1 IP Server

Discussion in 'Time Locked Progression Servers' started by Dontez, Mar 20, 2019.

  1. code-zero Augur

    I don't believe that some people are comprehending the fact that Krono is functioning exactly as it was intended to function.

    I am personally of the opinion that there would be no new TLP servers if it weren't for Krono. I say that because the times that I've created characters and played on Ragefire there was a point when I purchased Krono in order to buy plat to use for tradeskills and other things
  2. Kahna Augur


    While I think 1IP server is stupid and unenforceable the fact that a small percentage of the population won't be able to play there is not the reason it shouldn't be done. There really are plenty of other TLPs to play on at this point.
  3. Nessirfiti Augur

    Yeah! only a small percentage of people are disabled, and I want a 30 step stairway in front of my store, There's no reason to not do that, just to cater to them, there are plenty of other stores they can go to.

    I object to this, the same reason I object to no-boxing servers. splitting your playerbase is bad, telling a chunk of your playerbase that they're not allowed on a certain server is worse.
  4. Machentoo Augur


    There are also plenty of other reasons it shouldn't be done, including complete lack of ability to enforce the goal.
  5. Kahna Augur

    You mean, I did say it was unenforceable. Niche server where everyone can't or won't want to play isn't a bad idea. This is a bad idea, but niche isn't.
  6. Candystore Augur

    The catalyst for the aggressive box armies on TLP is the combination of tradeable loot in classic and krono.

    Krono contributes grealy to the problem, but it's not the only problem. You have krono on live servers, but you don't have any dedicated krono farmers. Almost none of the good loot is tradeable on live, so you don't get dedicated farmers, it's not worth it, but on TLP it is, literally everything is tradeable, the whole economy on TLP revolves around Krono.
    code-zero likes this.
  7. Candystore Augur

    The argument that there shouldn't be a 1IP server because your significant other can't play on it is a very silly argument.

    You're argueing you need to be able to play on every single server, and that every single server needs to cater to your family setting, otherwise it shouldn't exist. It is a ridiculous argument.

    There was a mac server where PC users couldn't play on either. There is a European server where most people can't play on due to high ping. etc
  8. Machentoo Augur


    There is an argument to be made here, and it isn't silly. If we all pay the same sub, we should all be able to play on the same servers. My $14.99 / month or whatever it is now shouldn't give me access to less servers than someone who isn't married to an EQ player. We pay for a product that includes access to every single Everquest server.

    Marital status is a protected class in almost every state. Daybreak would be opening themselves up to a world of hurt if they launched servers that discriminated against married couples. Let's not make married people 22/23rds of a single person in Norrath.

    Your same argument could be applied to other protected classes. (Daybreak, just to be clear, what follows is a facetious argument and I am not actually advocating for these things:) Why should women need to be able to play on every single server? They have 22 others to choose from, a men-only server should be just fine. Why should black people be able to play on every single server? They have plenty of others that cater to them, arguing that a white-only server shouldn't exist is a very silly argument!
  9. Kahna Augur


    Yeah, because no company has ever implemented a "one per household" rule. Which is basically what it would be. The married people can still play the game, just not at the same time. Hardly discrimination based on marital status.
    Yinla likes this.
  10. Machentoo Augur


    If they wanted to put a "limit one account per household" on their Eula, you might have a point here. Otherwise, nope.
  11. Machentoo Augur


    Also I believe they would be legally required to allow a household to share an account if they did this, which currently the eula does not allow.
  12. Kahna Augur


    Different servers can have different rules, but WTF are we even arguing about this. It's not discrimination, but it is still a stupid idea because it would never work.
  13. Machentoo Augur


    Also, again, this argument does not work with other protected classes. "Gay people can still play the game, but just not at the same time as straight people." No, I don't think so.
  14. Nykara2 Elder

    Its far more common than you think it is.

    We also have a friend who comes over every friday who plays with us. I'm constantly finding couples in groups. I've yet to have been in a guild in any game that didn't have several couples who both played or a parent and teenager etc. Thats even before house sharing friends, lan nights and what not.
    code-zero likes this.
  15. Kahna Augur


    You would survive without access to every server, it's a weak argument against not doing it. Especially when there are so many stronger arguments. Like the fact that it is completely unenforceable. You and your spouse would easily be able to play together, one of you would just have to tether to a phone, or use a VPN.
  16. Gremin Augur

    No thanks, my family has 4 players in one house. I am slowly building up to the kuk clan.
  17. Goozmania New Member

    Then don't play on the 1 IP server?
  18. Nykara2 Elder

    Do you know how much mobile data costs in Australia?

    A fortune. You'd rack up like $30 per day here easy, maybe more. Personally I don't really care who gets what servers except if there was a server that did not allow boxers I would want to be on it. Not because double or tripple boxers bother me but because 6+ bot groups camping the good stuff 24/7 does.

    Why should I have to miss out on that? Why should anyone who wants it miss out??

    The weak argument is you saying you should get to play how you want to play while others miss out on getting the same.

    The weak argument is also telling us how to get around it when that's exactly what boxers would do. So nothing would be solved in that reguard anyhow.
  19. Kahna Augur


    If that gay person is sharing an IP with the straight person, on this server that will never exist, they wouldn't be able to play together, but it has nothing to do with their protected status and everything to do with the fact that they share an IP. Siblings sharing an IP also wouldn't be allowed to play together, but I am pretty sure siblinghood isn't a protected class. The IP restriction has nothing to do with limiting spouses, just people sharing an IP.

    Good news for spouses, roommates, siblings, friends, cousins, or whoever may share and IP with someone else who wants to play the game on this server that will never exist, not sharing an IP is pretty darn easy.

    As for the EULA, they can be changed.