Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > Red Community > Red Server Chat

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 06-29-2015, 07:05 PM
Madbad Madbad is offline
Planar Protector

Madbad's Avatar

Join Date: May 2014
Location: Qeynos Hills
Posts: 1,453
Default

Technique, laying down life lessons here.
  #32  
Old 06-29-2015, 07:06 PM
Mudslinger Mudslinger is offline
Sarnak

Mudslinger's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: deep south
Posts: 325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Rule of thumb If they are in pvp range, you still cannot KS their mob. What you can do is take the camp by means of pvp, i.e. if you can kill them, you can take their camp and vice versa.
At this point SZ etiquette applies ... you attack the healer let the mob kill the tank and then / assist said contested mob on all remaining players then turn and kill the mob ..... I personally recommend waiting to kill the healer till the group has done most of the work dpsing the mob down but be careful not to let them get it to low one of them might actually get a kill shot on your soon to be mob
__________________
Daw hell
  #33  
Old 06-29-2015, 07:09 PM
Clark Clark is offline
Planar Protector

Clark's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Metropolis
Posts: 5,148
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Technique [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Common sense would dictate that the player with the power to do majority dmg to the mob first and earn loot rights according to the game's internal, codified rules is the one who deserves the loot.

But this is r99, and external policies shaped through years of incessant whining by helpless manchildren dictate what happens here.
  #34  
Old 06-29-2015, 07:09 PM
Mudslinger Mudslinger is offline
Sarnak

Mudslinger's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: deep south
Posts: 325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecily [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Everquest PvP is not a no-rules environment.
That was Sullon Zek, which isn't the model our Red server follows.
God I miss SZ
__________________
Daw hell
  #35  
Old 06-29-2015, 07:10 PM
Clark Clark is offline
Planar Protector

Clark's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Metropolis
Posts: 5,148
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecily [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
"PvP rules: Rallos Zek, like non-PvP servers, has "play nice rules". You may not train players, you may not "bard-burn" players, you may not keep a player unconscious, you can't zone camp, you aren't allowed to kill a player at their bind point, and you aren't allowed to intentionally cause a player XP loss. The players do all these things anyway (even the anti-pks), but the threat of being banned is constantly looming over the player's heads."

source: http://www.notacult.com/rallos.html
Completely inaccurate. You also never played pvp live...that stuff happened on a daily base, and we never saw GMs ever.
  #36  
Old 06-29-2015, 07:26 PM
Cecily Cecily is offline
Planar Protector

Cecily's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,465
Default

So you're saying that FoH didn't know what PvP servers were like on live? Ok, I'm done talking to you.
  #37  
Old 06-29-2015, 08:18 PM
Tradesonred Tradesonred is offline
Banned


Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ecoli
Posts: 4,287
Default

Technique is right. Lots of unintuitive shit going on on red.

Seems like common sense flys out the windows first, and then staff ask themselves questions later.

Heres a sensible policy: Whoever can tag the mob with dmg, gets it. If the high level is following you around and tagging your every mob? Then GMs should get involved. Even then its debatable but at the very least who can DPS more should get a camp.

The problem is the blue mindset that the devs and GMs seem to bring to red. We would have needed someone who understands EQ pvp to run the server. Things like putting in xp loss in pvp, so that Zergs can easily claim a camp (an imported blue poop camp rights mechanic) would probably not have happened. Instead players would have had to play King of the hill with camps and gear would have been much harder to obtain, and it would have been harder for a guild like Nihilum to consolidate power like it did and be able to gear themselves for months and months without challenge (Staff was told repeatedly this would be the outcome). All the while no xp loss in pvp from the get go would have created extremely fun nightly PVP camp challenges without GMs having to lift a finger to create an event. But PVP was viewed as mostly grief, so this alternate reality server never existed. We had the boring pop slowly dying Nihilum fear classic poop camp era.

The irony in that, is in trying to prevent "Bind rushing" AKA pvp happening more than once a night (because clearly beyond once a night, PVP starts to get griefy, this isnt Call of Duty lol), the griefers were given a free hand to grief people off the server (a goal that was even explicitely stated on the forums daily for months, without staff reaction) for i dont remember how long, but a very long time, like 1.5 to 2 years. During this time server went from 600 to 75 peak pop. Feels like this decision to have PVP happen once a night was taken by someone who did not like PVP. Thats a problem.

Same thing with Item loot. OH NO CANT HAVE THAT, TOO RED! Now twinks can run around with fungis all decked out, wasting noobs in rags, never having to worry about losing gear. The consequences of fucking with something that already works (Item loot would have re-created the magnificient Newb pvp and trade hub central zone of Gfay on Rallos Zek) wasnt thought through.

It doesnt seem like the consequences of applying blue rulesets to a pvp server was very much thought through much often. So we get tacked on blue measures that dont really fit a red server, and we get less attention than blue so if bad things are implemented, more often than not they stay in for a long enough time to be detrimental to the server population, until common sense finally kicks in after much kicking and screaming from some vocal members of the community. Exception to the rule was this recent OOC muting reversal, so props to Eunomia for prompt reassessment.
Last edited by Tradesonred; 06-29-2015 at 08:46 PM..
  #38  
Old 06-29-2015, 08:51 PM
Tradesonred Tradesonred is offline
Banned


Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ecoli
Posts: 4,287
Default

So we get stuff that should never ever leave the Red drawing board such as GMs getting involved in things like ninja looting disputes and KSing policing.
  #39  
Old 06-29-2015, 09:15 PM
Fael Fael is offline
Fire Giant


Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Technique [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Common sense would dictate that the player with the power to do majority dmg to the mob first and earn loot rights according to the game's internal, codified rules is the one who deserves the loot.
They say common sense isn't common. And you are a good example of why.

Being a wizard or a rogue doesn't earn you a preferred right to loot. The dev team realized that the codified rules have shortcomings and developed gm enforced rules to correct them.

Although I do prefer sullon zek style gaming. I played on sz. I don't pretend common sense has anything to do with my preference.
__________________
Red: Fael - 60 Monk / Slogre - 60 Sham / Dolic - 57 Bard / Dolik - 47 Rogue

Blue: Dolic - 60 Bard / Dolik- 60 Monk / Mazzarin - 60 Wizard / Fael 60 Necro / Kaylen - 60 Paladin
Last edited by Fael; 06-29-2015 at 09:17 PM..
  #40  
Old 06-29-2015, 09:24 PM
Tradesonred Tradesonred is offline
Banned


Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ecoli
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
They say common sense isn't common. And you are a good example of why.

Being a wizard or a rogue doesn't earn you a preferred right to loot. The dev team realized that the codified rules have shortcomings and developed gm enforced rules to correct them.

Although I do prefer sullon zek style gaming. I played on sz. I don't pretend common sense has anything to do with my preference.
But who cares really? if 2 wizards want to suddenly leave a group and nuke the fuck out of a mob so they can loot that body once, so what?

Theyve just been shit listed from that group and their rep takes a hit. Soon enough if they keep doing that theyre gonna find it hard to get a group and starting to get on peoples KOS list. Even if they KS a manastone, its a pvp server, there will be plenty of opportunities to get back at them and refuse them a place in your group.

I dont see how GMs should in any way be involved in this? Its not like you can easily change your name and do the same thing over and over without consequences.
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 03:31 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.