Discussion: Play Nice (Training, Bind Camping)

[Harrison]

Strictly enforced with no wiggle room. Harsh punishments, too.

30 day suspension first time caught breaking well-defined rules. Flat out banned permanently if caught again after that.

[Misto]

Nobody is going to play nice when they get into the Planes.

FACT

[Scribbles]

literally only pvp rule should be no training. trying to have gms enforce no corpse/bind camping, calling lns, etc is a godawful waste of time.

[Misto]

Originally Posted by Scribbles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

literally only pvp rule should be no training. trying to have gms enforce no corpse/bind camping, calling lns, etc is a godawful waste of time.

That sounds great if theres no XP loss on PVP death.

If you have XP loss on PVP death, however, you have to solve the issue of bind camping.

[Goraxx]

I'd say dont enforce either. GM's will have enough on their plates. Training is going to happen anyway as will bind camping.

[pasi]

Bind Camping is fine.

Training: there's a 16 page thread on this from when we first got our PvP section. http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...ad.php?t=33605

Really, what you rule on training won't matter in the end. Every high-end PvP engagement is going to end up in trains with the victor being whoever can camp a cleric and rez quicker. Neither fraps nor having a GM present at every battle can pinpoint who trained what.

I remember when PoHate was released on VZTZ 2.0. Even with Searyx filming the fucking event and other GMs present, untraceable trains were part of every battle. What is accidental and what is intentional. Players suiciding into mobs rather than be YT'd and not knowing if other players are too close.

It leads to GM favoritism calls when one person gets banned/suspended for training and another person does not. It will take up most of the petition queue.

With that said, I'm not sure how the alternative of having no rules on training would work out.

If anything, I'd like hard-coded rules before legal training.

[Scribbles]

Originally Posted by Misto [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That sounds great if theres no XP loss on PVP death.

If you have XP loss on PVP death, however, you have to solve the issue of bind camping.

I think xp loss on death is dum, but if it were in u could just make it so that you won't lose xp on death to the same person within a given amount of time (so player A could only kill player B and have them lose xp once an hour, for example)

[Ennoia]

Originally Posted by Tonomar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Training has always been gay, yet part of EQ. It makes a ton of work for GM's and guides, mass QQ ensues after a so called "train" occurs. If bind camping is allowed, training should be, too. What goes around comes around, bros.

Bind camping is stupid. Training, well, play better and avoid the trains.

Originally Posted by Naikon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

allow bind camping

easy enough to log off or log on another toon until its safe. part of pvp is being griefed

No intentional training should be allowed

Played with and without training, healthiest servers have always had rules against it.

Bind camping will cause more issues than training, and if training is allowed, it cuts down on probably 80% of the annoying petitions that the staff will get. Going to have to agree with Harrison that you're a mongoloid who should be ignored.

[Pudge]

ppl have had massive discussions on training in the past.. could dig up a link.

training: should be illegal. only way to enforce is fraps or it didn't happen. or GM witness. this makes a clear cut line: if you don't have fraps, you can't say shit. ppl will learn to not waste GM time when their account gets suspended by uthgaard for petitioning "soandso trained me, check the logs and ban him"

there is obviously a judgement call that will have to be made as to what constitutes a "train" - was it a true accident, how many mobs were involved, is the environment one where mob agro is inevitable? etc. but whatever the judgements be, it will be better to have the "trainer" cry about gm favoritism than to have a server full of clerics, bards, and monks "pvping" you with an army of npcs

bind camping: should be legal. just make it so ppl don't lose exp if they are bind camped. i would like to be able to bind camp an enemy guild to prevent bind rushers from returning to the battlefield..

i posted before a suggestion that maybe: if you are in your bind zone, naked, and haven't casted any spells/attacked anyone, then when you die (to pvp) you don't lose exp.

Bind rushing: allowed, but do things like when you're killed in pvp, have 0 mana when you respawn

LnS: on vztz by the end of the server we wound up with: if the losing guild requests LnS, it must be granted, and the loser cannot come back for 1 hour. so if the loser wanted to try and keep fighting, he could. when he had enough, he could request LnS. in guild pvp, the officers or someone claiming to be in charge would call the LnS, and it would be for the entire guild/crew (guilds like to have unguilded 'members' on pvp servers).

however back in the day I also enjoyed trying to get my corpse from corpse campers. i don't know how many ppl would prefer an LnS system over corpse-campage though, especially with exp loss on pvp death.

Right now, i'm leaning towards... let ppl corpse camp. whoever died can log on an alt or something and wait till the camper is gone.

but this also ties in with /whoing ppl who are anon. i'd rather /anon didn't work and that you could tell when someone was done corpse camping you... (on vztz /anon didn't work)

[Aenor]

This is pretty much my answer for all points of discussion. The less gm enforcement required the better. Don't be like SOE and have unenforceable play nice rules that, when you do enforce them, you will be accused of selectively enforcing them.