Rules regarding camps when someone has gotten the named spawn

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

And if there are three people in line right now the exact same thing can happen. The point is, people will generally follow the rules, whatever they are (random or monopoly), and the staff will only come out in the rare cases when someone isn't following the rules.

But you also have to remember this is super rare: people don't monopolize 99% of the camps on P99.

Exactly. That is why the camp owner deciding who gets to take the camp makes the most sense. Most people follow the rules, most camps are not monopolized, and the majority of people in lines are strangers, or passing acquaintances. The camp owner is generally the most impartial party when deciding who gets to camp the mob next.

Obviously there are always exceptions to this, but as you can see in the rules, the staff have outlined the exceptions they deem fair. Unless they decide to include additional camps as exceptions, there is no problem with a group of players monopolizing a camp. It is part of the game you need to deal with.

[Zenren]

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

Who attacked kittens? If you feel negative connotation for simply mentioning them, then that's on you not me.

But if you're posting this thread just because you think they cannot compete without idols, then that's just simply not true. They can't compete because I'm pretty sure that they actually have guild policies against competing.

If you want to actually raid, then you should probably find another guild that wants to raid instead of one that voluntarily sits on the sidelines.

And if there's any truth to this rumor that Riot officers are going to get to decide who gets to spend DKP and when, then there's going to be a lot of like-minded individuals out there also looking for guild pretty soon.

Dude, saying "Please tell me he's in kittens" was derogatory. There was no playfulness, it was meant to infer they were inferior to the other guilds you mentioned, no one can read that any other way. There was no need to mention any guild period, which I hadn't done. A subtle insult is still an insult.

[Arvan]

Originally Posted by p99deadstarre [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

uninstall, but keep reading the forums for the luls.

hope this helps

[Ravager]

Idols should have been nerfed a long time ago just like Ivandyr's Hoop. Make it a rarer drop and put a 2 second casting time on it.

As far as camp lockdowns, those are most definitely classic. It's not like there weren't no-life neckbeards in 1999. The options are the same now as they were then: Either move on and find something else to do, or hang around and annoy the crap out of them with your own no-life neckbeardiness until they get perturbed and leave.

[Zenren]

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

Idols should have been nerfed a long time ago just like Ivandyr's Hoop. Make it a rarer drop and put a 2 second casting time on it.

As far as camp lockdowns, those are most definitely classic. It's not like there weren't no-life neckbeards in 1999. The options are the same now as they were then: Either move on and find something else to do, or hang around and annoy the crap out of them with your own no-life neckbeardiness until they get perturbed and leave.

This isn't entirely true. GMs would move people on when they saw them at a camp for excessive periods of time. You couldn't just live at a camp 24/7. In regards to project 1999, if you alternated characters that would be one thing, but changing who is playing the same character is just stupid, there should be a time limit on how long one character can stay at a camp in my opinion. Again Everquest grew, Project 1999 is stopped in time. The design was never for people to live in the Velious environment for a decade. You have to adapt to how the players are changing the environment, or the environment doesn't work for anyone except the people without a job or any real responsibilities who are monopolizing spawns so they can control the end game content and economy.

[loramin]

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

Idols should have been nerfed a long time ago just like Ivandyr's Hoop. Make it a rarer drop and put a 2 second casting time on it.

As far as camp lockdowns, those are most definitely classic. It's not like there weren't no-life neckbeards in 1999. The options are the same now as they were then: Either move on and find something else to do, or hang around and annoy the crap out of them with your own no-life neckbeardiness until they get perturbed and leave.

Gee, if only we had the exact rulebook used by the GMs during the classic period to know that's not true ... oh wait, we do!

(Emphasis added)

8.2.3 Contested Spawn Complaints
When a complaint is received indicating that a spawn or kill is contested, a disruption investigation should first be initiated according to the procedures of section 8.2.2 to determine if harassment or Zone/Area disruption is occurring. After following those procedures and issuing warnings as necessary, instruct the parties involved in the contested spawn situation to work out a compromise. Then leave the scene.

