Rules on Camps that have lists

[Shinko]

if a player on the list is not in zone at anytime


does he keep his place?

camps like AC/Stormfeather ect ect ect

[Topgunben]

if a player on the list is not in zone at anytime


does he keep his place?

camps like AC/Stormfeather ect ect ect

Be there or be square!

[zodium]

I think lists are on a voluntary basis, and the only server rule is the camp holder can choose who to hand off the camp to next. :o

[Shinko]

sigh make it fte <3

[zodium]

Play nice, be kind, don't get too immersed, love the game, and it'll all be okay. There'll be another turtle window. There'll be another Stormfeather window. There'll be another dragon. I don't need this Stormfeather, this turtle or this dragon. And if I don't get the next one? There'll be another. It's Velious forever--we can all take it easy.

I haven't had many problems in my time on P99, but when I have, it was because I forgot one of those things! :o

[Baler]

Play nice
This ^
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132299

sigh make it fte <3
FTE is toxic as hell, probably one of the reasons they finally nailed sea furies. Sick of all the BS & petitions FTE people cause.
I bet you, Shinko, have petitioned someone over a mob/camp/spawn. You know what I have to say about that type of behavior?! Consider Red. :)

[solleks]

Play nice, be kind, don't get too immersed, love the game, and it'll all be okay. There'll be another turtle window. There'll be another Stormfeather window. There'll be another dragon. I don't need this Stormfeather, this turtle or this dragon. And if I don't get the next one? There'll be another. It's Velious forever--we can all take it easy.

I haven't had many problems in my time on P99, but when I have, it was because I forgot one of those things! :o

that's deep bro, but much wise

[Shinko]

This ^
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132299


FTE is toxic as hell, probably one of the reasons they finally nailed sea furies. Sick of all the BS & petitions FTE people cause.
I bet you, Shinko, have petitioned someone over a mob/camp/spawn. You know what I have to say about that type of behavior?! Consider Red. :)


na i just drop trains on them, and take a week off out of rage


now how long do u let a afk look at the MOb before you take it?

[Sonderbeast]

na i just drop trains on them, and take a week off out of rage


now how long do u let a afk look at the MOb before you take it?

If no mobs up and Person is afk, I send a tell and wait a minute or two for a response.

If afk, mob is up but other mobs next to it are down, wait until they repop (since the slain mobs Indicate presence) once they repop I send a tell and wait a min or two for a response.

Always keep logs when you're in that situation and when writing tells keep in mind you may have to provide it as proof of playing nice later.

[azeth]

...and the only server rule is the camp holder can choose who to hand off the camp to next. :o

[Busher]

Not sure about SF but every time I've been at AC in OOT over the last 4 years it's been as follows:
You do not have to be in zone
You can be on an alt (list holder would take one name as an alt)
When it was your turn, you had 6 min to get there or forfeit
I've probably only killed him 25-30 times over that 4 years though. As others have stated, lists are player made and the rules player defined.

[elwing]

I might be wrong, but I think lists are a player thing, there's no rules (and thus no obligation) on list...

[aaezil]

Lists are player made agreements which are considered part of the rules and you can get punished if you agree to one and break it

[Foxplay]

Id rather wait on a list all day than screen watch AC island and play rent-a-cop on such trivial rules that everybody understands

[elwing]

Lists are player made agreements which are considered part of the rules and you can get punished if you agree to one and break it

Definitely if you agreed you have to respect it... But if you did create the list, once it's your turn on the list you pretty much can do all you want... You didn't agreed with others who are on the list, nor does the list comes with a set of rules that, for example, prevent to put some friend on the head of the list... Beside the person on the head I am fairly sure nothing is guaranteed...

[Swish2]

"I'll be on my alt, hold my place" :)

[Cecily]

Lists are player made agreements which are considered part of the rules and you can get punished if you agree to one and break it

Agreeing to player made agreements isn't optional.

[Swish2]

ref: Holgresh Elder Beads camp...queue patiently lol

[Busher]

Haha. I wish someone had a screenshot of the twitch feed some guy had up right after Velious came out. Was of the elder cave, had 100+ names scrolling across the top, waiting for the camp.

[azeth]

Lists are player made agreements which are considered part of the rules and you can get punished if you agree to one and break it

Completely false, beginning to end false with 0 truth.

