Legacy items on Green99 - pros and cons

[Izmael]

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

So destroy green economy as it might marginally impact blues. Makes sense.

But green economy doesn't even exist.

[DMN]

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

But green economy doesn't even exist.

And tomorrow never comes, so don't worry about anything.

[Buellen]

Server merging has happened before. in history of Everquest. I do not remember sony going "hmm wonder if this will negatively impact those servers because of legacy items" so what if said item comes into the market on blue. they existed on blue at one time so more of them will exist IF green toons get merged into blue. Big deal <not>

would people rage quite etc etc probably but the server would continue.

and always my fav Nilbog Quote:

" I'll keep making classic changes when I can, regardless if people threaten to quit. I'm here to recreate classic eq; not to make people happy."

[Champion_Standing]

Selling loot rights for guise 200k

[loramin]

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

Not classic.

Actually, the classic Play Nice Policy was far stricter than the one here. If two people disputed a mob and it wasn't clear whose it was, the GM forced them to random and then moved on. If someone got an item they were camping and someone else wanted it, the first person was similarly forced to move on (and not just if it was LORE, the way it is here).

I can all but guarantee, after reading the live server guide handbook, that if a group of people tried to monopolize a camp on live the GMs definitely would have stepped in. It's transparently obvious if you just read the spirit of the thing:

Originally Posted by Kunark Era GM Guide, 8.1.2.1

The goal of EverQuest is to create a world where as many people as possible can come and enjoy an immersive role-playing experience.

Note that it does not say "to create a world where farm crews can earn their rent money" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] But to get literal here's their actual camp dispute policy:

Originally Posted by Kunark Era GM Guide, 8.2.3

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.

Originally Posted by Kunark Era GM Guide, 8.2.3.

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.

So, like many of the "play nice policy" rules here this has nothing to do with classic vs. not classic. It has everything to do with the resources and limits of our all volunteer CSR staff vs. live/classic which had paid GMs and "paid with free EQ" guides.

Again, we're smart and creative people: we should be able to come up with a system that prevents lockouts (which is 100% classic), but in a way that works for our less-resourced CSR team.

[loramin]

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

Server merging has happened before. in history of Everquest. I do not remember sony going "hmm wonder if this will negatively impact those servers because of legacy items" so what if said item comes into the market on blue. they existed on blue at one time so more of them will exist IF green toons get merged into blue. Big deal <not>

Apples and oranges. Yes live server merges happened with gear. No merging two servers that started at the same point in the timeline is not in any way the same as merging a server released years later on a much earlier timeline with an existing server.

The whole problem here is people A) know about the merge, and B) know about the items. That makes this situation entirely different: it converts Green from being a server in its own right to being a Blue farming ground. Live servers merging had no such effect, so again, apples and oranges.

A more apt comparison would be merging EQ Mac onto Bristlebane or something (which of course never happened).

[DMN]

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

Actually, the classic Play Nice Policy was far stricter than the one here. If two people disputed a mob and it wasn't clear whose it was, the GM forced them to random and then moved on. If someone got an item they were camping and someone else wanted it, the first person was similarly forced to move on (and not just if it was LORE, the way it is here).

Like many of the "play nice policy" rules here this has nothing to do with classic vs. not classic. It has everything to do with the resources and limits of our all volunteer CSR staff vs. live/classic which had paid GMs and "paid with free EQ" guides.

But like you said, it has to be realistic with P99's staff ability to police these things. It's just not going to happen. And you may think those play nice policies were ever enforced, but only one time since playing from day one did I ever see a guide try to control and actually enforce it. They gave up after about half an hour and logged out. It was Derlzna with like 30-40 people trying to kill her. Guides usually didn't show up for hours and then didn't do anything but run their mouths. Getting GMs to show up could be 2-3 times longer, long after the camping situations and players involved had completely changed.

What was supposed to happen is that one group got a kill on the named mob/item dropper, and then the other belligerent group got the next one. Back and forth. but never saw it enforced, and only once saw it attempted.

[loramin]

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

But like you said, it has to be realistic with P99's staff ability to police these things. It's just not going to happen. And you may think those play nice policies were ever enforced, but only one time since playing from day one did I ever see a guide try to control and actually enforce it. They gave up after about half an hour and logged out. It was Derlzna with like 30-40 people trying to kill her. Guides usually didn't show up for hours and then didn't do anything but run their mouths. Getting GMs to show up could be 2-3 times longer, long after the camping situations and players involved had completely changed.

What was supposed to happen is that one group got a kill on the named mob/item dropper, and then the other belligerent group got the next one. Back and forth. but never saw it enforced, and only once saw it attempted.

You're missing the point. The point is ... well there's several:

First, live GMs would never have let a group monopolize a camp for weeks at a time. I can't prove that, since this wasn't even a case Verant so much as considered in the guidebook ... but again if you actually read the thing it's pretty clear what their motives are: money. Sure at any given moment a guide might not have been available, and sure not every guide followed the guidebook to the letter. But even so it seems very clear that the GMs would not have let a bunch of customers who gave them money be upset by letting one or a small number of other customers dominate content. They forced "everyone take a turn" settlements that made everyone equally pissed off and/or happy instead.

Second, our staff can't be like live staff; they don't have the same resources, and literally can't since P99 doesn't charge. (We seem agreed on this much at least.)

Finally, despite those two facts, I believe it's possible for P99 to (classically) prevent lockouts with its existing support team. You're welcome to say "I don't think so" or "my live experience/data point of one says you're wrong about what the staff would have done on live" ... but I don't see the latter as a convincing argument when I've got the literal GM guide (not to mention plenty of players who do remember live staff enforcing the Play Nice Policy) supporting my position.

And again, we have lots of smart and creative people here, and I think you're selling them short. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong, and maybe it's truly impossible for our CSR staff to prevent lockouts. But let's give the forum a chance to suggest some ideas first.

[DMN]

You show up with whatever rules you want to cook up. Let's say you force the players to rotate group kills on on a disputed item dropper.They go ok, we will split are party of 6 up into 1s and then the other group obviously does the same. Now you have 12 people going after a mob that spawns once in a half hour with quite a rare drop. But more and more players will be showing up in the interim to demand their spot at the loot troph -- far byond the drop rate of the wanted item. it would be a logistal nightmare and you are certainly going to have Ksers that go "whoops" I thought it was my turn" and other assorted shenanigans.

[Elysium]

seeing people worried about how a fresh green server will affect the rareness of their pixels is the epitome of sad