If another complaint is received involving the same spawn site, another disruption investigation should be initiated. After following those procedures and issuing warnings as necessary, if any of the parties involved were involved in the initial situation, establish a compromise for the parties to which the parties are required to abide. The compromise should be as described in section 8.2.3.1. Any party refusing to abide by the compromise established by the CS Representative should be issued a warning for disruption.

On PvP servers, where players can reach a solution to the contested spawn situation, the CS Representative does not need to require the players to share the spawn.

8.2.3.1
The compromise will require all parties to take turns killing the spawn(s). All parties involved in the contested spawn should be instructed to use /random 0 100 to choose a number. The CS Representative then uses /random 0 100. The individual with the closest number to the CS Representative’s number will be next in the rotation. The CS Representative then bases the rest of the rotation order on how close the other parties’ numbers were to theirs. The compromise established by a CS Representative must be objective and not require the CS Representative to choose one customer over another based on subjective criteria. The CS Representative is the arbiter in any disputes in establishing the compromise.

It even specifically references using /random to determine who gets the camp ... ie. exactly what I've been saying we should do here.

Again, our PnP are unclassic, but often necessarily so because of our all volunteer GMs. In this particular case however, it's unnecessarily unclassic.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

This isn't entirely true. GMs would move people on when they saw them at a camp for excessive periods of time. You couldn't just live at a camp 24/7. In regards to project 1999, if you alternated characters that would be one thing, but changing who is playing the same character is just stupid, there should be a time limit on how long one character can stay at a camp in my opinion. Again Everquest grew, Project 1999 is stopped in time. The design was never for people to live in the Velious environment for a decade. You have to adapt to how the players are changing the environment, or the environment doesn't work for anyone except the people without a job or any real responsibilities who are monopolizing spawns so they can control the end game content and economy.

Again, play TLP if you want instancing and easy shots at items. Non-instanced games are designed around scarcity. There isn't a problem with the current setup. The game is working as intended.

There will always be no lifer people in games, you can't fix that. The way most games dealt with it was instancing, but the charm of P99 is it is one of the few MMOs left without instancing. Seriously, go play literally every other MMO if you don't like non-instsancing. Trying to change P99 because you want it to be a different game is just selfish.

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

It even specifically references using /random to determine who gets the camp ... ie. exactly what I've been saying we should do here.

Again, our PnP are unclassic, but often necessarily so because of our all volunteer GMs. In this particular case however, it's unnecessarily unclassic.

Its not unecessarily unclassic. You already gave the reason for it's necessity. Unlike live, where they had paid GMs, our staff is volunteer. We need a PnP that incentivises people to act like adults and solve their own problems before requiring a GM. The camp owner is the best bet at an impartial party when solving a dispute.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Also Loramin, your /random idea is not the same as the guidebook. The guidebook has a GM present to arbitrate the /random. Your solution has no arbiter, just players /randoming and hoping everyone agrees. If that solution worked all the time, you wouldn't need GMs lol, because the players would be able to solve all of their own problems. The camp owner could be the arbiter though when looking at the /random idea in the guidebook, which is what's in the PnP rules already[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Ravager]

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

This isn't entirely true. GMs would move people on when they saw them at a camp for excessive periods of time. You couldn't just live at a camp 24/7. In regards to project 1999, if you alternated characters that would be one thing, but changing who is playing the same character is just stupid, there should be a time limit on how long one character can stay at a camp in my opinion. Again Everquest grew, Project 1999 is stopped in time. The design was never for people to live in the Velious environment for a decade. You have to adapt to how the players are changing the environment, or the environment doesn't work for anyone except the people without a job or any real responsibilities who are monopolizing spawns so they can control the end game content and economy.

Depended on what server you were on. Some servers' the GMs cared about fairness and fun more than others.

[Ravager]

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

Gee, if only we had the exact rulebook used by the GMs during the classic period to know that's not true ... oh wait, we do!

(Emphasis added)



It even specifically references using /random to determine who gets the camp ... ie. exactly what I've been saying we should do here.

Again, our PnP are unclassic, but often necessarily so because of our all volunteer GMs. In this particular case however, it's unnecessarily unclassic.

Eh, post it in the bugs forum. It'll get patched in a year or two.