Player made lists are not a thing. The only rule is as follows -

If its your camp, it is your camp until you die, leave or give the camp to someone else. There is no rule about who that person has to be. If you told me an hour ago I could have it, then you give to someone else - I'm out of luck.

If you get yourself wrapped into camps like AC, or the old Chardok where its reliant on lists... well beware.

[maskedmelon]

there is no list

[LulzSect©]

This wouldn’t happen on Rise of Zek!

[aaezil]

Have you even read the rules

There is no lists, only Zuul...

[Boyblunder]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1652719&postcount=9

Pretty clear-cut, and these exact rules have been around in one form or another for quite some time. I really need to compile a "Project 1999: Errata and other extraneous information" post to put all this stuff. For now, this will have to do:

Camp holder has the right to pass the camp to whoever he would like. However, and this is very important, two things must happen in order for this to be a legitimate hand-off:

1) The player being handed the camp must be present around the time the first placeholder spawns after the last holder of the camp has gotten his or her item in hand. The person handing off the camp must stay at the spawn until the next person in line arrives, if that person is on their way to take the camp. There is a little leeway here, and we refuse to set an exact timer on how long the placeholder can be up before the camp is forfeited, but in general it should never be for more than a couple minutes or so. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the person coming in to take the camp in these situations as CSR staff, so waiting a bit longer will never hurt. W

2) The person holding the camp cannot mislead you, or change his mind after telling you who is next. Something that no one ever does (and I will never understand why) is to specifically address the camp holder, asking who is next or if you can be next. The camp holder does need to reveal to you who the next intended camp holder is - if he doesn't, you may ask to be next and your claim will be valid unless he reveals the next person immediately. This person cannot change after the camp holder has "revealed" the next person to take the camp to you. It is an automatic forfeit if this occurs. If you ask to be the next camp holder and are told yes, the camp holder may not later retract or change this agreement and attempt to hand the camp off to someone else - it's yours once he has gotten his item or moved on from the camp.

Something else important to note about handing off camps - in particular, popular ones, but this applies to any camp that becomes contested. If you are solo camping, once you attain the item you were waiting for (an AC ring, for example) you are done camping that mob. The person coming to take the camp had better be prepared at this point in order to come eliminate the very next placeholder spawn in order to "stake his claim" on the mob. You cannot work wacky corpse lines on lore items in order to grab multiple items in the same "camp session" if there are others waiting to take the camp. Please be aware that we reserve the right to apply this same ruling to any camp if we deem it necessary, including camps with multiple players.

[fastboy21]

whoever killed the last ph "owns" the camp until the mob has spawned and been up for a certain amount of time (like, in some cases, 1-2 minutes).

i don't think you are required to be online or in the zone. if you come to a camp and notice that the PHs are dead then you'd better realize that someone else is camping it (and not be a dick about it).

and yes, lists are bull crap. they mean nothing and are easily ignored, abused, changed. the only way to get to the front of the line is for the person holding the camp to be honest or the person who is trying to hold the camp to fail (either die or not be there a couple minutes after the ph pops).

this is why camps with lists are dubious and I don't generally trust them. investing hours/days hoping to get to the top of the list is just that, hopeful. in reality, it might never happen no matter how long you sit there. this is perfectly within the rules. as much as I dislike it, this appears to be the correct classic method of holding a camp and handing it off.

[aaezil]

Love how everyone here has a different idea/interpretation of what the rules for camping mobs on this server are. Probably because they arent listed clearly and concisely in one place and are instead strewn across years of different gm ruling/precedents/forum posts. Hopefully one day will be addressed. Raid rules in dire need of such bookkeeping as well.

[Jan Jensen]

I ain't keeping a "list" for random people that may or may not even be online. If you're a friend, sure; otherwise, you would do well to be present if you think you're entitled to it.

[coki]

now how long do u let a afk look at the MOb before you take it?

there is a gm post somewhere saying you have to call a Camp check then wait 15 minutes before taking a mob that is up/camped

[icedwards]

there is a gm post somewhere saying you have to call a Camp check then wait 15 minutes before taking a mob that is up/camped

https://i.imgur.com/rQNSwpt.gif

[fastboy21]

Love how everyone here has a different idea/interpretation of what the rules for camping mobs on this server are. Probably because they arent listed clearly and concisely in one place and are instead strewn across years of different gm ruling/precedents/forum posts. Hopefully one day will be addressed. Raid rules in dire need of such bookkeeping as well.

