Poll item looting or no?

[Albel420]

=) lets see what everyone wants.

[Pudge]

BEAT ME

I CHALLENGE YOU

[Galacticus]

This isnt biased at all by calling people scared children right?

[Pudge]

not at all

they know what this is.

[Basso]

I'd be down with item loot, but eh if it'll run population off the box then I'll deal with coin.

[Yukahwa]

Lvl 30 unlootable twinks run people "off the box"

[greatdane]

How about making a neutral poll where item and coin loot isn't the same option?

[Foxx]

voted no for the good of the server, sorry pals

[Kimm Barely]

YES

1 item tho

[Tajin]

STOP BEING PUSSIES... WTF is everyone scared of... dont think about population... u already know this server will be the end all be all of EQEMUPVP ... so population will be epic so stop being vaginas and let item loot BE!

[Billbike]

Twinking isn't a game breaking issue.
Twinking is one of the funnest aspects of eq.

If you were traumatized by a twink at some point, I'm really sorry :(

[guineapig]

There is something to be said for going out of your way to do all the weird little "useless" quests out there that end with a no-drop reward though.

[lethdar]

What is there to be said about them, for the vast majority they're useless even with item loot. 2ac ring fuck yea ice cometed and one shotted.

Item loot = may as well just name the server Casterquest99

[Titanuk]

What is there to be said about them, for the vast majority they're useless even with item loot. 2ac ring fuck yea ice cometed and one shotted.

Item loot = may as well just name the server Casterquest99

or SKs logging in once an hour or 2

[Billbike]

Lot of these people prolly have no idea of what they are voting on.

I wonder how many of the pro item loot voters actually played an emu with item loot? Yes you played rallos 11 years ago, but this isn't live with 2000 other players. The pop will prolly be around 3 or 400, with the same naked caster gank squads farming you of your loots over and over.

[Galacticus]

People will run around without gear and bag things before they die.

If bags could be looted I would say yes.

[Titanuk]

i hope there is a lot of casters, free kills

[nilbog]

I've stated my opinion before in a few places, but I'll go again.

I like item loot. It feels more realistic than coin loot only. If I kill someone, I should be able to loot something. Droppable items become commodities, and banks are exceedingly useful, bringing players back to cities. No drop items which are never used on a blue server will actually be good, just to fill slots.

I think item loot should be something like:
Only 1 piece.
Excluding no-drop items.
Excluding primary, secondary, or range.
Including bag slots.
Not a +8/-8 level spread for item loot. Something like +4/-4 or +2/-2. Otherwise, just normal pvp/coin.

Some predict players will be upset if they camp an item for an extended time only to lose it (like an fbss). Well, camping an item is always a choice. They could choose to not camp the item, and obtain one through pvp.

Just my opinion. Having no item loot limits a potentially large aspect of the game.

[Amuk]

I really don't want to have to play a caster gah.

[Amuk]

Why is taking control of raid targets/zone control/reputation not enough incentive, why make shitty no drop quests essential and 90% of the itemization useless, this game is character progression and pvpers are just as pixel hungry as blues.

If you know someone has a cof/rbb/fbss/anything really good you just hoop the bitch down in grp pvp and loot it? how is that cool? Yawn whatevs shits gona be what its gona be.

[nilbog]

If you know someone has a cof/rbb/fbss/anything really good you just hoop the bitch down in grp pvp and loot it? how is that cool? Yawn whatevs shits gona be what its gona be.

TBH, I don't think Ivandyr's hoop should be usable versus players. It's lame.

[Harrison]

You'll be dancing that line of "classic" and "unbalanced" a lot, but I definitely agree.

There are mechanics that need to be fucked with in order for this to even be feasible. Hoops are broken.

[Rushmore]

We know item loot doesn't work and never has worked.

If your going to do item loot do it the TARWINE method on Altergate

1 item that is unequipped. So essentially you can go through there bags and loot something. That way there is risk vrs reward but you can't loot there precious pixel.

In late game stages you end up getting good pixels.

[greatdane]

I've stated my opinion before in a few places, but I'll go again.

I like item loot. It feels more realistic than coin loot only. If I kill someone, I should be able to loot something. Droppable items become commodities, and banks are exceedingly useful, bringing players back to cities. No drop items which are never used on a blue server will actually be good, just to fill slots.

I think item loot should be something like:
Only 1 piece.
Excluding no-drop items.
Excluding primary, secondary, or range.
Including bag slots.
Not a +8/-8 level spread for item loot. Something like +4/-4 or +2/-2. Otherwise, just normal pvp/coin.

Some predict players will be upset if they camp an item for an extended time only to lose it (like an fbss). Well, camping an item is always a choice. They could choose to not camp the item, and obtain one through pvp.

Just my opinion. Having no item loot limits a potentially large aspect of the game.

Much of the typical player's enjoyment of the game hinges on slowly building up a character through effort and cooperation, and on securing what you've earned over time. It's one of the most fundamental appeals of an MMORPG, which Everquest still is whether or not you throw PvP into the mix. The ability to wear the gear you've collected is what evens out the inherently terrible class balance as much as can be expected - a few classes will always be weak or overpowered no matter what, but it's a fact that this is only hugely amplified when people have to PvP naked, half-naked or in the awful no-drop gear you can get this early in the game.

