The pampered experience group (deferential players and forward GMs)

[ELance]

It has been my observation on Project '99 that, unlike classic, one group will often dominate uncontested a very large number of spawns relative to the number of people in the zone seeking something to do. It is my assertion that this is brought about by forward GMs on Project '99, who act more eagerly than they did in classic, and deferential players, who unknowing of the rules voluntarily restrict themselves from what in classic would have been theirs, out of fear of punishment or simply the involvement of GMs, which often happens immediately when someone petitions and is not generally a positive experience for anyone. I have seen a few situations like this, and here is how it usually goes.

One or two players in a group are short-tempered, irrational or what have you. They see someone not in the group take something they feel is theirs, and they bristle up. Sometimes they will say something in OOC in an effeminate way, such as "Please don't take our spawns. Thanks." When their vain aggression is ignored, by people who like to play without a headache, mock courtesy quickly and predictably turns to petitions and reports. Here is where I think things are handled improperly and have a negative effect upon Project '99.

But first, some background. In classic, we know that GMs generally only responded to repeated kill stealing and deliberate training, not minor disputes over camps. Usenet is rife with anecdotal evidence that they seldom responded at all, and the likelihood of their response was proportionate to the number of petitions they received with regard to it. I was once told by someone on here that times have changed, signifying I suppose that players today are wilder and more unruly than they were, but I think not. As I assert most here are deferential, it is my conviction, and truly beyond dispute, that this server is placid compared to classic. But let me provide two examples, not to show the state of camping disputes in classic (because, as I say, these were generally left to players), but to show the vast difference in incidents in classic and now.

"Example: I was after a Chittin Shell Shield to increase my AC and just
for the cool looks (it matches my outfit), so i went down to Guk and started
camping for one. At level 25. the mob who drops it was blue to me so I was
getting exp and i had a chance at a cool item to loot. All of a sudden, a
mid 30s KSer (scumbag by the name of Cendar Fireheart) walks up and starts
attacking the mob i was after. I asked what he was doing and he says
"Killing, and you?".
After i explained to him that i was there first and he should wait his
turn and he said "There is no name on it.. whoever gets it, gets it" I
petitioned and was basically told too bad. " 9/13/99

"Hah, Rivan and Trevor on The Rathe CONSTANTLY trained DVinn, King Crush,
and their band of orcs through the newbies, and steal kills constantly as
well. On purpose.
Everybody in the damn zone (and Crushbone is always FULL) /petition'd and
/feedback'd them, and last I checked they're both still in the game. As
far as I can tell, GM's only ban for exploits, nothing else. AFAIK they
didn't even get a warning." 4/5/99


It is obvious that GMs on Project '99 are not like the ones in classic. Whether that is good or bad is for another thread (and maybe not these message boards), but it does bear on this in one way. GMs here do act on minor camping disputes, things that were resolved before by players. That is to say, if one person out of twelve petitions, I have seen no reason to believe a GM will not intervene and very quickly. I think very few good persons wish to involve GMs in disputes. It is irrational. In classic Everquest, presuming a GM did respond to a camping dispute, the guidebook told him simply to tell the players to work it out themselves. And then he left. In other words, the irrational players were reminded to be reasonable. It is nice Project '99 says in the rules players should work things out themselves, but it is important to understand that one or two people do not represent everyone there. Working things out means sharing or moving on, generally. I was in a group the other day, and one person ran through it pulling for another, and someone in one said, "Don't do that again or I'll report you". The words of a child? No--they are the words of someone with power. The GM came immediately. It is my assertion in this thread that this is bad.

I will cut this post short with my proposed solution. Supposition: camping dispute, a few players become irrational, they petition because mobs they feel are theirs, in a crowded zone, are being taken. Solution: GM receives the complaint and monitors the situation lightly. Maybe he troubles himself to remind them they should work things out themselves (better handled in a tell to the petitioner than the apperance of a GM in the middle of a group, which alarms people). GM only intervenes if the situation escalates to intentional trains or repeated killstealing.

Project '99 has been around a while, and so there must have been some objection to this solution, which it seems to me is most reasonable. I simply close by reminding people this is a massively multiplayer game. Players such as myself put up with rampant spoiler site usage, toilet humour and juvenile lingo, others need to put up with those who are not deferential. Otherwise it will not be a massively multiplayer game in the way classic Everquest was. Here are some opinions of players from '99. Do you think these people play on Project '99? I would wager not.

"You guys, get off it. it is Sony's responibility to make sure bugs are being
handled correctly, and that servers are running smooth. the online GM's are
there to ensure FAIR gameplay (as in to cheating ie finding safe zones etc.
and to get peoples stuck bodies out from a wall...)
They are there NOT to run around listening to whiners. about he sent me a
train. (boo hoo)

If they are pissing you off, then be smart, do something back to them. bring
trains to him, or if you are too wimpy, then go elsewhere and hunt.

