The difference between the Play Nice Policy on this server and Everquest in 2000 &...

[Nexii]

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

you can play live if you want dps races

move to resolved

[loramin]

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

Alas some people don't seem to understand what has happened here. This is not some natural or understandable outgrowth of a different game or the natural outcome of a private server. These policies are 1) the polar opposite of Everquest in 1999-2001, 2) highly exclusive and controlled in a way that Everquest was not then (Everquest was not only guildies, campers, raiders, and powergamers in 1999-2001. Not all players logged on to sit in a zone doing nothing while waiting on a list. There were roleplayers, many various and not rigidly defined camps, evil players that would not group with good players and soloers) There would have been a tremendous outcry back then if a policy like this had ever been enforced... players told that their only ambition in a zone was to join a list for a group whose only claim to it was that they were there first. What if that group had a Shadow Knight in it and it was a paladin in the zone? The GMs would not have told the paladin to do nothing or be suspended, they would have told the group to share with him. These policies are the antithesis of an MMORPG as it was then and of Everquest in 1999-2001. They are documented as detrimental to the diversity of a playerbase in an MMORPG and thus to a virtual world. It's shameful to excuse them, and any attemps to do so (as far as I have seen) can be seen as pleas for the GMs to make the game a controlled environment rather than a virtual world.

Ok, first off, Jesus man, press ENTER occasionally! Paragraphs are your friend.

Second, let's start with:

These policies are 1) the polar opposite of Everquest in 1999-2001

What is your evidence that that is the case. I gave you a link to the guide book from back then: quote something that clearly demonstrates what you're talking about.

[Supaskillz]

I have never had to petition anyone for violating play nice policy and I have 2 level 60s on this server. I have used petition for other purposes and never have I been so lucky as you to get a response in 15 minutes, I think this is an outlier experience you had.

If someone wants to violate norms of eq by not respecting camps and making everyone else’s experience less pleasant, yes I am okay with the hosts of this private server suspending or banning them if they continue to grief others by violating these norms. Dealing with assholes through reputation and having to play their game with them of stealing mobs back is not my idea of fun. Would I understand that they don’t have time to come police any camp dispute also? Absolutely

[Braknar]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[ELance]

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

[*]You have shown zero evidence (unless I missed it in that scrawl) that, according to the classic Play Nice Policy, it was acceptable for someone to to take a mob someone else was camping. As I noted, "kill stealing" (ie. "vulching" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]) in some form was explicitly allowed, but the guidebook never actually clarifies what they mean by that. It might simply refer to two players racing for an outdoor mob and one player getting it even though the second player felt they "stole" it. We just don't know.[/LIST]
Given those points, I really don't see your argument that P99's policies are needlessly unclassic; on the contrary they seem, to me at least, to be "as classic as possible" for a volunteer-run server.

To reduce the quotes even further, from 2001:

"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.""

From 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. "


These are representative conclusions from long threads on newsgroups about the Play Nice Policy in 2000 and 2001. It is interesting that you find this so incredible, as this is the way the game was then. You seem to think that the GMs from 1999-2001 defined specific camps and enforced lists for them. What if the camp was only a guild, and didn't wish to let non-guild players in? What if the camp was evil alignment, and didn't allow good characters? The GMs didn't let any certain group of players monopolize exclusive control of a group of mobs by reason of being there first. This would have been considered ludicrous by many players. Why it is not now I do not know; that is why I made this thread. Sometimes I do not wish to join a certain group, and I do not understand why I am threatened with suspensions for sharing their mobs with them.

[Cecily]

Question. If you look a wall of bullshit like the above, it’s still in your brain on some level even if you don’t consciously read it, right?

[Menden]

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

First let me ask you which mob you KS'd / were KS'd on since this sounds personal lol. I will repeat again, I have been part of several camp issues, and know several other people who have been as well, and literally none of them are threatened with suspension immediately. You have to either talk back to the GM or repeatedly challenge camps (badly) for this to happen. So which did you fall in?

It's vaguely insulting because I assume you are trolling. Your account is 2 years old, and theres been LENGTHY discussions on camps in p99 and versus old school EQ.

"meta" is a very common term in regards to games. It refers to the state of the game and what players perceive as the best approach.
From Wikipedia, it "is any approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the game".

The camp discussion is always good, but don't put out fake news like "OMG GM's INSTA BAN PERSON FOR MINOR CAMP DISPUTE".

She was killing gargs that were being camped by the pond group in MM. She was asked by the camp holders to stop, she ignored them. I showed up and told her to stop, she told me no, I told her I'm going to force her to take a break, continues to argue with me.

There ya go, there's the full story.


I, and the other staff members have no problem suspending you for wasting our time and trying lawyer quest us. If you feel we were too heavy handed, you can talk to whoever is above us.

[ELance]

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

She was killing gargs that were being camped by the pond group in MM. She was asked by the camp holders to stop, she ignored them. I showed up and told her to stop, she told me no, I told her I'm going to force her to take a break, continues to argue with me.

There ya go, there's the full story.


I, and the other staff members have no problem suspending you for wasting our time and trying lawyer quest us. If you feel we were too heavy handed, you can talk to whoever is above us.

This story doesn't add anything new to the thread, and is mainly irrelevant. I don't know why you wrote this. You have revealed the character of a forum poster, who you might assume wished to be anonymous. I don't wish this to be a personal thread, and even though you have tried to force the issue, I still refuse to make it one. What you wrote does not help or shed further light on the issue.

[Haynar]

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

This story doesn't add anything new to the thread, and is mainly irrelevant. I don't know why you wrote this. You have revealed the character of a forum poster, who you might assume wished to be anonymous. I don't wish this to be a personal thread, and even though you have tried to force the issue, I still refuse to make it one. What you wrote does not help or shed further light on the issue.

Only irrelevant because more people now know the issue, and less will side with you.

[loramin]

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

This story doesn't add anything new to the thread, and is mainly irrelevant. I don't know why you wrote this. You have revealed the character of a forum poster, who you might assume wished to be anonymous. I don't wish this to be a personal thread, and even though you have tried to force the issue, I still refuse to make it one. What you wrote does not help or shed further light on the issue.

It may not seem like it, but I've been trying to help you ... or at least trying to help find out if you have something reasonable and useful to contribute.

But when a staff member takes their (already very limited) time to explain details to you, and you're not the least bit appreciative (on the contrary, the tone of your response was almost hostile) ... well, you're on your own now.