Abacab on play nice policy

[YendorLootmonkey]

Originally Posted by Bartella

Further to this, I wouldn't mind seeing this particular part of the EQ Play nice policy brought over to p1999:

Quote:
Spawns in the game can no longer be claimed or controlled by a single player or group. Wether it is a single or multiple spawn, for an item or for XP, low or high level, all groups wishing to camp a spawn must
work out some type of rotation or means to share the spawn.

Think about some uber item you want as a druid. Something you've been dying to get your hands on. I dunno what druids want, so just pick something. Now imagine you've been finally invited into a camp where the mob that drops it spawns. Placeholder after placeholder spawns. Finally the named spawns. It doesn't drop it. So you wait again. More placeholders. The named spawns again after hours. It drops the item. You lose the /random on it and the cleric gets the nifty +10 WIS item or whatever it is. Cleric loots and scoots, you try main-healing for a while but it's not enough to keep everyone alive. You wipe and have to CR. Can't find another cleric to replace, so you log for the night. Three nights later, you finally get invited to that camp again. More placeholders to kill. Named spawns, item doesn't drop.

Then, another group comes in and wants your camp. The part you wish to bring over to P1999 states you now have to share that camp/spawn with the other group. So you're forced to work out a rotation. They kill half the spawns in the camp, you kill the other half. Alternate killing nameds. Now the named spawns again. Drops the item, but it wasn't your group's turn. More hours and hours of placeholders, named spawns... doesn't drop the item on your group's turn. Your group gets pissed at having to share and most of them leave. You no longer have a group capable of clearing the mobs. Other group moves in because they can.

etc etc etc over and over again.

Are you REALLY sure you'd like that part of the PNP to come over to P1999 with the limited content we're all already trying to share? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Abacabb]

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

Relying on a disparate and vast community to police itself might work in some cases, but I would argue that stricter rules and harsher punishments enforced by a small set of GMs united in purpose is more likely to have a greater impact.

Cause that works IRL doesn't it? I should totally make a traffic violation warrant 4 years in prison just so people don't speed around the exit ramp. That shit never works, the more you enforce and the harsher the penalties are the less freedom of choice the community has.

Do you want to walk down the road where every contestable encounter has a GM there to decide who gets it? Do you really want your hand to be held that way? It might work for you if you're some sort of socialist, pro-community, everyone-gets-something carebear, but this is a competitive video game and that does not work for the majority.

[Phallax]

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

Cause that works IRL doesn't it? I should totally make a traffic violation warrant 4 years in prison just so people don't speed around the exit ramp. That shit never works, the more you enforce and the harsher the penalties are the less freedom of choice the community has.

Do you want to walk down the road where every contestable encounter has a GM there to decide who gets it? Do you really want your hand to be held that way? It might work for you if you're some sort of socialist, pro-community, everyone-gets-something carebear, but this is a competitive video game and that does not work for the majority.

Dont compare RL to video games then contradict yourself by saying "but this is a video game". You sir fail.

And no this is a video game, it doesnt follow the same rule set as IRL. GMs can and will hand out more harsh punishments for lesser crimes to prove a point, especially to repeating offenders.

[Branaddar]

I like how Aba talks about how GM intervention is akin to going to jail for 4 years for speeding. That makes sense.

What you're suggesting is removing all police officers from the world and letting us sort our own shit out. Ostracizing a sociopath doesn't do a damn thing in RL or in a game.

Let me use your tactics of taking examples to an extreme: I'm sure the family of a murder victim appreciates the "carebear" attitude of the police officers that hunt down and punish the murderer. Then again, I suppose they could just hunt him down and kill him themselves. Then have that victim's family hunt down the other family and kill them... and so on.

Anarchy > Policing

Why do you think SOE implemented the Play Nice Policy in the first place? Because they realized people could not be trusted to police themselves and the game was descending into chaos.

