Stormfeather camp list?

[JDFriend99]

I recently went into iceclad and thought let me check on stormfeather area to see how many people are camping it, figured i'd give the 28 hrs a try.

Upon sending a tell to Askarious an afk msg came back explaining there is 9 people on a list like AC?

Since when is stormfeather a camp list? if it is i just need some prompting to understand it, on live it was a first to tag or dps race. We didn't have these ill put my friends on it and alts list that made it unreasonably long and impossible for anyone to finish quests.

And AC i can see, its mq'able... But stormfeather page isn't.

Anyone know when this happened?

[beversami]

This is when it "happened" - https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211886

It's never been FTE and has always been treated as a camp.

[GreldorEQ]

Camps on this server, like Stormfeather require only that a person be present the longest to claim a static spawn like this one. Once they leave the camp, they are permitted to "hand it off" to someone else. The list is the hand off, if no one on the list if present when the 1st person leaves, the camp is now yours.

[Legidias]

FYI lists only work for the next person (current camp holder is only responsible to hand it off to the next person on list). Once that person takes camp over, they could screw the other 8 people after them and put a guildie next on list.

[loramin]

FYI lists only work for the next person (current camp holder is only responsible to hand it off to the next person on list). Once that person takes camp over, they could screw the other 8 people after them and put a guildie next on list.

Very true, and definitely something I think the staff should consider changing (especially with the imminent release of Green which undoubtedly will have more camp lists).

There's just no overall/systemic benefit I can see to letting people pass camps to their friends/guildies: all it does is create tons of possibilities for players to "game the system", lock camps up, etc. I really think the system would just work better overall if everyone was required to maintain a list (if asked) and required to pass the camp (and list) off to the next person when they're done.

Of course there may well be some CSR angle I'm not considering which makes such a change bad for them, but I hope they at least consider the idea.

[Octopath]

Paying well for loot rights

[elwing]

Very true, and definitely something I think the staff should consider changing (especially with the imminent release of Green which undoubtedly will have more camp lists).

There's just no overall/systemic benefit I can see to letting people pass camps to their friends/guildies: all it does is create tons of possibilities for players to "game the system", lock camps up, etc. I really think the system would just work better overall if everyone was required to maintain a list (if asked) and required to pass the camp (and list) off to the next person when they're done.

Of course there may well be some CSR angle I'm not considering which makes such a change bad for them, but I hope they at least consider the idea.

Pretty sure that by allowing to be put on the list you agreed on an player list and have to honor the current list,and that it's in essence a player agreement then that gm can enforce...

[loramin]

Pretty sure that by allowing to be put on the list you agreed on an player list and have to honor the current list,and that it's in essence a player agreement then that gm can enforce...

Well so yes and no.

First off, the rules lawyer in me is inclined to agree with Legidias: based on my readings of past rulings I think that if player A is doing a camp and has players B, C, and D on the list, once player B takes over they can say "screw you C and D, I'm giving the camp to my friend E next". But I'm also not aware of any explicit/clear ruling on the matter (let alone a recent one), so maybe the staff already does force B to honor the list and give camp to C? I don't think anyone knows for certain what the staff would do (it might even vary from GM to GM), so this scenario is more "clarification needed" than "new rule needed" I guess.

But meanwhile there's a whole separate issue, which is that A is in no way obligated to setup a list in the first place. B can show up and say "hey A, I see you're camping ____, I'd like to camp it next once you get your item", and (again, AFAIK) A can say "suck it B, I'm giving the camp to C, and he's going to give it to D, who will give it to E, all of whom are my guildies/friends, so maybe come back next week and maybe if we're tired of it by then you can have it."

It seems to me that it'd be healthier overall to just make A be forced to give the camp to the next person waiting on a first come, first serve basis, and not have the option to keep passing the camp infinitely to friends/guildies.

[Legidias]

My statement is based on real experience, both personal and anecdotal from other people, that lists are only enforceable for the single next person.

[JayDee]

FYI lists only work for the next person (current camp holder is only responsible to hand it off to the next person on list). Once that person takes camp over, they could screw the other 8 people after them and put a guildie next on list.

that's a big yikes from me

[Dugface]

The fact that Stormfeather just skipped 3 spawns hasn't helped.

[Atmas]

My statement is based on real experience, both personal and anecdotal from other people, that lists are only enforceable for the single next person.

I really wonder how that would hold up to GM review. Two people could lock Stormfeather indefinitely.

[Lemonhead]

Not commenting on this spawn, but on green, many of these camps could and will be held by groups. And they can just operate like normal groups. People come in and out at the group's discretion. This means that guilds can and will hold camps for very long periods. If you are going to play green, don't expect the few goodies. Just don't. And then we can all be happy. But we won't. We're not good at that.

[JDFriend99]

Very true, and definitely something I think the staff should consider changing (especially with the imminent release of Green which undoubtedly will have more camp lists).