As for the level range, anything less than 8 levels seems impossible to me. With a few hundred players at the very most, you have to be really careful not to create an environment where it's hard to find people to PvP against at all. Look at blue99 with its up to 700+ players online - people below the endgame have a really hard time finding players to group with. If itemloot doesn't make it harder to find PvP (which it probably will because people will necessarily try to avoid it more than without itemloot) then a +/- 4 range certainly will, and especially +/- 2.

If you devs do choose to let a poll affect your decision, please go with the one I made. This one is flawed and obviously tries to skew the numbers by making it a choice between "item and coin loot" and "no". As you can see in the original stickied thread, by far the most people said no to itemloot and yes to coin, and nobody is against coin loot so it's manipulative to lump the two together and force people to vote yes or no to both. You can see how inconsistent the votes are between the two threads as a result.

[greatdane]

1 item that is unequipped. So essentially you can go through there bags and loot something. That way there is risk vrs reward but you can't loot there precious pixel.

If there has to be itemloot, that seems like a reasonable compromise. It'll retain the element of tangible reward for PvP without completely wrecking gameplay by affecting what people wear. I'm not against losing something when dying in PvP, but I don't see what we gain by basically further widening the gap between melee and caster to the point where melee becomes virtually unplayable. The really interesting PvP happens over raids and other high-end content, and that's where people will have valuable stuff in their bags. It also avoids retarded shit like PvPing naked or bagging your stuff to circumvent itemloot in the first place.

[nilbog]

The ability to wear the gear you've collected is what evens out the inherently terrible class balance as much as can be expected - a few classes will always be weak or overpowered no matter what, but it's a fact that this is only hugely amplified when people have to PvP naked, half-naked or in the awful no-drop gear you can get this early in the game.

So the gear that you have becomes even more valuable. No drop items even more so. Sounds fun to me :P

As for the level range, anything less than 8 levels seems impossible to me. With a few hundred players at the very most, you have to be really careful not to create an environment where it's hard to find people to PvP against at all. Look at blue99 with its up to 700+ players online - people below the endgame have a really hard time finding players to group with. If itemloot doesn't make it harder to find PvP (which it probably will because people will necessarily try to avoid it more than without itemloot) then a +/- 4 range certainly will, and especially +/- 2.I mean +8/-8 to pvp in general, but there would be no item loot unless the players were in like a +2/-2 range of each other. Only coin.

If you devs do choose to let a poll affect your decision, please go with the one I made. We don't make decisions based on the polls. My post was my opinion only, not necessarily what the server will be. If I played, I'd want it to be hardcore.


If your going to do item loot do it the TARWINE method on Altergate

1 item that is unequipped. So essentially you can go through there bags and loot something. That way there is risk vrs reward but you can't loot there precious pixel.

In late game stages you end up getting good pixels.

That's a cool idea as well.

[zixxer]

I don't get it, why do people always say everyone will run around naked and avoid pvp if it's item loot? I played on a item loot server for like 4 years, I always wore gear, and I constantly went out looking for pvp.

And if someone does get something good from you, what do you think they're going to do with it, put it in their bank and admire it? No, they're going to equip it on one of their characters. And guess what you may end up killing said character someday and getting it back.

[Knuckle]

TBH, I don't think Ivandyr's hoop should be usable versus players. It's lame.

hoops got nerfed hard on vztz, they were 'gettable' but not easily. keep them lore and make lyguna*an ugly LOLOLOLOL* a super rare spawn, like manastone rare.

[Doors]

I don't care if item loot goes in but it's lame because casters can run around naked PKing melees easily. Melees do not have this advantage gearless.

[greatdane]

@nilbog

But do you at least acknowledge all the enormous problems that come into the picture with itemloot? It's like nobody who's pro-itemloot even mentions them. You're welcome to believe that itemloot is worthwhile despite these problems, but it's a little strange how those who argue in favor of itemloot won't even discuss what it does to gameplay.

What's your goal with this server, anyway? It's not a rhetorical question, I just think it would help these discussions if we knew what you aim to provide. I assumed it was to provide classic Everquest with the PvP that made VZTZ popular, both for those who miss PvP and as a way to let players regulate themselves which they can't do on blue99. Itemloot doesn't factor into either of those.

I know you don't make decisions based on polls, but I'm sure you at least notice what the majority wants. If you completely disregard everything that gets discussed in this entire forum, you should just let us know so we can stop bothering.

[Pudge]

hoops got nerfed hard on vztz, they were 'gettable' but not easily. keep them lore and make lyguna*an ugly LOLOLOLOL* a super rare spawn, like manastone rare.

yea the chance to get a hoop on turn in was also very low on vztz

i remember turning in many, many rubies. maybe there was a 1/20 chance? dont know was so long ago

[Titanuk]

TBH, I don't think Ivandyr's hoop should be usable versus players. It's lame.

this

[Aenor]

Having no item loot limits a potentially large aspect of the game.