[Abacabb]

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

Dont compare RL to video games then contradict yourself by saying "but this is a video game". You sir fail.

And no this is a video game, it doesnt follow the same rule set as IRL. GMs can and will hand out more harsh punishments for lesser crimes to prove a point, especially to repeating offenders.

I'm using examples, I'm sorry if they are bad examples because obviously you losing a camp in lguk is no where near the level of atrocity as say a government ethnically cleansing but I'm making a point with the idea behind it all.

Enforcement never works when it's main purpose isn't to keep the game legit, but to police the players based on their free will of action, that's very non-John Locke of you. As players on the server we should hold the accountability and we shouldn't cry GM every time something doesn't benefit us.

Currently NO GM likes to hold your hand, or sit 8+ hours in a raid zone watching you, so why do you consistently force them to do this by clogging up their petition system? Why do you have to be a crybaby the moment someone completely steamrolls you out of malice? If you don't like the brutality and selfishness that manifests itself in a game that obviously has some serious competitive qualities to it, then go play minesweeper and content with yourself.

[xshayla701]

16:15 Abacab People that KS, that train, that dick over the server automatically get blacklisted by the community

Yet that didn't stop Dukat from getting a group or helping a group or whatever the hell you were doing.. maybe it was because they didn't know it was the same person, or because they didn't know that you were going to KS and train. Either way, hopefully people stop doing anything with Dukat now. I just don't like people that play just to fuck with other people. :/

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

Enforcement never works when it's main purpose isn't to keep the game legit, but to police the players based on their free will of action, that's very non-John Locke of you.

<3

As players on the server we should hold the accountability and we shouldn't cry GM every time something doesn't benefit us.

This.. but getting trained multiple times in the same night pisses me off. and a GM can ban the guy temporarily and rez you k. If it were cool with everyone to train the guy that trained you first, I say do it. Or KS the guy that KSed your named mob the next time around. Whatever. But whenever I suggest it I hear "Nah, don't be like that guy, just talk to a GM." I like my way better [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Leokaiser]

First, in response to Yendor: The scenario you describe actually made me think about my stance on this matter for some time, so thanks for posing it.

Would I walk away 'happy' for such an experience? You'd be right to call me out as a lair if I said yes; but I wouldn't be 'unhappy' with it, because I still think that's the fairest way to go about it. If I'm at a camp and someone else wants to have wait around a shot at the named after I've had a go, but I don't get the item I'm looking for, I personally would feel like I'm being a bit greedy by saying no, sorry, but my need is greater than yours - I didnt get lucky this time, but at least I'll be able to come back and have another go at it, because next time the player(s) camping there would have to share just as I did. I would much rather lose out on the object of my desire every single time than never even have a chance because other people won't even countanence sharing in such a manner at all. But then again, I feel no shame in admitting to being an idealist, and firmly believe the world would be a better place if everyone felt the same as myself [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Abacab: In your RL scenario, the 'freedom' you describe is the 'freedom' to break the law by speeding, an act which claims many lives the world over. So no, I wouldn't weep if someone goes to jail for a stupidly long period of time if it might prevent people dying! To turn it around, would you speed if the punishment was so overly harsh? If not, then jobs a good 'un. Speeding isn't like various forms of crime which people turn to out of desperation; they do it because they can get away with it, and if caught, the repercussions are minor.

If penalties are harsh and risks are high, you don't need cops on every corner or a GM in every zone

In relation to this game, I've never actually seen it as 'competative'. In fact, I would argue that most of the systems in place are there to foster cooperation... y'know player versus enviroment and all that jazz? If the game was truly built on competition, I would never bind people, buff them or port them, because these acts simply allow them to level faster or get them to the loot I'm also going for quicker. The 'competition' occurs because there is not enough content to go around, but I would doubt that was intentional by design; if you can point me to a source which suggests I'm wrong, I would actually be very interested to read it.

