Roleplayer Server coming anytime ??
Nibiru
anytime? I *heard* they are going to add some new ones at the
beginning of next year.
All they would have todo is just NAME it "Roleplaying Only", and not
enforce anything.. I think it would take itself. And if they added
a roleplaying at the same time as another normal one, most ppl racing
to 50 would choose the new one over the roleplaying one..
however, I think if they add just a roleplaying one, alone, too many
ppl would jump on it because its a new one.. know what I mean?
just a thought
Nibiru, 18th level DE Enchanter
Mithanial Marr
Bad Tailoring
Good Baking
Average Blacksmithing
Very Bad Jewelry Making
Average Brewing
Master Pottery
Very Good Fishing
Drakemoore
the question
- How can you enforce role playing?
What says that player XX who rush's to 50 is not going to roleplay when he
gets there, or
role play while he's rushing upto lvl 50?
But it is near impossible to run/enforce a 'role play' server. And what
would be the point
of calling a server RP if there is no attempt to enforce it?
Roadkill[PCR]
I'd love to have a roleplay only server, but the same thing with stupid
names: "If there's a rule, there will be people who will PURPOSELY break
it". There would be people who would come on with kEwL d00d speak, even if
they never normally talk like that, just to ruin it for the rest of us. If
it's unmoderated, it'll get bad.
Timothy J Parker
>
> Anyone know if there is ever going to be a roleplaying friendly server
> anytime? I *heard* they are going to add some new ones at the
> beginning of next year.
>
> All they would have todo is just NAME it "Roleplaying Only", and not
> enforce anything.. I think it would take itself. And if they added
> a roleplaying at the same time as another normal one, most ppl racing
> to 50 would choose the new one over the roleplaying one..
They would have to do a hell-of-a-lot more than that!
When the Brell Serilis server was created the patch news commented that
it would be designated as a "Role Playing Server." Well, as you can guess
it's no more RP than any other server. We, the players, can't agree on what
RP actually means; and Verant has no way of enforcing whatever it is *they*
think RP means. Also I think they don't want to create seperate code for
different servers. A lot of work for too little return. So all the ideas
expressed here about the ideal RP server are just pie-in-the-sky. Most likely,
we will *never* see this happen.
Roadkill[PCR]
>it would be designated as a "Role Playing Server." Well, as you can guess
>it's no more RP than any other server. We, the players, can't agree on
what
>RP actually means; and Verant has no way of enforcing whatever it is
*they*
>think RP means. Also I think they don't want to create seperate code for
>different servers. A lot of work for too little return. So all the ideas
>expressed here about the ideal RP server are just pie-in-the-sky. Most
likely,
>we will *never* see this happen.
Roleplaying is it's name AND description in one word. You ARE that
character in Norrath. Simple. You take on the "role" of that character as
if he actually exsisted and you do not.
Timothy J Parker
>
> Roleplaying is it's name AND description in one word. You ARE that
> character in Norrath. Simple. You take on the "role" of that character as
> if he actually exsisted and you do not.
Circular definition. Works fine for single-player RPGs, but doesn't mean a
damn thing for MMRPGs. In EQ it's all in the *interaction* between players.
If they aren't all on the same page you get what we have now. Decidedly NOT
an RPG. You can become your character all you want, but when you are
surrounded with assholes, you must admit the experience is somewhat degraded.
Tester
Nibiru <chef_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3850f245...@news2.qx.net...
> Anyone know if there is ever going to be a roleplaying friendly server
> anytime? I *heard* they are going to add some new ones at the
> beginning of next year.
>
> All they would have todo is just NAME it "Roleplaying Only", and not
> enforce anything.. I think it would take itself. And if they added
> a roleplaying at the same time as another normal one, most ppl racing
> to 50 would choose the new one over the roleplaying one..
>
> ppl would jump on it because its a new one.. know what I mean?
>
I think the idea would be much more doable, though, if they had /shout and
/ooc turned off by default on that server. Perhaps even /tell, as well.
Roadkill[PCR]
a
>damn thing for MMRPGs.
How is that? If I take on the role of a barbarian warrior, and someone
else around me decides to NOT take on their role as an elf, why does that
automatically mean that "I'M" not roleplaying by your words here? If
others in the game mean that "taking on the role of your character" is not
roleplaying anymore, then the term roleplaying doesn't exsist. If I put a
yellow apple next to a red apple, that doesn't mean that red apple is now
yellow. Just as if someone who is not roleplaying stands next to me
doesn't mean that "Playing a ROLE" doesn't mean roleplaying anymore. The
simplified definition of roleplaying is "Taking on the ROLE of something
else that is not you". That definition doesn't change simply because
someone standing next to me ISN'T taking on a role.
>In EQ it's all in the *interaction* between players.
>If they aren't all on the same page you get what we have now. Decidedly
NOT
>an RPG.
Yes, you're right. But I never said that playing the role of something
besides yourself defines an RPG. I said that playing the role of something
else defines ROLEPLAYING.
>You can become your character all you want, but when you are
>surrounded with assholes, you must admit the experience is somewhat
degraded.
>
Yes, I do agree. But that doesn't mean that "I'M" not roleplaying simply
because they are not.
Roadkill[PCR]
>/ooc turned off by default on that server. Perhaps even /tell, as well.
/tell and /ooc completely shut off. Keep /shout, but limit it's radius so
that it doesn't hit the whole zone.
MaGiWeApOn
NO out of character at all.
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
>
>I think the idea would be much more doable, though, if they had /shout and
>/ooc turned off by default on that server. Perhaps even /tell, as well.
>
>
And you will have very very few people playing on that server.
Think about how you can co-ordinate anything without in-game /tell or
/shout.
Kay-Yut
Roadkill[PCR]
>
>Think about how you can co-ordinate anything without in-game /tell or
>/shout.
By frequenting bars and/or inns. All those buildings in cities would be
used for something finally. Other land marks would be known meeting places
also, towers, stone markers, cabins, etc.
Alx
the otherside of the world. Maybe only make /tell available
once you reach a certain level?
As for /shout, that's still useful, but maybe give it a range
somewhat greater than /tell, but not whole zone? Then again
people would just use /ooc or /auction instead. But I guess
you could probably get rid of those two altogether on a role-
playing server.
It would also provide a use for those message boards in the
cities as well, though it might get crowded.
Alex
--
Remove the X if replying by email.
"Roadkill[PCR]" <road...@aroma.com.REMOVEME> wrote in message
news:8E9B81CE0roa...@207.126.101.100...
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
>By frequenting bars and/or inns. All those buildings in cities would be
>used for something finally. Other land marks would be known meeting places
>also, towers, stone markers, cabins, etc.
Well, then friends in real life who want to adventure togather needs
to co-ordinate in REAL LIFE before they go into the game (or through a
second phone) if they are not in the same zone.
It is probably more realistic, but detract from the game play.
Also, that also means that whoever wants a group needs to hang out a
tower, a rock or other places for a long time and cannot go solo while
trying to get into a group.
Also, no group can add members while they are hunting at a certain
spot. So if someone is leaving, the whole group has to haul back to
the meeting place.
All of these things will make a "no-tell" world highly undesirable. If
I have a choice, I won't play in it.
Kay-Yut
Roadkill[PCR]
How would it detract from the game play if it IS the game play? For
someone who doesn't roleplay, roleplaying detracts from the game play.
Since this would be a roleplay only server, anything that can be done to
enrich the realism of the world and the roleplay value is a part of how the
game is played. The more realistic route wouldn't detract from mine nor
many others game play, becuase it's not something that is there that is
"seperate" from the game play. It IS the game play. And it's welcome with
open arms to those of us that love high realism and want to be immersed
into this world that we're taking on a role in.
>Also, that also means that whoever wants a group needs to hang out a
>tower, a rock or other places for a long time and cannot go solo while
>trying to get into a group.
Yes they can. There are plenty of landmarks in every zone that will most
likely have an assortment of people hanging out at. Solo something in that
zone, check back or heal/med up at landmark. Talk to the people there.
>Also, no group can add members while they are hunting at a certain
>spot. So if someone is leaving, the whole group has to haul back to
>the meeting place.
And that meeting place is most likely in that zone also. Why would you
have to haul back to Qeynos to find a group member if you're fighting in W.
Karana? Anyone who's looking for a group and wants to hunt in that area
will most likely be hanging out around the tower and shops in that zone. A
/shout from tower two, for example, would catch the ears of everyone from
the Miller barn to the merchant cabins. (My vision of the radius for
/shout that is).
>All of these things will make a "no-tell" world highly undesirable.
For non-roleplayers not interested in realism and a good in-character
environment, yes.
>If I have a choice, I won't play in it.
Then don't.
Shrike
>
>
> All of these things will make a "no-tell" world highly undesirable. If
> I have a choice, I won't play in it.
>
EXACTLY. Glad someone got the point, finally. Just leave it to us
roleplayers, that's all we're asking for.
--
Hanrahan Thornhide, Druid in Fennin Ro, Griffin Snack.
Rhialto, Enchanter in Fennin Ro, Ruby-waster Extraordinaire.
"Remember, you reap what you SoW"
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
(Roadkill[PCR]) wrote:
>>It is probably more realistic, but detract from the game play.
>
>How would it detract from the game play if it IS the game play? For
>someone who doesn't roleplay, roleplaying detracts from the game play.
>Since this would be a roleplay only server, anything that can be done to
>enrich the realism of the world and the roleplay value is a part of how the
>game is played. The more realistic route wouldn't detract from mine nor
>many others game play, becuase it's not something that is there that is
>"seperate" from the game play. It IS the game play. And it's welcome with
>open arms to those of us that love high realism and want to be immersed
>into this world that we're taking on a role in.
>
I mean from the hack-n-slash gameplay. Of course you can define
anything as the part of the gameply. But the core of EQ is
hack-n-slash in a group scenario.
>>Also, that also means that whoever wants a group needs to hang out a
>>tower, a rock or other places for a long time and cannot go solo while
>>trying to get into a group.
>
>Yes they can. There are plenty of landmarks in every zone that will most
>likely have an assortment of people hanging out at. Solo something in that
>zone, check back or heal/med up at landmark. Talk to the people there.
>
Well, if there is 10 landmark in a zone, then you only get to talk to
1/10 of the people in the zone (probably less since the spawn spot
probably are somewhere else) visiting one of those site.
That means if you want to talk to most of the people, you have to run
around.
>>Also, no group can add members while they are hunting at a certain
>>spot. So if someone is leaving, the whole group has to haul back to
>>the meeting place.
>
>And that meeting place is most likely in that zone also. Why would you
>have to haul back to Qeynos to find a group member if you're fighting in W.
>Karana? Anyone who's looking for a group and wants to hunt in that area
>will most likely be hanging out around the tower and shops in that zone. A
>/shout from tower two, for example, would catch the ears of everyone from
>the Miller barn to the merchant cabins. (My vision of the radius for
>/shout that is).
>
Scenarios, a group of 4 is hunting cazic temple top. One member is
going to go. He gates out and is gone. The rest have all to go back to
CY or zoneline to get more people.
Notice that there are not many safe "hanging out" place in all the
higher level dungeons.
People are already hanging out the obvious places for safety reasons.
I am talking about the groups who are deep into mob territories.
>>All of these things will make a "no-tell" world highly undesirable.
>
>For non-roleplayers not interested in realism and a good in-character
>environment, yes.
>
There is no realism anyway. None of the EQ stuff is real. It is as
real to have a "spell" to telepathically talk to everyone in the zone
as in a spell that nuke the heck out of a mob.
>>If I have a choice, I won't play in it.
>
>Then don't.
Of course I don't. And furthermore, if there is a choice, I can see
most of the people won't either. It is really boil down to covenience
vs some far-fetch sense of "realism".
But rest a sure that I will let my opinion known so that Verant won't
mistakenly taken out /shout of /ooc.
Kay-Yut
Roadkill[PCR]
>anything as the part of the gameply. But the core of EQ is
>hack-n-slash in a group scenario.
The point of this server is to get that core away from hack-n-slash just a
bit. Put more of the interation into the mix instead of "Hey, great exp
over here. Join us?" 100% of the time.
>Well, if there is 10 landmark in a zone, then you only get to talk to
>1/10 of the people in the zone (probably less since the spawn spot
>probably are somewhere else) visiting one of those site.
>
>That means if you want to talk to most of the people, you have to run
>around.
Certain landmarks would become popular just from use. W Karana, for
example, has many landmarks. But Tower 2 would most likely become the one
that most of the people hang out at due to it's central location.
>Scenarios, a group of 4 is hunting cazic temple top. One member is
>going to go. He gates out and is gone. The rest have all to go back to
>CY or zoneline to get more people.
And what would they do now? /shout for someone to come join them while
STAYING in that dangerous area the whole time while waiting for someone to
show up? The way the game is today I'd say they'd STILL all have to go
back to a zoneline where it's safe to /shout for people.
>Notice that there are not many safe "hanging out" place in all the
>higher level dungeons.
Yes. That's why you'll be sure to meet people at them if they're few.
Less chance that groups of people will be scattered else where.
