Player Agreement: Rule Change at the DS Camp

[Swish]

She's up on red. Come on down.

[PatChapp]

Red can't kill drusella,confirmed.

[cd288]

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

It's important to recognize that Project 1999 already employs list/line/roll systems for multiple camps, as mentioned in my post, as well as a series of camp rules and engagements (FTE) that are rules upon rules to circumvent the inherent flaws in the persistent era. The server strives to emulate Everquest as we remember it, but we're not experiencing the game as we did "back in the day" due to several factors.

Today's players are much more aware of min/maxing strategies, leading to behaviors and competition that weren't as prevalent back then. Additionally, Project 1999's static era means that certain items retain high contention indefinitely, unlike in the evolving original game where new content would shift player focus and reduce competition for older items.

Implementing a list/line/roll system at the DS camp would address the modern realities of gameplay on Project 1999, promoting fairness and reducing the toxic competition that currently exists. This change wouldn't hand out rewards arbitrarily; it would ensure that all players have a fair chance at valuable items, maintaining the spirit of Everquest while adapting to the dynamics of our current player base.

Most (if not all?) of the roll systems are player agreements I believe. The staff agreed to enforce them. But the players could all agree to change the roll agreement. It's not "employed" by P99 as a feature

[loramin]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Most (if not all?) of the roll systems are player agreements I believe. The staff agreed to enforce them. But the players could all agree to change the roll agreement. It's not "employed" by P99 as a feature

Another deep insight from CD288 ... on page 23 ... when the very first post on the very first page said:

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

I initially tried to run this by the Project1999 staff, but they preferred a player agreement over instituting the change themselves. So here I'm going to outline the details of what should ideally be done with this camp.

(Not to mention that the player agreement part was also mentioned throughout the entire 23 page discussion).

Maybe before sharing your brilliant insights, you could try reading what the people before you wrote?

[cd288]

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

Another deep insight from CD288 ... on page 23 ... when the very first post on the very first page said:



(Not to mention that the player agreement part was also mentioned throughout the entire 23 page discussion).

Maybe before sharing your brilliant insights, you could try reading what the people before you wrote?

What a weird way to respond lol

[loramin]

You think it's weird that I call out someone who habitually doesn't read the conversation before and just jumps in with "hot takes" (which not uncommonly involve attacking me) ...

... and I think it's weird that you do that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[cd288]

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

You think it's weird that I call out someone who habitually doesn't read the conversation before and just jumps in with "hot takes" (which not uncommonly involve attacking me) ...

... and I think it's weird that you do that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I didn't attack you in this thread. Relax dude lol