Agree, and I was pissed at SOE for removing item loot from VZ after they said we would have a choice. However, I'm more concerned with population. The more hardcore it is, the fewer targets there will be. Then again, keeping the on-the-fence bluebies on Blue 99 might be more beneficial to that server.

[Ziggy]

We know item loot doesn't work and never has worked.

If your going to do item loot do it the TARWINE method on Altergate

1 item that is unequipped. So essentially you can go through there bags and loot something. That way there is risk vrs reward but you can't loot there precious pixel.

In late game stages you end up getting good pixels.

I like this idea, there is still the potential to loot something leet, but it protects the items you have equipped. Is this the compromise we've been looking for?

[Prahadigm24]

Agree, let them pick one item from the victim's inventory, but all equipped items (and obviously bags/backpacks) should be protected. This rule will make it dangerous to carry additonal resist or PvE gear around, and at the same time allow the PKs to loot an item which the player has just camped and not yet deposited at the bank.

Let's say I loot a FBSS in Guk. Now I'd have to chose whether I want to save my current waist item, or the FBSS, by equipping only one of them. The 2nd waist item could be looted from me. Casters who camped melee items will have to risk that a melee char kills them and grabs the desired melee item. The other way round, melee chars could not save caster items which they cannot equip (unless they hit a bank).

Of course this rule would cause some problems: E.g. clerics could avoid losing their stack of 20 peridots by just splitting them into many stacks of 2 or 4. On the other hand, such methods would severly reduce your bag space and they are only applicable to stackable items.

Altogether, I think this might work well. Completely free item loot would be too harsh, at least for me.

;)

[Pudge]

it will make carrying items to swap non-existent. i like my utility itemz. manastones will be ganked, etc..

unless you make only BAGS lootable.. then ppl could use entire inventory slots (instead of carrying around 8 bags, carry 7 and leave an open slot for your most uber items)

[Titanuk]

big smoker and pudge gunna rule red99

[Pudge]

lol you still remember smoker? he'll be there once it gets going

[istealbicycles]

Agree, and I was pissed at SOE for removing item loot from VZ after they said we would have a choice. However, I'm more concerned with population. The more hardcore it is, the fewer targets there will be. Then again, keeping the on-the-fence bluebies on Blue 99 might be more beneficial to that server.

yea lets have item loot so everyone can roll a caster naked... that sounds fun.... not

[Titanuk]

ill be a wizzy

[Spud]

Since i'm one of those guys who played on RZ 11 years ago, I'd like to see item loot. I want the chance to be able to loot an FBSS off some poor guy, I want to take my melees on the pilgrimage to Lower Guk to get some bad ass NO DROP shin armor like I remember doing in the old days.

I haven't played on any of the emu PVP servers so I'll admit I have no idea what it takes to make a good emu PVP server. I understand what you guys are saying how item loot unbalances PvP against melees, could scare away potential blues etc. EverQuest PvP was by no means perfect on live servers (lol), I'm sure there are many ways PvP could be improved, so I'm open to whatever system we end up going with. However, I would like to see some sort of item loot in place because it's just fun. Who gives a shit if you loose some platinum. You kill and NPC you loot something, you kill a PC you should loot something!

Let's make a compromise since it was different on all the classic pvp servers, I don't see why we can't design our own item loot system similar to the Altergate method that Rushmore suggested. Maybe find away so people's manastones will be safe like Pudge suggested.

[Humerox]

Nilbog voted for item loot...sooooooo....

help the melees out a bit tho wit the unequipped thing...

:)

[Spud]

cant wait to see people getting destroyed by naked wizards. going to be lols

if we make it so gear isn't lootable (only invetory stuffs) this won't be problem.

[greatdane]

I haven't played on any of the emu PVP servers so I'll admit I have no idea what it takes to make a good emu PVP server.

The #1 most important thing is population, and itemloot ensures a significantly lower population than non-itemloot. It's not guaranteed that an itemloot server would have a population so low that the server isn't playable, but we also have to be realistic - more than 300-400ish players is highly unlikely, and if itemloot cuts that in half, we'd approach critical mass. Look how completely dead and pointless blue99 is in the morning when there's like 200 people online. Itemloot stacks the problems on top of each other - not only does it become almost prohibitively difficult to play melee and even more appealing to play necro/magician/druid (which is already like 50% of blue99's pop), it also ensures a lower population which is what harms melee players the most as they won't be able to level consistently. VZTZ was considered hugely popular and it had what, 100-200ish at its peak? That was with two-boxing. If we have 300+ without itemloot or 200ish with itemloot, then that's gonna be something like 100 or 50 during euro times. We do want a server that's popular enough that we can actually play the game outside a 4-hour US-centric peak timespan. The original Zek servers had thousands of players, so comparison is kind of futile.

[Rushmore]

No it would be omg he took my tanking bp. Or my dual wield weapon... Or the mage just looted something he cant equip and you get a chance to loot it

[Tajin]

What is there to be said about them, for the vast majority they're useless even with item loot. 2ac ring fuck yea ice cometed and one shotted.