>People are already hanging out the obvious places for safety reasons.
>I am talking about the groups who are deep into mob territories.
And? That's one of the places that I'm talking about. That wouldn't
change. The only difference is that people will /say the people near them
instead of /shout to everyone who's already hunting and didn't need to hear
the message anyway. A /shout would STILL work also if they felt like
covering more territory. They just won't hit the WHOLE zone with it.
>There is no realism anyway. None of the EQ stuff is real. It is as
>real to have a "spell" to telepathically talk to everyone in the zone
>as in a spell that nuke the heck out of a mob.
Everyone always has to say this don't they... "Ooohh... well ELVES aren't
real either, so realism CAN NEVER exsist in a game like this". YES it can.
It's realistic for magic IN NORRATH because the context of this fantasy
setting says it is for that world. It is realistic for an elf to cast a
spell, it is realistic for a shaman to levitate, it is not realistic for a
bear to fly. /tell would ALSO be realistic if it was explained as
telepathy. But it's not. It's explained as a software tool that you can
chat with any other software client. Software clients don't exsist in
Norrath, and are unrealistic becuase they're not a part of the fantasy
context set forth for this world. They're tools set forth by the client
software, but not described as a part of the story. So yes, /tell COULD be
a part of a roleplay only server if it were handled differently. /ooc
never can. It's very name says so.
>>>If I have a choice, I won't play in it.
>>
>>Then don't.
>
>Of course I don't. And furthermore, if there is a choice, I can see
>most of the people won't either. It is really boil down to covenience
>vs some far-fetch sense of "realism".
Only because most of the people are powergamers. People who this game is
slowly being changed into a 3D Diable because the original set of rules
wasn't designed for them. NO DROP and LORE ITEMS are a good example. They
weren't needed until people powered camped and farmed. Pets, DoTs, and
feign death were nerfed because people power leveled using them constantly.
Verant is constantly having to adjust the game to fit that style of player
now because it wasn't made that way in the first place. The roleplay only
server idea is just a way for us who want to play the ORIGINAL game that we
bought to be recreated again. Plus a few extras to keep the power gamers
from wanting any of it. Yes, that means that I'd like to see the
realism/economy breaking NO DROP gone also. The way it WAS before the
power campers and power levelers had the game that we've been waiting for
changed when we finally found it.
>But rest a sure that I will let my opinion known so that Verant won't
>mistakenly taken out /shout of /ooc.
They won't TAKE anything out away from anyone... haven't you been reading?
This is an idea for a NEW server. None of the other servers would see
these changes. If you KNOW that and just don't want the server up at all,
then it sounds more like you think that roleplayers don't have the right to
play this game. When it WAS geared towards us when we all bought it at
release and during beta.
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
>>going to go. He gates out and is gone. The rest have all to go back to
>>CY or zoneline to get more people.
>
>And what would they do now? /shout for someone to come join them while
>STAYING in that dangerous area the whole time while waiting for someone to
>show up? The way the game is today I'd say they'd STILL all have to go
>back to a zoneline where it's safe to /shout for people.
>
Well, they can try to hold the site. The point is they cannot afford
to have one or two member run back to zone trying to get people. And
it is not certainly that they will get any.
>>Notice that there are not many safe "hanging out" place in all the
>>higher level dungeons.
>
>Yes. That's why you'll be sure to meet people at them if they're few.
>Less chance that groups of people will be scattered else where.
>
That also means that they are far apart and people needs to do a lot
more running around to get a group together.
>>Of course I don't. And furthermore, if there is a choice, I can see
>>most of the people won't either. It is really boil down to covenience
>>vs some far-fetch sense of "realism".
>
>Only because most of the people are powergamers. People who this game is
>slowly being changed into a 3D Diable because the original set of rules
>wasn't designed for them. NO DROP and LORE ITEMS are a good example. They
>weren't needed until people powered camped and farmed. Pets, DoTs, and
>feign death were nerfed because people power leveled using them constantly.
>Verant is constantly having to adjust the game to fit that style of player
>now because it wasn't made that way in the first place. The roleplay only
>server idea is just a way for us who want to play the ORIGINAL game that we
>bought to be recreated again. Plus a few extras to keep the power gamers
>from wanting any of it. Yes, that means that I'd like to see the
>realism/economy breaking NO DROP gone also. The way it WAS before the
>power campers and power levelers had the game that we've been waiting for
>changed when we finally found it.
>
That I agree. Most people *are* powergamer. Most people know they are
playing a game. Most I met *will* talk about RL stuff while resting.
>>But rest a sure that I will let my opinion known so that Verant won't
>>mistakenly taken out /shout of /ooc.
>
>They won't TAKE anything out away from anyone... haven't you been reading?
>This is an idea for a NEW server. None of the other servers would see
>these changes. If you KNOW that and just don't want the server up at all,
>then it sounds more like you think that roleplayers don't have the right to
>play this game. When it WAS geared towards us when we all bought it at
>release and during beta.
No need to shout. I did miss the point that it is for a new server.
That won't affect me at all since I don't think I am throwing away
hundreds of hours of xp/loot to go to a new server.
To be honest, I have no idea what is the population of real
role-players out there ... though I believe probably in the minority
since I have yet to met one.
I won't object if they try it on a new server and see how it works.
They can always turn it into a "regular" server if the demand is too
low. (I read that Brad is considering combining the 2 race war server
into one since there isn't much population on them.)
Kay-Yut
Roadkill[PCR]
>That won't affect me at all since I don't think I am throwing away
>hundreds of hours of xp/loot to go to a new server.
I'm sorry, I should start using quotes instead of capital letters. I'm not
shouting, it's just that I highlight certain words for emphasis.
>To be honest, I have no idea what is the population of real
>role-players out there ... though I believe probably in the minority
>since I have yet to met one.
I know we're the minority. But so are the PvP players also. I do meet a
couple roleplayers a week. I meet many others who don't roleplay, but snap
right into it and start roleplaying back with me when I start talking to
them in-character.
>I won't object if they try it on a new server and see how it works.
>They can always turn it into a "regular" server if the demand is too
>low. (I read that Brad is considering combining the 2 race war server
>into one since there isn't much population on them.)
Sounds good to me. It'd be nice for us to at least get a shot at it. I
picture of things happening:
1. The server fills up with roleplayers and has population of 800-1000 at
peak hours.
2. The server fills up like the team servers did when they first came up
by people who think they'll give roleplaying a shot since it won't effect
any of their other characters. Some use it as a vacation get-away, some
don't like it and never come back. Poplulation still around 800-1000 when
everyone's decided on how they feel about it.
3. The server fills up like the team servers did when they first came up
by people who think they'll give roleplaying a shot since it won't effect
any of their other characters. Some use it as a vacation get-away, some
don't like it and never come back. Poplulation is never high enough to be
worth it, and the server becomes a "regular" server.
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
>>They can always turn it into a "regular" server if the demand is too
>>low. (I read that Brad is considering combining the 2 race war server
>>into one since there isn't much population on them.)
>
>Sounds good to me. It'd be nice for us to at least get a shot at it. I
>picture of things happening:
>
>1. The server fills up with roleplayers and has population of 800-1000 at
>peak hours.
>
>2. The server fills up like the team servers did when they first came up
>by people who think they'll give roleplaying a shot since it won't effect
>any of their other characters. Some use it as a vacation get-away, some
>don't like it and never come back. Poplulation still around 800-1000 when
>everyone's decided on how they feel about it.
>
>3. The server fills up like the team servers did when they first came up
>by people who think they'll give roleplaying a shot since it won't effect
>any of their other characters. Some use it as a vacation get-away, some
>don't like it and never come back. Poplulation is never high enough to be
>worth it, and the server becomes a "regular" server.
The only problem (to role-players who want this, not to me or Verant)
is that a PvP server with low population may attract
1) PvPers who just want to PK, and
2) power gamers who see this as to dominate since there is less
competition.
However, putting in no /tell and no /shout *may* be able to deter them
since extra communication does help their play style.
The other thing I think role-player will like (not of EQ though) is
the up coming Vampire RPG and never winder nite.
Both has a DM mode for players to DM games. Games can be much smaller
than EQ and I can see role-players flog to those 2 since they *can*
control the environment to a large extent.
EQ is more designed for a massive hack-n-slash item hunt style (which
is not a bad thing.)
Kay-Yut
Roadkill[PCR]
>is that a PvP server with low population may attract
>
>1) PvPers who just want to PK, and
Yes. But that already exsists on the Zeks, so it's nothing new. And it'll
be handled the same way, but even more so since the roleplayers will most
likely band together more. Hunting down a killer could be a great dynamic
quest.
>2) power gamers who see this as to dominate since there is less
>competition.
The point of this server is to have a rich roleplay environment. If he's
not disturbing that environment no one will /report him. Anyone can
powergame and roleplay at the same time. A shadow knight or necromancer
for example is obsessed with death and power. As long as he's not spamming
everyone around him with "Last nights Alley McBeal roked!", he's perfectly
in-character. It's just the standard powergamer who wants nothing to do
with roleplaying that will most likely find the system not to their liking.
>However, putting in no /tell and no /shout *may* be able to deter them
>since extra communication does help their play style.
Yeah. And there is nothing wrong with their playstyle, as there is nothing
wrong with a roleplayers playstyle. But all of the roleplayers have to
ignore all of the out-of-character things to get the full immersion they'd
like from the game. On 20some-odd servers. I'd be nice if there were at
least one server where we didn't have to ignore anything.
>The other thing I think role-player will like (not of EQ though) is
>the up coming Vampire RPG and never winder nite.
>
>Both has a DM mode for players to DM games. Games can be much smaller
>than EQ and I can see role-players flog to those 2 since they *can*
>control the environment to a large extent.
I'm drooling over the up coming Horizons. Not going to be out until 2002
though.
>EQ is more designed for a massive hack-n-slash item hunt style (which
>is not a bad thing.)
Nope, not bad at all. I love that game too. I like EQ, and what it's
turning into isn't a bad game at all. But I liked what EQ was before all
of the changes better. I have a friend who was in beta, and I've been
playing since day one of release. When I started, it was very roleplay
rich. Almost everyone I encountered roleplayed. This new server would at
least help bring that back to all of us who feel like the game we bought
doesn't exsist anymore.
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
>>competition.
>
>The point of this server is to have a rich roleplay environment. If he's
>not disturbing that environment no one will /report him. Anyone can
>powergame and roleplay at the same time. A shadow knight or necromancer
>for example is obsessed with death and power. As long as he's not spamming
>everyone around him with "Last nights Alley McBeal roked!", he's perfectly
>in-character. It's just the standard powergamer who wants nothing to do
>with roleplaying that will most likely find the system not to their liking.
>
I don't think you can get GM to enforce role-playing. It is just too
resource intensive. It is just like the "yield-rules" that never got
enforced.
And it is also difficult to decide what is a bannable case. If someone
telling people he has to afk and go to the bathroom, does it warrent a
GM's attention?
The only thing that can set a RP server apart is really the features
(and game rules moderated by teh computer, not the GMs) that it
implemented different from other servers.
And i see nothing stopping a few powergaming camping a spot and
talking about last nite's Friend's episode.
>>However, putting in no /tell and no /shout *may* be able to deter them
>>since extra communication does help their play style.
>
>Yeah. And there is nothing wrong with their playstyle, as there is nothing
>wrong with a roleplayers playstyle. But all of the roleplayers have to
>ignore all of the out-of-character things to get the full immersion they'd
>like from the game. On 20some-odd servers. I'd be nice if there were at
>least one server where we didn't have to ignore anything.
>
It will be. It is just that I don't think it will happen to the extend
that RPers are happy. It is better just either 1) accept EQ as a
hack-n-slash game and occasionally RPing with people who are willing
to, or 2) wait for the next online RPG more geared towards RPing.
>>The other thing I think role-player will like (not of EQ though) is
>>the up coming Vampire RPG and never winder nite.
>>
>>Both has a DM mode for players to DM games. Games can be much smaller
>>than EQ and I can see role-players flog to those 2 since they *can*
>>control the environment to a large extent.
>
>I'm drooling over the up coming Horizons. Not going to be out until 2002
>though.
>
I think Vampire is going to come out sooner. I think the StoryMode (DM
mode) is a very very cool idea. You can play it as a powergamer, a
RPer, as an adventure game or even play it like Quake.
>>EQ is more designed for a massive hack-n-slash item hunt style (which
>>is not a bad thing.)
>
>Nope, not bad at all. I love that game too. I like EQ, and what it's
>turning into isn't a bad game at all. But I liked what EQ was before all
>of the changes better. I have a friend who was in beta, and I've been
>playing since day one of release. When I started, it was very roleplay
>rich. Almost everyone I encountered roleplayed. This new server would at
>least help bring that back to all of us who feel like the game we bought
>doesn't exsist anymore.
I was in beta and I never met any roleplayer. I met no one that would
not talk about where he is from, how many kids he has (in RL) and so
on.
Through my 9 months of playing EQ, I have *one* long conversation that
can count as RPing on the boat from Qeynos to Erudin.
