Custom teams

[Lowlife]

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

Teams Green, Red and Blue, hardcoded and chosen at character creation. I know all you role players would HATE it, but it would be class / race balanced.

fail.

[Something'Witty]

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

fail.

Why?

[Vexenu]

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

Teams Green, Red and Blue, hardcoded and chosen at character creation. I know all you role players would HATE it, but it would be class / race balanced.

The Teams ruleset should not be decided based on what it best for existing Red players, but rather on what is best for the Teams server.

Given your earlier post voicing concerns about your family guild being split up in a merge, it's obvious you're speaking from a position of extreme self-interest.

If you want to make a serious suggestion, try setting aside your own glaringly obvious biases first. Here's an easy question to ask yourself to help you do that: "What ruleset would I think was best for Teams if I was never going to play on the server?"

Some other questions:

"What sort of ruleset would fit with the game's lore?"

"What rulesets have worked well in the past?"

"What ruleset has the most vocal supporters?"

"What ruleset would do the most do encourage high population retention?"

Answer the questions honestly and you will not only see why your suggestion is silly, but the correct choise for a ruleset will become more apparent.

[Something'Witty]

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

The Teams ruleset should not be decided based on what it best for existing Red players, but rather on what is best for the Teams server.

Given your earlier post voicing concerns about your family guild being split up in a merge, it's obvious you're speaking from a position of extreme self-interest.

I suggested this from day one of the teams rule set discussion and honestly feel it is the only balanced rule set. Would it make the merger of two servers a lot easier? Yes, at least in my view, does the staff have any thoughts?

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

If you want to make a serious suggestion, try setting aside your own glaringly obvious biases first. Here's an easy question to ask yourself to help you do that:

I accept your forumquest challenge!

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

"What ruleset would I think was best for Teams if I was never going to play on the server?"

What I suggested! I played on VZ Kunark - GoD. I played on the merged PvP server for a bit (FFA). I have played on R99 for 8 months. I think FFA > Teams, but if it was going to create a teams rule set, it would be what I suggested (3 teams, chosen at chara creation). Give the race / class / religion restrictions built into EQ, it is the only way to have truly balanced teams.

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

"What sort of ruleset would fit with the game's lore?"

Don't care, not a role player, and I admitted that role players would HATE my suggestion.

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

"What rulesets have worked well in the past?"

Great question, when the PvP servers on live were merged, they were merged into a FFA rule set. I think that says a lot.

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

"What ruleset has the most vocal supporters?"

SZ prolly, but does that mean it is the best rule set?

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

"What ruleset would do the most do encourage high population retention?"

I don't think any PvP server will end up with a population higher than what R99 has right now, but I digress.

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

Answer the questions honestly and you will not only see why your suggestion is silly, but the correct choise for a ruleset will become more apparent.

Your forumquest challenge did not deliver~

[Ebony]

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

(Goods had Halas/Qeynos, Neutrals had Rivervale & Kaladim, Evils had Neriak, Cabilis, Grobb/Oggok & OT).

Thanks for helping to prove our point. Team evil had Neriak, Cabilis, Grobb, Oggok & Overthere. Most of them 100% to themselves.

On Team Good we only had Halas which we had to fight for & Team Neut seemed to have it better but not by much.

The crazy race/city advantage team evil had plus team evil being the only Team that had classes all to themselves & owning Kunark, is it any wonder 80% of the server played on evil team? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Race or City Teams are FAR better then the sz disaster.

[Vexenu]

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

Thanks for helping to prove our point. Team evil had Neriak, Cabilis, Grobb, Oggok & Overthere. Most of them 100% to themselves.

On Team Good we only had Halas which we had to fight for & Team Neut seemed to have it better but not by much.

The crazy race/city advantage team evil had plus team evil being the only Team that had classes all to themselves & owning Kunark, is it any wonder 80% of the server played on evil team? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Race or City Teams are FAR better then the sz disaster.

Please read my thread about how to tweak the SZ rules. It addresses all these problems.

http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...d.php?t=120312

Namely: stat bonuses to Good and Neutral team, FFA PvP on the Evil team, and FV hammers. Also a delayed launch of Kunark to deny Evils a safe haven from the get-go.

This is one of the most important points: we KNOW the weaknesses of the SZ rules. We know what went wrong, so we can fix it. The experiment was already run for us on Live, which is more than can be said for any suggested custom ruleset.

[Ebony]

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

Please read my thread about how to tweak the SZ rules. It addresses all these problems.

http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...d.php?t=120312

Namely: stat bonuses to Good and Neutral team, FFA PvP on the Evil team, and FV hammers. Also a delayed launch of Kunark to deny Evils a safe haven from the get-go.

This is one of the most important points: we KNOW the weaknesses of the SZ rules. We know what went wrong, so we can fix it. The experiment was already run for us on Live, which is more than can be said for any suggested custom ruleset.

My fight isn't with the SZ rule set (Besides Training, that was very dumb lol), my fight is with the HORRIBLE diety Team Split. Sam wants an exact copy of SZ. If he wanted an exacted copy of SZ but without the training & a BETTER Team Split (Race or City or tweeking the Dieties of a few races), I'd agree with him.

I like a lot of what you say in your fix SZ thread. I'm not anti SZ, I'm just anti a couple extreme flaws SZ has. Your post about fixing SZ had some good ideas. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Rec]

green, red, and blue are not very exciting EQ pvp colors

[Something'Witty]

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

green, red, and blue are not very exciting EQ pvp colors

The color model doesn't matter, only the number of tuples.

[SamwiseRed]

Wow I hope you aren't serious