Just remove the current spawning mechanism of the Sro AC

[Cen]

Yeah track never gets the AC, everyone is swarmed onto the dunes, and whoever it spawns onto their face has won it.

[BlackBellamy]

Originally Posted by chowdah555 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

On live, it wasn't a FTE mechanism or agreement between players. Whoever did the most damage got to loot. I remember many Shadow Knights making a good share of plat from a quick harm touch on the SRo AC.

In "classic" loot rights to the AC were determined by damage done. We don't have "classic", we have "classique". It's like the way it was, but not quite.

[chowdah555]

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

In "classic" loot rights to the AC were determined by damage done. We don't have "classic", we have "classique". It's like the way it was, but not quite.

I'm sure it's why games like FFXI and WoW had systems to prevent other players from KSing but I've always found it interesting that we've willingly accepted it here in p99 without a formal mechanism for it.

[BlackBellamy]

That's because today's players are soft and conflict-averse. The fact that someone might kill-steal is terrifying to them and makes then feel unsafe. That there is a mystical father figure who will protect their camp fills them full of warmth and happiness, like being swaddled in a nice tight warm blanket.

[kaev]

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

That's because today's players are soft and conflict-averse. The fact that someone might kill-steal is terrifying to them and makes then feel unsafe. That there is a mystical father figure who will protect their camp fills them full of warmth and happiness, like being swaddled in a nice tight warm blanket.

Once in a while you go over-the-top in a most beautiful way. /salute

[Bigcountry23]

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

In "classic" loot rights to the AC were determined by damage done. We don't have "classic", we have "classique". It's like the way it was, but not quite.

What live server were you playing on that allowed that? one of the Zeks? That would have been petentioned/stripped of loot/banned on Lanys. FTE was respected.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Bigcountry23 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What live server were you playing on that allowed that? one of the Zeks? That would have been petentioned/stripped of loot/banned on Lanys. FTE was respected.

Bellamy's kind of right, and kind of wrong. What he's right about is that most people didn't petition when they had a "dispute" with another player. Instead, they either hassled that player (eg. tried to KS them, train them, etc.), or they simply moved on and let the disputer have the mob.

Thus, the vast majority (ie. everyone who didn't petition) fell into two categories: people like Bellamy, who DPS-raced ... and everyone else, who just let them. In my personal experience (on Bristlebane), the split was something like 5% "racers" to 95% "non-racers" (ie. most players were non-confrontational), but obviously different people had different experiences.

But Bellamy's 100% wrong if we're talking about the actual, GM-enforced server rules ... and we have proof: the old guidebook that Verant used to give to GMs.

Disruption is defined as any activity that is disruptive to the game play of others, though not necessarily with the intent to do so. Disruption has been sub-categorized into major and minor types.

8.2.1.1 Examples of Minor Disruption
Non-Fantasy Names – Names that are not appropriate for the fantasy genre of EverQuest

Excessive Spam – Continued overuse of /ooc, /shout, or /auction over time such that many players complain

Offensive Names – Names that are profanity in some form, including homonyms and anagrams

Kill Stealing – The killing of a mob for any reason that is already aggravated onto another player.

https://wiki.project1999.com/Kunark_...nor_Disruption

P.S. As a side note ... man what I wouldn't give for GMs here to be like live ones, and take bad names as seriously as camp disputes [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] There's been some truly awful ones lately.

[Jimjam]

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

Bellamy's kind of right, and kind of wrong. What he's right about is that most people didn't petition when they had a "dispute" with another player. Instead, they either hassled that player (eg. tried to KS them, train them, etc.), or they simply moved on and let the disputer have the mob.

Thus, the vast majority (ie. everyone who didn't petition) fell into two categories: people like Bellamy, who DPS-raced ... and everyone else, who just let them. In my personal experience (on Bristlebane), the split was something like 5% "racers" to 95% "non-racers" (ie. most players were non-confrontational), but obviously different people had different experiences.

But Bellamy's 100% wrong if we're talking about the actual, GM-enforced server rules ... and we have proof: the old guidebook that Verant used to give to GMs.



https://wiki.project1999.com/Kunark_...nor_Disruption

P.S. As a side note ... man what I wouldn't give for GMs here to be like live ones, and take bad names as seriously as camp disputes [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] There's been some truly awful ones lately.

Yeah, I been petitioning a bunch of names from a toon which probably doesn’t even meet the standard itself. I’m nothing if not a hypocrite! Policing on some issues really does improve the environment for everybody.

[BlackBellamy]

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

But Bellamy's 100% wrong if we're talking about the actual, GM-enforced server rules ... and we have proof: the old guidebook that Verant used to give to GMs.

Oh I'm not denying that things were written down, just that in actual experience the players had no respect for those rules because they apparently were not enforced, or enough to matter.

For example, you answered a train with a train. You did that knowing there would be no sanction, unless you were maybe doing it all day to everyone. You never transferred gear or plat unless that person was trusted because you knew if they just logged that would be it.

[chowdah555]

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

But Bellamy's 100% wrong if we're talking about the actual, GM-enforced server rules ...

It's one thing to be the written rule.
It's another to actually be enforced.

In my experience on live in the Kunark and Velious eras the GMs didn't enforce what you've got written. That's just from my personal experiences. Plus a petition could take a day or more to get a response. I'm the case of camp issues, trains etc. the response was often well after the events occurred and would come by email.

Perhaps the GM manual changed with time or was formalized further along to include such definitions?