Interesting theory, but I disagree.
I don't expect or need customer service. I reckoned I have probably played this game 600 hours and never once petitioned a GM for anything. With an average of 1000 players logged online a day that should be four petitions a day at most. Also no one was "forced" to share camps in 2000 and 2001. Killstealing was forbidden, and if someone was accused of it they would be monitored and given a warning if they did. Apart from that they were encouraged to share. Whether they did or not I think was immaterial; the first person to engage a mob had rights to it. What I mean is that the only official GM action ever in such disputes was to say "share". Warnings were only issued for killstealing.
Here is a post from newsgroups on 2/26/01 that explains it:
>
> Camping: Would someone please write a new players guide or have the GMs
> and their assistants sit down and get their stories straight? I have
> had a GM
> "say You can't camp a zone." Another one says, " you can't camp a rare
> spawn"
> Still another says " Camping is still enforced, but we refer to it as
> the play nice rule. Take turns (kids) and play nice" If this is such a
> big problem, why not set a flag so that the person getting the first hit
> has responsibility for the critter. Have others ge the message "That
> creaature is under attack" Ok, I know nothing about programming so
> maybe this would be a bite, and there would have to be a way of
> releasing it once you realize you can't handle it. Hey, there ya go,
> this wouild force more people to group up unless they really wanted to
> solo.
The only rules for camping are in the play nice policy availble at
www.everquest.com
Yes, gms do kinda enforce them differently. The actual rule is the
first player to cast a spell that engages the critter or melee engages
the critter gets it and anyone else is ksing. Camping is not actually
supported in the pnp, but if called a gm will intervene and say "share."
Another that addresses the idea of ownership in perpetuity from 10/23/2000:
" No one wants to address the fundamental point. Why does being there
: first grant you ownership in perpetuity?
It WAS already addressed. NOTHING grants someone ownership in perpetuity.
However, the commonly held GENTLEMANLY code of conduct says you don't bust
up someone else's camp. If some spot is in use, go find another spot that
isn't. You are imposing on THEM, not the otherway around."
1) Yes as I said 2000 and 2001, an era it may be supposed this server was trying to emulate.
2) A fair point, but that was the Everquest we all played and liked. If there were disputes then, it means that some players did not agree with the notions of whatever group liked to codify camps. And thus those players would not have a home on a server that bans them, and thus this server will not be the Everquest of 2000 and 2001.
3 & 4) Players are immediately threatened with suspensions for sharing mobs with groups who claim ownership in perpetuity by reason of being there first.
As to the last comment, that is insulting and uncalled for. What is "meta"? And why are we changing things? I thought the intent of this server was to emulate Everquest in 1999-2001.
Massively multiplayer online games (as well as that MUDs on which they are based) are well known to thrive when types of players are kept in equilibrium. You may not understand it, but what they are doing on this server is exactly what has ruined MMORPGs, and exactly what writers such as Bartle warned about with heavy-handed intervention through coding and GMs. The idea of the ideal MMORPG is that players will work things out themselves, and there does not need to be control through systems and excessive policies. As you have noted many players respect this idea of camps, and think those that do not are rude, and thus a player that does not will acquire a lesser reputation than those that do, and thus any issue that there may be is resolved by the players without the intervention of GMs (or later systems such as instancing and mob locking). The reputation of a player that does not respect camps will be less in proportion to those that do, *in proportion to the number of players that do hold this idea of ownership in perpetuity on the server*, simulating a virtual world.