You must not know where to look. There are plenty of very well posted rules about raids and camping. Try forum search.

You are also right that whatever the GM who shows up says is going to be, is how it is going to be. That's life. Sometimes both parties honestly think they are in the right...and one (or sometimes both) of them are going to be told otherwise by the GM, if one shows up.

To be honest, if someone is new to the server, the only real rule you should concern yourself with is not to be a dick. This will get you through 98% of the content as you level. When you do bump up against some kind of a real rules question (you decide to camp the AC, etc.) you can get a pretty straight forward and fast answer either in game (guilds are good for asking questions) or here on the forums.

The raid game, btw, is VERY spelled out...almost to the point of absurdity. Part of the reason there are so many guild raid suspensions is because it is actually somewhat easy to step on each other's toes if you don't very deliberately adhere to them.

[Slave35]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1652719&postcount=9

Pretty clear-cut, and these exact rules have been around in one form or another for quite some time. I really need to compile a "Project 1999: Errata and other extraneous information" post to put all this stuff. For now, this will have to do:

Camp holder has the right to pass the camp to whoever he would like. However, and this is very important, two things must happen in order for this to be a legitimate hand-off:

1) The player being handed the camp must be present around the time the first placeholder spawns after the last holder of the camp has gotten his or her item in hand. The person handing off the camp must stay at the spawn until the next person in line arrives, if that person is on their way to take the camp. There is a little leeway here, and we refuse to set an exact timer on how long the placeholder can be up before the camp is forfeited, but in general it should never be for more than a couple minutes or so. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the person coming in to take the camp in these situations as CSR staff, so waiting a bit longer will never hurt. W

2) The person holding the camp cannot mislead you, or change his mind after telling you who is next. Something that no one ever does (and I will never understand why) is to specifically address the camp holder, asking who is next or if you can be next. The camp holder does need to reveal to you who the next intended camp holder is - if he doesn't, you may ask to be next and your claim will be valid unless he reveals the next person immediately. This person cannot change after the camp holder has "revealed" the next person to take the camp to you. It is an automatic forfeit if this occurs. If you ask to be the next camp holder and are told yes, the camp holder may not later retract or change this agreement and attempt to hand the camp off to someone else - it's yours once he has gotten his item or moved on from the camp.

Something else important to note about handing off camps - in particular, popular ones, but this applies to any camp that becomes contested. If you are solo camping, once you attain the item you were waiting for (an AC ring, for example) you are done camping that mob. The person coming to take the camp had better be prepared at this point in order to come eliminate the very next placeholder spawn in order to "stake his claim" on the mob. You cannot work wacky corpse lines on lore items in order to grab multiple items in the same "camp session" if there are others waiting to take the camp. Please be aware that we reserve the right to apply this same ruling to any camp if we deem it necessary, including camps with multiple players.

ITT: everyone being willfully ignorant except this guy

[katrik]

I’ve camped AC many times. The fact of that matter is that there is a group of people that follow this player-created list system, and players who do not and follow traditional camp rules. What really needs to happen is for mods to create a specific rule set for this camp. Until that happens, there will continue to be widespread confusion and abuse.

[fastboy21]

I’ve camped AC many times. The fact of that matter is that there is a group of people that follow this player-created list system, and players who do not and follow traditional camp rules. What really needs to happen is for mods to create a specific rule set for this camp. Until that happens, there will continue to be widespread confusion and abuse.

I haven't camped the AC in a while, but there were a few natural factors that help keep the camp honest:

1. its a fast a spawn time. very fast actually. its easy to let a ph pop in the camp if you are screwing around, semi-afk, or trying to hand the camp off.

2. unless you are bound there it isn't easy to get to right away, given #1 above that means you have to be ready to go when someone tries to hand it off to you. a legit run to the camp could take 30 minutes from most of norrath...which is multiple PHs.

3. the named ALWAYS drops the ring...which means the person holding the camp is done and someone else is going to get it now. given #1 and #2 above this means the next person has to be ready to take the hand off. in camps where the named doesn't always drop the loot it is impossible to know if the guy just got the item he was camping...which means he could lie and continue to hold the camp while his friend is en route.

The camp is abused by MQ farmers...but I've never had any issue camping there and checking back every few hours waiting to get the camp. Usually it takes a while but its not overly corrupted. Other camps that don't have the above situation make it EXTREMELY easy for someone to abuse a list.

