Rolled a mage with my wife and...

[jerok88]

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

temptation is too great for some. lets say you and your woman are playing in KC. wife goes to make a sandwich when all of a sudden a huge train comes your way. your wife is a druid with evac up, do you cast it to save yourself and her (boxing) or do you gate and let wife die? personally id let wife die then corpse camp her but thats me. clean whistle for life.

This is like the question, would you steal to eat. Holy uptight paladin 4life lol

[Calabee]

two boxing was a classic legit feature, selling account for items / plat wasn't.

Just sayin~

[Bubbageo]

.

[Thulack]

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

two boxing was a classic legit feature, selling account for items / plat wasn't.

Just sayin~

My parents both played and had their Pc's next to each other. When 1 went to go get food or do something around the house the other would play them. If i had a significant other that wanted to play p99 with me i wouldnt let them due to this rule and the way its hard to enforce.

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

playing w/ wife is very not-classic. not saying it didn't happen, but I wouldn't believe it. lots of those husband-wife teams back in the day was just an ambidextrous neckbeard.

[Danth]

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

playing w/ wife is very not-classic.

Yeah, the wife and I weren't married yet in 1999. Classic is "girlfriend."

My own personal rule on P1999 is simple enough; I don't go near the wife's computer when we're both logged on. If she goes AFK, her character sits there--no buffs, no heals, and if someone trains then she gets killed and finds a rez. It's all the easier for me since our PCs are on opposite sides of the room anyway.*

P1999's community has something of a witch hunt mentality with respect to boxing, but the witch hunters tend not to be so clever as they think. My wife and I received plenty of silly accusations from self-appointed internet sleuths when we played our characters that shared the same surname. Surprise, surprise--none of these Poindexters ever say anything to us when we play characters with unrelated names. I suspect a few of those player allegations are actually motivated by buried jealousy: lonely, single nerd types lashing out at folks who aren't equally as alone. Odds are most of them are just paranoid.

The server GMs, on the other hand, seem to take things seriously. We've never had a bit of trouble with them (quite the opposite, we tend to get along pretty well with any GMs we meet). In three-plus years here I've never had a negative interaction with a staff member.


Danth

*I recall one occasion circa 2003 where the wife was AFK, someone trained, and in a rush to get to her PC to save her character I frantically jumped out of my chair only to hook my foot on the leg of my desk and faceplant myself. Didn't feel too good. P1999's strict rule gives me better occupational safety.

[Shadin]

People seem to be getting just hostile lately with false accusations. My girlfriend and I were accused of boxing when I was helping her Warrior level up to my Druid in Unrest yard (I was level 23, we're not talking serious PL going on). No AF, both running around, both speaking in /say and /ooc, basically they were accusing us just because they were claiming that yard trash was a claimable camp now and we were intruding.

[stormlord]

I've never been bothered by boxxing all that much. On EQ Live I knew some people who boxxed and even group with em. I only think it'd be a serious problem when people use third-party programs to automate everything. Otherwise, they're limited in their effectiveness to control a large group. But if boxxing is allowed then almost everyone will box, since p1999 has very low system requirements. This could easily lead to a situation where nobody is grouping for most of the game, except in the later stages. Why group when you can just make a box? And wouldn't this overload the server with toons? If 1000 players are 6-boxing then that'd be 6000 online players. I don't think the content was made to support that many. Wouldn't it look weird if every group or pair of players was using /follow? Or wouldn't it be weird everytime you send a /tell to someone that there's a long pause because the other person didn't notice it until they brought up that client? Etc Etc Etc.

There're lots of little things that would change how the game plays and the impression it gives. When people can solo either by boxxing or because it's built-in then it becomes common to go out on their own. The thing that makes EQ1 different is it wasn't a solo-dominated game; you had to group. So people couldn't be anti-social. Now, I'm not saying soloing is bad. I've soloed a huge amount in the mmorpgs I've played. I tend to like it because I can go afk whenever I want and do not have to meet the demands of others. But I'm not kidding myself that allowing boxxing or making a game extremely solo-friendly is not going to change things. Anybody who thinks it won't change things is not thinking about it. It definitely will. When you can play most of the game on your own, you come to expect it and there's no real reason to be social with others. And the quickest way to kill a community is to kill the skills of interplayer communication. If players are all busy doing their own thing and not talking to each other, they won't have the necessary social skills. By this I don't mean they can't communicate as people IRL.. I mean the tools and means of expression in-game. Like how to /tell or how to /say or how to hotkey something or how to do all this quickly when a group is under attack. I'm speaking in a generalized manner. Communication is complex. It's not as simple as typing "/say Hello!"

There should be solo and group games. I think some games should also be hybrids that offer both. Not every game has to be the same. We shouldn't expect that every game can meet our individual needs either. There's a plethora of games out there for us to choose from. A person that looks can normally find something that suits their particular needs. Unless you've invested a lot of time and money in a game, I see no substantial justification to complain when it fails to meet your specific needs at some juncture. And lets say it does. Nothing in the EULA says that a game cannot change. Sure, it hurts sometimes, but that's life.

[Infuriati]

Just to clarify something, some people thought I was suspended or banned that day. This is false. No action has been taken against me so far. Just wanted to clear that up.

Oh PST Lighthawk if you need any jewelry combines [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[tanknspank]

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

But if boxxing is allowed then almost everyone will box, since p1999 has very low system requirements. This could easily lead to a situation where nobody is grouping for most of the game, except in the later stages.

There's a huge leap from "let's not jump on the report/ban button because a character is on /follow" to "everyone will be 6 boxing".

I accidentally stumbled on the P1999 reddit today and it reminded about this project (I loved classic EQ and played P1999 a few years ago). I was thinking it'd be cool to pick it again and see if I could convince my wife to play a tank/healer duo with me so I could show her what EQ was all about in the good old days (she's a great healer!). Jumping through hoops to get an IP exemption is understandable, but playing under the constant threat of being banned for no reason just makes this completely unappealing.

We play WoW together and the 2-seater mounts and /follow are a huge reason of why we managed to get any quests done. She has a horrible sense of direction / location and that is in a game where the night is as dark as a slightly cloudy day and that has maps, minimap and a million arrows and markers leading you to the next action you must perform.