Item loot = may as well just name the server Casterquest99

play better bro.... whats the point of pvp all together than ... casters will always be better than melee

[Tajin]

The #1 most important thing is population, and itemloot ensures a significantly lower population than non-itemloot. It's not guaranteed that an itemloot server would have a population so low that the server isn't playable, but we also have to be realistic - more than 300-400ish players is highly unlikely, and if itemloot cuts that in half, we'd approach critical mass. Look how completely dead and pointless blue99 is in the morning when there's like 200 people online. Itemloot stacks the problems on top of each other - not only does it become almost prohibitively difficult to play melee and even more appealing to play necro/magician/druid (which is already like 50% of blue99's pop), it also ensures a lower population which is what harms melee players the most as they won't be able to level consistently. VZTZ was considered hugely popular and it had what, 100-200ish at its peak? That was with two-boxing. If we have 300+ without itemloot or 200ish with itemloot, then that's gonna be something like 100 or 50 during euro times. We do want a server that's popular enough that we can actually play the game outside a 4-hour US-centric peak timespan. The original Zek servers had thousands of players, so comparison is kind of futile.

i can say that too... i will veto the server w/o item loot.... and i know 1092039 more people who will do the same

[greatdane]

play better bro.... whats the point of pvp all together than ... casters will always be better than melee

What a waterproof argument!

[Tajin]

Nilbog.... keep item loot on, its ur server!! All the other pussies against it can go play vztz box 6.0

[Tajin]

What a waterproof argument!

yes, i just dont understand why people wouldnt want item loot.... for fuck sakes ur taking someones items. Why do people assume population will suck??? The whole EMU community knows this server will already be the end all be all of pvp servers. With that knowledge we already know the server is going to be overpopulated, itemloot or not.

[nilbog]

Nilbog voted for item loot...sooooooo....

:)

It's just my opinion. It looks like I'll have to make a new forum account when I want to give my opinion, or it's taken as definitive server rules. :P

I thought, given the option, people would want hardcore pvp instead of a normal pvp/coin server they've had the option of for years.

I see it as like playing football with two hand touch instead of tackle. For eqlive pvp I played on rallos zek, and from what I understand, only 1 version of vztz was item loot. That was the era I played there. I also had a lvl 25 on mortalquest and wasn't afraid of dying.

The #1 most important thing is population, and itemloot ensures a significantly lower population than non-itemloot. It's not guaranteed that an itemloot server would have a population so low that the server isn't playable, but we also have to be realistic - more than 300-400ish players is highly unlikely, and if itemloot cuts that in half, we'd approach critical mass. Look how completely dead and pointless blue99 is in the morning when there's like 200 people online. Itemloot stacks the problems on top of each other - not only does it become almost prohibitively difficult to play melee and even more appealing to play necro/magician/druid (which is already like 50% of blue99's pop), it also ensures a lower population which is what harms melee players the most as they won't be able to level consistently. VZTZ was considered hugely popular and it had what, 100-200ish at its peak? That was with two-boxing. If we have 300+ without itemloot or 200ish with itemloot, then that's gonna be something like 100 or 50 during euro times. We do want a server that's popular enough that we can actually play the game outside a 4-hour US-centric peak timespan.

That is a lot of assumptions, and they are based from vztz. I played there, and would have stopped if it wasn't item loot. I quit before it converted to coin only, and it wasn't due to the server being hardcore.

What I have learned from eqemu from when I started developing p99 till now, is that people try to predict the future.. and they are certain of things in their own minds. You do not speak for everyone.. and the people who speak the loudest usually do not make up the majority. No offense intended.. but you can't predict the future. 90% of the 'popular vote' determined p99 would have 50 players max, and would not last a month. I did it anyways, despite the fallacious ms. cleos.

I've given my opinions.. which are just that, opinions. If I was playing on the server, I would like a challenge. Since there were pvp servers with different rulesets, I am not pressing my opinion into definitive rules for the server.

I am just /disappoint in the lack of manliness.

$manliness--;

http://autonomoussource.com/blog/mt-static/pics/candyland.jpg

[Jessie]

Item loot up to level 30 or 40 would be cool imo

[greatdane]

yes, i just dont understand why people wouldnt want item loot.... for fuck sakes ur taking someones items. Why do people assume population will suck??? The whole EMU community knows this server will already be the end all be all of pvp servers. With that knowledge we already know the server is going to be overpopulated, itemloot or not.

The practical arguments against itemloot have been brought up again and again. If you don't understand them, that's probably your own problem. They are valid, and the real question is whether itemloot's intensifying effect on PvP is worth more than all the inherent problems that come with itemloot.

The population isn't guaranteed to suck with itemloot, but it's safe to say that it's guaranteed to be smaller than without itemloot. The majority are against itemloot, and it stands to reason that there are more who will not play on an itemloot server if they'er against itemloot than there are who will not play on a non-itemloot server if they are for itemloot. The feature has such an enormous influence on how the game is played that many just won't want to deal with it. Itemloot creates an insanely cutthroat environment where there's no room whatsoever for the casual or new player, and while the PvP elitists can argue until they're blue in the face that a PvP server shouldn't cater to "bluebie pussies", the inevitable fact is that those are the players who will make up the bulk of the population if they don't choose to stay away. The hardcore griefing-hungry PvPers who are blind to the consequences of itemloot are a minority.

