![]() |
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Should shared bank slots be enabled? | |||
| Yes |
|
210 | 63.06% |
| No |
|
123 | 36.94% |
| Voters: 333. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
I say yes. It makes twinning easier and handling money easier. I say it should be there and if you don't want to use it don't but it's not ruining the game. it's not like we are adding zones or items or classes. Just a sense of security for transferring.
__________________
Ishio Joysword Wood Elf Druid - Blue
Ebraura Dark Elf Enchantress - Blue Dieser Troll Shaman - Green | ||
|
|
|||
|
#2
|
||||
|
Quote:
Shared banking should not only be disabled, equipment should also have level restrictions on it. Twinking completely ruins the economy, bastardizes the low-level game experience, and devalues tradeskills (and those are already too weak to begin with).
__________________
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#3
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#4
|
||||
|
Quote:
You want classes rebalanced/outright changed. You want mobs rebalanced You want/think item lvl restrictions should be in currently. You even want casting times changed. Yet you whined (with great zeal) when you noticed maps were in game for newbie zones/cities . . .because they're not Classic. How self-contradictory can a single person be? If P99 was a bible, you'd have a lot of cherries.
__________________
Maern - Enchanter
Cyic - Shaman Shigal - Crapromancer As they ground to make XP holy . . . let us twink to make it free; our EQ marches on! | |||
|
|
||||
|
#5
|
||||
|
Quote:
Classes were rebalanced in classic EQ because of existing problems. If the game had continued along it's trajectory instead of devolving into the Luclin-and-further era nonsense, there would have continued to be changes until the most desired system was in place that allowed all of the classes to retain their uniqueness while still being valuable. Everything else you listed was in classic EQ as well. Mobs were changed. Spells were changed. Items had procs that were level-required. All of the changes I would want to see to the game are merely a further extension of the improvements that were continually being made to classic EQ. EQ was still a primitive game when it was released and Kunark/Velious created new issues and/or deepened already existing ones. You can liken the game to being the first gun ever invented. It was a one-of-a-kind accomplishment that vaulted an area of civilization (gaming in this case) forward, but it wasn't a perfect creation. Early guns in history could backfire on their users. They were very inaccurate when fired and the bullets could fly out in a direction nowhere near the target they were aimed at. They could only fire one shot at a time and they had long reload times. People who used those guns back in the day marveled at how "magical" they were, but those guns had vast room for improvement, and indeed they continued to evolve throughout time. You can make something better without changing the essence of what something is. "Classic EQ" can be improved. The important thing is maintaining the kind of game experience the original designers (who had an excellent vision) were striving for and continually making that game experience as good as it can possibly be.
__________________
| |||
|
Last edited by Zuranthium; 05-21-2011 at 02:10 PM..
|
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
Because, just as obviously, your way is superior, correct? You must be either very young, or very stupid. Both, of course, aren't mutually exclusive.
The purpose of emulating the state of the game in Classic is to re-experience the game as it was in Classic. You can argue semantics all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you're arguing for changes that aren't classic. Perhaps, though, if you type more; create more tautologies, you will magically be correct and everyone will go along with your silly ideas. The goal of P1999 isn't balance, or improvement. You have to be willfully obtuse to not see that.
__________________
Maern - Enchanter
Cyic - Shaman Shigal - Crapromancer As they ground to make XP holy . . . let us twink to make it free; our EQ marches on! | ||
|
|
|||
|
#7
|
||||
|
Quote:
eh totally understand the connection/similarity between no-maps and having attunable items. I'm no nostalgic player at all, I play for the gameplay which is lost in modern games. Both make the game more challenging. I understand the mind-set of opponents though, that they want their f2p game to be easy, because their real time investment is with like WoW (though they claim to be EQ vets). But I roll with the nostalgic concept, because that is what there is, I know it, even though it's not quite coded right here and certainly has an odd player base for the most part.
__________________
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#8
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#9
|
||||
|
Quote:
2.) You will never re-experience the game as it was in Classic because the way the game is played completely alters it. The game as it was in 1999 or even 2000 simply can not be recreated. The only way to recreate something along the lines of the classic experience is to keep the spirit and atmosphere of the game alive while altering the logistics such that they realign the way people play the game these days with what the REAL classic experience is supposed to be.
__________________
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#10
|
|||
|
Your new tangent addresses a single sentence. Yes, there have been nonclassic changes. The Enchanter nerfs come to mind, having an Ench as my main.
The changes were implemented in an effort to address your second point. The changes you desire are simply changes to the game, not in any way meant to simulate the classic experience, as the supposed reason for the Ench nerfs is. I never said it was possible to completely emulate the experience, btw. "Emulate" in itself suggests imperfection. That's putting words in my mouth in order to argue against an easy target . . .hey, wait, that's called a Strawman. How unoriginal of you.
__________________
Maern - Enchanter
Cyic - Shaman Shigal - Crapromancer As they ground to make XP holy . . . let us twink to make it free; our EQ marches on! | ||
|
|
|||
![]() |
|
|