Obviously, not everyone feels as I do. Some people really thrive in a competative atmosphere. Who is to be the judge on which is the 'right' opinion to hold? What I would say is that you don't have to be a 'crybaby' to feel aggrivated when someone does something out of malice. That's pretty lol to be honest.

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

First, in response to Yendor: The scenario you describe actually made me think about my stance on this matter for some time, so thanks for posing it.

Hehe you're welcome! Hope to group with you in Mistmoore (or wherever) with Etta and Howlin again sometime soon!! <3

[rioisk]

1) One problem we face is that this game is free to play. This attracts people that want to ruin others fun on the internet. If you paid for EQ it's unlikely you'll be looking for a ban. Blackballing players is difficult in a free game because it doesn't stop them from enjoying what they do. I propose a hybrid system where the community attempts to police itself but if the person continually causes havoc then the player is banned (character deleted). I system should be established for how to handle these cases.

2) I think there are many people who want IP exemptions for legitimate reasons but I also believe the flux of new requests isn't just random. If the rules reward raiders for camping their mob then it is in their best interest to play another account while they wait. Because incentive is distorted, the result is people trying to bend to rules for their benefit. In game where 2nd-3rd-4th-nth accounts are free then people lose out if they DON'T try to play 2 accounts at once. Allowing boxing won't solve this problem without a change to the rules on camps. I propose eliminating camp rules and let players police themselves. If people are consistently jerks and train people/cause havoc then refer to #1.

3) Many of the raiding issues is caused because there is not enough content to go around for all guilds. I've said this many times but MOST people returning to EQ1 circa 1999 have played before and are likely diehard fans. Very infrequently do I encounter people while grouped that were not max level back in the day. This being said, I think P1999 may emulate the content but doesn't emulate the playerbase. In my opinion by Kunark/Velious we'll only have more high-end guilds especially since the level cap doesn't change. Sort of sad to invoke but why do you think SoE added so much end-game content past Velious?

4) As of now, the raiding rules benefit those who spend the most TIME dedicating themselves to a spawn. I think this is a sad, one-dimensional way to look at raiding in EQ because guilds are mechanically awarded gear by sitting for hours. With the raid bosses as easy as they are there's basically no threat of failing every time. To remedy this situation, I propose removing camp/raid rules and allow a FFA If guilds could actually compete free of law then it would be a training shit show with every trick in the book to stop the other from achieving their objective. It would be messy, ugly, people would die, complain, cry, bitch, whine, moan, but it would also test enchanter's mezz skills, clerics heal skills, tanks taunting skills. It would encourage guilds to be larger (spreading the loot to more people) to handle the problems that other guilds bring them. Further, without rules, we might see that guilds find it in their best interest to agree/interact/be fair with each other or fear retaliation.....but may be not.....and that's what is great about EQ is that the players can decide for themselves the arrangement.

I can't stress enough that the current system only benefits those who sit for long periods of time. GMs you have to remember that people respond to incentives and that if a guild has a 100% chance of receiving loot by waiting for hours then that is what they will do. If there were no rules then guilds would have to form their own or risk a non-100% chance of receiving loot every time. Do you think IB would enjoy not seeing raiding content for a month because DA trains them constantly or out DPSes them with their larger force? You may call that "not fair" but I say rewarding those who sit for hours and hours and hours even more ridiculous than not fair.

These are my suggestions.

[Abacabb]

Originally Posted by xshayla701 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yet that didn't stop Dukat from getting a group or helping a group or whatever the hell you were doing.. maybe it was because they didn't know it was the same person, or because they didn't know that you were going to KS and train. Either way, hopefully people stop doing anything with Dukat now. I just don't like people that play just to fuck with other people.

Why are you still butthurt about that? You people got me banned, I got the admin to look at it and it was found I never even trained you guys. Not only is that shit slanderous, you're just fueling the anti-abacab fire for unjust reasons, and the only person that fuels that fire should be me. Abacab.