It's rather naïve to claim that the server will be overpopulated. You don't know anything about Everquest if you seriously believe that.


You do not speak for everyone

No, but it is overwhelmingly obvious by now that anti-itemloot is the majority vote. I don't see how that counts for nothing. It should count for everything.

[Kraz]

play better bro.... whats the point of pvp all together than ... casters will always be better than melee

LOL ?

[Kraz]

Nilbog thats goblin spelled backwards! Anyway Nilbog your right, risk is what its all about. there is no reason what was mentioned earlier would not work. Alter-gate loot from bags and only bags. so if you only want to carry one bag that your prerogative. So what I am saying is empty inventory slots are NOT lootable. So people can use there ultra rare utility items there. and I can promise you guys this, EQ vets will not carry one bag its just too damn annoying and there is no way any real men would put themselves through that. With that in mind its a great way to invoke more pvp, and no one will take anyone's gear off the char while still having incentive other then the best pvp ever! I'm not sure who said it before but caster and melee can only wear there class specific items duhhh I know. But whoever said people just wont carry gear? lol how do you think people get gear...sitting on the toilet? No in dungeons and raids and at camps. your going to get sweet gears/spells that are not useable by classes somewhat often if you pvp a lot. If you want to play like a little loot whore and every time you loot some PoS item you gate/run back to the bank good for you. I can tell you I sure as hell will not lol. its a perfect compromise for loot, blues, hard core, Fun, and population. I think this will actually help population because loot will go to someone who needs it more often, and also really keep pvp healthy.

[Kraz]

Another thought, maybe even just the 2 bottom Inventory slots are safe.... that makes more sense so people will have to choose... and choose wisely for Kraz will seek them out and HT them for their gear ;)

[Spud]

The #1 most important thing is population, and itemloot ensures a significantly lower population than non-itemloot. It's not guaranteed that an itemloot server would have a population so low that the server isn't playable, but we also have to be realistic - more than 300-400ish players is highly unlikely, and if itemloot cuts that in half, we'd approach critical mass.

Your assuming item loot will scare away blue players. Could you imagine for a second that item loot might not scare people away? Might even possibly attract more players? they already have a geared out lvl 60 all nice and safe on blue99 why not take a risk on r99? I say people who are comming over from blue p1999 to red99 are looking for change. maybe to take more risk.



that would be absolutely pointless lol..

ONO HE TOOK MY STACK OF BONE CHIPS

?????

so why not enable it then? whats the harm? Sure most of the time will get a stack a bone chips, or some Splitpaw Hide gloves however.... sometimes it will be:

omg he took my tanking bp. Or my dual wield weapon... Or the mage just looted something he cant equip and you get a chance to loot it

At least looting your kill will be a little more interesting instead of You have looted 0 Platinum from Soandso.

[Amuk]

I don't mind rollen a mage if it's item loot, that's what you played on vztz right - a magician is for item loot who woulda thunk it.

[nilbog]

I don't mind rollen a mage if it's item loot, that's what you played on vztz right - a magician is for item loot who woulda thunk it.

Every post you make about item loot is sarcastic. So, my answers will continue to be the same. I hope there is an influx of pro-item loot supporters and you get to enjoy that mage. Beware of zonelines though..when pets don't cross you'll get raped. :P

I don't make decisions based on vztz, and in terms of p99 or r99, neither should you.

I played a warrior on RZ, btw.

[Harrison]

Every post you make about item loot is sarcastic. So, my answers will continue to be the same. I hope there is an influx of pro-item loot supporters and you get to enjoy that mage. Beware of zonelines though..when pets don't cross you'll get raped. :P

I don't make decisions based on vztz, and in terms of p99 or r99, neither should you.

I played a warrior on RZ, btw.

[greatdane]

Your assuming item loot will scare away blue players. Could you imagine for a second that item loot might not scare people away? Might even possibly attract more players? they already have a geared out lvl 60 all nice and safe on blue99 why not take a risk on r99? I say people who are comming over from blue p1999 to red99 are looking for change. maybe to take more risk.

But what gives you that impression? That's what I want to know. Those arguing for itemloot seem to think it's for the benefit of everyone. It's for the benefit of those who want itemloot, nobody is denying that, and there are certain merits to itemloot that you don't get without it. What you can't dismiss, however, is that there are similar and arguably more severe problems with itemloot than without it and, much more importantly, the majority is against it. How can you guys ignore that in every discussion? It is beyond me how you can deduce that itemloot will attract more players when you can plainly see that more are against it than for it. I'm not even talking about just the polls and threads in this forum, although that should be enough of an indication. I'm talking about history. VZTZ was more popular without itemloot than with it, and itemloot was removed from every live server that had it because it caused more problems than the benefits it offered. What is it about these facts that gives you the idea that itemloot will make the server more popular, not less popular? I really honestly would like to know. It's completely against the most fundamental logic of the discussion.

[Amuk]

Good sources tell me RZ was a blue server with red names, decent.

[Amuk]

"I hope there is an influx of pro-item loot supporters and you get to enjoy that mage"

Haven't seen one significant VZ/TZer support item loot, but keep tellen yourself these random board warriors that say I remember RZ 12 years ago and Item loot was great are good at pvp. I'll enjoy the bath of tears from people if you go with it, while playing my mage.