There's just no overall/systemic benefit I can see to letting people pass camps to their friends/guildies: all it does is create tons of possibilities for players to "game the system", lock camps up, etc. I really think the system would just work better overall if everyone was required to maintain a list (if asked) and required to pass the camp (and list) off to the next person when they're done.

Of course there may well be some CSR angle I'm not considering which makes such a change bad for them, but I hope they at least consider the idea.

That was my thoughts friend. I come across angry but I'm more perplexed. Had no clue it was like AC. I can't honestly see people getting it done having to wait 18-36 hrs only to be skipped by a player too lol.

Seemed much simpler on live I guess where first to tag and dps down won it. Though maybe that's not good either. But trusting a player... damn.

[JDFriend99]

The fact that Stormfeather just skipped 3 spawns hasn't helped.

I was there when zilo logged in only to see a skip. Now three skips. Something is wrong storm feather doesn't skip 3 times. Not classic anyhow. One skip Max.

[JDFriend99]

Anyhow I appreciate u all explaining it as I really had no idea how this worked. Hard to say if it's worth going on in the quest. I thought lodizals map was gonna be difficult.

[DromalPhrenia]

Not commenting on this spawn, but on green, many of these camps could and will be held by groups. And they can just operate like normal groups. People come in and out at the group's discretion. This means that guilds can and will hold camps for very long periods. If you are going to play green, don't expect the few goodies. Just don't. And then we can all be happy. But we won't. We're not good at that.

That's why you make friends with people likely to hold those camps :D

....Of course, one particularly nasty factor here is that Manastones are not lore...

[Madbad]

Fuck lists, sit at camp or GTFO

[Muggens]

Fuck lists, sit at camp or GTFO

[loramin]

Fuck lists, sit at camp or GTFO

Honestly I think that's an even better idea than forced lists.

Simple rule: you must hand off camp to a randomly selected person out of those currently waiting for it. 100% fair, favors the people that put in the work, ensures no lock-downs ... all around it seems like a win to me.

[Atmas]

Honestly I think that's an even better idea than forced lists.

Simple rule: you must hand off camp to a randomly selected person out of those currently waiting for it. 100% fair, favors the people that put in the work, ensures no lock-downs ... all around it seems like a win to me.

The list is already supposed to be people sitting at the camp. If you leave you should be off the list.

If you randomly hand off what would discourage people from just strolling up at the start of the window? I think it really has to just be hand off in order of who has been waiting there the longest.

[Jibartik]

Why dont lists work like, you keep track of whoever is next after you, if they are not online when you done, then fuck em log off who cares the camp is now FFA. You just log off when you're done. To keep track of a list, anyone who asks to join the list, send them the name of the 1 person who is going to take over after you leave. That's it.

You barely have to keep track of 1 name, leave it up to the person that wants to take over to make sure you dont forget to log off without telling them, they gotta track you, the way you're tracking the mobs spawn.

Itd be like:

New Camper1: you camping X?
Camper: yes.
New Camper1: anyone on the list?
Camper: no
New Camper1: cool, ill keep checking my /who and could u let me know when youre done?
Campre: Yep!
New Camper2 asks Campre: anyone on the list?
Camper: Yeah NewCamper1 is
NewCamper2 asks NewCamper1: Is anyone after you?
Newcamper1: no
Newcamper2: OK will you tell me when ur done?
Newcamper1:Sure!

That's it... just keep track of who was the last person you said could camp the item, if that person logs off or if you forget to tell them 6 hours after they asked you, its their problem, you dont owe them shit, but at least you could fucking TRY to remember who was the last ONE person to send you a tell?

Seems like this is an easily solved problem for a 10 year old server but I dont expect anyone to give any craps about that. Who cares.

But at least you're not keeping track of relatively anything at all unless YOU want the camp, then its up to you to be diligent, and if you're in line, be diligent with the person ahead of you and that's it.

[loramin]

The list is already supposed to be people sitting at the camp. If you leave you should be off the list.

If you randomly hand off what would discourage people from just strolling up at the start of the window? I think it really has to just be hand off in order of who has been waiting there the longest.

I'm not against that, but the problem there is that it allows the current camper to lie about the list if they're dishonest, and even if they're honest it forces them to maintain a list.

I'm looking for the most fair system overall, while also being as simple as possible. If a lucky person (who had an equal chance as everyone else) shows up just in time to random vs. someone who was waiting, that seems like far less of a problem to me than someone having the ability to lock down a camp with their friends, or forcing everyone who does a busy camp to have to write down lists of whos next (and then get into camp fight drama when someone disagrees about list order).

"Everyone present randoms" is fair and simple and there's never any drama because it's always clear who's present.

[Zipity]

Just say no to Randoming SF worst idea ever.

[Tethler]

People waiting at camp for spot to open is classic and promotes socialization. I'd support the idea that you need to be present at the camp to stay on the list. None of this logging to alts business.