Proposed Player agreement: Stormfeather

[LazyHydras]

Hi.

This is my proposal.


When the current camp holder leaves, whomsoever is there AND ACTIVE when the player leaves is the next campholder.

Priority will be given to the first player who was there AND IS PRESENT WHEN THE CAMPHOLDER leaves.


I understand that this camp has traditionally been a LIST camp like AC.

But this is my proposal in order to circumvent the issues of accusations wherein people claim that a list is maintained of only one's friends (etc, etc).


Agree? Disagree. Discuss below, please.




Thank you.
-Neph / Krystaps

[Fifield]

I have never camped this camp because of how stupid it currently is,

would agree!

[Legidias]

Everyone will have timer anyways so it'll just turn into a shitfest where you roll to camp for 18+ hours

[LazyHydras]

So, to clarify. There and active means. There and not afk (moving around, killing cougars, teabagging other players, w/e) when the current campholder leaves.

[Maschenny]

I don't know what the current rules are, but they seem to be working. Stay as is.

[LazyHydras]

^ you haven't seen the shitshow that has been the past 3 days. Lol. Current rules are: the camp holder makes their own rules. They can be w/e they want.


This is why I made this thread: to establish set rules that aren't subject to whim and caprice, whether those rules are my own or simply a consensus.

[elwing]

That's the regular rules, nothing enforce that this camp has to be a list... The owner decide who's next, lists are shady past the first person in the list tbh... By accepting to get on the list you might be considered has having accepted it and have to enforce it... But that's tenuous at best... And in case of a long ld, for example anyone can claim the camp and all ppl in the list are fucked...

[aaezil]

If the “next” person on the list doesnt show and the previous camp holder is gone that sounds like an unclaimed camp

[Legidias]

SF really doesnt have any special rules. Lore solo camps = move on once item drops. As per ALL camp rules, only the next in line is actually on the list. If no show, its FFA. If you dont attack mob in a timely manner once its spawned, its FFA. None of these are any different rules to any other normal camp in game. This is the same as OOT AC.

There are already set rules. Its the same camp rules as anywhere else.

[LazyHydras]

SF really doesnt have any special rules. Lore solo camps = move on once item drops. As per ALL camp rules, only the next in line is actually on the list. If no show, its FFA. If you dont attack mob in a timely manner once its spawned, its FFA. None of these are any different rules to any other normal camp in game. This is the same as OOT AC.

There are already set rules. Its the same camp rules as anywhere else.

Negative. According to what I've been told, the camp holder can set any specific rules he wants. Can hand it to whomever he wants, etc.


I know it seems obvious that once the current campholder leaves then the next person who is there gets it, but it is not yet "set," believe it or not.

[Dugface]

SF is a camp and therefore follows the server rules for a camp. The list is only a convenient approach to avoid having to sit there for days, since SF skips spawns. There is no rule stating a list must be used.

If you really want the camp, you just have to be at the camp longer than everyone else.

There's many GM comments about it here: http://wiki.project1999.com/Rulings#Holding_a_Camp_While_AFK

Note the comment about selling SF loot rights is a douche move. I hope all those Dawn Believers who live in Iceclad for Lodizal and Stormfeather aren't doing this now...

But then again, people are selling loot rights for just about everything these days, so who really cares.

[Dugface]

(Although Menden clarified that comment later, hah)

[Legidias]

"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." (Derubael, 2014)

So again, once they announce who is next, that person is next barring a no-show. Lists in general are a myth, as I've stated in several threads. The only real 'list' is the next person after current camper. Anything other than that is made up BS. The next in line, however, is a real thing.

I also don't see it as a douche move TBH. Once it drops you have to move on regardless and if you want to waste 18 hours of your character time in game for it (remember you can't just log onto an alt as you would either leave zone from camp or be 2 boxing), you earned it.

[loramin]

OP this is a much bigger issue than just Stormfeather. Any camp, anywhere in the server, can be "locked down" in perpetuity for as long as multiple people can collude to do so, and the current server rules not only don't stop such behavior, they actively enforce and protect it. To anyone who doesn't believe this: you don't know the rules.