[Amuk]

I wouldn't take that insult ppl who play mages fuck this guy.

[Amuk]

No place for rogues with item loot in classic buddy, going to be very sad.

[gloinz]

No place for rogues in classic buddy, going to be very normal

fixed

[Kraz]

you guys are getting way off track... fucking rednecks

[nilbog]

But what gives you that impression? That's what I want to know. Those arguing for itemloot seem to think it's for the benefit of everyone. It's for the benefit of those who want itemloot, nobody is denying that, and there are certain merits to itemloot that you don't get without it. What you can't dismiss, however, is that there are similar and arguably more severe problems with itemloot than without it and, much more importantly, the majority is against it. How can you guys ignore that in every discussion? It is beyond me how you can deduce that itemloot will attract more players when you can plainly see that more are against it than for it. I'm not even talking about just the polls and threads in this forum, although that should be enough of an indication. I'm talking about history. VZTZ was more popular without itemloot than with it, and itemloot was removed from every live server that had it because it caused more problems than the benefits it offered. What is it about these facts that gives you the idea that itemloot will make the server more popular, not less popular? I really honestly would like to know. It's completely against the most fundamental logic of the discussion.

The only certainty item loot dictates is that if you die in pvp, within whatever rules, you can possibly lose a piece of loot. Everything else proclaimed are assumptions based on your opinion. I do not personally think item loot would instantly garner more population, nor do I see that it would prevent it. That is not something you NOR I can claim with certainty.

As you use VZTZ for example, I will try to analogize p99. I was told, at length, how population would greatly suffer from no soulbinders, no translocators, nonclassic exp rates, and no boxing. I agree with that argument for about a month. At the end of that time (however long it may be before people kill the first bosses), the new server feel is gone, and people leave.. because its the same old thing. Do you think the same amount of people would play p99 if it still had all of these things? I would say no, because PEQ has them. I will say, if I was casting future predictions that item loot might even provide sustainability because it is DIFFERENT. It is classic, albeit not for all servers, and it is different than what is available elsewhere. But, that's a guess, and I don't predict the future in absolutes.

So, I see it as the same argument. You are trying play a numbers game with something that isn't as transparent as you may think. Time determines these things, and communities forge their own opinions. If you tried to argue for the inclusion of translocators, global ooc, and soulbinders, which would most definitely "help" population, I believe it would be shot down by the current community, where once it was the majority vote.

What I'm trying to say.. is you don't know what would hypothetically happen, nor do I. But I won't presume to speak for the population and accurately gauge numbers. That's a fallacy. You mentioned live pvp servers as well as vztz. Where are those servers now?


Haven't seen one significant VZ/TZer support item loot, but keep tellen yourself these random board warriors that say I remember RZ 12 years ago and Item loot was great are good at pvp. I'll enjoy the bath of tears from people if you go with it, while playing my mage.

Bolded your only apparent experience with EQ. If you do have real arguments, I have yet to see them. I'd like to know your entire history of eq playing and age.


tldr : Make up your own mind. Don't listen to me or anyone else.

[Knuckle]

All we are saying is that, item loot was removed, and VZTZ went from around 40 some odd total pop. with 2 boxxers, to around 200, and reached 300 at its peak. Item loot has been introduced two seperate times and alot of players stopped playing. I personally did quite well and acquired alot of raid/high end loots and it was super easy to farm/camp as a two boxxer if your lewt was snagged. I still think the pop. will be higher without item loot, and I'm a proponent of item loot.

[greatdane]

We're all just theorizing, whether we say that itemloot will reduce the population or that absence of itemloot will make PvP meaningless. These are just discussions, largely to pass the time, and you said yourself that you won't pay much attention to it when it comes to determining the server's ruleset. That said, you have to at least agree that history clearly proves the problems with itemloot and the obvious connection between any given server's popularity and its presence or absence of itemloot. That's a valid argument. None of us are psychic, but what can we even discuss if past evidence and logical likelihood aren't allowed? Since Rogean started multiple discussions about the server ruleset, I take that to mean that we're encouraged to do just that.

As for your pre-p99 anecdote, I'd have to point out, as one of those people who were arguing in favor of boxing, that you're presenting a somewhat biased view of it. At the time, it seemed unthinkable that the server would end up with a 500+ population, so we proposed that boxing should be considered until such a time as it wasn't necessary. If the server turned out to have a population of 50-100, boxing would have been necessary. The launch numbers weren't even too far from that mark, and it was quite a while before the server population had grown to the point where non-US players didn't suffer from underpopulation. To this day it dips down under 200 when you're asleep. As for the soulbinders and that shit, we simply suggested that if the server population turned out to be so low that people couldn't easily find groups near their starting zones and couldn't find other players to bind them elsewhere, temporary soulbinders were a possible option. There's no need for hyperboles, I don't remember anyone claiming the world would end without soulbinders and translocators. As soon as it became evident that the population had grown to the point where boxing wasn't necessary in order to play the game, it became a moot point. That doesn't mean it wasn't a valid argument at a time when 100+ was almost unheard-of on an emu server.