Kay-Yut
Adar
Roadkill[PCR] <road...@aroma.com.REMOVEME> wrote in message
> >However, putting in no /tell and no /shout *may* be able to deter them
> >since extra communication does help their play style.
Guys, I'm just curious.
I understand that /ooc is a problem for pure roleplayers even if its
ignorable (though I can't imagine why...but I'll set that aside for this
argument.)
I understand that /shout and /auction are the same thing.
However, taking out /gsay and /tell...doesn't it strike you, just a little
tiny bit, that maybe EQ is not the type of game where you can do this?
(For that matter, if you want TOTAL realism, you should never be grouped,
either- if some guy is out of sight range, you're not supposed to see his
health bar drop.)
I mean, seriously...wouldn't any server, even a roleplaying server (assuming
Verant ever gave you such a thing, which they're not), need SOME provisions
for pullers, planar breakins, other 'out of zone' activities, corpse
retrievals in hostile zones which need groups, and people that, while
simultaneously roleplaying, want to do their fucking jobs when grouped?
If you want pure roleplaying, go play Baldur's Gate. Yes, that's cliched and
a stupid thing to say, but it is literally impossible for EQ to be a pure
RPG. It depends on a chat/grouping interface way too much to stop now.
Think otherwise? Try playing in screenshot mode.
Brudo (E'ci)
Loredaeron (E'ci)
Shrike
>
> Roadkill[PCR] <road...@aroma.com.REMOVEME> wrote in message
> news:8E9E95396roa...@207.126.101.100...
>
> > >However, putting in no /tell and no /shout *may* be able to deter them
> > >since extra communication does help their play style.
>
> Guys, I'm just curious.
>
> I understand that /ooc is a problem for pure roleplayers even if its
> ignorable (though I can't imagine why...but I'll set that aside for this
> argument.)
> I understand that /shout and /auction are the same thing.
>
> However, taking out /gsay and /tell...doesn't it strike you, just a little
> tiny bit, that maybe EQ is not the type of game where you can do this?
I'm more than willing to give it a shot.
> (For that matter, if you want TOTAL realism, you should never be grouped,
> either- if some guy is out of sight range, you're not supposed to see his
> health bar drop.)
I don't want TOTAL realism, I have TOTAL realism from the moment I get
out of bed to the moment I fire up EQ, which is quite a few hours. I
just want a few adjustments that would make the world more attractive to
roleplayers, and marginally less attractive to non-roleplayers.
> I mean, seriously...wouldn't any server, even a roleplaying server (assuming
> Verant ever gave you such a thing, which they're not), need SOME provisions
> for pullers, planar breakins, other 'out of zone' activities, corpse
> retrievals in hostile zones which need groups, and people that, while
> simultaneously roleplaying, want to do their fucking jobs when grouped?
People are smart. They will find ways, and even if they don't, well, big
deal. I won't be shedding tears if you don't see every damn high level
in plane gear in the hypothetical RP server.
> If you want pure roleplaying, go play Baldur's Gate. Yes, that's cliched and
> a stupid thing to say, but it is literally impossible for EQ to be a pure
> RPG. It depends on a chat/grouping interface way too much to stop now.
Again, I don't want a pure RPG, I just want a better RPG, or rather,
something that is an RPG *at all*, which EQ right now isn't.
> Think otherwise? Try playing in screenshot mode.
>
I don't mind the chat interface at all, I mind the fact that everybody
in the game is telepathic. Actually, I would love to see a spell that
activates /tell for the duration.
Adar
Shrike <shr...@alcaudon.com> wrote in message
news:38597490...@alcaudon.com...
> Adar wrote:
>
> > (For that matter, if you want TOTAL realism, you should never be
grouped,
> > either- if some guy is out of sight range, you're not supposed to see
his
> > health bar drop.)
>
> I don't want TOTAL realism, I have TOTAL realism from the moment I get
> out of bed to the moment I fire up EQ, which is quite a few hours. I
> just want a few adjustments that would make the world more attractive to
> roleplayers, and marginally less attractive to non-roleplayers.
>
You did just say you don't want a world where everyone is telepathic. Well
hmm, doesn't knowing a person's health status when he's out of sight range
qualify?
Hypocrite.
> > I mean, seriously...wouldn't any server, even a roleplaying server
(assuming
> > Verant ever gave you such a thing, which they're not), need SOME
provisions
> > for pullers, planar breakins, other 'out of zone' activities, corpse
> > retrievals in hostile zones which need groups, and people that, while
> > simultaneously roleplaying, want to do their fucking jobs when grouped?
>
> People are smart. They will find ways, and even if they don't, well, big
> deal. I won't be shedding tears if you don't see every damn high level
> in plane gear in the hypothetical RP server.
>
Welcome to the flaming pits of hell, RP Nazi.
/Rant on:
I love this. No, really, I love this attitude. It goes something like this:
'I am a Roleplayer, Capital R. I will never go beyond Level 20, because I
Roleplay, Capital R. Anyone who does go beyond Level 20 does not Roleplay,
Capital R. They might pretend they're roleplaying, but they're not
Roleplaying, Capital R, because they're not roleplaying the way I want them
to Roleplay, Capital R.
'I want people not to be able to communicate out of voice range. If someone
causes a train, since they can't warn me, they should stand their ground and
fight, and never mind if they're a rogue; standing and fighting is
Roleplaying a Hero, Capital R, Capital H.***
'I want people to not be able to communicate out of voice range. If someone
needs to go into someplace dangerous and apprise someone of the situation,
they should all go together, because that is what Heroes, Capital H, do
(again, never mind the rogues.) If they can't enter certain areas because of
this, tough luck; I am Roleplayer, Capital R, and since I myself will never
enter those areas, neither should they, because it's not Roleplaying,
Capital R.
'I want people to not be able to communicate out of voice range. If someone
should want to talk to their in-game friends, they should arrange a time
IRL...wait, that's OOC! No, say I! I am Roleplayer, Capital R! If they
should want to do that, they should have arranged a meeting after the first
time they journeyed together, and never mind that they might have gone to
different sides of the world- Breaking Fiction, Capital B, Capital F, is
Worse, Capital W, than keeping the friendship (no capital f, Breaking
Fiction, Capital B, Capital F, is the only thing that deserves that!)'
'I want people to Roleplay, Capital R, the way I do! It's the only way, it's
the Correct way, Capital C, and by god, if someone wants to do something
else, let him do it on another server, because he's not Roleplaying, Capital
R!'
***'However, if I should cause a train (which will never happen, because I
am Roleplaying, Capital R, a Hero, Capital H, just like everyone else who
Roleplays, Capital R, and I will stand and fight), the aforementioned clause
should be temporarily revoked, in which case I will then say 'Sorry about
your death, milady, it was the fault of that dastardly villain yonder.''
/Rant off- for now.
Brudo (E'ci)
Loredaeron (E'ci)
P.S. This one's for Dundee, who said it better than I ever could in his
wonderful editorial (click on the 'Roleplaying the Right Way' link under the
Ack! section below)...
Shrike
>
>
> 'I want people to Roleplay, Capital R, the way I do! It's the only way, it's
> the Correct way, Capital C, and by god, if someone wants to do something
> else, let him do it on another server, because he's not Roleplaying, Capital
> R!'
If all you want to get out of EverQuest is pHaT LeWt, it really is none
of my concern. I think there is at least a few of us here, and by
extension, probably a few hundred in the game, who would really like to
at least have a chance to experiment with a more roleplay-friendly
environment.
You want to shoot that down and you call *me* a Nazi?
Well, as per Godwin's Law, FOAD.
Adar
> Adar wrote:
> >
> >
> > 'I want people to Roleplay, Capital R, the way I do! It's the only way,
it's
> > the Correct way, Capital C, and by god, if someone wants to do something
> > else, let him do it on another server, because he's not Roleplaying,
Capital
> > R!'
>
> If all you want to get out of EverQuest is pHaT LeWt, it really is none
> of my concern. I think there is at least a few of us here, and by
> extension, probably a few hundred in the game, who would really like to
> at least have a chance to experiment with a more roleplay-friendly
> environment.
>
LOL. Congratulations on missing the point, again.
Let me dumb it down for you: roleplay-friendly does not mean 'Roleplay
Friendly, Capital R, Capital F.' There are many more roleplayers that want
/tell in game than those that don't. You guys are just the militants.
> You want to shoot that down and you call *me* a Nazi?
>
> Well, as per Godwin's Law, FOAD.
>
Godwin's Law doesn't apply. Roleplaying Nazi is a specific insulting term,
not a fascist reference.
Shrike
> Let me dumb it down for you: roleplay-friendly does not mean 'Roleplay
> Friendly, Capital R, Capital F.' There are many more roleplayers that want
> /tell in game than those that don't. You guys are just the militants.
Those are *your* capitals and *your* emphasis, and therefore they are
only meaningful to you. As far as I know, no one has run a poll on what
roleplayers want or do not want in EQ, and it's clear that the current
model is not conducive to roleplaying.
What *is* clear, though, is that A) roleplaying cannot be enforced by
GMs, and b), you cannot make a new server and just label it
"roleplaying" and have that amount to a hill of beans, you have to *do*
something to it that appeals to roleplayers and discourages powergamers.
If you have any better ideas than mine, I'd love to hear them.
Shrike
> > Adar wrote:
> >
> > > Let me dumb it down for you: roleplay-friendly does not mean 'Roleplay
> > > Friendly, Capital R, Capital F.' There are many more roleplayers that
> want
> > > /tell in game than those that don't. You guys are just the militants.
> >
> > Those are *your* capitals and *your* emphasis, and therefore they are
> > only meaningful to you.
>
> linked to ( http://dundee.uong.com , Ack!, 'Roleplaying the Right Way'),
> read it, and draw your own conclusions.
I did. I liked it a lot. Very good points there.
> You see, when people want to enforce the rules to the exclusion of having
> fun and basic gameplay, they're called Munchkins. We've all met one at some
> point or another; he's the guy who plays AD&D with 'weapon vs. armor'
> modifiers, critical hits, and likes to roll those -3 AC at level 1
> characters.
I wouldn't know, it's been easily fifteen years since my last AD&D
session... :/
> What you propose is detrimental to basic gameplay; you can't possibly argue
> that it's not (well, you can always argue it, but you'll be routed.)
> Therefore, you, sir, are a Munchkin; you wish to go so completely IC you'd
> drive away most of the roleplayers in addition to everyone else.
Ok, I had actually typed a detailer response to your points, but I think
I was in the wrong track. The problem is that you just don't understand
my position.
I don't have an issue with the play mechanics of EQ. I know they work, I
know they are tuned to the gameplay, and I don't even mind them from a
RP point of view, I'd just pretend that, same as death is impermanent,
everybody is telepathic. Big deal.
I don't want to impose a Roleplaying model. I know everybody has
different meanings for the term, and I know that the deepest split is
the PvP issue. I really have no opinion there either (or I do, but it's
not relevant to the issue at hand).
I'm not a harcore roleplayer. I don't use Olde English (although I do
use "Fare thee well" for goodbye. Sue me.) and I don't chew out people
who break character ocassionally, or who use the words "level" or "xp".
I'm a lot more flexible than you give me credit for, but I'm certainly
bothered when I see a Paladin called Biotchslappa killing fishermen and
farmers because "there mad xp dood so STFU", and it does break the
feeling of being somewhere else, and god knows I have enough of fucking
Los Angeles after a long day's work.
I know that removing some of the communication channels affects gameplay
negatively. I don't think it's a fatal loss, except maybe in the case of
plane breaks and suchlike, but it does make things more difficult and
more inconvenient.
That's the point.
Since I don't want, or like, or wish for GM intervention any more than
you do, I'd just like to see some kind of sieve that will filter those
who care about roleplaying and those who care about Phat Lewt, and I
believe that the extra inconvenience of losing those channels could be
it. It's not because of the realism (which, as you and Dundee point out,
it's both unattainable and undesirable), it's because they force the
player into a greater commitment. I'm trusting that roleplayers, both
light and the "thee and thou" kind will be willing to go the extra
lenght and put up with the extra pain in order not to have to put up
with Aviaksemen (who just got kicked out of Fennin Ro) and his ilk.
I totally understand your position. I hope that now you understand mine
too.
Adar
Shrike <shr...@alcaudon.com> wrote in message
news:3859AA9F...@alcaudon.com...
> Adar wrote:
>
> > Let me dumb it down for you: roleplay-friendly does not mean 'Roleplay
> > Friendly, Capital R, Capital F.' There are many more roleplayers that
want
> > /tell in game than those that don't. You guys are just the militants.
>
> Those are *your* capitals and *your* emphasis, and therefore they are
> only meaningful to you.
Nah. Most of my ideas on this topic are Dundee's. Look at the article I
linked to ( http://dundee.uong.com , Ack!, 'Roleplaying the Right Way'),
read it, and draw your own conclusions.
You see, when people want to enforce the rules to the exclusion of having
fun and basic gameplay, they're called Munchkins. We've all met one at some
point or another; he's the guy who plays AD&D with 'weapon vs. armor'
modifiers, critical hits, and likes to roll those -3 AC at level 1
characters.
