Xp loss on death discourages solo pvps

[Dfn]

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

Not everyone's idea of PVP is griefing the fuck out of your opponent. The two servers this server is being modeled after had an extremely good system that everyone enjoyed and preferred. It promotes PVP without the griefing aspect of it.

Extremely good is subjective. How was it any more or less good than other PvP servers? Besides, let me take a line of reasoning from you here. "Not everyone's idea of PVP is no death penalty and being nice to everyone."

I'm not sure you're familiar with the term "griefing" either. Should I define it for you? What you're arguing for is a system without a death penalty, period. You want a WoW battleground-arena type game where dying has no consequence.

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

There is still a penalty for losing, a clear pecking order on the server. If you fight over Fear and your guild dies, losing the rights to Fear and the loot is a penalty. The rules still encouraged the two guilds to fight over the zone, just without the stupid training / bind rushing that occurred on the other pvp servers. It still provides the PURPOSE of why people play on PVP servers, the ability to take what you want through skill on the battlefield instead of having to wait in a line like on a PVE server.

Again, the flaws in your argument come flooding out.

Simply put: Loot and Scoot does has no effect on the majority of the population. Furthermore, most of the people it does effect would likely leave the zone without the LnS rule. Why? Because they will get killed again.

Training and Bind Rushing? Really? Red herring? Training is illegal. Bind rushing is solved because there is exp loss on death. What happens in your fruity blue world of no death penalty? Oh yeah, people bind rush.

Bad argument still going... "It still provides the PURPOSE of why people play on PVP servers, the ability to take what you want through skill on the battlefield instead of having to wait in a line like on a PVE server."

EXP loss on death removes the ability of taking what you want through skill and forces PvE lines, right? No? Then stfu with this random ass shit.

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

Why change a system that worked well on both of these servers? Why can't two guilds be polite about PVP? If you lose, get your corpses and leave the zone. There is no need to repeatedly kill people and waste their entire nights. They lost the right to the area for loot, it's a big enough penalty on a server where items grant an advantage in PVP.

Again, subjective. Who's to say Rallos or Sullon weren't better? Is there a verifiable, measurable standard that we can use? No? Then stfu.

Guilds can behave how they want. Just because you want to be nice when getting drilled doesn't mean the rest of the population does. EXP/Item loot both provide a method of forcing people out of the zone without rules that require staff interpretation and enforcement.

You are dumb. You haven't listen one good reason yet.

[Crenshinabon]

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

It satisfys my urge to make other suffer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Gives the players a good reason to be pro and not a zergling shithead as well when defeated. All around good mechanic.

[Graym]

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

Again, subjective. Who's to say Rallos or Sullon weren't better? Is there a verifiable, measurable standard that we can use? No? Then stfu.

Yes, it was called SERVER POPULATION.

[Sorath]

My body is ready to decrease your xps.

[Dfn]

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

Yes, it was called SERVER POPULATION.

It's common knowledge that Sullon had a lower population than the other servers, but the same cannot be said of Rallos. Most people attribute it to the lack of rules and little to no GM involvement. Now, show me the data. Where does it say that EXP loss was the contributing factor that led to a lower population?

Try and come up with a few reasons to support your blue idea while you're at it. I'm anxious to hear a legitimate reason.

[Graym]

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

It's common knowledge that Sullon had a lower population than the other servers, but the same cannot be said of Rallos. Most people attribute it to the lack of rules and little to no GM involvement. Now, show me the data. Where does it say that EXP loss was the contributing factor that led to a lower population?

Try and come up with a few reasons to support your blue idea while you're at it. I'm anxious to hear a legitimate reason.

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

It's common knowledge that Sullon had a lower population than the other servers, but the same cannot be said of Rallos. Most people attribute it to the lack of rules and little to no GM involvement. Now, show me the data. Where does it say that EXP loss was the contributing factor that led to a lower population?

Try and come up with a few reasons to support your blue idea while you're at it. I'm anxious to hear a legitimate reason.

If you want to deny and ignore the supporting data, I don't know what to tell you. As well, I never played on Rallos but I'd assume a decent reason their population stayed was twofold:

1) They were the first, and at the time, only PVP server and by the time the other servers rolled around people had already invested tons of time on the server and didn't want to move. If all 4 servers had been released at the same time, I doubt that would've happened.

2) Much more importantly, I would assume the increase in No Drop items kind of took away a big portion of the item loot complaint. Even then, I'm sure there were plenty of gank groups to go around.

The question is which would you prefer, a server with a balanced distribution of classes fighting with their gear to the best of their ability for the biggest PVP challenge, or a server where people keep items in their bags and run around in ganking groups. Sullon Zek's ruleset drove the population into the ground so while I'm sure a lot of you like it, it isn't exactly a good ruleset to follow if the you're trying to keep a server populated.

For me, I'd rather dominate a server/game that appeals to the masses and promotes skill so that the best truly represent the best. A low population emulator server doesn't prove jack shit and never will because the best players stopped playing Everquest many years ago. Low population emulators with second rate players with vastly changed rulesets is not a "proving ground" and the fact that most of you think this server matters is just ridiculous. It's just a place for a few hundred people to have fun on a game that's a decade old. There is nothing to prove on this server and I guess the difference between you and me is that I realize that and you don't. You actually think that "winning" on an emulator means you are skilled or something and nullifies losing on the real versions of the game when they were popular.