The only time ithink a GM should intervene is if the rude player is
following you around.... thats all..." 4/7/99

"Clearly, you dont understand the concept of the GMs on Everquest. First of
all.. I paid money to play this online rpg, which is a rareity. I play MUDs
and they are free, and I might actually fear (a teensy bit) the IMMs doing
somehting bad to me if I was being "unethical". But, since I paid cashmoney to
play EQ, I don't fear that at all.. they have to have a really good reason in
order to talk to me (or even think about booting me from the game.)

GMs are mostly there to cover up EQs bugs. If somehting bad happens, they will
fix it. If someone finds a bug, they report it to the GM and it gets fixed. If
someone is exploiting a bug, they will take care of that (alot faster than
anything else actually..hehe.)

HOWEVER, they don't have time nor the brainpower to listen to all you ---
--- ----- about me utilizing the games features at its fullest. I am not 14,
I am in fact alot more mature than you think. If you don't like they way I
play, get out of my zone. If you feel like getting revenge somehow.. declare
against my guild when I make one and try to kill me. "Telling on me" is not
the way to get my to be nice to you." 4/1/99

[Rooj]

The examples lost their traction when they started claiming GMs are there to fix bugs, lol.

[bum3]

It all depends on the guide you got in classic. It also varied by server. Tunare guides were very active and swift. Entire guilds were dismantled and banned due to members being warned to stop ksing and training. My personal experience was when I was soloing frenzy room pre-kunark as a necro.. i could clear the room and pull the outside room. A group setup outside room and i took a mob. Was warned by a guide that my camp was only inside the frenzy room and If I took another one of their mobs I would lose my camp too. But another personal experience is my name was Bumster Heinie... 3 different guides over 2 years responded to complaint petitions on my name. All 3 said it was fine, might be a little pushy but was ok and laughed about it... then a 4th guide summoned me to GM room a couple months later and changed it.

[Baler]

Pras P99 & Pras Staff
They volunteer to do hard work.

And remember it's 2019 not 1999.
There are a new set of problems that did not exist during live clasic. Cut people some slack.

Everyone should read the Play Nice Policy & Server Rules
https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...d.php?t=325349

Behave toward others as one would have others behave toward oneself.

[flacidpenguin]

So many threads recently where people seem to have the complaint of "I want to be a toxic player, but the GMs tell me not to be a toxic player, and this is somehow unfair!"

[Tecmos Deception]

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

Players such as myself put up with rampant spoiler site usage, toilet humour and juvenile lingo

Congrats?

[WaffleztheAndal]

I have heard too many stories of people getting suspensions for even trying to assist another player in trouble with a mob and the player perceiving it as an attempted ks. Now I assume many of these petition stories gone wrong are misconstrued or outright lies, but regardless I generally bend, back down or bow out of any kind of in-game dispute. The staff here are fantastic, and the fact they do all they do for free is just incredible. That said, all it takes is one bad day or one misunderstanding to lose days, weeks or more of progress. Maybe that makes me a wuss but it is what it is. Love the server and I’ll gladly accept these circumstances.

[strawman]

This is interesting in light of yesterday's thread about duos and trios monopolizing camps.

While the community here seems to agree it should be allowed, it sounds like in real classic, the rejected players were within their rights to simply band together and force the duo/trio out of the disputed camp.

[Cuktus]

While I understand where you are coming from, I don't think "Figure it out" is going to work. You have to remember many of us, myself included, revert back to Kindergarten while playing EQ. "MINE MINE MINE" Its sad, and I try to recognize when I am acting like an arse. But its hard when another Kindergarten comes along, doesn't want to talk, just starts saying "MINE MINE MINE" too. I start to feel stolen from, cheated, angry. Which doesn't much help the situation. And so, be both just scream "MINE MINE MINE" at each other until....? Hopeful a guide comes, reminds us both not to be stupid, and splits the camps as fairly as they see fit. Staff here are so awesome.

Anyways, just my 2cp.

[cd288]

I'm still somewhat confused about what you're saying should be done here. A lot of the examples you cite are from the very early days when the PnP was still being fleshed out. As someone who was part of the CSR team back in the day, I can tell you two things.

1. Prior to the PnP being put in place, the CSR rulings varied depending on the server (and at times depending on the specific individual handling the petition). So there were certainly plenty of instances where CSR members would intervene in situations.

2. Post-PnP I think you might be mis-remembering a bit. CSR members frequently intervened in camp/kill-stealing situations and adjudicated a solution. Telling the players to "figure it out themselves" wasn't the response because if they had been able to figure it out themselves there wouldn't be a petition. They needed a CSR member to step in and enforce how things should be done, whether that be to expel someone from the camp for being a jerk and KSing, split the camp between the two people, etc. And we had some flexibility as well. I.e. if they hadn't been able to solve the issue prior to petitioning because one party was simply being a total jerk unwilling to compromise at all and being like "lol ok petition me then" I would often just tell that person to get lost and award the camp to the people they were being a jerk to.