To those who love to train in vp

[radditsu]

Qq more faggots.

You are done.


It's over.


Go play somewhere else.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qgpSvo7HuUI

[kbnexus]

Qq more faggots.

You are done.


It's over.


Go play somewhere else.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qgpSvo7HuUI

This entire post is a QQ lol. You do realize this?

[Funkutron5000]

That sounds a hell of a lot more like gloating than bitching.

[radditsu]

This entire post is a QQ lol. You do realize this?

Blonde hair dont care, derp.

[radditsu]

That sounds a hell of a lot more like gloating than bitching.

[Thulack]

All that comes out of Alarti is QQ so he really doesnt know the difference between what is and isnt.

[kotton05]

Blonde hair dont care, derp.

ill find joo

[quido]

The people crying the hardest aren't even people who really like to engage in VP special ops.

[Hailto]

The people crying the hardest aren't even people who really like to engage in VP special ops.

Jeremy, what can we expect from you personally given these developments. Are you moving on to other things?

[quido]

I'm forming The Medulla Oblongata tonight. We're a play-nice guild focusing on attempting low-number encounters and progressing towards Velious - no dupesocking allowed!

[radditsu]

I'm forming The Medulla Oblongata tonight. We're a play-nice guild focusing on attempting low-number encounters and progressing towards Velious - no dupesocking allowed!


Tanrinat is ready for an invite.

[Lazie]

I just reread that thread Nilbog posted as the reason for the changes. You guys really flamed ole Tassle hard in that thread and the dude was right. It was obvious the TMO members in that thread were just trying to hold onto an advantage and had no real reason for why training should be in the game after seeing the information given by several players in that thread about what was classic..

My only question is why it took 4 months after that information was posted for the change to finally be made ? Not complaining glad it was made, but several posters posted concrete proof it shouldn't be allowed then.

[Autotune]

I just reread that thread Nilbog posted as the reason for the changes. You guys really flamed ole Tassle hard in that thread and the dude was right. It was obvious the TMO members in that thread were just trying to hold onto an advantage and had no real reason for why training should be in the game after seeing the information given by several players in that thread about what was classic..

My only question is why it took 4 months after that information was posted for the change to finally be made ? Not complaining glad it was made, but several posters posted concrete proof it shouldn't be allowed then.

The reason we were given by the staff for p99s noncsr of VP was due to their shitty pathing. The people that argued against tassle's points were wrong, the people that told tassle his points were irrelevant were right.

[Ele]

I just reread that thread Nilbog posted as the reason for the changes. You guys really flamed ole Tassle hard in that thread and the dude was right. It was obvious the TMO members in that thread were just trying to hold onto an advantage and had no real reason for why training should be in the game after seeing the information given by several players in that thread about what was classic..

My only question is why it took 4 months after that information was posted for the change to finally be made ? Not complaining glad it was made, but several posters posted concrete proof it shouldn't be allowed then.

The server staff said the "Non-CSR" VP rule on P99 had nothing to do with the "non-CSR" rules from live. They were separate and distinct. That has since been rectified with today's post from the server staff. Both sides were correct and incorrect to different points and it turned into a matter of semantics.

This was Rogean's post on the first page of that thread:

You seem to think that our "No CSR" rule is related to SOE's "No Guide" Rule (Maybe also called "No CSR"). The live version was a list of zones that guides could not enter due to the possibility that they may unintentionally interfere with the players.

This is not the same. Our "No CSR" Rule was not put in place to mimick live's, it is a separate rule in place for separate reasons. Therefor, your comparison to any relative eqlive policy is invalid.

Disclaimer: This post was made to correct the misconception that the rule was based on an eqlive policy, which is not. I am not posting to say that we would or wouldn't consider removing our "No CSR" policy, which may or may not be up for reconsideration.