A 4-team, hard-coded setup that could work - Page 5

lethdar · #41 06-03-2011, 12:52 AM

Quote:

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

Could be wrong but, I'm pretty sure veeshan wasn't an evil diety. I seem to recall having sigs of veeshan.

Righto you are, veeshan was neutral. Monks had veeshan added as a diety choice in qeynos in order to get them on the neutral team.

lethdar · #42 06-03-2011, 12:53 AM

Also, man y'all are dumb, hardcoded 2 teams is a terrible idea, 3 is even worse.

To suggest 4 as a viable ruleset means that you are really really dumb, fo real.

Jigga · #43 06-03-2011, 12:58 AM

SZ started in 2001
SZ died off faster than rz,tz,vz
Wehr is from SZ

Lets get more ideas about why a new server should emulate sz

Prince · #44 06-03-2011, 01:45 AM

just 2 clear this up i am p confident flowers has never been a pacifist guild

Buhbuh · #45 06-03-2011, 01:54 AM

I didn't read all of this but occasionally stop by to see how the progress is going. One foreseeable problem with teams is that-- and I'm dead certain other people on team servers felt this way at times-- no one can attack each other from the same team (obviously), despite whether or not they're in different, competing guilds.

That's one massive fail team servers had. The 8 level range wasn't too terrible. The 4 level range was. RZ, TZ, and SZ each had it right to a degree. With emu servers, the rule set is always going to be SZ style regardless of GM's. Frap'd hacking and training, sure, ban (and probably overwhelming consensus' that certain players are fucksticks will draw attention/ eventually give them the ban).

loveyouknuckle