This is most notable at camps for popular items on mobs with long spawn times (so it rears it's ugly head most with mobs like Stormfeather). But again, it's a server-wide rules issue, and with Green coming I think it's only going to be more of a problem.

IMHO the staff should not allow, let alone support, groups of players passing camps between each other. Either camps should be given to the winner of a random roll, or lists should be forced to go to the first person who asks to be added to them.

Heck, even giving every mob in the game FTE messages and making everything an FTE race (which would be terrible) would be more fair then letting A pass the camp to B, who passes it to C, who passes it to A ... forever, and if anyone tries to stop it the staff suspends them (not A, B, or C).

[Psyborg]

IMHO the staff should not allow, let alone support, groups of players passing camps between each other. Either camps should be given to the winner of a random roll, or lists should be forced to go to the first person who asks to be added to them.

I like random roll personally. There is no subjectivity or question as to whom the camp belongs to after a roll.

[Legidias]

IMO make the next camper sit next to current camper all the way until spawn, at which point they get camp. Earn the spot =D

[LazyHydras]

IMO make the next camper sit next to current camper all the way until spawn, at which point they get camp. Earn the spot =D

agreed

[Psyborg]

agreed

This game already has enough sitting around doing nothing. While I think the current system is too easy to abuse, I don't think more idle EQ is healthy for anyone.

[Legidias]

You dont have to actively play the character, they just have to sit there (so you can't do anything else in EQ).

[Psyborg]

You dont have to actively play the character, they just have to sit there (so you can't do anything else in EQ).

Right. I find it troubling that this is the best solution a bunch of adults could come up with for a camp in a 20 year old game. I guess that's true about plenty of things here though. All good!

[Wallicker]

Stormfeather Campholder: Wallicker 6/22-6/24
Stormfeather 2nd: Xxoo
Stormfeather ToD: 6/24 12:26pm est

New Campholder: Xxoo
New 2nd: ask him to make post here in same format
Next window: 5:26am-7:26am est

I propose don’t fuck with this dudes camp(he waited patiently) unless he isn’t there for the window, then it goes to whomever is second on list (no need more than 2nd). If he wants to do whatever else before the window cool as long as there for window. If no one is there for window claim the camp and make a post here so everyone knows. If we agreed that this was final, everyone would know list would know where to look. This camp would be so much less of a nightmare and everyone would get their map piece. Cheers.

[Wallicker]

Yes those are really the real timers and window above for those who sent PMs let’s try to keep this camp classy!

[aaezil]

Right. I find it troubling that this is the best solution a bunch of adults could come up with for a camp in a 20 year old game. I guess that's true about plenty of things here though. All good!

If all the 30-40+ yr olds that play this 20 yr old game were reasonable we wouldnt need 1/2 these insane nonsense rulings... few bad apples ruin the fun for everybody

[Troxx]

I have never camped this camp because of how stupid it currently is

Same.

I always found it dumb that you could be offline/out-of-zone/afk or on an alt and still be considered in the list for any camp.

Person camping has to maintain presence. Any hoping to be next should be physically there and ready. If a person wanted to make sure they got it and is willing to sock there long enough it would guarantee they get it without having to get on a list 1-2 weeks on behind a bunch of folks offline or otherwise off elsewhere having fun.

Much like scout and coldain rings I planned on doing this once the hype died down. Unfortunately I forgot just how “unique” the population here is ... so I’ve just acknowledged that life is more enjoyable without owning these items and simply playing the game a different way.

[Wallicker]

The real problem with this camp is the campholder being able to pass the camp to whoever they want before I got my map I went from 9th to 2nd only to have camp passed to someone else (within current rules) so then I was back at 6 and had to wait again...a list here would hold the Current campholder accountable to who they pass it to I think that is the change we need forcing someone to be present at camp at all times is good with me too

[Ghostly]

Jesus, do we really need player agreements for everything??

[Jimjam]

If you're against player agreements perhaps you could post a proposed player disagreement instead?

[Dugface]

If you're against player agreements perhaps you could post a proposed player disagreement instead?

Said proposed player disagreement can duly be found in the Lord BoB discord chat.