Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > Blue Community > Blue Server Chat

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 08-18-2017, 07:16 PM
jejukin jejukin is offline
Aviak


Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 64
Default

Here's a question for everyone else, those who want the roll to work - if this has to be player enforced, is there an enforcement mechanism that won't violate server rules?

For example, can we adopt broadly agreed upon sanctions among the top guilds (who as far as I can tell were all on board) against the players who disregard the roll (do not group, do not buy from/ sell to) or even against guilds who refuse to drop said players and/or help them with the encounter after their ill-gotten turn in? Or would such political agreements amongst players and guilds violate a server rule?
  #102  
Old 08-18-2017, 07:18 PM
Rabitz Rabitz is offline
Aviak


Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Not really. There's not a near consensus on the server to adopt an equitable roll for the raid mob comparison they were trying to make there. It's not similar.

On the other hand, with Scout, tons of people have come together in a cooperative and mature way, to fairly and honestly for make content work for everyone... and now this guy/gal shows up, and it's a mess again; apparently just because he/she wants to troll.

If it's a TKO, it's to the server. It could support its vast majority of cooperative and equitable players, but instead it allows a truly tiny number of the worst to prove that everyone has to play his/her way or not at all... while letting those same disruptive players capitalize on behavior that is disruptive to the whole community.
I think JayDee was being sarcastic, but I could be wrong.
  #103  
Old 08-18-2017, 07:53 PM
Pokesan Pokesan is offline
Banned


Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 5,958
Default

scout lawmaking is a great argument for the red server
  #104  
Old 08-19-2017, 11:49 AM
ELI5 ELI5 is offline
Large Rat


Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabitz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Only one person wins a roll.
An obvious observation, however this has no bearing on what is fair and what isn't regarding how to distribute loot. The kind of diplomacy you're suggesting goes on practically nowhere else in the game beyond casual grouping, save the plane of sky, which hardly anyone gives a shit about. If there was good loot there, it would be the same as everything else. The only reason you people want to turn it into a roll is because you can't win. It's that simple. It's self-serving and you don't care at all about the work that people put in to become great at winning the turn in. You just want your pixels.

Too bad. Buy them.

Maybe if people hadn't been ragey, inconsolable pricks about it, there could have been some kind of compromise. The people who win the turn in are fine people and you all trashed them for it. You deserve nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabitz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
A /random for turn in rights is different from instanced zones for everyone with a pair of dice. Props for rhetorical questions that invoke powerful sentiments unrelated to anything that's actually happening though.
Asinine and sarcastic comments on my post is exactly what I'd expect from people like you. This is the real reason why we can't get anything done diplomatically on this server.
  #105  
Old 08-20-2017, 03:22 PM
zachg300 zachg300 is offline
Orc


Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 47
Default

everyone just be cool and do the roll like the 8th ring, it was alot nicer going out there and having an actual chance at the scout. YAY FOR THE ROLL!
  #106  
Old 08-21-2017, 05:50 AM
Ikon Ikon is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jejukin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Here's a question for everyone else, those who want the roll to work - if this has to be player enforced, is there an enforcement mechanism that won't violate server rules?

For example, can we adopt broadly agreed upon sanctions among the top guilds (who as far as I can tell were all on board) against the players who disregard the roll (do not group, do not buy from/ sell to) or even against guilds who refuse to drop said players and/or help them with the encounter after their ill-gotten turn in? Or would such political agreements amongst players and guilds violate a server rule?
Having CLASSIC server rules on a CLASSIC server would be a good idea. Ridiculous that his is still going on and has been for years.

The CLASSIC PnP meant you could not monopolize a spawn, its the only reason there were lists in classic. If the PNP hadn't existed (as I've proved it did) the servers would have been as toxic as this is when it comes to rare spawns.

A few ignorant people will argue that "PnP was never enforced" or "I played for 55 hundred years and don't remember PNP", it was, your memory sucks, theres a threadnaught in bugs which I started suggesting that there was Lazy Aggro in Kunark and Velious, its a threadnaught because it was filled with people with vested interests trying to lie, pretend, or ignorantly claiming LA didn't exist, it did and while it took 3 or more years to convince people it was added.

PNP is the same, it was an essential part of the classic experience.
Last edited by Ikon; 08-21-2017 at 05:55 AM..
  #107  
Old 08-21-2017, 08:52 AM
Naethyn Naethyn is offline
Fire Giant

Naethyn's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 994
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jejukin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Here's a question for everyone else, those who want the roll to work - if this has to be player enforced, is there an enforcement mechanism that won't violate server rules?

For example, can we adopt broadly agreed upon sanctions among the top guilds (who as far as I can tell were all on board) against the players who disregard the roll (do not group, do not buy from/ sell to) or even against guilds who refuse to drop said players and/or help them with the encounter after their ill-gotten turn in? Or would such political agreements amongst players and guilds violate a server rule?
CSR has said multiple times that if the server can come together on an agreement they would enforce it.
__________________
  #108  
Old 08-21-2017, 04:31 PM
Rabitz Rabitz is offline
Aviak


Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
CSR has said multiple times that if the server can come together on an agreement they would enforce it.
Seems like the entire server is for the roll minus the 5-10 remaining members of <SAVAGE>. I wonder if this would be enough to be seen as the server "coming together".

To be fair, it did really feel like the server was coming together when we all showed up, had our fair shot at a winning roll, quickly dispatched the Kromzek Captain, and congratulated each other on getting some nice items. The fact that it was never promised but players acted honorably and allowed the roll to persist was really heart warming.
  #109  
Old 08-21-2017, 04:49 PM
shuklak shuklak is offline
Sarnak

shuklak's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 431
Default

If the whole server is driven by "classic" ideology then out only makes sense to have some pnp in effect. Were lines respected by gms back in the day? I can't recall but i do know there was an enforced pnp.
__________________
Unli, Magician of the 50nd Teleport

"if the rules are all you use to determine what you should or shouldn't do, you're probably an a-hole" -soup

Hooden • Xegony enchanter '00 - '02 • <Aeternus> from SoD '06 - '07
  #110  
Old 08-21-2017, 07:28 PM
Ikon Ikon is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shuklak [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If the whole server is driven by "classic" ideology then out only makes sense to have some pnp in effect. Were lines respected by gms back in the day? I can't recall but i do know there was an enforced pnp.
Yeah lists were enforced by GMs / Guides. The idea of lists were developed by players because involving guides / GMs ended up in arguing players both losing out. If two players were disagreeing buy one was being unreasonable the latter lost out.

The official line basically went "sort it out or accept our decision which you both probably won't like" and "no mob / camp can be monopolized, if you're arguing over a spawn then we'll force you to take turns at PH".

Also it was prohibited to kill and get an item , corpse it and keep camping if someone was waiting. You could not give a camp to your friend / alt if someone was waiting.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 05:09 AM.


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 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.