What you propose is detrimental to basic gameplay; you can't possibly argue
that it's not (well, you can always argue it, but you'll be routed.)
Therefore, you, sir, are a Munchkin; you wish to go so completely IC you'd
drive away most of the roleplayers in addition to everyone else.
Not gonna happen.
> As far as I know, no one has run a poll on what
> roleplayers want or do not want in EQ, and it's clear that the current
> model is not conducive to roleplaying.
The current model is as conductive to roleplaying as EQ will ever get (well,
the Zeks are, anyway.)
If you want to know WHY it is, think of what /gsay and /tell actually bring
to the game- rationally. You've been trying to defend an unwinnable
position; give it up.
>
> What *is* clear, though, is that A) roleplaying cannot be enforced by
> GMs,
Sigh.
Just the idea that you WANT roleplaying to be enforced by GM's, or even wish
that it could be, or even considered it as an option at one point, makes you
a Munchkin. Even if somehow, perhaps by paying Verant the hundred grand it
takes to buy one, you get your server, and it happens to be PvP, I'm betting
the first time you'd get PK'd by someone creatively roleplaying evil, you'd
/petition to Mommy GM because he wasn't Roleplaying the way you wanted him
to (I'll drop the capitals now- but I think you've gotten the idea.)
(BTW, since I can provide you with several quotes which state that RP'ing a
highwayman on the Zeks has never resulted in a satisfactorily roleplaying
response in eight months, 'No' is not going to work.)
People like you are precisely the reason why there will never be an official
RP server; it's because roleplayers are split up into many factions, and a
few of them won't accept any other brand besides their own. Whether you like
it or not, you ARE the minority, and you ARE the militant faction; ask a
friend or two in IRL, or E'ci's great roleplaying guilds, what they think of
your viewpoint (change the names around if you want), and you'll get back
the exact same answer I'm giving you.
and b), you cannot make a new server and just label it
> "roleplaying" and have that amount to a hill of beans, you have to *do*
> something to it that appeals to roleplayers and discourages powergamers.
>
Again, you're arguing an unwinnable position. The ONLY things you can do
that encourage roleplaying and discourage everything else is removing /shout
and /auction while leaving in everything else; you'd have to turn /ooc off,
since you need at least one global channel for trains and such.
Then again, you can do that now anyway. What did you say? That you might
miss something important if you don't at least occasionally turn them on? In
that case, sir, you're a hypocrite- obviously, something important must be
going on in those channels at some point.
> If you have any better ideas than mine, I'd love to hear them.
>
There aren't any. You're making an attempt to define roleplaying (and in an
extremely narrow way to boot); it's doomed to failure before it begins.
Brudo (E'ci)
Loredaeron (E'ci)
P.S. Read the article. Seriously; read it.
Adar
> Ok, I had actually typed a detailer response to your points, but I think
> I was in the wrong track. The problem is that you just don't understand
> my position.
>
Yeah, I got a lot more from this post than the last two. My apologies.
(snip)
> I'm not a harcore roleplayer. I don't use Olde English (although I do
> use "Fare thee well" for goodbye. Sue me.) and I don't chew out people
> who break character ocassionally, or who use the words "level" or "xp".
> I'm a lot more flexible than you give me credit for, but I'm certainly
> bothered when I see a Paladin called Biotchslappa killing fishermen and
> farmers because "there mad xp dood so STFU", and it does break the
> feeling of being somewhere else, and god knows I have enough of fucking
> Los Angeles after a long day's work.
>
Well...yeah, no doubt about it; that sucks. Unfortunately, you can't fix it-
not in EQ, and not with what you want. I definitely misunderstood *why* you
wanted to do this, but the how is still impossible; it breaks too much.
> I know that removing some of the communication channels affects gameplay
> negatively. I don't think it's a fatal loss, except maybe in the case of
> plane breaks and suchlike, but it does make things more difficult and
> more inconvenient.
>
It does a lot more than that, actually. You underestimate just how bad this
game would get with no outside channels after L15-L20 (aka 'group time'). I
could see it before then, because everyone is in the same 3 newbie zones
anyway, but when you have to group...
Imagine the Test Server as it was in April or May- maybe 200 people on at
once (which is the most you'd ever get with no channels.) Imagine them not
being able to form friendships (you can have a friends list, but if you
can't talk with anyone, what's the point?) Imagine some- no, most- areas
being completely empty while others are still camped- simply because
everyone congregates in the same place just to avoid playing a single player
game for hours.
Ugh. That manages to actually promote camping with an *un*crowded server.
> That's the point.
>
> Since I don't want, or like, or wish for GM intervention any more than
> you do, I'd just like to see some kind of sieve that will filter those
> who care about roleplaying and those who care about Phat Lewt, and I
> believe that the extra inconvenience of losing those channels could be
> it. It's not because of the realism (which, as you and Dundee point out,
> it's both unattainable and undesirable), it's because they force the
> player into a greater commitment. I'm trusting that roleplayers, both
> light and the "thee and thou" kind will be willing to go the extra
> lenght and put up with the extra pain in order not to have to put up
> with Aviaksemen (who just got kicked out of Fennin Ro) and his ilk.
>
The commitment required is too great for anyone. No tells= single player
game, more or less; you can't RP when you don't know who the other people
even are, and let's face it, those guys who spend their time in solitary
confinement tapping on their cellmates' walls in Morse aren't exactly up on
the latest gossip. You'd basically have to rely on an outside source (ie a
web page or IRL) to coordinate everything, which defeats the whole purpose.
> I totally understand your position. I hope that now you understand mine
> too.
>
I do now...but it still can't be done. Not in EQ.
Roadkill[PCR]
>telling people he has to afk and go to the bathroom, does it warrent a
>GM's attention?
If he shouts it 10 times in a row constantly where ever he goes, yes.
>The only thing that can set a RP server apart is really the features
>(and game rules moderated by teh computer, not the GMs) that it
>implemented different from other servers.
Agreed. Hence the no /tell/ooc/gsay/auc and limited /shout. "Hopefully"
that would be enough.
>And i see nothing stopping a few powergaming camping a spot and
>talking about last nite's Friend's episode.
Nope. Nothing that can be done. But because of the lack of the
/tell/ooc/etc. the rest of the zone won't be spammed by it. Plus, since
most of the people are, in theory, roleplaying, they'll overhear the
conversation and say something like "Who is this Alley McBeal that you
speak of?" and not go along with it and break character also.
>It will be. It is just that I don't think it will happen to the extend
>that RPers are happy. It is better just either 1) accept EQ as a
>hack-n-slash game and occasionally RPing with people who are willing
>to, or 2) wait for the next online RPG more geared towards RPing.
That's just the thing right there... we were all waiting for the next
online RPG. EverQuest came, then changed because of the masses of non-
roleplayers picking up a game that said "ROLEPLAYING GAME" on the box.
Guarenteed the next game will be roleplay oriented and changed by the
masses of non-roleplayers just the same as this one was.
>I think Vampire is going to come out sooner. I think the StoryMode (DM
>mode) is a very very cool idea. You can play it as a powergamer, a
>RPer, as an adventure game or even play it like Quake.
Now this sounds good. No one will be taking over and changing the
direction of the game with this. Because it can go in any direction at the
person running the server's discretion. Roleplayers will play with known
roleplay DMs only, powergamers will play with powergaming DMs, etc. Of
course we all know that there'll be K3wL d3wds rushing into all of them
just to ruin their fun. But that's a different matter.
>I was in beta and I never met any roleplayer. I met no one that would
>not talk about where he is from, how many kids he has (in RL) and so
>on.
>
>Through my 9 months of playing EQ, I have *one* long conversation that
>can count as RPing on the boat from Qeynos to Erudin.
Wow, I must be lucky... I encountered them all the time. I just found a
set of gnomes last night that were roleplaying up a storm in fact.
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
>>telling people he has to afk and go to the bathroom, does it warrent a
>>GM's attention?
>
>If he shouts it 10 times in a row constantly where ever he goes, yes.
>
But how about 3 times? My point is not really to ask you whether this
particular case is a banable offense, but it requires human judgement
(and often with ambiguity) to determine whether it is so.
And that will make it too expenseive (in terms of GM time) to enforce.
>>It will be. It is just that I don't think it will happen to the extend
>>that RPers are happy. It is better just either 1) accept EQ as a
>>hack-n-slash game and occasionally RPing with people who are willing
>>to, or 2) wait for the next online RPG more geared towards RPing.
>
>That's just the thing right there... we were all waiting for the next
>online RPG. EverQuest came, then changed because of the masses of non-
>roleplayers picking up a game that said "ROLEPLAYING GAME" on the box.
>Guarenteed the next game will be roleplay oriented and changed by the
>masses of non-roleplayers just the same as this one was.
>
I think there is a solution, see below ...
>>I think Vampire is going to come out sooner. I think the StoryMode (DM
>>mode) is a very very cool idea. You can play it as a powergamer, a
>>RPer, as an adventure game or even play it like Quake.
>
>Now this sounds good. No one will be taking over and changing the
>direction of the game with this. Because it can go in any direction at the
>person running the server's discretion. Roleplayers will play with known
>roleplay DMs only, powergamers will play with powergaming DMs, etc. Of
>course we all know that there'll be K3wL d3wds rushing into all of them
>just to ruin their fun. But that's a different matter.
>
Ha .. but you did not read the feature list of Vampire storymode.
Since it is setting a system allowing customers to be GMs, each GM
controls who is in or out of his game. The model is to let the players
who want to GM, GM their own games on their own servers.
Thus, K3wl dudes cannot get into games anymore if the GM do not want
them to.
The downside of cause is that the number of people on a server will be
much smaller since most players don't have servers/bandwith big enough
to support thousands of people.
However, since you cannot interact with more than 10 people all at
once anyway, it is not that big a limitation.
>>I was in beta and I never met any roleplayer. I met no one that would
>>not talk about where he is from, how many kids he has (in RL) and so
>>on.
>>
>>Through my 9 months of playing EQ, I have *one* long conversation that
>>can count as RPing on the boat from Qeynos to Erudin.
>
>Wow, I must be lucky... I encountered them all the time. I just found a
>set of gnomes last night that were roleplaying up a storm in fact.
What server are you on? I played on Xegony and this morning I am
hunting in the temple with (not grouped with, just converse) a necro
who is trying to find decay armor to twink his other char. He is
pretty nice though helping me out on caster mobs and letting me
getting the kills (since everything is green to him anyway). But
role-playing never enters our conversation.
Kay-Yut
Roadkill[PCR]
>particular case is a banable offense, but it requires human judgement
>(and often with ambiguity) to determine whether it is so.
3 times isolated no. 3 times, "maybe" someone who feels that they
shouldn't see any at all might /report the person. But the GM isn't going
to act on one or two "instances" of this. Especially if they're all coming
from the same person. It would take a couple of days of broadcasting ooc
messages and /reports from those couple of days before the GM would spring
into action. Maybe even a different command. The /ooc command could be
reserected as a new command. "/ooc Mastakilla" does a /report style
capture and adds one hit to Mastakilla's porfolio of OOCness. When it
starts getting large, the GMs notice. One isolated 10 message spam
wouldn't do it. It would have to take a couple of days of 10 or so message
spams to get you into the GMs eyes (then he might follow that player around
for a bit before making a final decision to make sure he's for real). That
would keep the people who come on for the sole purpose of ruining everyone
elses enjoyment off (eventually as they get weeded out).
>And that will make it too expenseive (in terms of GM time) to enforce.
Not with the "/ooc SoansSo" system. It would tally up a number so that the
GMs don't have to sift through tons of complaints. Only the complaints of
those who have a high /ooc number.
>>That's just the thing right there... we were all waiting for the next
>>online RPG. EverQuest came, then changed because of the masses of non-
>>roleplayers picking up a game that said "ROLEPLAYING GAME" on the box.
>>Guarenteed the next game will be roleplay oriented and changed by the
>>masses of non-roleplayers just the same as this one was.
>>
>
>I think there is a solution, see below ...
The solution below is nice, but lacks one thing: A huge PC populated
world. No massive character interaction from someone new you run into all
the time. Just the same 10 people over and over. Sure different people
will most likely pop in from time to time, but most likely there will be
regulars that will play at the same time everyday. Just like on Quake
servers (I hate to use that example in this type of game, but it fits
decently). Users like to game around for a while, but then they eventually
find their favorite place to be and frequent it.
>Ha .. but you did not read the feature list of Vampire storymode.
>Since it is setting a system allowing customers to be GMs, each GM
>controls who is in or out of his game. The model is to let the players
>who want to GM, GM their own games on their own servers.
>
>Thus, K3wl dudes cannot get into games anymore if the GM do not want
>them to.
How does he keep them out? I know that they can kick them out once they're
discovered... but that doesn't stop them from joining the game with what
seems to look like a legitamate player, then they do their damage (PK or
whatever), have their laugh and enjoyment, then get kicked. Then they come
back again later with a different legit looking character.
>The downside of cause is that the number of people on a server will be
>much smaller since most players don't have servers/bandwith big enough
>to support thousands of people.