There's nothing wrong with discussion, and the blind dismissal of all anti-itemloot sentiments is a little primitive, as are most of the arguments presented by the pro-itemloot crowd. You also have to acknowledge that PvP servers have historically been less popular than PvE servers and that itemloot only exacerbates that difference, even if you believe red99 will somehow be the opposite.

[Galanteer]

never played on an item loot server, but what I noticed on an exp loss server (SZ) was that in group pvp, people often tried to ensure that the kill shot was done by someone in level range.

Did people on RZ do ring pulling and stuff like that to prevent pvp death (and thus loot?)

So I think an item loot with a +- two level range would quickly be -big brother does majority of damage, little brother gets kill shot. (or ten zergs do 90% damage and big guardian gets kill).

Level restrictions in the mechanics are quickly overcome by enterprising players.

[Galanteer]

if u pulled a ring to die on rallos zek, u basically killed urself, and thus nobody got to loot ur corpse... only the player with the killing blow on another player could loot the body. and yes, especially low end pvp people pulled rings to avoid being looted alot.

people also used to jump off cliffs to die and avoid pvp death... best example of this at high end was in velks lab, and in low end it happened alot in field of bone / kurns tower.... ppl also jumped in lava to die, and avoid a pvp death just so they wouldnt be looted.


did you guys loose exp? on sz we called it ranger gating (for teams that had rangers!) (put all gear in bank, drown self, gate back to bind) There was no exp lose to environmental deaths on sz.

[Humerox]

It's just my opinion. It looks like I'll have to make a new forum account when I want to give my opinion, or it's taken as definitive server rules. :P

I knew it was an opinion, lol. I was just hoping that the weight of staff opinion would push at least a compromised item loot into the game.

There has been an influx of new people advocating item loot, so we'll see.

I wouldn't take that insult ppl who play mages...

You couldn't have ever played on a real PvP server, because mages were mediocre at best. With some notable exceptions, most of the VZTZ crew is probably going to get owned in the face because they are used to BS mechanics.

[nilbog]

We're all just theorizing, whether we say that itemloot will reduce the population or that absence of itemloot will make PvP meaningless. These are just discussions, largely to pass the time, and you said yourself that you won't pay much attention to it when it comes to determining the server's ruleset.

All of my responses have been from an opinion standpoint, and no, my personal opinion won't ultimately determine the ruleset for item loot. I wouldn't want it to, due to the rule differences on original eq pvp servers.

That said, you have to at least agree that history clearly proves the problems with itemloot and the obvious connection between any given server's popularity and its presence or absence of itemloot.
I would say that is a possibility, but not exclude extenuating circumstances of the pvp server in question. Live servers constantly changed, which is why I ended up here, trying to fix what they already had right at one point :T I mean, tbh, live eq players killed classic. Alternatively, when I played VZTZ it was crazy broken due to content, source issues, and lack of people. I can't singly determine if no item loot was the cause of more players after the fact. And I'm not hating on VZTZ. It was my first eqemu server. I killed people, looted their items and had a great time. This is now a different time, different source, database, scripts, and anti-cheats. An untested combination for classic eq pvp for the first time in a long time.

I guess I try to hope for the best, and if that doesn't work, fall back till it does :P

That's a valid argument. None of us are psychic, but what can we even discuss if past evidence and logical likelihood aren't allowed? Since Rogean started multiple discussions about the server ruleset, I take that to mean that we're encouraged to do just that.I fully encourage discussion of the rulesets. I would like a lot more of it. I am here as a proponent to debate in favor of my opinion. In the end, my opinion (vote) will only influence/not force the group dev decision of what happens. I don't think its fair to force certain rulesets because of the differing eq pvp rules. I think the community should be mostly in charge of how a pvp server ends up, but not discount possibilities from the start.

As for your pre-p99 anecdote, I'd have to point out, as one of those people who were arguing in favor of boxing, that you're presenting a somewhat biased view of it.PVE, yes I am biased. I do believe I know how to recreate a classic pve server. No boxing unless 100% necessary. In my initial eqemulator discussions I supported a single boxed character if the population was 50-100 ppl. Hoped for the best.

There's nothing wrong with discussion, and the blind dismissal of all anti-itemloot sentiments is a little primitive, as are most of the arguments presented by the pro-itemloot crowd. You also have to acknowledge that PvP servers have historically been less popular than PvE servers and that itemloot only exacerbates that difference, even if you believe red99 will somehow be the opposite.I wish constructive discussion would continue, and much more of it. It's hard to find someone to debate with that can type more than a sentence or two.

I do hope r99 is highly successful, and don't want people going in with presumptions that it definitively will be a certain way. There's no way to know.

[greatdane]

And with all that out of the way, who's a guy gotta blow to get beta started around here? We're getting desperate Ó_ò

[greatdane]

Totally.

[Amuk]

Would you wear your COF Nilbog, no that would be stupid, that takes luck and an extreme amount of time to obtain. Would you wear your FBSS, no that takes 20+ hours to obtain, would you wear your mithril arms/greaves, no that takes luck roll/many hours to obtain over guildmates. All of these items that make pure melee viable in pvp require MASSIVE amounts of time to obtain and noone will wear them in NON-PUBSTOMP conditions. All your supporting is making casters more viable and melees pathetic without risking items that require months to get. I will play a mage and wear whatever shit INT gear and be effective while melees either risk valuable gear or get shit on.

