What do YOU want?

[Nirgon]

least amount of pvp (Rallos Zek)

Yeah ok. There wasn't a day I didn't have several PvP fights on RZ, that includes on alts. SZ? LOTS of time solo xping in Highkeep, no pvp.

As far as teams:

Searyx planning on making Iksar monk? Or would you roll human to be the "lone wolf"?
Not to mention almost every shaman is going to be evil..

Do you realize if you split this current or even the population at launch up what it would look like? Again, it would be a solo fest... people dropping off etc. This kind of population doesn't support a teams server, even if it is a cool ideal to hold.

I'd stand for a teams remake because people might actually come back and play it, but then again, with the reasons listed above... there just isn't a population to support it.

[Aerist]

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

Two teams (evil / good) makes the most sense given both the existing city structure of the game (ie: FV outpost and OT outpost) and the history of classic teams servers. Both Vallon Zek and Tallon Zek evolved into this two team structure (even though it was actually 3 teams versus 1 team).

Needs players to be in the same zones or doesn't work, but then again that also applies to FFA. Territory/zone control is a foreign concept when everyone has entire zones to themselves because there's 100+ zones and little incentive to be in the same ones outside of chasing the best loot at the high end.

It's always been unfortunate that virtually every red emu server copied the least popular classic red server which had the most problems and the least amount of pvp (Rallos Zek).



It would not require a relaunch. If Rogean is trying to familiarize himself with classic red EQ, then that is as good of a starting point as any: which of those server rulesets worked best (popularity), and why did they work? How can I make that foundation work with what I have available to me (~5-10% of live server populations)? What design considerations should be made to compensate for that difference?

The teams concept has been and will always be the most debated argument at least in regards to what type of pvp server it should be.

Let me be the first to say while i would LOVE the implementation of a teams concept, let us not forget that the actual teams concept didn't last long on live other than sullon zek. VZ and TZ were both team based but people will find a way to group with who they want to, thus cross teaming began.

So what you are really saying is you want a server like SZ (the lowest pop server of the pvp servers at their respective primes).

While I would love a clear set "these are your enemies", it also gives you the "these faggots are your allies deal with it" atmosphere.

If we were pushing 200 to maybe even 300 actual players it would be possible if we had 3 to 4 guilds on each side, however the current population doesn't support it. if we got 75 people on usually, and you split that in half to about 37, then split that even more so into level range, you literally will be soloing your way to 60

Shody

[Nirgon]

Fun concept but no pop to support it.

[SearyxTZ]

VZ and TZ were both team based but people will find a way to group with who they want to, thus cross teaming began.

Hardcoded blocks crossteaming. It could be argued -- and I'm not making this argument -- that having the option to crossteam made things more interesting/dramatic.

If we were pushing 200 to maybe even 300 actual players it would be possible if we had 3 to 4 guilds on each side, however the current population doesn't support it. if we got 75 people on usually, and you split that in half to about 37, then split that even more so into level range, you literally will be soloing your way to 60

Most of the server being in one guild is not a better scenario than forcing there to be at least two competing guilds at any given time + giving casuals a clearer path of where/who to group with.

This has been a constant problem with FFA servers, going all the way back to 2008 with my own guild on VZTZ. Since there is no regulation whatsoever, one guild always rises to the top.

Casuals leveling up here rarely pvp from what I've seen (and didn't on Rallos Zek either), because it is inherently more risky to pvp in a FFA environment and ruin your chances of getting a group.

On teams, you fight the other team. Your zones are your zones.

On any FFA server, you do not get the same sense of ownership over any of the zones. You never had to protect your territory, home cities, dungeons, etc, because none of it is defined under a FFA ruleset.




Actually -- Sirken, how much context do you want here? Is this post out of line? Just saying "teams" isn't really useful feedback without the context of why we'd want teams. I understand you don't want people to debate or shit up this thread, though.

[Aerist]

I will say this, while I still don't think hardcoded teams would change the server much, Seary you got a good point about creating an interesting atmosphere with the whole good/evil thing. Although quite honestly I'd be more apt to go all out and do SZ style with 3 hardcoded teams. GO NEUTS

[mostbitter]

I'd like to see the experience penalty on pvp death removed

[CrystalBlue]

Teams dont mean a damn thing when we can all have 30 free accounts each with toons on all/every team under the sun.

Now if they (the admins here) only allowed one account per individual player (checked with tieing accounts to phone numbers or something or other), then it could be a good thing.

Even without teams I wish they'd tie everyone to one account w/ phone number (or whatever). Bring some accountablility to the game.

[Potus]

Remove the exp penalty on pvp. It scared away a lot of people and probably still does.

[runlvlzero]

A possible way to fix hardcoded teams would be a book you could turn in to pick your team.

Maybe Red, Blue, Green

Maybe make it so once per month or every so often you could change teams if you wanted to turn in a fresh book. But not let people do it faster then that.

Maybe make an interesting quest to obtain a fresh book to pick a fresh team.

This gives everyone a chance to pick their hardcoded team at the start and their not locked in for life. It gives an event pvp can focus around if people so choose to try and stop people from switching teams etc... make it require group pvp to do. This way one person can't easilly flip around constantly harrasing the server it would require organization and teamplay (which is fun).

This is if people were serious about hardcoded teams. It would be neat, even if rogean launched a fresh beta of it. Just an idea of an alternative solution I felt like it should be here just in case.

The con, its basically the same as the guild system now and probably would end up lopsided. Maybe give teams a max limit of players based on total server population, first in first served. How this would adjust for quitters I don't know. Overall it could be bad if implemented on this server already in progress. Another possible solution to this would be a max team size of 20, so a new team was created once the first 20 players turned in their books, this is to highly restrictive IMO and kind of kills the fun of EQ while it fits in with a "quake deathmatch" style of teamplay.

Perhaps I should be updating one of my older threads, but while I dont like the idea of safe zones much, you could pick a 1-20 dungeon and make it a safe haven for new players. It might entice more blue players to try out the server if they could feel like they could xp safely for a few more levels, and this would mean you wouldnt have to do it to the whole server. Runneye-eye for example, or script it to rotate between blackburrow, runneyeye and CB. This would also be very neat and allow pvp to happen in these places at "some times". You could even pick places like guk and nejena for the rotation and cap the safety at level 20, so once people dinged 21 would face pvp even if the zone was a safety for 1-20. If it wasn't to hard to code, you could code it for 1-15 levels in the random dungeon. Those first groups to me seem to be were I met allot of players and got into the server. Maybe add a random newb zone to the list to concentrate players. Help them get a one time transport and bind nearbye.

Most of the above is a fancy way of /testbuff but I still like the idea of a generic testbuff, i think it did allot to bring new blood to test, and also /testcopy without items or plat, but open maybe only once in a while to stop people from continually copying. I favor those two ideas the most of all the stuff mentioned here. It was copied chars (from fennin ro i believe) that allowed us to competatively create a new raid org on test. But then it killed the box later when it was FFA for copying at anytime with gear from FV and other servers. People would farm gear on FV to bring over to test. I think the big killer there though was people would come over with gear far better then anything even the earlier copies had brought that was not attainable through the current raid orgs on test.

Overall crazy ideas IMO but I thought they were worthwile to think about and share with the creative minds.

[Nulak]

Well, keep it classic. IF Red must die, fine i don't want to play World of Warcraft.
So, imo

-Yellow text seems popular and i can understand that, +1 here
-Exp penalty on pvp, 100% agree with this, for sure it'll bring more pvp around and maybe blue ppl will try Red.
-Vallon Zek type team (Evil vs lightie) (Risky feature for Red right now)