>
>However, since you cannot interact with more than 10 people all at
>once anyway, it is not that big a limitation.
That was one of the biggest parts of a game like EQ or UO that pulled me
into EQ... the world is huge and populated by thousands of real people
playing along with you. Massive interaction, new people to meet and
adventure with. Much better than Diablo which had 4 people and all NPCs.
I like the fact that players out number NPCs. That was a huge appeal.
Now the game that you're talking about would be fun too, but more as a
"Here's a quest for you guys to work through" from the DM rather than a
huge ongoing world that I can play a role in.
>What server are you on? I played on Xegony and this morning I am
>hunting in the temple with (not grouped with, just converse) a necro
>who is trying to find decay armor to twink his other char. He is
>pretty nice though helping me out on caster mobs and letting me
>getting the kills (since everything is green to him anyway). But
>role-playing never enters our conversation.
Karana server. The roleplayers I run into come and go in spurts. I came
across a lot of them when I first started the game, then nothing for a long
time. But everyone would go in character as soon as I started talking to
them in character. Lately I've been coming across a lot of roleplayers
again.
Roadkill[PCR]
(assuming
>Verant ever gave you such a thing, which they're not), need SOME
provisions
>for pullers,
They do: /say You see that orc over there? We designate you to trick him
into coming into our ambush.
Same way you'd do it in the game currently.
>planar breakins,
Same: The group is all standing around like they do now. /say <insert plan
here> Same way you'd do it in the game currently.
>other 'out of zone' activities,
What makes all of the above out of zone activities? You can't all attack
the plane or dragon if you're all spread out over the world anyway with the
way the game is currently.
>corpse retrievals in hostile zones which need groups,
How could someone attempt to help you retrieve your corpse if they're not
with you? How could your group help you go in to get your body if you're
all in different zones? Non of these can be done in the game currently
either. If you're all next to each other like you'd have to be in the game
right now currently there's no need for /tell in that situation. /say will
cover it. So why does the absence of /tell all of a sudden make it
impossible for them to group up and help you get your body?
>and people that, while simultaneously roleplaying, want to do their
fucking jobs when grouped?
Now you're implying that roleplaying and playing EQ are too totally
different things. If I take on the role of a warrior, my job is to melee
combat the monster and keep him off the guys that can't take the hits while
their spells go off with uninterupted success. That job doesn't change at
all if I'm roleplaying. It's a part of my role. Just because I roleplay
doesn't mean I have to stop attacking and start talking. Roleplay !=
chatting/interaction/emoting alone. A role is a role. Not a string of
sentences exchanged between individuals.
Doing my job in a group is in character and a part of the role.
Roleplaying is taking on the "role" of that character in the world of
Norrath, not just his mouth. 80% of the /ooc discussions that I see going
on are perfectly in-character... yet everyone chooses to use /ooc instead
of /shout.
>If you want pure roleplaying, go play Baldur's Gate. Yes, that's cliched
and
>a stupid thing to say, but it is literally impossible for EQ to be a pure
>RPG. It depends on a chat/grouping interface way too much to stop now.
Only because all of the players are so used to and accustom to it. They
don't have to start characters on a roleplay only server with these
changes.
>Think otherwise? Try playing in screenshot mode.
I do. And "often". But I have to check back a lot to see if the people I
just ran by said anything to me or not.
Roadkill[PCR]
>hmm, doesn't knowing a person's health status when he's out of sight range
>qualify?
>
>Hypocrite.
When did he say that he wanted to see someones health? A hypocrite is
someone who doesn't want someone to do something, but practices the act
themselves. Did he say "I don't want /tell because it's like telepathy,
but oh... I want to see everyones health because it's telepathic"? I
didn't see it. That comment was uncalled for. You're just trying to
purposely piss him off now.
>> People are smart. They will find ways, and even if they don't, well, big
>> deal. I won't be shedding tears if you don't see every damn high level
>> in plane gear in the hypothetical RP server.
>
>Welcome to the flaming pits of hell, RP Nazi.
>
>/Rant on:
>
>I love this. No, really, I love this attitude. It goes something like
this:
What attitude? Did he say that NO ONE can level beyond level 20? No, he
said that it won't shed a tear if he didn't see everone with full plane
gear.
>'I am a Roleplayer, Capital R. I will never go beyond Level 20, because I
>Roleplay, Capital R. Anyone who does go beyond Level 20 does not Roleplay,
>Capital R. They might pretend they're roleplaying, but they're not
>Roleplaying, Capital R, because they're not roleplaying the way I want
them
>to Roleplay, Capital R.
NON of us said this. You're putting words in our mouths so that you can
flame us more. I have NEVER met a roleplayer that says that "you're" not
allowed to play unless you play their way. It's something all the
powergamers invented to make us look bad.
>'I want people not to be able to communicate out of voice range. If
someone
>causes a train, since they can't warn me, they should stand their ground
and
>fight, and never mind if they're a rogue; standing and fighting is
>Roleplaying a Hero, Capital R, Capital H.***
Now why would you want to see a "/shout Train!!" if that train is NO WHERE
near you? I don't remember ever seeing "get rid of /shout". I've seen
plenty of suggestions on kicking /shout down to a reasonable radius,
instead of zone wide. Train warning won't be ANY different than they are
now, except for the fact that people at the wooden bridge in N. Karana
won't see train messages that are meant for the stone bridge. Only the
people at the stone bridge will be in range to hear that.
>'I want people to not be able to communicate out of voice range. If
someone
>needs to go into someplace dangerous and apprise someone of the situation,
>they should all go together, because that is what Heroes, Capital H, do
>(again, never mind the rogues.) If they can't enter certain areas because
of
>this, tough luck; I am Roleplayer, Capital R, and since I myself will
never
>enter those areas, neither should they, because it's not Roleplaying,
>Capital R.
Why would they all go in if they only want one scout in? Nothing would
change except for the fact that the scout would have to come back out,
inform the group of the situation, then make their decision.
>'I want people to not be able to communicate out of voice range. If
someone
>should want to talk to their in-game friends, they should arrange a time
>IRL...wait, that's OOC! No, say I! I am Roleplayer, Capital R! If they
>should want to do that, they should have arranged a meeting after the
first
>time they journeyed together, and never mind that they might have gone to
>different sides of the world- Breaking Fiction, Capital B, Capital F, is
>Worse, Capital W, than keeping the friendship (no capital f, Breaking
>Fiction, Capital B, Capital F, is the only thing that deserves that!)'
Now you're just getting silly. Saying that things done in real life can
not be done by a roleplayer. This is a game, not a life. And you're once
again starting falsehoods about roleplayers in another attempt at degrading
them.
>'I want people to Roleplay, Capital R, the way I do! It's the only way,
it's
>the Correct way, Capital C, and by god, if someone wants to do something
>else, let him do it on another server, because he's not Roleplaying,
Capital
>R!'
You're the only one saying these things. No roleplayer I've ever seen has
said anything like this. I've seen MANY powergamers say it to roleplayers
though...
>***'However, if I should cause a train (which will never happen, because I
>am Roleplaying, Capital R, a Hero, Capital H, just like everyone else who
>Roleplays, Capital R, and I will stand and fight), the aforementioned
clause
>should be temporarily revoked, in which case I will then say 'Sorry about
>your death, milady, it was the fault of that dastardly villain yonder.''
I can just as easily make up a bunch of false crap like this about
powergamers also just as you have done to roleplayers. But I don't do it,
I won't do it, because I believe everyone has the right to play how they
want to and have a right to their own opinions. You on the other hand,
with this post, show that you are not capable of this and are doing
everything you can to discredit roleplayers. You are the only one guilty
of everything you're trying to say we're guilty of. We're not the ones
pointing fingers and slashing at the other... you are.
Adar
Roadkill[PCR] <road...@aroma.com.REMOVEME> wrote in message
> >I'll refer you to the same place I referred Shrike...
> >
> >http://dundee.uong.com , Ack!, 'Roleplaying the Right Way' (not quite the
> >title, but close enough.)
>
>
> What does this site have anything to do with the proposed roleplay server?
> I know what roleplaying is. Just because you want to shoot down the idea
> of a roleplay server doesn't mean that me and Shrike don't know how to
> roleplay.
>
Who said you guys don't know how to roleplay? (You should really *read* that
article; it has everything to do with an RP server, and if you think about
it, it practically spells out why there won't be one.)
> And about the roleplay nazi section: You notice how a roleplayer nazi is
> the powergamer of the roleplay community roleplay wise? Just like a
> powergamer is the powergamer (obviously) of the non-roleplay crowd
> experience and loot wise.
Fair enough.
> The only difference I see is that the roleplay
> nazis are ignoring and not talking to the people that talk to them out of
> character, whereas I've seen "countless" times a powergamer getting on a
> roleplayers case for staying in-character.
That's not a powergamer; that's a d00d. Powergamers are generally content
staying out of your way; don't mistake one for the other.
>Yet all the powergamers keep
> preaching on about how roleplayers tell them that they're playing the game
> wrong and should leave.
And they do. Endlessly. Hell, this is something like the third time I've had
to reply to these this month, and the other two were worse. And all of this
is still out of game; remember the endless 'shut up about (IRL topic blah)'
in /ooc late beta/early retail? Every single one of those was a Roleplayer
whose experience was being ruined by someone talking, in the /ooc channel,
about OOC.
Well, that ended fast when EQ stopped being a roleplaying game (read: when
it got to more than a few hundred people per server); but if you've never
seen a Roleplayer do this, you haven't been here long enough.
> I've only seen powergamers do this to roleplayers.
> Just like you've been doing in this thread. I haven't seen one roleplayer
> tell you that you're playing wrong, I haven't seen one personally
attacking
> your type of play style, I haven't seen us telling you that you have no
> right to play.
See above. Oh, and I'm not a powergamer.
> But I've seen you do "all" of these to us in this thread,
> multiple times. Like Shrike said earlier, "You want to shoot that down
and
> you call *me* a Nazi?" You're the one pointing fingers and making a
> mockery of us. Not the other way around. But you keep saying that it is
> the other way around.
>
Making a mockery of people is what Usenet is all about :)
Seriously, though, what I shot down was the idea of removing two specific
channels from a proposed RP server, for reasons that are blatantly obvious
(not all roleplayers level slowly; not all of them want a single player
Everquest; and *very few* of them would want to do that to themselves.)
I did NOT shoot down an RP server; it's never going to happen, but if it
happens anyway, hell, I'd be happy for you.
I'm just saying that punching a gigantic hole in game mechanics in the name
of roleplaying is not going to work.
Shrike
>
> >I'll refer you to the same place I referred Shrike...
> >
> >http://dundee.uong.com , Ack!, 'Roleplaying the Right Way' (not quite the
> >title, but close enough.)
>
> What does this site have anything to do with the proposed roleplay server?
> I know what roleplaying is. Just because you want to shoot down the idea
> of a roleplay server doesn't mean that me and Shrike don't know how to
> roleplay.
Actually, the article does contain a wealth of very good points, and
I've come around to Adar's point of view on the necessity of keeping at
least /tell and /who
I would still like to see /shout /ooc and /auction go away, at least
experimentally. This should be a fair compromise between keeping
gameplay feasible while discouraging powergaming.
And of course, the "generated names only" got to stay. :)
> And about the roleplay nazi section: You notice how a roleplayer nazi is
> the powergamer of the roleplay community roleplay wise? Just like a
> powergamer is the powergamer (obviously) of the non-roleplay crowd
> experience and loot wise. The only difference I see is that the roleplay
> nazis are ignoring and not talking to the people that talk to them out of
> character, whereas I've seen "countless" times a powergamer getting on a
> roleplayers case for staying in-character. Yet all the powergamers keep
> preaching on about how roleplayers tell them that they're playing the game
> wrong and should leave. I've only seen powergamers do this to roleplayers.
> Just like you've been doing in this thread. I haven't seen one roleplayer
> tell you that you're playing wrong, I haven't seen one personally attacking
> your type of play style, I haven't seen us telling you that you have no
> right to play. But I've seen you do "all" of these to us in this thread,
> multiple times. Like Shrike said earlier, "You want to shoot that down and
> you call *me* a Nazi?" You're the one pointing fingers and making a
> mockery of us. Not the other way around. But you keep saying that it is
> the other way around.
--
Adar
Roadkill[PCR] <road...@aroma.com.REMOVEME> wrote in message
(snip)
I'll refer you to the same place I referred Shrike...
http://dundee.uong.com , Ack!, 'Roleplaying the Right Way' (not quite the
title, but close enough.)
Brudo (E'ci)
Loredaeron (E'ci)
Roadkill[PCR]
>
>http://dundee.uong.com , Ack!, 'Roleplaying the Right Way' (not quite the
>title, but close enough.)
What does this site have anything to do with the proposed roleplay server?
I know what roleplaying is. Just because you want to shoot down the idea
of a roleplay server doesn't mean that me and Shrike don't know how to
roleplay.