[Menden]

Don't be a douche, it's pretty simple.

[Ella`Ella]

None of this will be an issue on the highly anticipated green server.

[Tethler]

I haven't camped the AC in a while, but there were a few natural factors that help keep the camp honest:

1. its a fast a spawn time. very fast actually. its easy to let a ph pop in the camp if you are screwing around, semi-afk, or trying to hand the camp off.

2. unless you are bound there it isn't easy to get to right away, given #1 above that means you have to be ready to go when someone tries to hand it off to you. a legit run to the camp could take 30 minutes from most of norrath...which is multiple PHs.

3. the named ALWAYS drops the ring...which means the person holding the camp is done and someone else is going to get it now. given #1 and #2 above this means the next person has to be ready to take the hand off. in camps where the named doesn't always drop the loot it is impossible to know if the guy just got the item he was camping...which means he could lie and continue to hold the camp while his friend is en route.

The camp is abused by MQ farmers...but I've never had any issue camping there and checking back every few hours waiting to get the camp. Usually it takes a while but its not overly corrupted. Other camps that don't have the above situation make it EXTREMELY easy for someone to abuse a list.

Yeah, AC in particular is tough due to location. If I want to camp it and get on the list I either, 1) stay in zone and do something else, kill seafuries for example or 2) camp the character who will be killing the mobs at the camp and log an alt till my turn comes up.

I only do (2) if the person at the camp doesn't seem sketchy. If I see 4 of the guys corpses littered around the island I just assume he's corpsing rings and I wait in zone.

When I hand off the camp I obviously inform the new person of the list, but I also tell every person on the list who I am handing off to as well as the people who are ahead of them. I do this specifically for AC camp and no others because people are occasionally douches and will try to pass off to friends or guildies. At least they can be called out on it if the current list members are aware of who is ahead of them.

[Teppler]

The rules are out there but so many people follow their own version of them.

My recent favorite was by someone who said they were a former guide tell me if you don’t answer a cc you don’t have camp. I’ve see this and other similar examples from plenty of level 60s in high end camps.

[aaezil]

Don't be a douche, it's pretty simple.

Don’t be a douche is far from the only rule here and more confusion/petitions/suspensions will spread by just saying that instead of providing more clear/specific/easy to find rules.

You shouldnt have to dig in a forum for 20 minuts reading through how ac or sf or tranix or lucan camps work - you should be able to know how they work by reading one pinned rules post. This is curently not the case.

[katrik]

Don’t be a douche is far from the only rule here and more confusion/petitions/suspensions will spread by just saying that instead of providing more clear/specific/easy to find rules.

You shouldnt have to dig in a forum for 20 minuts reading through how ac or sf or tranix or lucan camps work - you should be able to know how they work by reading one pinned rules post. This is curently not the case.

This. There needs to be a change. It would eliminate so much headache for the mods here.

[fastboy21]

This. There needs to be a change. It would eliminate so much headache for the mods here.

Its not a new discussion, but my opinion on it has always been:

If you make fixed "code-law" like rules then folks who are jerks will (still) find a way to make loop holes to get around the rules, only now the GMs will have their hands tied by the rules.

We're better off now with GMs able to look at the general rules and apply them to the specific instance that they are mediating.

I do agree that the current system is a bit scatter-shot spread over several threads and posts by devs/GMs for the last seven years. Re-organizing and consolidating (not changing) the posting of the rules would prob be a help to new players...but its a free emu, I'm not going to tell someone to work on this for my free entertainment.

I'd also agree that some camps (the ones that are the most popular that a majority of players at some time in their EQ play will encounter. things like AC, stormfeather, some epic bits, key bits, etc.) could also do with single consolidated post of existing information (not new information)...but again, its a free emu, not a paid game...I'm entitled to nothing.

Personally, I'm very suspicious of players that clamor for specific rules. From a gaming perspective, I cannot think of a single game that I've ever played that the "rules lawyer" has made better. They've existed in every game I've ever played (from pen and paper rpgs to board games to mmos...and from time to time I have regrettably taken that role too). In most games it becomes toxic.

[Teppler]

Its not a new discussion, but my opinion on it has always been:

If you make fixed "code-law" like rules then folks who are jerks will (still) find a way to make loop holes to get around the rules, only now the GMs will have their hands tied by the rules.