So my legitimate reason? You sucked 10 years ago, you still suck today and changing the ruleset is not going to change that so keep the ruleset that provides the most *FUN* for players because that's what these servers are ultimately about. A way for people to relive the old days. Why completely change the original ruleset to add a griefing element onto a 10 year old emulator server?

[lethdar]

Yeah this server totally has sullon's ruleset, that's why theres no level range for pvp, training is legal, and diety based teams.

Moron, go back to world of warcraft so you can enjoy your meaningless deaths as you run back 100 times in a battleground.

[Dfn]

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

The question is which would you prefer, a server with a balanced distribution of classes fighting with their gear to the best of their ability for the biggest PVP challenge, or a server where people keep items in their bags and run around in ganking groups. Sullon Zek's ruleset drove the population into the ground so while I'm sure a lot of you like it, it isn't exactly a good ruleset to follow if the you're trying to keep a server populated.

The choice isn't Sullon ruleset or Tallon ruleset or Rallos ruleset. We have the opportunity to create our own unique ruleset that draws on the strengths of those servers and avoids the population-killers.

Sullon had population issues because of it being a no rules server. People simply didn't want to play somewhere where they could be trained and bind camped with unfair teams and an abundance of hackers - oh, and little to no GM support. Sullon's population was lower than the others for those reasons and because it started much later. EXP loss on death had little to do with it.

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

For me, I'd rather dominate a server/game that appeals to the masses and promotes skill so that the best truly represent the best. A low population emulator server doesn't prove jack shit and never will because the best players stopped playing Everquest many years ago. Low population emulators with second rate players with vastly changed rulesets is not a "proving ground" and the fact that most of you think this server matters is just ridiculous. It's just a place for a few hundred people to have fun on a game that's a decade old. There is nothing to prove on this server and I guess the difference between you and me is that I realize that and you don't. You actually think that "winning" on an emulator means you are skilled or something and nullifies losing on the real versions of the game when they were popular.

Sure, everyone wants a server with a high population. But there has to be compromise. A completely blue non-pvp server will have a higher population than any type of PvP server. Does that make it the best?

Will exp loss lower the server population? Probably, but only a little. Will item loot? Even more than exp loss. Will training? Yep, definitely more than exp loss. You obviously can't cater to everyone - what ruleset will claim the highest population while still remaining a competitive pvp server?

There is a higher percentage of better players here than on any of the live servers. The game has been out longer, people have gotten better, all the tricks are common knowledge, etc etc. But please, continue with the ad hominem. If it helps with your argument at all, I won the caster FFA on live as a wizard.

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

So my legitimate reason? You sucked 10 years ago, you still suck today and changing the ruleset is not going to change that so keep the ruleset that provides the most *FUN* for players because that's what these servers are ultimately about. A way for people to relive the old days. Why completely change the original ruleset to add a griefing element onto a 10 year old emulator server?

I'm not the one crying about dying in PvP. It sounds like it's something you're used to. Original ruleset is interesting though - did you know that was item loot?

You are right that this is something people will play to have fun - in the context of a competitive PvP server. The game becomes unfun when it's no longer challenging, there is no competition, you have no incentive to kill people, and you have no fear of dying because you don't lose anything.

[Graym]

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

Sullon had population issues because of it being a no rules server. People simply didn't want to play somewhere where they could be trained and bind camped with unfair teams and an abundance of hackers - oh, and little to no GM support. Sullon's population was lower than the others for those reasons and because it started much later. EXP loss on death had little to do with it.

Pretty misleading, considering the huge jump in population Sullon Zek had when the server first formed to how low it got quickly thereafter.

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

Sure, everyone wants a server with a high population. But there has to be compromise. A completely blue non-pvp server will have a higher population than any type of PvP server. Does that make it the best?

No, in general more people like blue servers. But not having experience upon death doesn't make it a blue server like you are insinuating. It's still a PVP server.

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

There is a higher percentage of better players here than on any of the live servers. The game has been out longer, people have gotten better, all the tricks are common knowledge, etc etc. But please, continue with the ad hominem. If it helps with your argument at all, I won the caster FFA on live as a wizard.

Wow, I'm going to laugh at that. If VZTZ was actually filled with skilled players, nobody would've been ok with the changes they made, many of which did remove a lot of skill from the equation. You're implying that because people are aware of things due to the longevity of Everquest, that it means these emulators are getting the highest percentage of better players? That's a joke. The best players flock to the games that produce the biggest audience for their victories. A small, low population emulator does not that fit that bill at all. I didn't stay on VZTZ long, but I saw Heresy fight in PVP and both of my guilds on live would've mopped the floor with them very, very easily. I guess that's why my guilds were in the Finals of all three gamewide Test of Tactics and won 5 of the gamewide PVP tournaments. However, I congratulate you on winning some small FFA tourney on your server.

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

I'm not the one crying about dying in PvP. It sounds like it's something you're used to. Original ruleset is interesting though - did you know that was item loot?

Yeah I'm aware, it was also almost immediately changed. What's the point of even bringing it up, it had nothing to do with the server.

[pasi]

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

I guess that's why my guilds were in the Finals of all three gamewide Test of Tactics and won 5 of the gamewide PVP tournaments. However, I congratulate you on winning some small FFA tourney on your server.

What 5?

Nanak won the BotB.
Drizzlin, Darien, Nanak, and co lost to RZ.

I mean are you really counting Thott and Wendolyn wins as yours?

I'm aware of how shady RZ's win was with skeletons and bladestoppers, but it's not like they didn't still win.