It's really discouraging that a Magician from VZ/TZ screenshots is such a supporter of item loot and a dev of the new pvp server, inc caster wars more so than it would normally be.

[Amuk]

EQ is character development, pvp or blue, it makes no difference - the only difference is pvp'ers don't want to deal with fucking poopsocking career fucking virgins sitting in a zone with a raid force for 48 hours that follow the rules of your gay fucking blue server. Red servers want to fight over control of the world AKA raid spawns and fucking loot, if you're this fucking blind and want gay ass fucking item loot making items that require a guild to fight and conquer others guilds and obtain said items be lost by gay fucking insignificant pvp fights then so be it, sounds horrible.

I'm drunk btw I can't tell if this makes sense or not.

[Titanuk]

Would you wear your COF Nilbog, no that would be stupid, that takes luck and an extreme amount of time to obtain. Would you wear your FBSS, no that takes 20+ hours to obtain, would you wear your mithril arms/greaves, no that takes luck roll/many hours to obtain over guildmates. All of these items that make pure melee viable in pvp require MASSIVE amounts of time to obtain and noone will wear them in NON-PUBSTOMP conditions. All your supporting is making casters more viable and melees pathetic without risking items that require months to get. I will play a mage and wear whatever shit INT gear and be effective while melees either risk valuable gear or get shit on.

It's really discouraging that a Magician from VZ/TZ screenshots is such a supporter of item loot and a dev of the new pvp server, inc caster wars more so than it would normally be.

i would use everything u said, but the CoF maybe

[greatdane]

i would use everything u said, but the CoF maybe

His point is probably that most wouldn't. Everyone knows you're such a godlike paragon of integrity that you transcend the norm.

[Amuk]

Good I'll be the naked mage farming Ivandyr hoops to loot that shit yo.

[Titanuk]

most still will, no point in getting the loot if u dont put it to the test

[Titanuk]

Good I'll be the naked mage farming Ivandyr hoops to loot that shit yo.

GL getting that manastone rare hooop wasting your life to loot 1 FBSS or w/e and tbh you prob still wont kill me, i roll with pimp clerics

[Albel420]

i agree with Nil :)

[Amuk]

Oh god i'm out of breath, lets bring on the item loot.

[gloinz]

sorry titanuk, amuk is under the impression that everyone is in the same situation he is in.... no friends, forced to solo, trash at pvp, brings nothing to the table to a guild

good luck pal, nobody to hold ur hand here.

zerglings speak zerg

[Titanuk]

nilbog already said he will be banning anyone that does this

[Silikten]

I played on VZTZ and i am IN FAVOR of item loot from bags only. EQUIPPED ITEMS AND INVENTORY ITEMS SHOULD NOT be lootable. I think Rushmore's idea is incredibly awesome.

[Titanuk]

oo

[Silikten]

I played on VZTZ and i am IN FAVOR of item loot from bags only. EQUIPPED ITEMS AND INVENTORY ITEMS SHOULD NOT be lootable. I think Rushmore's idea is incredibly awesome.

P.s. i am down for full item loot but I think the population would benefit the most from this version. ><

[Tajin]

You're the man Nilbog, dont let the haters sway ur decision for item loot!!!! Im old school RZ and i need my rz immersion circa 1999....... plz keep item loot!

[Clyve]

I played on VZTZ and i am IN FAVOR of item loot from bags only. EQUIPPED ITEMS AND INVENTORY ITEMS SHOULD NOT be lootable. I think Rushmore's idea is incredibly awesome.

If too many babies will whine about equipped item loot (it's only one item anyway, damn), I think this is the next best thing.

I'd be willing to compromise if it meant more players.

[Musori]

If it´s gona be item loot they need to nerf happy love bracers!! The rage from trying to loot the only item from a corpse to realize its nodrop =(( I say nerf nodrop!!

[Basso]

Hell with it. Make it item loot minus primary/secondary/ranged and backpack contents + coin.

[returnofahipster]

hipster made it 47/47
im beginning to like this idea of democracy.

[Nirgon]

There is something to be said for going out of your way to do all the weird little "useless" quests out there that end with a no-drop reward though.

And planar items having a higher value. Who wants to wear verm outside a few pieces? How about when it's no drop?

Twinked out pvp chars for specific level ranges, bad. Characters will full sets of resist gear not having to risk anything also probably not the best. What isn't OK with item loot is an 8 level range imo. I think this server is going to need an 8 level range but that depends on population.

[greatdane]

Lol "yes" got more votes in the last few hours than it did all of last week. Who's making alt accounts?

[Billbike]

When has item loot ever been successful?

From theory to reality is a long stretch.

Think about it.

[juicedsixfo]

rename the options to

No, I'm playing melee

Yes, I'm going caster

[Billbike]

I vote NO to 4 lvl range too. 4 lvl range makes for way less competition and more oor healing.

[rike]

i'd like to see jewelry /range item loot but thats just me =C