And about the roleplay nazi section: You notice how a roleplayer nazi is
Roadkill[PCR]
>I've come around to Adar's point of view on the necessity of keeping at
>least /tell and /who
Keeping /tell wouldn't be bad... because you can't spam an entire zone with
out-of-character talk to a bunch of in-character folk with it. /tell would
in a sense be the /ooc channel of person to person communication, without
bothering anyone else.
>I would still like to see /shout /ooc and /auction go away, at least
>experimentally. This should be a fair compromise between keeping
>gameplay feasible while discouraging powergaming.
Me too. Although I'd keep /shout and limit it to a certain radius. Not
zone wide. Being able to shout is needed for incoming trouble, it's just
that the other side of the zone doesn't need to hear it.
>And of course, the "generated names only" got to stay. :)
That's something that I'm torn on. I mean, I love to come up with my own
names. But if it's a matter of getting the server or not I'd make the
sacrifice.
Roadkill[PCR]
You did by telling us to read a site titled "The One True Way to Roleplay,
Online". Whether you meant to or not, that's how it looked.
>> The only difference I see is that the roleplay
>> nazis are ignoring and not talking to the people that talk to them out
of
>> character, whereas I've seen "countless" times a powergamer getting on a
>> roleplayers case for staying in-character.
>
>That's not a powergamer; that's a d00d. Powergamers are generally content
>staying out of your way; don't mistake one for the other.
I've seen d00ds say it and I've seen powergamers say it... there's no
mistaking the two from each other.
>remember the endless 'shut up about (IRL topic blah)'
>in /ooc late beta/early retail? Every single one of those was a Roleplayer
>whose experience was being ruined by someone talking, in the /ooc channel,
>about OOC.
I've seen many "Take it to /tell guys" from everyone, not just roleplayers.
In fact, there's no way of telling if the person saying it is a roleplayer
or not, except for the fact that most roleplayers keep quiet and ignore the
/ooc channel.
>Well, that ended fast when EQ stopped being a roleplaying game (read: when
>it got to more than a few hundred people per server); but if you've never
>seen a Roleplayer do this, you haven't been here long enough.
EQ didn't just stop being a roleplaying game, all the roleplayers that I
know of didn't stop roleplaying. They've just been lost in the crowd of
people who picked up a box that said "ROLEPLAYING GAME" but had no
intention of roleplaying. I think I'll go pick up a copy of 3D Home
Designer so that I can do my taxes. It says design plans for your perfect
home on the box, but that won't stop me from not doing that and demanding
that the programmers put in a tax function. Now there's nothing wrong with
people who want to do these kind of things, that's their choice. But
saying that the people who already owned a copy aren't allowed to get a
version that supports "the actual" Home Design is kind of sad.
>Making a mockery of people is what Usenet is all about :)
Usenet is about discussion. Problems and solutions are suppose to find
each other here. If it's "SOLE" purpose were to mock and personally attack
people, like you see 90% of the time in here by the way, I'd gladly sign
any petition for its destruction. It's suppose to be there as an
information source for all to learn from and post their ideas and opinions.
It's just sad that it's abused the way it is.
>Seriously, though, what I shot down was the idea of removing two specific
>channels from a proposed RP server, for reasons that are blatantly obvious
>(not all roleplayers level slowly;
No, not all level slowly. Where was it said that they always do? Non-
powergaming doesn't mean only one kill per half hour. Just means that they
don't kill for the sole purpose of getting to 50 before everyone else.
>not all of them want a single player
>Everquest;
That already happened when NO DROP items were introduced :). But
seriously, taking away 2 channels is not going to make everyone isolated
and alone. You'll see MORE of each other now, because you'll have to
frequent cities and landmarks more. Places where crowds will form. You'll
see more people collected together than before.
>and *very few* of them would want to do that to themselves.)
The very few in this newsgroup all seem to be for the server and those
changes. They're the ones making the request for the changes in fact.
>I did NOT shoot down an RP server; it's never going to happen, but if it
>happens anyway, hell, I'd be happy for you.
Then offer ideas on how you think a better system other than the channels
idea would work.
>I'm just saying that punching a gigantic hole in game mechanics in the
name
>of roleplaying is not going to work.
It would open more possibilities than it would lose by turning off those
channels.
Steven Atwood
on the team servers, then the traditional blue. For example, you never see a
paladin team up with a Shawdow knight on Tallen, where on Cazic Thule that
does happen. They have role playing servers, they are called the race war
servers. If you really like role playing, try them out and see the
difference.
Minil Darkbane
Tallon Zek
Roadkill[PCR] <road...@aroma.com.REMOVEME> wrote in message
news:8EA259043roa...@207.126.101.100...
Alex Mars
the role" will disturb the roleplayer. From UO to EQ I see whining from people
who are much too sensititve. If you can't ignore some idiot who means nothing
to you, go hide under your bed.
Any server is a role playing one if you role play and take the initiative to
find like minded people. If you can't feel like you're roleplaying without a
special server you are going to be rather disappointed.
The other is that there is a consistant standard of roleplaying. People like
to roleplay at different levels of intensity and once a mythical RP server
opened there would be lots of bickering over how much RP is required.
If your gaming experience is ruined by someone saying in passing; "gotta log,
the football game is on" then I suggest your fragile little psyche is too
fragile for online games.
While I am a roleplayer, I also recognize that these types of games are
designed to appeal to a large market. Some people just want to grind up
monsters and chat with buddies and they have as much right to be in EQ as the
hard core roleplayer. RP is not the one true fucking way, it is just a play
style. As soon as the RP whiners realize that their style of play is not
sactified by a diety the better off they will be. Guess what? The market will
not support a game of this scale just for hard core roleplayers.
-Agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
Adar
Roadkill[PCR] <road...@aroma.com.REMOVEME> wrote in message
news:8EA259043roa...@207.126.101.100...
> >Who said you guys don't know how to roleplay?
>
> You did by telling us to read a site titled "The One True Way to Roleplay,
> Online". Whether you meant to or not, that's how it looked.
>
If you'd actually read the article, you'd realize the title was sarcastic.
Like I said- read the damn thing before drawing conclusions.
> >> The only difference I see is that the roleplay
> >> nazis are ignoring and not talking to the people that talk to them out
> of
> >> character, whereas I've seen "countless" times a powergamer getting on
a
> >> roleplayers case for staying in-character.
> >
> >That's not a powergamer; that's a d00d. Powergamers are generally content
> >staying out of your way; don't mistake one for the other.
>
> I've seen d00ds say it and I've seen powergamers say it... there's no
> mistaking the two from each other.
>
Sure there is. Most d00ds are powergamers, but not vice versa.
> >remember the endless 'shut up about (IRL topic blah)'
> >in /ooc late beta/early retail? Every single one of those was a
Roleplayer
> >whose experience was being ruined by someone talking, in the /ooc
channel,
> >about OOC.
>
> I've seen many "Take it to /tell guys" from everyone, not just
roleplayers.
> In fact, there's no way of telling if the person saying it is a roleplayer
> or not, except for the fact that most roleplayers keep quiet and ignore
the
> /ooc channel.
>
They do now. Back in March and April, it was apparently the roleplayers'
sworn duty to protect the OOC channel from actual OOC stuff.
> >Well, that ended fast when EQ stopped being a roleplaying game (read:
when
> >it got to more than a few hundred people per server); but if you've never
> >seen a Roleplayer do this, you haven't been here long enough.
>
> EQ didn't just stop being a roleplaying game, all the roleplayers that I
> know of didn't stop roleplaying. They've just been lost in the crowd of
> people who picked up a box that said "ROLEPLAYING GAME" but had no
> intention of roleplaying.
Which amounts to the same thing. Roleplaying and the mass market are
incompatible.
> >Seriously, though, what I shot down was the idea of removing two specific
> >channels from a proposed RP server, for reasons that are blatantly
obvious
> >(not all roleplayers level slowly;
>
> No, not all level slowly. Where was it said that they always do? Non-
> powergaming doesn't mean only one kill per half hour. Just means that
they
> don't kill for the sole purpose of getting to 50 before everyone else.
>
> >not all of them want a single player
> >Everquest;
>
> That already happened when NO DROP items were introduced :). But
> seriously, taking away 2 channels is not going to make everyone isolated
> and alone. You'll see MORE of each other now, because you'll have to
> frequent cities and landmarks more. Places where crowds will form.
You'll
> see more people collected together than before.
>
> >and *very few* of them would want to do that to themselves.)
>
> The very few in this newsgroup all seem to be for the server and those
> changes. They're the ones making the request for the changes in fact.
>
Point by point:
-Under a no-communication server (which was the original post- take away
everything), no one would ever get past 20, much less 50. This does include
roleplayers, so...
-Taking away two channels won't do anything; taking them all away will kill
a server before it starts. EQ is *not* a game where you can do this, for
reasons I've stated half a dozen times.
-Usenet is a land where the minorities thrive. The three or four actual
roleplayers here are in no way representative of the majority- and there's
no way the majority of ANYONE would go for this.
> >I did NOT shoot down an RP server; it's never going to happen, but if it
> >happens anyway, hell, I'd be happy for you.
>
> Then offer ideas on how you think a better system other than the channels
> idea would work.
>
Not my job. I don't particularly care about it, since it's not *my* pet
issue; I'm just amused that you couldn't even think the idea through.
> >I'm just saying that punching a gigantic hole in game mechanics in the
> name
> >of roleplaying is not going to work.
>
> It would open more possibilities than it would lose by turning off those
> channels.
Nah.
You *can* take out /ooc and /auction, and maybe give /shout a slightly
smaller radius (not that Verant will ever do this; the farthest they'll go
is what they did with Brell when it came up.)
Past that, you begin cutting off the arm to save the finger.
Alx
> >Actually, the article does contain a wealth of very good points, and
> >I've come around to Adar's point of view on the necessity of keeping at
> >least /tell and /who
>
> Keeping /tell wouldn't be bad... because you can't spam an entire zone
with
> out-of-character talk to a bunch of in-character folk with it. /tell
would
> in a sense be the /ooc channel of person to person communication, without
> bothering anyone else.
I would rather see /tell changed to maybe /whisper, where you can speak
to someone privately, but you would need to be next to them. What sort
of adventuring can you do when everyones just a tell away?
/tell Friend1inLF Hey, there's a GM event going on over here.
/tell Friend2inPF Quick, get Soandso to meet us in NK and teleport us over!
I'd rather see some kind of mail system implemented, that takes mail a
game day or more to be delivered between post offices of some kind.
As for /who, well it has it's uses, maybe just have it simply display
who is on but without any details.
Alex
--
Remove the X if replying by email.
Roadkill[PCR]
>Like I said- read the damn thing before drawing conclusions.
I read that thing long ago. While parts of it are sarcastic, parts of it
are not.
>> I've seen d00ds say it and I've seen powergamers say it... there's no
>> mistaking the two from each other.
>
>Sure there is. Most d00ds are powergamers, but not vice versa.
You might mistake them, but don't assume that I don't.
>> I've seen many "Take it to /tell guys" from everyone, not just
>roleplayers.
>> In fact, there's no way of telling if the person saying it is a
roleplayer
>> or not, except for the fact that most roleplayers keep quiet and ignore
>the
>> /ooc channel.
>>
>
>They do now. Back in March and April, it was apparently the roleplayers'
>sworn duty to protect the OOC channel from actual OOC stuff.
Now why in the hell would a roleplayer say that ooc stuff does not belong
in an ooc channel? Are you people just making this stuff up to make
roleplayers look bad? If someone is doing this, the fact that they're a
roleplayer is purely coincidence to the fact that they're anal retentive.
>Point by point:
>-Under a no-communication server (which was the original post- take away
>everything), no one would ever get past 20, much less 50. This does
include
>roleplayers, so...
Now you're just making stuff up. I've made it to 24 almost all solo, other
people have made it to 50 solo. How is a realistic speech radius setup
going to all of a sudden make everyone who can still group not get by 20 if
they could do it solo before?
Not to mention you're going a little over board by saying a "no-
communication" server. Where was it ever suggested as a "no-communication"
server? /shout is still there, /say is still there, /tell has been kicked
around as an idea for the new ooc channel for chat between individuals and
has been a part of the idea for the last couple of days now. So where's
the no-communication? The only thing that we want gone is the zone wide
channels so that there's more face to face chatting going on.
This does include roleplayers? What basis for "that" did you get? I
thought there were only 3 or 4 in here according to you? Did you talk to
them all and find out? Or do you have a commity of roleplayers at home
telling you how they feel? Seems to me I've seen more than 3 or 4 people
in this group interested in this idea.
>-Taking away two channels won't do anything; taking them all away will
kill
>a server before it starts.
So why are you even arguing about them all being taken away? We never said
that. You're just wasting both of our time now by arguing with me over
something that we never said. Plus /tell is in the idea as of the last
couple of days, yet you still won't drop it because you want to argue some
more.
>EQ is *not* a game where you can do this, for
>reasons I've stated half a dozen times.
Reasons? What reasons? Reasons why YOU don't want them. Every reason
you've had I've refuted and every reason I've had you've said that you've
refuted. It just sounds like you only want to argue more than anything
else, instead of help the issue.
