How strictly is green following the timeline?

[Firepuff]

Will the server have the exactly same bugs as classic everquest, even if they were detrimental to everquest back in the day, and was clearly caused by accident rather than fine tuning content?

For example: broken mechanics that were intended to work at launch back in 1999. bugged quests and such.

or will we experience a "more polished" experience than players did back then?

How authentic is green trying to be?

[keithjinternet]

Will the server have the exactly same bugs as classic everquest, even if they were detrimental to everquest back in the day, and was clearly caused by accident rather than fine tuning content?

For example: broken mechanics that were intended to work at launch back in 1999. bugged quests and such.

or will we experience a "more polished" experience than players did back then?


Yes

[El-Hefe]

It’s really on a bug by bug basis. Bugs that totally break the game are generally out, bugs that make the game way too easy are mostly out, bugs that are regarded as “infamous” and are a notable part of the early EQ experience are mostly left intact.

But as much are the law students at P99 University want it to be so, there is no “rulebook” that the developers follow as far as bugs go. They’ll make the call on how they want the server to run.

[solleks]

I think the term is vlassic. It's whatever they want so get over it

[Firepuff]

So for example, there could be a quest that works in v52 and v53, but gets broken on purpose in patch v54, v55, later fixed in v56. And the only way to know this is to triple check patch-notes from 1999 in the wayback machine? Or will the devs be "fair" towards the players, in order to keep players happy?

I mean, I have not experienced fallen through the floor yet, or being thrown off the boat while zoning. Those were infamous bugs, but they also annoyed practically everyone.

I guess my real question is: Is project1999 made for entertainment purposes for the players, or is it meant as a museum-piece strictly for documentation purposes?

final question: why did they choose the titanium client rather than the much older trilogy client?

[Danth]

final question: why did they choose the titanium client rather than the much older trilogy client?

Titanium is simply what EQ-EMU was using in 2008-2009 when P1999 was first made. It wasn't a choice so much as that's what was there. There's a different effort out there to create classic EQ using the "trilogy" client and not only did that project pre-date P1999, but as of today it still hasn't publicly released anything when P99 has been running for more than a decade. Sometimes perfect can become the enemy of good.

Danth

[jacob54311]

So for example, there could be a quest that works in v52 and v53, but gets broken on purpose in patch v54, v55, later fixed in v56. And the only way to know this is to triple check patch-notes from 1999 in the wayback machine? Or will the devs be "fair" towards the players, in order to keep players happy?

I mean, I have not experienced fallen through the floor yet, or being thrown off the boat while zoning. Those were infamous bugs, but they also annoyed practically everyone.

I guess my real question is: Is project1999 made for entertainment purposes for the players, or is it meant as a museum-piece strictly for documentation purposes?

final question: why did they choose the titanium client rather than the much older trilogy client?

Like El-Hefe said, things that threaten to break the game, like the boats not working properly, have been left out.

Pretty sure that bugs that break a quest for all of one update, until the next update, will be left out, too. I don't believe that's their approach to updating, repeating every single update with exact detail.

[Cen]

It seems to me that the micropatches are being batched larger in the timeline but its mostly there.

[flacidpenguin]

They left a lot of bugged quests that were bugged during classic still bugged.