Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > Server Issues > Bugs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 05-18-2023, 04:24 PM
Jimjam Jimjam is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I apologize! I came back into this from the "New Posts" link, not noticing that it was in the bugs forum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To clarify, my post (for what I thought was the general forum) was trying to say:
  • A) Nilbog doesn't seem to care what the peanut gallery thinks
  • B) Bug fix priority is determined without any communication (presumably because of A)
  • C) Bug fix priority can (and often does) suggest bias

When C happens, and there's no dev communication (B), it's normal/logical for people to discuss the possibility of bias ... (which Nilbog himself would presumably ignore, per A) ...

... but again, all of that was in the abstract! This discussion clearly doesn't belong in a bug thread, and again I apologize for not noticing the forum when I posted. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
It would be great if bug fixes that don’t already have a forum thread get one for transparency describing the previous state, the evidence the staff found to support the change and what the change is.

It is very frustrating to try work on further investigating a fix when there isn’t any documentation of evidence.

Just imo,
I’m grateful for whatever work is done, tbh, even when it leaves me scratching my head.
__________________

Gorgen (Blue) - Agnostic Troll Warrior of the XXX Dung

Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 05-18-2023, 07:18 PM
SantagarBrax SantagarBrax is offline
Banned


Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 389
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
It would be great if bug fixes that donít already have a forum thread get one for transparency describing the previous state, the evidence the staff found to support the change and what the change is.

It is very frustrating to try work on further investigating a fix when there isnít any documentation of evidence.

Just imo,
Iím grateful for whatever work is done, tbh, even when it leaves me scratching my head.
^ 100%
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 05-19-2023, 02:37 AM
Duik Duik is offline
Fire Giant

Duik's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 937
Default

Maybe the fact the devs decided to not release any of their source could have facilitated the Daybreak agreement and if Daybreak did wish to redo old zones. If p99 source was in the wild there would be no need to negotiate with p99 devs at all.
RogBog may have been coveting their dev work (and rightly so!) and had no intention to share with anyone and the Daybreak agreement was a fluke. Or, they coulda been on the long game from the beginning.
All of that is pure speculation and could be completely wrong of course. Either way, the p99 project at least in whatever form it takes seems safe from imminent clusure. Yippie.
Last edited by Duik; 05-19-2023 at 02:42 AM.. Reason: Speeling
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 05-19-2023, 08:40 AM
Infectious Infectious is offline
Planar Protector

Infectious's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Rygar, you're all about evidence, right? Well, there's a wealth of evidence that Nilbog favors/disfavors certain classes with the classic fixes he does/doesn't make.

Now, does that prove that (say) Nilbog <3's Enchanters and hates Mages? No, it absolutely doesn't! The seeming disparity could absolutely be explained by something else reasonable, like that some bugs are harder to fix than others.

But (as Croco noted) in the absence of any communication whatsoever from the dev team, literally all we have to go by is evidence. If Nilbog gave a flying Dutchman what any of us thought, he could dispell any false impressions with a single post ...

... but he doesn't, and so I'm convinced he simply doesn't care what we think. So, again, that just leaves us with the evidence we can see.
Trolling bug reports? This post is about mages and pet summoning. Maybe keep the staff bashing and complaining to the wiki in your sig?
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 05-19-2023, 10:27 AM
Ruien Ruien is offline
Aviak


Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infectious [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Trolling bug reports? This post is about mages and pet summoning. Maybe keep the staff bashing and complaining to the wiki in your sig?
This was already addressed and clarified by loramin three posts later.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 05-19-2023, 10:27 AM
Tann Tann is offline
Planar Protector

Tann's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infectious [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Trolling bug reports? This post is about mages and pet summoning. Maybe keep the staff bashing and complaining to the wiki in your sig?
This^

Keep the "enchanters here ain't classic" stuff to the 147 threads about the subject, none of which have any evidence mind you.
__________________
< Knights Who Say Ni >
Qeynos questing and leveling (all quests nerfed) | Off the beaten path 24-40.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 05-20-2023, 11:12 PM
long.liam long.liam is offline
Kobold


Join Date: May 2019
Location: US
Posts: 185
Default

Yeah, It would nice to see one of the Devs say something in this thread. Even a, "No we're not going to fix this," would be better than nothing. However, I could understand why they haven't. It's kind of a major issue that require a lot of work to fix. There's something like 4000 threads to look through and only 2 dudes in their spare time to work on it. It's understandable that they haven't gotten around to this one yet.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 05-21-2023, 11:23 AM
Patrece Patrece is offline
Banned


Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: 100% ineffective and dangerous
Posts: 924
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruien [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
While researching something else, I ran across hard evidence for mage pet chaining immediately pulling aggro.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The conclusion here is that pet aggro dies with the pet and isn't transferred to the mage (just like charm).

This is from page 233 of the Ruins of Kunark strategy guide- definitely in-era.
Look at the "reddit account" who denied this and started this discussion

For your own notes [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 05-21-2023, 11:10 PM
Ruien Ruien is offline
Aviak


Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrece [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Look at the "reddit account" who denied this and started this discussion
For your own notes [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
This is an odd reply to my post.
I'm not sure what reddit account I'm supposed to be looking for. Care to clarify?
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 05-22-2023, 08:22 PM
Patrece Patrece is offline
Banned


Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: 100% ineffective and dangerous
Posts: 924
Default

ur not OP
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:12 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 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.