We're better off now with GMs able to look at the general rules and apply them to the specific instance that they are mediating.

I do agree that the current system is a bit scatter-shot spread over several threads and posts by devs/GMs for the last seven years. Re-organizing and consolidating (not changing) the posting of the rules would prob be a help to new players...but its a free emu, I'm not going to tell someone to work on this for my free entertainment.

I'd also agree that some camps (the ones that are the most popular that a majority of players at some time in their EQ play will encounter. things like AC, stormfeather, some epic bits, key bits, etc.) could also do with single consolidated post of existing information (not new information)...but again, its a free emu, not a paid game...I'm entitled to nothing.

Personally, I'm very suspicious of players that clamor for specific rules. From a gaming perspective, I cannot think of a single game that I've ever played that the "rules lawyer" has made better. They've existed in every game I've ever played (from pen and paper rpgs to board games to mmos...and from time to time I have regrettably taken that role too). In most games it becomes toxic.

I would take the completely opposite perspective. I'm very suspicious of people that don't want the rules clarified. It tells me you have some intention to bend camp rules to your will. Any camp situation is made better by having clearer rules. If players want to come to their own agreements, they can still do that.

[Foxplay]

Don't be a douche, it's pretty simple.

Legendary SmackDown

[Slave35]

So Andakos just came in and ruled against me being next in the AC list, even though I was told I was next (and waited 6 hours under that assumption). It turns out, the camp owner just invited someone to his group, and now the entire group can get the AC ring first before me. Apparently they can just keep inviting new people and giving them the ring instead, and somehow that doesn't go against what Derubael says here:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1652719&postcount=9

2) The person holding the camp cannot mislead you, or change his mind after telling you who is next. Something that no one ever does (and I will never understand why) is to specifically address the camp holder, asking who is next or if you can be next. The camp holder does need to reveal to you who the next intended camp holder is - if he doesn't, you may ask to be next and your claim will be valid unless he reveals the next person immediately. This person cannot change after the camp holder has "revealed" the next person to take the camp to you. It is an automatic forfeit if this occurs. If you ask to be the next camp holder and are told yes, the camp holder may not later retract or change this agreement and attempt to hand the camp off to someone else - it's yours once he has gotten his item or moved on from the camp.

Seems to me that if anything should be covered by the Play Nice policy, it's that. And it seems to me that ruling is 100% in error. But there you go, now you have a your-mom's-vagina-sized loophole to drive your greed through.

[Dartagnan]

What about camps relating to XP? What are the rules here?

For example, the GY group in MM. Can they lay claim to the pit plus jail, tower, etc? Or can another group come in and take over other areas?

I've seen squabbles over the raider room in Highkeep goblin area. What's to stop someone from laying claim to the 3 spawns in that room?

I can't believe people can lay claim to the AC. I was always under the impression that mobs that randomly spawn like Pyzjn, Quillmane, AC were free game for people in the area and that someone couldn't lock the spawn down.

I agree, server rules aren't clearly laid out and it makes it difficult to understand.

[fastboy21]

So Andakos just came in and ruled against me being next in the AC list, even though I was told I was next (and waited 6 hours under that assumption). It turns out, the camp owner just invited someone to his group, and now the entire group can get the AC ring first before me. Apparently they can just keep inviting new people and giving them the ring instead, and somehow that doesn't go against what Derubael says here:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1652719&postcount=9

2) The person holding the camp cannot mislead you, or change his mind after telling you who is next. Something that no one ever does (and I will never understand why) is to specifically address the camp holder, asking who is next or if you can be next. The camp holder does need to reveal to you who the next intended camp holder is - if he doesn't, you may ask to be next and your claim will be valid unless he reveals the next person immediately. This person cannot change after the camp holder has "revealed" the next person to take the camp to you. It is an automatic forfeit if this occurs. If you ask to be the next camp holder and are told yes, the camp holder may not later retract or change this agreement and attempt to hand the camp off to someone else - it's yours once he has gotten his item or moved on from the camp.

Seems to me that if anything should be covered by the Play Nice policy, it's that. And it seems to me that ruling is 100% in error. But there you go, now you have a your-mom's-vagina-sized loophole to drive your greed through.

Details matter. As you presented the facts, my understanding is that you should have gotten the camp after he explicitly told you that 1) there was a list and 2) that you were next on it.