>-Usenet is a land where the minorities thrive. The three or four actual
>roleplayers here are in no way representative of the majority- and there's
>no way the majority of ANYONE would go for this.
Speak for yourself, not EVERYONE. I've seen more than three or four
roleplayers in this group, and I've seen more than three or four agree with
the roleplay server idea.
>> Then offer ideas on how you think a better system other than the
channels
>> idea would work.
>>
>
>Not my job. I don't particularly care about it, since it's not *my* pet
>issue; I'm just amused that you couldn't even think the idea through.
Now you're really trying to start an argument. Now you're bordering on
troll. I'm just amused that you actually think you're points are actually
refuting anything. Have you ever looked at the wish list for Middle Earth?
People, MANY people, know what they want in a roleplaying game. Too bad
Sierra thinks like you do.
>> >I'm just saying that punching a gigantic hole in game mechanics in the
>> name
>> >of roleplaying is not going to work.
>>
>> It would open more possibilities than it would lose by turning off those
>> channels.
>
>Nah.
>
>You *can* take out /ooc and /auction, and maybe give /shout a slightly
>smaller radius (not that Verant will ever do this; the farthest they'll go
>is what they did with Brell when it came up.)
>
>Past that, you begin cutting off the arm to save the finger.
Ummm... haven't you been reading the rest of the group? The roleplay
server idea has comprimised to include /tell as a person to person ooc
channel. I've said this at least 3 or 4 times now in this post. I hope it
sticks this time.
Martin H. Christiansen
<8EA351A94roa...@207.126.101.100>...
> <snipped the whole lot>
>
Woaw, you got way too much patience Roadkill :)
As i said before, i would love to see a roleplaying
server, with less of the unrealistic** communication
that otherwise is available - but also i need to
restate that:
By making a specific roleplaying server, Verant
would be signallling that all other servers is non-
roleplaying servers - this is to me the number
one reason that we will never get a dedicated
RP-server.
btw.
I been tolled this link been posted before, but you
would proberbly love it ;-)
http://www.angelfire.com/wi/shouty/oklahoma.html
--
Martin
**allthough the word unrealistic is not easily used
when talking about a fantasy game, the use does
ofcause imply what is expected to be realistic
in a fantasy setting.
(the clarification is unfortunally need some times)
Isara
within a RP environment. And, you can make /tells a part of RP. I like to use
the pigeon system..... Occasionally when I've gone quiet and people are sending
/tells to me right and left, but my party members will wonder why I've gone
quiet I'll "/em brushes the pigeon feathers off of her arms." Or, I'll let my
IC friends know that I received a missive via pigeon from so-n-so.
Morgan
Taking out /auction and /ooc and reducing /shout to a smaller
radius will have some impact on the normal functioning of the
game. Removing the guild chat channel would render most guilds
non-viable, except for the tightest and most dedicated. But the
biggest proposed change is removing group chat.
This would not be entirely a bad thing. The reason people are
all silently walking the world is that they are furiously
chatting away in group speak. It is alienating and cliquish.
The world would seem much more alive if people generally used
/say for their idle conversations and /group only for logistics.
However, removing the channel entirely would have some very bad
consequences. First of all, there is that logistical thing.
Often the group is not all in one place, such as when one person
is out hunting for prey while the rest of the group meditates.
Group chat for "Incoming" would be replaced with personal tells
to one group member who would disseminate the information to the
rest of the group with /say. (Actually, I play with a husband
and wife team quite often. He pulls, she tells us what he is
pulling.) This would not be the end of the world, but the two
stage communication would be a bit awkward. Or possibly, when
you set up a group, the puller would create new socials for
"Incoming" and such that send a tell to each other group member.
The other big limitation I see is that it would be impossible to
hunt in crowded zones. If everyone's chats were coming out in
normal /say, your tiny chat window would be completely
overwhelmed by the flood of text. EverQuest's chat window fails
entirely when you get more than about five people talking at
once. Throw in the shouts of "Help!" (now useful to do) or
"Incoming!" from all around you on top of your conversations that
are all coming out the same color as the combat spam, and you
have an unreadable mess!
--
Morgan
Adar
Roadkill[PCR] <road...@aroma.com.REMOVEME> wrote in message
(snip)
> >They do now. Back in March and April, it was apparently the roleplayers'
> >sworn duty to protect the OOC channel from actual OOC stuff.
>
> Now why in the hell would a roleplayer say that ooc stuff does not belong
> in an ooc channel? Are you people just making this stuff up to make
> roleplayers look bad? If someone is doing this, the fact that they're a
> roleplayer is purely coincidence to the fact that they're anal retentive.
>
No, I'm not making this up; that's part of why Dundee's article was so much
on the mark. It was written in June/July, when those memories were still
fresh.
Yes, believe it or not, there were a lot of people out there that, while
keeping /ooc turned on, apparently wanted to police what was on it.
> >Point by point:
> >-Under a no-communication server (which was the original post- take away
> >everything), no one would ever get past 20, much less 50. This does
> include
> >roleplayers, so...
>
> Now you're just making stuff up. I've made it to 24 almost all solo,
other
> people have made it to 50 solo. How is a realistic speech radius setup
> going to all of a sudden make everyone who can still group not get by 20
if
> they could do it solo before?
>
Because people can't group in a no-communication server.
> Not to mention you're going a little over board by saying a "no-
> communication" server. Where was it ever suggested as a
"no-communication"
> server? /shout is still there, /say is still there, /tell has been kicked
> around as an idea for the new ooc channel for chat between individuals and
> has been a part of the idea for the last couple of days now. So where's
> the no-communication? The only thing that we want gone is the zone wide
> channels so that there's more face to face chatting going on.
>
In the original idea, you (well, Shrike) wanted them all gone except for
/say.
> This does include roleplayers? What basis for "that" did you get? I
> thought there were only 3 or 4 in here according to you? Did you talk to
> them all and find out? Or do you have a commity of roleplayers at home
> telling you how they feel? Seems to me I've seen more than 3 or 4 people
> in this group interested in this idea.
>
'No one' means 'no one', as in no one on the server. Aside from the fact
that there'd be very few people on it, the only ones to make it to within 20
levels of 50 would be the traditional solo classes- druids and the
occasional shaman/magician.
> >-Taking away two channels won't do anything; taking them all away will
> kill
> >a server before it starts.
>
> So why are you even arguing about them all being taken away? We never
said
> that. You're just wasting both of our time now by arguing with me over
> something that we never said. Plus /tell is in the idea as of the last
> couple of days, yet you still won't drop it because you want to argue some
> more.
>
Once again, the original proposal was to drop them all. On the other hand,
taking away only two channels won't do a thing- simply because all the /ooc
stuff will move to /shout instead. (So what if it's not zone wide? In
dungeons, it'll reach the whole zone anyway due to lack of Z axis, and
outdoors, save the Karanas, it'll reach everyone in your level range as
you're all killing the same things.)
> >EQ is *not* a game where you can do this, for
> >reasons I've stated half a dozen times.
>
> Reasons? What reasons? Reasons why YOU don't want them. Every reason
> you've had I've refuted and every reason I've had you've said that you've
> refuted. It just sounds like you only want to argue more than anything
> else, instead of help the issue.
>
You're right- I don't want to help the issue. Like I said, I'm not
particularly interested; it's your goal to provide a viable plan for an RP
server, not mine.
Thus far, the first suggestion involved turning EQ into a terrible MP
Baldur's Gate clone, and the second, while more viable, doesn't actually
change the game from the way it is now.
Next?
> >-Usenet is a land where the minorities thrive. The three or four actual
> >roleplayers here are in no way representative of the majority- and
there's
> >no way the majority of ANYONE would go for this.
>
> Speak for yourself, not EVERYONE. I've seen more than three or four
> roleplayers in this group, and I've seen more than three or four agree
with
> the roleplay server idea.
>
While there may be a lot of roleplayers in this NG, I'm willing to bet that
no more than three or four of them don't occasionally enjoy breaking
character.
As for the idea of an RP server, guess what? I agree! I also agree EQ should
have about 50 more servers than it currently does, and so does everyone
else...but your goal is to make a VIABLE proposal, and thus far, you're
failing miserably.
> >> Then offer ideas on how you think a better system other than the
> channels
> >> idea would work.
> >>
> >
> >Not my job. I don't particularly care about it, since it's not *my* pet
> >issue; I'm just amused that you couldn't even think the idea through.
>
> Now you're really trying to start an argument. Now you're bordering on
> troll. I'm just amused that you actually think you're points are actually
> refuting anything.
My points as to why it's not viable have all already been made six posts
back.
> Have you ever looked at the wish list for Middle Earth?
> People, MANY people, know what they want in a roleplaying game. Too bad
> Sierra thinks like you do.
>
Consider that paragraph for a minute. Why was the only potentially hard core
MM RPG on the market cancelled?
The answer: because hard core roleplayers are not a mass market, and the
slightest amount of white noise gets a lot of them to quit in disgust. (Oh,
and permanent death (LOL...)
The lesson is simple: the only two ways to keep the hard core roleplayers
happy involve a)a GM for every ten players (not commercially viable, very
abusable, mind boggling headaches for all), or the game is tailored to them
from Day 1 (not mass market material- and Sierra knows a lot more about THAT
than either of us.)
(In fact, there are far fewer hardcores out there than most other groups;
most of the true believers are on RZ, since most of that community thinks
roleplaying should mean people are held accountable- and the RP faction is
tiny even there.)
> >You *can* take out /ooc and /auction, and maybe give /shout a slightly
> >smaller radius (not that Verant will ever do this; the farthest they'll
go
> >is what they did with Brell when it came up.)
> >
> >Past that, you begin cutting off the arm to save the finger.
>
> Ummm... haven't you been reading the rest of the group? The roleplay
> server idea has comprimised to include /tell as a person to person ooc
> channel. I've said this at least 3 or 4 times now in this post. I hope
it
> sticks this time.
That's the new idea, not the old one. Most of the objections I had were over
the old one, but you're replying to both parts.
Anyway, the new idea won't work either. If you take out two channels and cut
the third one in half, you won't reduce the noise by five sixths; you'll
concentrate about four-fifths of it into one measly channel which will now
be absolutely necessary for everyone to leave on, due to train warnings and
such.
The way EQ works, /say, /tell, and /gsay are required; I'm glad to see
you're not thinking about /tell now, at least.
After that, though, you still need a way to communicate with at least some
part of the zone (Incomings, train warnings, etc.) for Verant to go for it.
Of course, your problem is that once you add in anything with a wide enough
radius to actually be of any use, everyone will simply blast OOC stuff on
it. Controlling that will require GM's, which you will *not* get; in fact,
you won't get any company resources at all if the proposed code change takes
over five minutes to do.
Oh, and the proposed server has to have more players on it than a racewar
server: otherwise, it's a waste of time. Keep that in mind when constructing
a proposal- if it's too limiting, you'll lose too many people for anyone to
consider it.
Well, now you know the rules...
Martin H. Christiansen
<385FF790...@misleading.com>...
>
> Or possibly, when you set up a group, the puller would
> create new socials for "Incoming" and such that send a
> tell to each other group member.
>
With /shout reduced so it is no longer zonewide, the
incomming message would be better placed there,
would't it?
As for your crowded issue...
...with /say's limited range i don't see that chatting
among bystanders to be a huge problem, though
i do think that the little window could be better.
I have long been wanting a way for a group standing
close to each other to talk among themselfs, not just
grouped people but anyone.
...a groupsay limited to normal say range could be
to solution, but i'd much rather see a paired set of
commands such as /whisper and /listen.
Basicly you would have to /listen to someone to hear
what they /whisper. Whisper would have even shorter
range than say.
I'd personnaly like /tell changed to the same as /say
except it would like my /whisper idea only work if
you /listen.
The concept of five people sitting in a bar or inn and
haveing a talk via /tell and by /listen to each other
and the possibility of some thief sitting alone at the
next table /listening to your conversation.
I imagin the rogue with a skill that makes the range
with which he can /listen in on other peoples conver-
sation go up.
--
Martin
Martin H. Christiansen
<83p4co$9uu$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
> Because people can't group in a
> no-communication server.
>
Why?
....really i want to know.
I can see how opon entering a zone and then trying
to find potential groupmembers, that it would be very
difficult without zonewide or a tell channell.
....but is this not the point??
Is the point not that people would need to actually
go to place's like an inn in a city or some other
place to meet a large group of people.
--
Martin
Adar
Martin H. Christiansen <haslund@*X*post8.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:01bf4c6c$4dad3880$569214ac@h-12117...
> Adar <ad...@spamaway.mindspring.com> wrote in article
> <83p4co$9uu$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >
> > no-communication server.
> >
>
> ....really i want to know.
>
> I can see how opon entering a zone and then trying
> to find potential groupmembers, that it would be very
> difficult without zonewide or a tell channell.
> ....but is this not the point??
>
That's the idea. This server would have few people on it as it is- and since
none of them would be able to hear you unless you came up to them (through a
potentially dangerous area) and asked, you'd never be able to find anyone.
