Progression Server Poll Results: What's Next?

Discussion in 'News and Announcements' started by Aristo, Mar 27, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Manifest New Member

    We all know there will be too many people for 1 server, so they'll have to make 2. Why not take my suggestion at the bottom of page 22. 1 TLP for the hardcore's and a classic for the rest of us.
  2. Darth Augur

    I think it's super cute you think a "classic only server" won't be dominated by the hardcore.

    No matter what server they release, the hardcore element will be there in force and ruin it for you.

    In fact if they release two servers the hardcores will be on both servers, being hardcore. Mon-Wed on one, Thurs-Sat on the other. Rest on Sunday and do it all again.
  3. Manifest New Member

    You may be right , but they cant be everywhere all the time.
  4. Mezrah Augur


    It depends on the rule sets of the different servers, if one of the servers is fast paced that results in the next expansion being released as soon as the content is defeated and progression requirements are met, even the hard core players would not have enough time in the day for them to be on both sets of servers. If however; the fast server is 1 month between expansions and the slower 6 months, then yes the hardcore players from the fast server will also be on the slower server, they will want to pay for their boxed accounts somehow and the faster paced server would be the least populated, so they would have less people to sell to...
  5. Darth Augur

    Have you not heard of two boxing? Hardcores will play on both servers at the same time. XPing is not hard.
  6. Mezrah Augur


    Yes I have heard of it. It may not be hard, but it does require some concentration, so unless they are botting, they won't be running boxes on 2 different servers at the same time, unless of course they want to end up losing camps and raid targets on both servers.
  7. Darth Augur

    Why do you need to bot to play EQ on two screens? Why are we talking about camps? We're talking about a single playertype running the endgame on two servers. It already happens in LIVE.
  8. Mezrah Augur


    I talk about camps because i know that from my fippy days many of the hard core paid for their boxed accounts by selling desirable items on 3rd party sites. If they are just hard core but not running boxed groups then yes your point is valid.
  9. The Badger Lord Augur

    It depends on what they do. Who cares if its been almost 2 weeks, as long as they come up with good options.

    If its just 2 weeks for a poll that mimics almost exactly what Aristo posted, then yea, that's pretty lame. It should not be delayed to implement a Fippy clone that differs only in when and how locks occur.

    If it's 2 weeks and they have looked at feedback and add things such as Kunark-Fast Track Option, or adding in some doable class balance, then that's well within a decent time frame.

    Since instancing was ruled out, there should be some quality of life changes to this server. They have said they want to make it a success, because then they can do some cool things. Hence, improvements should be made over Fippy, not merely just a different lock schedule. There were problems there that can be addressed to improve the experience.

    Those are my concerns, and at the very least, a Kunark release is incredibly doable and solves many problems on early progression. Other people have other issues that could be addressed.
    Soltara likes this.
  10. Numiko Augur

  11. Rhoulicas Augur

    You are absolutely right on this. In fact, it would be even worse on the locked server. Everyone would have to pay cash to get your epic......UNLESS THEY INTRODUCED INSTANCING.

    Locked progression server with instancing would be the greatest %^&hat free zone introduced in EQ for years.
  12. The Flash Lorekeeper

    Some one never heard about EQ2 release. Guilds on every server made apps 'camp' mobs because every single mob was a contestable-openzone raid. So ya, even if they sleep...they are still coming to kill your mob, lol.
  13. Vaclav Augur

    You know that picture with an indian gentleman crying a single tear? This one:

    That's me everytime instancing gets brought back up - the idea is dead for this TLP, and I think they got the message loud and clear if TLP 4.0 ever happens.

    Can we let it go about how awesome it would be? It just hurts now.
    jagarr likes this.
  14. NireVZ Elder

    Pvp progression servver would be nice-p
  15. Darth Augur

    Pass. And, I'm not a hardcore 1% player. But, they'd play there, and still get all the loot.
  16. Barton Augur

    I wish they would have an open vote on pvp, that would show the percentages so it would show how few people want pvp. It is not balanced, It is not good and it never has been
  17. Mhad Lorekeeper

    Maximum Nostalgia: 6 month unlocks until Gates of Discord; 3 months afterward. This ruleset would take six and a half years to reach where live servers are now.
    Kunark: 6 months
    Velious: 6 months
    Luclin: 6 months
    Planes of Power: 6 months
    Legacy of Ykesha: 2 weeks after PoP
    LDoN: 4 weeks after PoP
    Gates: 6 months (after PoP)
    Omens and later: 3 months

    I'm so there on this one. It would bring back a few of my family members as well.
    I'm also down for not voting as there was always a hype around voting when I was active on Fippy.
    Name wise, kind of fond of Phara`Dar, not sure why...
  18. Fendy Augur

    Maximum Nostalgia for me would include a customer service based guide program and a live GM actually in game during prime time hours. But I know those days are gone forever.
  19. Rollen Journeyman

    I am all for whatever will make a successful server. I want EQ to thrive. Since I am one of the main Player Studio contributors for EverQuest I have a larger stake than most players, but if the time locks are set too long then people are going to quit the server and it will die. If it dies early then my feeling is there will never be another progression server.

    I have played on both rounds of progression servers and to me it seemed like the server population was healthier after 18 months on The Combine (the no restriction progression server) than it was on Fippy. Either way voting to progress the server is not good. The uncertainty of scheduling and the use of the NO vote as a weapon causes animosity between players. Even if a large majority of people say they want voting it would still be a bad thing.
    Pinecone and Fallfyres like this.
  20. Coldsore.Fippy Augur

    I agree that voting wasn't good for Fippy. With the way things are looking for CS for this next server, though, I have to play devil's advocate and wonder what recourse anybody on the server will have if we see guilds behaving like they did on Fippy.

    I like the idea of voting as a play nice enforcement, with the idea that if a small portion of the server can block the rest of the server out of content in era, the rest of the server can prevent the advancement of that smaller portion, at least temporarily.

    Before I vote to get rid of my only tool to fight back against a playstyle I see as detrimental to the server, I'd like to hear how the hardcore will be changing their behavior this time around, so "malicious voting" isn't necessary.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page