Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > Blue Community > Blue Server Chat

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-13-2016, 03:54 PM
xKoopa xKoopa is offline
Fire Giant


Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 690
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyclin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
It's about as classic as implementing a 25 target limit on PBAE spells to solve a CSR issue.
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
  #22  
Old 09-13-2016, 04:05 PM
Braknar Braknar is offline
Former Guide


Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 10,134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyclin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
It's about as classic as implementing a 25 target limit on PBAE spells to solve a CSR issue.
I sense some salt.
  #23  
Old 09-13-2016, 04:17 PM
Vandil Vandil is offline
Kobold


Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 103
Default

Perhaps a system could be implemented where someone could pay to have a second account per IP address. The price would have to be significant to avoid a flood of requests, perhaps one-time Paypal donation of $200. Adding a third account per IP would cost an additional $400. And just keep scaling it as double the previous tier. This controls the number of people willing to multibox their own raid.

Considering that the majority of people that play here are playing due to nostalgia, that means we all likely have jobs, and can decide if $200 (etc.) is worth it or not.

Obviously, that kind of money would significantly help Project 1999 with server hardware/software/hosting costs, etc.
  #24  
Old 09-13-2016, 04:27 PM
GreldorEQ GreldorEQ is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braknar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I sense some salt.

It's not so much salt in my opinion as a clear example of how we are not actually classic. The PBAE change was implemented to solve a problem, a problem that arguably will not affect the "classic experience" of 99.9% of the player base. A shared bank slot would be a change done in the same spirit as the PBAE change.
__________________
Grelwin, Grelroc, Grelfu, Greltwin
60 Halfling Druid
57 Iksar Shadowknight
60 Iksar Monk
20 Halfling Druid

=== OMNI ===
  #25  
Old 09-13-2016, 04:28 PM
kotton05 kotton05 is offline
Banned


Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,732
Default

Don't even /q and log in another toon without waiting, two guildies got popped with that recently. You should camp.
  #26  
Old 09-13-2016, 04:29 PM
skarlorn skarlorn is offline
Banned


Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Misty Thicket
Posts: 4,863
Default

Pick pocketing is also not classic here. Probably because none of the lead devs GM played rogue. They do not respect.
  #27  
Old 09-13-2016, 04:38 PM
Braknar Braknar is offline
Former Guide


Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 10,134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreldorEQ [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
It's not so much salt in my opinion as a clear example of how we are not actually classic. The PBAE change was implemented to solve a problem, a problem that arguably will not affect the "classic experience" of 99.9% of the player base. A shared bank slot would be a change done in the same spirit as the PBAE change.
Oh, with him it's salt I'm sure.

Show me an example of someone, in 1999-2003 era, that was able to pull the crap we saw in chardok or bard swarms and I might agree with you.

No, the hard limit was not in classic, but the result is decidedly more classic than without. Back in those days, no one could have swarms of 100+. Due to PC/server performance, network bandwidth, etc.

A more classic solution probably would have been to start artificially lagging people when they hit more than 25 mobs.
  #28  
Old 09-13-2016, 04:50 PM
GreldorEQ GreldorEQ is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 260
Default

You're right - but I still want shared banks : )
__________________
Grelwin, Grelroc, Grelfu, Greltwin
60 Halfling Druid
57 Iksar Shadowknight
60 Iksar Monk
20 Halfling Druid

=== OMNI ===
  #29  
Old 09-13-2016, 05:08 PM
Boptop Boptop is offline
Kobold


Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braknar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Oh, with him it's salt I'm sure.

Show me an example of someone, in 1999-2003 era, that was able to pull the crap we saw in chardok or bard swarms and I might agree with you.

No, the hard limit was not in classic, but the result is decidedly more classic than without. Back in those days, no one could have swarms of 100+. Due to PC/server performance, network bandwidth, etc.

A more classic solution probably would have been to start artificially lagging people when they hit more than 25 mobs.
I used to see AE groups in Sebilis on Veeshan server where the cleric (often famed CT cleric Teurde Ferguson) would DA pull from the zone out straight through to the back end of disco 2. Massive AE pulls did happen in the day.
  #30  
Old 09-13-2016, 05:12 PM
Malk Malk is offline
Aviak


Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 78
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braknar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
A more classic solution probably would have been to start artificially lagging people when they hit more than 25 mobs.
That would have been fun - but probably much longer to code.

Current compromise addresses most of the issue without randomly deathtouching people with more than 25 mobs in their trail [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:53 PM.


Everquest is a registered trademark of Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Project 1999 is not associated or affiliated in any way with Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.