Even so, the list rules have always been essentially that the person holding the camp can pass it to whomever he wants.

If player A is camping AC and player B shows up here is what should happen:

Player B asks Player A, "Are you camping AC? Is there a list?"
Player A tells Player B, "Yes, I am camping AC. There is a list: Me, JimmyJoe, JackyPutz, DumpyNitwitz, then you if you want to be on list."
JimmyJoe, JackPutz, and DumpyNitwitz might not be real players. They might not be online. They might not be in the zone. They might be alts that Player A has camped out at the camp. (This is cheating, but how would Player B every actually know? -- he won't)
When JimmyJoe gets the camp when Player A is done, my understanding is that JimmyJoe has no obligation to honor the list Player A originally told Player B.
JimmyJoe can now start a whole new list if he wants to...pushing Player B back to the end of the list. FUNCTIONALLY, it is possible that Player B (no matter how long he sits there) legit never gets to the front of the line.


I don't like the system. It is very unfair and easily cheated. Every time it has seriously been discussed it seems to come down to that this is how it was enforced in classic EQ. The guiding principal was simply that whoever has the camp can pass it to whomever he wants without regarding to anybody who has been waiting (and might even have been told) that they were on a list.

TLDR: Lists are bull. If you are on a list you only get to the top if the people holding the camp aren't jerks.

AC usually works out because of the nature of the camp (the named always drops the ring, the spot is hard to get to before the next PH has been up for a couple minutes)...but if someone WANTS to be a jerk you are out of luck.

[Lore and Magic]

Should just be DPS races. Worked on live, would work here.

[aaezil]

^ Yeah, No.

[aaezil]

5 pages in and we havent arrived at any more clarry or change to pinned posts. More petitions and forum digging for new players and old players looking for info thats buried incoming

[fastboy21]

Should just be DPS races. Worked on live, would work here.

I've played on live with DPS racing...I honestly didn't mind the system. It felt like an even playing field to me. The rules were so simple too...you might get pissed when someone swoops in and KSs you, but at least you understood 100% what the rules were.

The big issue I have on p99 is that the built-in check to people being a dick on live was that the community was important. If you got labeled a ninja looter, KSer, trainer, etc. you were seriously jeopardizing your self on the server. One of the unintended consequences of the long-run static server is that this check has lost its bite. If you are a jerk there is no price to pay from the community.

I don't know what the fix is for that (other than starting over fresh on a green server --- which would eventually develop the same situation). I wouldn't be opposed to GMs releasing all character names on a player account if the player did something egregious on the pseudo-anonymous alt. People might think a little more about ruining their reputation.

[NegaStoat]

So Andakos just came in and ruled against me being next in the AC list, even though I was told I was next (and waited 6 hours under that assumption).

If it really went down like this, link your screenshots and video to RnF and raise some hell with name and shame. The player, the party members, the GM, all of it.

[Slave35]

Details matter. As you presented the facts, my understanding is that you should have gotten the camp after he explicitly told you that 1) there was a list and 2) that you were next on it.

Even so, the list rules have always been essentially that the person holding the camp can pass it to whomever he wants.

If player A is camping AC and player B shows up here is what should happen:

Player B asks Player A, "Are you camping AC? Is there a list?"
Player A tells Player B, "Yes, I am camping AC. There is a list: Me, JimmyJoe, JackyPutz, DumpyNitwitz, then you if you want to be on list."
JimmyJoe, JackPutz, and DumpyNitwitz might not be real players. They might not be online. They might not be in the zone. They might be alts that Player A has camped out at the camp. (This is cheating, but how would Player B every actually know? -- he won't)
When JimmyJoe gets the camp when Player A is done, my understanding is that JimmyJoe has no obligation to honor the list Player A originally told Player B.
JimmyJoe can now start a whole new list if he wants to...pushing Player B back to the end of the list. FUNCTIONALLY, it is possible that Player B (no matter how long he sits there) legit never gets to the front of the line.


I don't like the system. It is very unfair and easily cheated. Every time it has seriously been discussed it seems to come down to that this is how it was enforced in classic EQ. The guiding principal was simply that whoever has the camp can pass it to whomever he wants without regarding to anybody who has been waiting (and might even have been told) that they were on a list.

TLDR: Lists are bull. If you are on a list you only get to the top if the people holding the camp aren't jerks.

