Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > Blue Community > Blue Server Chat

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-21-2016, 09:41 PM
Vexenu Vexenu is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,213
Default

I wonder how many people would be in favor of the following simple, relatively easy to implement changes for any new server, regardless of ruleset:
  • Item recharging is disabled (or at minimum recharge costs exponentially increased)
  • Multi-questing is disabled
  • PBAOE spells reduced to 10 maximum targets
  • Monk sneak pulling is disabled
  • Soulfire is only clickable by Paladins
  • Rotation enforced (if not a PvP server)

I think these are all fairly conservative and would enjoy broad popular support. And I think most people would agree they would have a positive impact on the health of the server.

Binding accounts could maybe work if it used a combination of IP and MAC addresses. But I'm not sure how necessary or even beneficial that would be on anything except the Teams PvP server (where it would be an absolute godsend).
  #42  
Old 12-22-2016, 12:23 AM
Ikon Ikon is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexenu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I wonder how many people would be in favor of the following simple, relatively easy to implement changes for any new server, regardless of ruleset:
  • Item recharging is disabled (or at minimum recharge costs exponentially increased)
  • Multi-questing is disabled
  • PBAOE spells reduced to 10 maximum targets
  • Monk sneak pulling is disabled
  • Soulfire is only clickable by Paladins
  • Rotation enforced (if not a PvP server)

I think these are all fairly conservative and would enjoy broad popular support. And I think most people would agree they would have a positive impact on the health of the server.

Binding accounts could maybe work if it used a combination of IP and MAC addresses. But I'm not sure how necessary or even beneficial that would be on anything except the Teams PvP server (where it would be an absolute godsend).
Put lazy aggro in there too. In regards to PBAOE i think better to find out the real values of the 3 types and set them to classic. Each of the AOE spells had limitation on the number it could hit in classic.
  #43  
Old 12-22-2016, 02:17 AM
Galvatar Galvatar is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 202
Default

Make a server and only let reasonable people play.

Only competition there is with yourself.
  #44  
Old 12-22-2016, 06:24 AM
Jimjam Jimjam is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,736
Default

I think we should just reskin player models to look like space marines, and then all the 'FTE' calls before charging down terrible monsters will be immersive battle cries of "For The Emperor"!
  #45  
Old 12-22-2016, 01:03 PM
fadetree fadetree is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexenu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I wonder how many people would be in favor of the following simple, relatively easy to implement changes for any new server, regardless of ruleset:
  • Item recharging is disabled (or at minimum recharge costs exponentially increased)
  • Multi-questing is disabled
  • PBAOE spells reduced to 10 maximum targets
  • Monk sneak pulling is disabled
  • Soulfire is only clickable by Paladins
  • Rotation enforced (if not a PvP server)

I think these are all fairly conservative and would enjoy broad popular support. And I think most people would agree they would have a positive impact on the health of the server.

Binding accounts could maybe work if it used a combination of IP and MAC addresses. But I'm not sure how necessary or even beneficial that would be on anything except the Teams PvP server (where it would be an absolute godsend).
I'd be ok with this, except that rotations cannot be enforced without drastically increasing CS staff and all the problems that go with it.
__________________
The Ancient Ranger
Awake again.
  #46  
Old 12-22-2016, 05:43 PM
SantagarBrax SantagarBrax is offline
Banned


Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 389
Default hell yeah

this is Amazing. Very well thought out, descriptive, and accomplishes the goal of what EQ was at launch.

I love it~!
  #47  
Old 12-22-2016, 05:56 PM
SantagarBrax SantagarBrax is offline
Banned


Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 389
Default

all of these people complaining and criticizing are missing the point completely.

The idea is to make EQ the hardest it can be, requiring more engagement on the server between people to accomplish everything.

What is so difficult to understand? Why does every tom, dick, and harry have to be negative and miss the spirit of the thread?

Rhetorical question, take a lap Farley.
  #48  
Old 12-22-2016, 07:35 PM
Vexenu Vexenu is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SantagarBrax [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
all of these people complaining and criticizing are missing the point completely.

The idea is to make EQ the hardest it can be, requiring more engagement on the server between people to accomplish everything.

What is so difficult to understand? Why does every tom, dick, and harry have to be negative and miss the spirit of the thread?

Rhetorical question, take a lap Farley.
Thanks for the vote of support.

I think the issue is that most of the players on P1999 (especially most who are active in the high end game) have been playing Everquest on P1999 longer than they actually played EQ live. And certainly almost all of us have played more P1999 than we did actual Classic EQ (up through Velious expansion), since that was something like a 2-3 year window at most before the game moved to Luclin and beyond.

What I'm getting at is that most people have forgotten what original EQ actually felt like, and have entirely adapted themselves to the current P1999 version of EQ, which is, while classic in large part mechanically and content-wise, a far cry from the gameplay "feel" of the original EQ during the classic era. Most people have forgotten how HARD simple things were in actual classic EQ. The game becomes trivial and meaningless when the content itself poses no challenge due to a combination of massive widespread twinking, advanced knowledge of game mechanics and content and a much improved and more capable client that allows the player to do things that were impossible in the Velious-era classic client.

Literally the only difficulty on P1999 at this point comes, in one way or another, from trying to kill mobs before other players do. That's it, almost entirely. Everything else in the game is extremely easy to accomplish. You can't throw a rock without hitting an Epic Cleric to get a rez from or a Druid to port you. You can pay 50pp for weapons far beyond planar-level in original classic.

It's just so different than what actual classic was like. There's a certain hollowness to it, and I'm many people feel the same way. But it's hard to forcefully reject the style of gameplay you've grown accustomed to and which has (for many people) resulted in a massive horde of pixels across multiple accounts worth of characters.
  #49  
Old 12-23-2016, 12:59 AM
clacbec clacbec is offline
Sarnak

clacbec's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: france
Posts: 223
Default

Monk lazy agro and sneak pull, devs get no clue how to fix that i m pretty sure
__________________
____

Sssarn

Fantasy
  #50  
Old 12-23-2016, 01:22 AM
Bombg Bombg is offline
Large Rat


Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I'd be ok with this, except that rotations cannot be enforced without drastically increasing CS staff and all the problems that go with it.
Would rotations require more GM support? I feel like the system would more or less run itself once a few guilds are made examples of. It may even require less support than the current rules. The server I played on had a rotation running for years and never once required any GM intervention because it wasn't GM enforced.
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:38 PM.


Everquest is a registered trademark of Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Project 1999 is not associated or affiliated in any way with Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.