does.

But again, if that doesn't appeal to you, you wouldn't have to play there. Blue would remain the same. PvE+ obviously wouldn't be for everyone and you're an example of someone who doesn't see the appeal. Nothing wrong with that - just not your cup of tea.

[Lakeland]

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

I think this would be a more likely scenario:

- Log in
- You are camped in a city, because that's where people congregate for safety, is the only place people can bind and is where you can buy food. There will always be other players around for these reasons
- You go buy food from the merchant, summon some yourself (Priest or Mage) or ask another player to summon some for you
- You interact with other players and form a group to travel together and adventure in a nearby dungeon

Something like that would feel a lot more like classic than Blue currently does.

But again, if that doesn't appeal to you, you wouldn't have to play there. Blue would remain the same. PvE+ obviously wouldn't be for everyone and you're an example of someone who doesn't see the appeal. Nothing wrong with that - just not your cup of tea.

It has less to do with if I like it and more to do with just wondering how you see it working. So why would all these people just randomly be sitting in the city waiting for others to log in there, I'm new to p99, does every class have gate or do you actually run back to a city (in your server you'd run through horribly dangerous areas, just to have to run back next time, this makes little sense except you make it needed because of the food issue)? Your scenario plays out in best case only, not reality. People often log out when not in a city. Players don't generally just want to sit in a city doing nothing, and so when someone logs in what are the odds of people being there to group? IF you say it would be easy (for the sake of argument) then that means the people sitting there were just there waiting? See again it seems good, but how often do you figure that actually works out like that?

I think you are thinking I dislike your idea, and for me it's doesn't matter if I do or don't because I can take that away from it and put it into practical practice and wonder how that would actually work.

[fadetree]

I think a fundamental problem with his idea is that there's a difference between 'mystery' and 'unreasonably hard'. If you are flailing around because you *don't* know the mechanics, yes it makes seem harder. That just feels ok, understandable, and it's also fun figuring out stuff. There's hope to be had and cool new techniques to be shared.

However, if you take known mechanics and just make them WAY harder, it doesn't feel the same. You know perfectly well why things are or are not working, and you know there's nothing you can do to make them any better other than just group up and play really hard and suffer through it. That's a valid play style for some, but you will lose people's interest at a huge clip, I predict. You will do nothing to 'recapture' the original feels of being alone in a harsh world without a clue, because everybody has a clue. Let's face it, even as well known and 'easy' as it is, EQ will still make you pay horribly for mistakes and they seem to happen in infuriatingly obscure and random ways. It's balanced some though, becuase lots of teh game is fairly well known and more or less 'easy'. Cranking up the 'hardness' knob will make those kinds of things even harder to take.

I personally would be fine with no MQ and lots more of the good stuff being non-droppable.

Now, if a NEW game was all super bad-ass hard, then yeah I can see that. I'm looking at you, Pantheon.

[Vexenu]

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

It has less to do with if I like it and more to do with just wondering how you see it working. So why would all these people just randomly be sitting in the city waiting for others to log in there, I'm new to p99, does every class have gate or do you actually run back to a city (in your server you'd run through horribly dangerous areas, just to have to run back next time, this makes little sense except you make it needed because of the food issue)? Your scenario plays out in best case only, not reality. People often log out when not in a city. Players don't generally just want to sit in a city doing nothing, and so when someone logs in what are the odds of people being there to group? IF you say it would be easy (for the sake of argument) then that means the people sitting there were just there waiting? See again it seems good, but how often do you figure that actually works out like that?

I think you are thinking I dislike your idea, and for me it's doesn't matter if I do or don't because I can take that away from it and put it into practical practice and wonder how that would actually work.

Cities would basically function as physical LFG hubs (which was fairly common in early classic gameplay). You would want to stay close by to cities for safety, food and grouping. It would not be easy, cheap or common to summon a Wizard or Druid for a port to cross the world instantly. If you wanted a port you would most likely have to go to a city, find a Druid or Wizard and wait until he had a few people who agreed on a destination and port all at once (Under the proposed ruleset that would be the only economical way to sell ports). Or, if you didn't want to bother with a port you could wait for the boat. If it was nearby you might want to run there, if you felt confident crossing the zone yourself. If not you would hope to find people to run with you for safety in numbers. That is really as classic as it gets. I remember people banding together and running from Qeynos to Freeport. It was the only way to get there safely with such limited knowledge of the game back then.

It seems like you are interpreting the proposed ruleset through the lens of current player behaviors, which is the mistake. Players would behave totally differently on a PvE+ server out of necessity. And you would obviously have more freedom as you got higher level. A level 40 will feel safer in more zones than a level 15 and wouldn't be as reliant on staying close by to cities all the time. A more realistic scenario for a level 40 might be:

-Log in
-Camped at the Droga entrance in FM after XPing in Droga the night before
-Zone in and see if any groups available.
-Sorry, groups are full
-You go next door to Nurga, careful to avoid the wandering mobs
-You begin to get hungry and thirsty
-You luckily encounter a Shaman outside Nurga who summons you some food and water in exchange for a tip, saving you a run back to OT or Cab
-You find a group in Nurga and start to XP

[Maciver]

tl;dr

[mickmoranis]

it literally says on the front page of the project what the next server is lel

[Vexenu]

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

I think a fundamental problem with his idea is that there's a difference between 'mystery' and 'unreasonably hard'. If you are flailing around because you *don't* know the mechanics, yes it makes seem harder. That just feels ok, understandable, and it's also fun figuring out stuff. There's hope to be had and cool new techniques to be shared.

However, if you take known mechanics and just make them WAY harder, it doesn't feel the same. You know perfectly well why things are or are not working, and you know there's nothing you can do to make them any better other than just group up and play really hard and suffer through it. That's a valid play style for some, but you will lose people's interest at a huge clip, I predict. You will do nothing to 'recapture' the original feels of being alone in a harsh world without a clue, because everybody has a clue. Let's face it, even as well known and 'easy' as it is, EQ will still make you pay horribly for mistakes and they seem to happen in infuriatingly obscure and random ways. It's balanced some though, becuase lots of teh game is fairly well known and more or less 'easy'. Cranking up the 'hardness' knob will make those kinds of things even harder to take.

I personally would be fine with no MQ and lots more of the good stuff being non-droppable.

Now, if a NEW game was all super bad-ass hard, then yeah I can see that. I'm looking at you, Pantheon.

This is a good point, but on the other hand, why are we playing EQ to begin with and not a modern MMO which is much easier and more convenient to the player in almost every respect? Nostalgia plays a big role, but I think there's also simply something appealing about difficult gameplay for many people here. So I agree - a PvE+ server would definitely not be the same feeling as classic, which is impossible to replicate - but artificially enhancing the difficulty would produce the closest thing possible at this point. It would certainly feel more classic than Blue is now, at least, which is the main goal behind the proposal.

[HippoNipple]

Everyone in this thread cares more about a new server than the only person that could actually make another p99 server.

[zati]

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

Everyone in this thread cares more about a new server than the only person that could actually make another p99 server.

cold blooded. /thread tho

Also you got to look at it at the perspective of the GMs tho. They got lives, it takes hard work to code all the stuff they do, and they don't get paid.

Would anyone in this thread man up and do all that for the sake of an old game? Well its nice to come up with sick ideas; the best constructive way would be to learn to code, gain yrs of experience, then implement ALL of that knowing you get no profit. So yeah.. I'm just thankful that the game even exists at this point in time and are people willing to run it for free.

[rollin5k]

Binding IP to accounts would be fuckin amazing