Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > Blue Community > Blue Server Chat

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-17-2021, 05:05 PM
derpcake2 derpcake2 is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I’m amazed by all these people apparently with access to the trilogy, eqemu and p1999 source codes who are as such able to make definitive statements on how hidden classic mechanics worked and whether p1999 is moving closer or further from that.
If you had kept track of the discussion, you'd know everyone involved admitted "we aren't certain how it worked".

Despite that, mechanics get changed based on "feels" based posts, and extensive whining.

As long as people complain long enough in a positive tone and throw in some smileys, they'll succeed at getting things nerfed despite lack of evidence.

Hope this helps clear your confusion.
  #22  
Old 11-17-2021, 05:21 PM
Jimjam Jimjam is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,320
Default

What was the 'pre nerf' implementation based on?
  #23  
Old 11-17-2021, 05:24 PM
derpcake2 derpcake2 is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
What was the 'pre nerf' implementation based on?
What is the majority of p1999 based on?

Do you think it is realistic to have to defend every aspect of p1999 against factless posts that suggest things change?
  #24  
Old 11-17-2021, 05:29 PM
Jimjam Jimjam is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by derpcake2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
What is the majority of p1999 based on?
A best guess based on limited, flawed evidence and what feels right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by derpcake2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Do you think it is realistic to have to defend every aspect of p1999 against factless posts that suggest things change?
Firsthand experience ("Feelz") is very flawed evidence, but as Lionel Hutz pathetically expresses "Conjecture and hearsay are kinds of evidence". If there is not enough hard evidence to swing an argument either way, but one side can make a more convincing 'feelz' argument and a dev is willing to try out that suggestion then I think that is fair. If the suggestion ends up feeling further from classic then make the 'factless' argument and revert.
Last edited by Jimjam; 11-17-2021 at 05:40 PM..
  #25  
Old 11-17-2021, 05:40 PM
derpcake2 derpcake2 is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
A best guess based on limited, flawed evidence and what feels right.
So do you think things should be changed based on many posts by a few?

We can disagree on that. I don't see what point you are trying to make if not that.
  #26  
Old 11-17-2021, 05:43 PM
Jimjam Jimjam is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by derpcake2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
So do you think things should be changed based on many posts by a few?

We can disagree on that. I don't see what point you are trying to make if not that.
IDK, some people were posting earlier as if they had definitive knowledge of how the back end mechanics worked during trilogy.

I guess we'll see how the emergent game play is after the change has settled and see whether or not it feels more classic.
  #27  
Old 11-17-2021, 06:24 PM
derpcake2 derpcake2 is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
IDK, some people were posting earlier as if they had definitive knowledge of how the back end mechanics worked during trilogy.

I guess we'll see how the emergent game play is after the change has settled and see whether or not it feels more classic.
There isn't going to be "emergent gameplay", there will just be nerfed enchanters.

Of course you know that.
  #28  
Old 11-17-2021, 06:27 PM
Jimjam Jimjam is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,320
Default

It would be a little sad if the meta remains exactly the same, just with worse luck on breaks. If that is the case, and it feels less classic, then I suppose a revert would be in order.
  #29  
Old 11-17-2021, 06:32 PM
derpcake2 derpcake2 is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
It would be a little sad if the meta remains exactly the same, just with worse luck on breaks. If that is the case, and it feels less classic, then I suppose a revert would be in order.
Reverts don't happen, you also know that.
  #30  
Old 11-17-2021, 06:39 PM
Jimjam Jimjam is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by derpcake2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Reverts don't happen, you also know that.
You’ve been asking me what I think, so I’ve been replying with what I think should happen. Sorry I’m not in charge?

As reverts generally don’t happen I suppose the dev team only implements changes they feel are a step closer to classic and the arguments, even if they lacked what you might consider hard evidence, were persuasive enough to make the decision to change.
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 07:27 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.