AC usually works out because of the nature of the camp (the named always drops the ring, the spot is hard to get to before the next PH has been up for a couple minutes)...but if someone WANTS to be a jerk you are out of luck.

Before you post again, read this:

2) The person holding the camp cannot mislead you, or change his mind after telling you who is next. Something that no one ever does (and I will never understand why) is to specifically address the camp holder, asking who is next or if you can be next. The camp holder does need to reveal to you who the next intended camp holder is - if he doesn't, you may ask to be next and your claim will be valid unless he reveals the next person immediately. This person cannot change after the camp holder has "revealed" the next person to take the camp to you. It is an automatic forfeit if this occurs. If you ask to be the next camp holder and are told yes, the camp holder may not later retract or change this agreement and attempt to hand the camp off to someone else - it's yours once he has gotten his item or moved on from the camp.

-As per GM Derubael here https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1652719&postcount=9

I have bolded the most pertinent passage here for you.

[Slave35]

If it really went down like this, link your screenshots and video to RnF and raise some hell with name and shame. The player, the party members, the GM, all of it.

Pretty sure that's heavily frowned on so I've just posted the actual facts of the incident here, the most important thing being this guide's ruling and how it may lead to camping in bad faith, directly counter to the Play Nice Policy.

[fastboy21]

Before you post again, read this:

2) The person holding the camp cannot mislead you, or change his mind after telling you who is next. Something that no one ever does (and I will never understand why) is to specifically address the camp holder, asking who is next or if you can be next. The camp holder does need to reveal to you who the next intended camp holder is - if he doesn't, you may ask to be next and your claim will be valid unless he reveals the next person immediately. This person cannot change after the camp holder has "revealed" the next person to take the camp to you. It is an automatic forfeit if this occurs. If you ask to be the next camp holder and are told yes, the camp holder may not later retract or change this agreement and attempt to hand the camp off to someone else - it's yours once he has gotten his item or moved on from the camp.

-As per GM Derubael here https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1652719&postcount=9

I have bolded the most pertinent passage here for you.

Nothing in your quote contradicts anything that I wrote. The only exception is that the person holding the camp is not allowed to mislead (virtually impossible to enforce).

Tell me where you see the contradiction so I can clarify where you misunderstood me.

[branamil]

Trying to recruit some friends to play and linked them this thread.

[Slave35]

Nothing in your quote contradicts anything that I wrote. The only exception is that the person holding the camp is not allowed to mislead (virtually impossible to enforce).

Tell me where you see the contradiction so I can clarify where you misunderstood me.

not sure if willfully ignorant or actually insane.

>_>

[fastboy21]

not sure if willfully ignorant or actually insane.

>_>

This isn't the RnF forum...if you want to be that way, I'm not interested.

My question was legit and not meant to stir trouble. Nothing in your quote (with the bolding) contradicts anything that I wrote although you seem to think it does. My question was to tell me where you see it.

If you read my post I also said that if the facts as you presented them are true (which is not a foregone conclusion for me, especially since your little insane comment) then you should have gotten the camp according to the rules.

That the GM ruled against you means one of three things 1) either the facts aren't as you described them according to the GM (most likely scenario), 2) the GM made a mistake (GMs are humans), or 3) the rules have changed regarding camps (least likely scenario).

Considering that you haven't posted screenshots/logs of the incident I'm less than inclined to believe your version of the story. Namely: that the player holding the camp actually specifically told you that you were next on the list. If this actually happened then I am actually curious why the GM ruled against you.

The whole point of my post was that a player holding the camp NEVER has to tell you that you are next. He merely needs to respond to you and let you know who is. The person he tells you is possibly real, his alt, a friend off line, and friend camped there, etc...its technically against the rules to do this, but its virtually impossible to police it. THEN, the next person who holds the camp has the right to create his own list...which means you can legit go from being 3rd in line to last in line when the new player takes over and doesn't honor the old list.

This makes the "list" a very corruptible system which can result in players functionally handing the camp over to whoever they want next. You can legit be at the AC camp FOREVER and as long as the person holding the camp never specifically tells you that you are next you will NEVER get the camp by being on the list. This is why lists are sketchy on p99...but they were this way on live too.

[Swish2]

Trying to recruit some friends to play and linked them this thread.

That reminds me of this time in Family Guy when this happened...

https://i.imgur.com/I3O9RFc.gif