On top of that, without /tell or /who, you couldn't locate anyone you'd
grouped with previously. You'd basically be reduced to always finding new
pickup groups- which is hard enough as is, but would be nearly impossible if
you had to be in voice range for them AND no one in any of those groups knew
who you were.
> Is the point not that people would need to actually
> go to place's like an inn in a city or some other
> place to meet a large group of people.
>
That would sort of work 'till about level 20- but most dungeons and some of
the outdoor areas in the game have no such safe spots, which means you'd
have to go around the whole place (without invisibility if you're a melee
type) looking for anyone who may or may not be there (chances are, they
wouldn't- no one of the right level goes to the bigger dungeons alone.) Past
level 20, most classes can't solo effectively, which means they'd never
advance.
On top of that, once you did join a group, there'd be no way to coordinate
it (incoming, train!, zone, etc.)
The idea of 'no talking' works with Quake, but EQ has a cooperation
threshold that's way too high. Note that /tell is now in the revised version
of this idea.
Martin H. Christiansen
> > Is the point not that people would need to actually
> > go to place's like an inn in a city or some other
> > place to meet a large group of people.
> >
>
> That would sort of work 'till about level 20- but most dungeons and some of
> the outdoor areas in the game have no such safe spots, which means you'd
> have to go around the whole place (without invisibility if you're a melee
> type) looking for anyone who may or may not be there (chances are, they
> wouldn't- no one of the right level goes to the bigger dungeons alone.) Past
> level 20, most classes can't solo effectively, which means they'd never
> advance.
>
So we agree :)
...you would be forced to make your group at one of the
meeting places and make you way from there to whereever
you wanted to go - at all levels. I don't see a problem
with that :)
It is just the thing that would keep away the kind of
people that burst's the bubble of a roleplayer and it
is fairly realistic within normal fantasy settings.
> On top of that, once you did join a group, there'd be
> no way to coordinate it (incoming, train!, zone, etc.)
>
Why not?
...they would just use say and shout if out of say range,
which should't happen too often, only difference would be
that others within range could also hear it.
> The idea of 'no talking' works with Quake, but EQ has
> a cooperation threshold that's way too high. Note that
> /tell is now in the revised version of this idea.
There will never be a roleplaying-server, so i does not
really matter, but i would't allow /tell if i was making
a rp-server, not in its current form.
--
Martin
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
>
>Not with the "/ooc SoansSo" system. It would tally up a number so that the
>GMs don't have to sift through tons of complaints. Only the complaints of
>those who have a high /ooc number.
>
First, let me say i am sorry not to follow up on the conversation
sooner .. i was out of town and have no newsgroup access until i got
back today.
Back to the converstion ...
Even if you give the right tools, the pure number of cases can still
overwhelm a GM.
Take the following example, assume a server has 1500 player at peak
(probably low figure), assume only 1/3 of the accounts on the server
is active at anyone time. That means about 4500 people on the account.
Assume one percent of the players have problems at any one time
(probably a low figure if the server attracts kewl dudes).
That is 45 people a GM have to deal with. Even with /ooc tally
command, he still have to read through every potential case.
Typically I think Verant has less than one GM per server. This easily
can take up a full time GM since he has to investigate, talk to and
actually ban people. Even if each case takes 15 min, 45 cases is more
than 10 hrs worth of work.
>The solution below is nice, but lacks one thing: A huge PC populated
>world. No massive character interaction from someone new you run into all
>the time. Just the same 10 people over and over. Sure different people
>will most likely pop in from time to time, but most likely there will be
>regulars that will play at the same time everyday. Just like on Quake
>servers (I hate to use that example in this type of game, but it fits
>decently). Users like to game around for a while, but then they eventually
>find their favorite place to be and frequent it.
>
I do not think you can have both. A massive world will have kewl dudes
and generally jerk problems because it attracts all sort of people. At
shown above, even if you only have 1% of the population to be "jerks"
at any given moment (notice that they can turn over and not be the
same people), it is a very big problem to deal with.
>>Ha .. but you did not read the feature list of Vampire storymode.
>>Since it is setting a system allowing customers to be GMs, each GM
>>controls who is in or out of his game. The model is to let the players
>>who want to GM, GM their own games on their own servers.
>>
>>Thus, K3wl dudes cannot get into games anymore if the GM do not want
>>them to.
>
>How does he keep them out? I know that they can kick them out once they're
>discovered... but that doesn't stop them from joining the game with what
>seems to look like a legitamate player, then they do their damage (PK or
>whatever), have their laugh and enjoyment, then get kicked. Then they come
>back again later with a different legit looking character.
>
Good point. For starters, a GM can host private games that only allows
certain established people in. Second of all, since the GM to player
ratio is really high, all the damage can be contained in game. (Like
if a PK tries to kill a player, the GM can stop the action
mid-battle.)
The key difference is that in a environment in which customers do the
GMing, you have very high GM to player ratio (say 1 to 10) while in a
massive environment, you have very low ratio (1 to 5000).
In fact, for private server, a GM can always keep a "good player list"
and one have to establish himself before allowed into the bigger game.
In a massive online enviroment, this cannot be done.
>>The downside of cause is that the number of people on a server will be
>>much smaller since most players don't have servers/bandwith big enough
>>to support thousands of people.
>>
>>However, since you cannot interact with more than 10 people all at
>>once anyway, it is not that big a limitation.
>
>That was one of the biggest parts of a game like EQ or UO that pulled me
>into EQ... the world is huge and populated by thousands of real people
>playing along with you. Massive interaction, new people to meet and
>adventure with. Much better than Diablo which had 4 people and all NPCs.
>I like the fact that players out number NPCs. That was a huge appeal.
>
I dunno about this part. I find it the most fun when there are about
20 people in the zone .. enough to start up groups but not enough to
crowd the zone.
I do enjoy trading with lots of people but they can be done outside of
the game environment.
>Now the game that you're talking about would be fun too, but more as a
>"Here's a quest for you guys to work through" from the DM rather than a
>huge ongoing world that I can play a role in.
>
And the ongoing world has few dynamic quest (on a per player basis).
I guess the bottomline is that I don't believe any automatic rules
(implemented through code or even policies) can curtail human behavior
much in an RPG environment.
The only way is through human GMs and that means much smaller
environments.
Kay-Yut
Adar
Martin H. Christiansen <Haslund@*X*post8.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:83ra4d$nuu$1...@news.inet.tele.dk...
> Adar wrote:
> > > Is the point not that people would need to actually
> > > go to place's like an inn in a city or some other
> > > place to meet a large group of people.
> > >
> >
> > That would sort of work 'till about level 20- but most dungeons and some
of
> > the outdoor areas in the game have no such safe spots, which means you'd
> > have to go around the whole place (without invisibility if you're a
melee
> > type) looking for anyone who may or may not be there (chances are, they
> > wouldn't- no one of the right level goes to the bigger dungeons alone.)
Past
> > level 20, most classes can't solo effectively, which means they'd never
> > advance.
> >
>
> So we agree :)
> ...you would be forced to make your group at one of the
> meeting places and make you way from there to whereever
> you wanted to go - at all levels. I don't see a problem
> with that :)
Not really. For instance, you can't form a group to go to Cazic Thule in
Freeport; you could *try*, but you'd fail.
You also can't do it closer (because the zone line to Cazic is not a safe
area.)
End result? No one goes to Cazic (at least no melees, who bind either three
or five zones away- oh, and how would you ever get binds on such a server
when you can't even tell if a caster is in the zone? Another problem...)
Repeat half a dozen times. Basically, melees would be super-screwed, and no
one would ever get past their 'end of soloing' levels. (Mind you, that
doesn't affect druids, necros, and magicians- but everyone else suffers.)
>
> It is just the thing that would keep away the kind of
> people that burst's the bubble of a roleplayer and it
> is fairly realistic within normal fantasy settings.
>
It'd keep away *everyone*. Even roleplayers sometimes like breaking
character.
> > On top of that, once you did join a group, there'd be
> > no way to coordinate it (incoming, train!, zone, etc.)
> >
>
> Why not?
> ...they would just use say and shout if out of say range,
> which should't happen too often, only difference would be
> that others within range could also hear it.
>
If you allow /shout (even with a restricted range), everyone just talks
about Britney Spears on that all day- and now, you can't shut it off because
it might be needed for train warnings.
If you don't, you have no game.
> > The idea of 'no talking' works with Quake, but EQ has
> > a cooperation threshold that's way too high. Note that
> > /tell is now in the revised version of this idea.
>
> There will never be a roleplaying-server, so i does not
> really matter, but i would't allow /tell if i was making
> a rp-server, not in its current form.
>
Can't be done. Trying to play EQ with /say and a limited /shout as the only
channels would result in A)masses of empty zones (all the dungeons, to start
with), B)endless OOC chat over the one channel that can be used, and C)a
very, very dull and lifeless game (try Vallon Zek at 3 AM PST, with 300
people on- then imagine it with 2/3 or half that number.)
Martin H. Christiansen
>
> Not really. For instance, you can't form a group to go to Cazic Thule in
> Freeport; you could *try*, but you'd fail.
>
Why?
....if you want to go to Cazic Thule or any other place for that
matter, but can't find adventuring partners, then i don't under-
stand why it would be impossible seeing as all others will be
in the same sitiuation. The basic need of grouping, would
force you to go to the inn, talk to friends, share an ale while
trying to get them to go too this place of horror's you hear
about.
....i can't help but think that your stuck in non-rp ways,
when analyzing the impact of the suggested changes.
>
> If you allow /shout (even with a restricted range), everyone just
> talks about Britney Spears on that all day- and now, you can't
> shut it off because it might be needed for train warnings.
>
> If you don't, you have no game.
>
Was kinda hoping that with the changes suggested that
there would't be anybody talking about the football match
or Britney's latest album - i mean why play on an roleplay-
ing server if you are going to be OOC?
> >
> > There will never be a roleplaying-server, so i does not
> > really matter, but i would't allow /tell if i was making
> > a rp-server, not in its current form.
> >
>
> Can't be done. Trying to play EQ with /say and a limited
> /shout as the only channels would result in A)masses of
> empty zones (all the dungeons, to start with), B)endless
> OOC chat over the one channel that can be used, and
> C)a very, very dull and lifeless game (try Vallon Zek at 3
> AM PST, with 300 people on- then imagine it with 2/3 or
> half that number.)
>
Your right, we don't agree :)
...i think if roleplayers tried it they would find it much
better than the normal servers, though with other changes
it might even be great, but as i said a few times now, the
server will never happen so its all speculation.
--
Martin
Adar
> Adar <ad...@spamaway.mindspring.com> wrote in article
> <83rkcu$vli$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >
> > Not really. For instance, you can't form a group to go to Cazic Thule in
> > Freeport; you could *try*, but you'd fail.
> >
>
> Why?
Simple; when the casters would want to go to Cazic, they'd go and bind
there, so you'd never see them in Freeport.
Meanwhile, the nearest safe bind spot for a melee class is in East Freeport.
That's great, except that no one is going to form an expedition from five
zones away. No, not even roleplayers- this is *basic*. You aren't going to
see it.
> ....i can't help but think that your stuck in non-rp ways,
> when analyzing the impact of the suggested changes.
>
Basic rule number 2: there's no such thing as an always RP'd game. The best
roleplaying sessions are at least 50% OOC - they're more fun that way.
However, even in a mass market game full of roleplayers, the 50% OOC is
scattered between several hundred people- which means there won't be any at
all in a month.
> >
> > If you allow /shout (even with a restricted range), everyone just
> > talks about Britney Spears on that all day- and now, you can't
> > shut it off because it might be needed for train warnings.
> >
> > If you don't, you have no game.
> >
>
> Was kinda hoping that with the changes suggested that
> there would't be anybody talking about the football match
> or Britney's latest album - i mean why play on an roleplay-
> ing server if you are going to be OOC?
>
Basic rule number 3: An RP server is a powergamer's dream, because you can
be 100% sure that the usually camped items won't be. Of course, since
everyone else thinks that, too, the server quickly fills with powergamers-
and the d00d quotient there is too high to sustain roleplaying.
(Note that Brell S., a relatively new server, has a reputation as one of the
biggest asshole servers in the game. Why? Because Verant made it 'suggested
roleplaying'.)
> > >
> > > There will never be a roleplaying-server, so i does not
> > > really matter, but i would't allow /tell if i was making
> > > a rp-server, not in its current form.
> > >
> >
> > Can't be done. Trying to play EQ with /say and a limited
> > /shout as the only channels would result in A)masses of
> > empty zones (all the dungeons, to start with), B)endless
> > OOC chat over the one channel that can be used, and
> > C)a very, very dull and lifeless game (try Vallon Zek at 3
> > AM PST, with 300 people on- then imagine it with 2/3 or
> > half that number.)
> >
>
> Your right, we don't agree :)
> ...i think if roleplayers tried it they would find it much
> better than the normal servers, though with other changes
> it might even be great, but as i said a few times now, the
> server will never happen so its all speculation.
>
If roleplayers (or anyone else) tried it, they'd find it incredibly
lifeless. There's a reason there aren't that many roleplayers on the test
server, you know...
But you're right, it'll never happen.