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

[ELance]

The difference between the Play Nice Policy on this server and Everquest in 2000 and 2001.

It's my understanding from substantial reading on newsgroups that in the Play Nice Policy of 2000 and 2001 GMs did not support camping at all, and in all cases of mediation players were always encouraged to share spawns, whether alone or in a group. It's my understanding on this server that players are immediately threatened with suspensions if they are found to be encroaching on popular and conventional ideas of camps. Does anyone know where this server went wrong (supposing it was trying to emulate classic Everquest) and why? I have tried to seek answers from the staff, but can come by nothing from them.

[America]

people's brains work differently than in 1999, and on paid accounts. therefore interventionism is requisite to maintain the "classic" feel. I understand being unahppy with the regime but you are an "everquest libertarian", aka retard

file under blessed to feel my boot

[loramin]

Does anyone know where this server went wrong (supposing it was trying to emulate classic Everquest) and why? I have tried to seek answers from the staff, but can come by nothing from them.

"Went wrong" might be a bit too strong for a 100% free all-volunteer run server.

The staff are human, and there are precious few of them. This isn't surprising: to be a staff member you have to love Project 1999 so much that you are willing to never play on it (as a player) ever again. Very few people, who love P99 enough to want to become staff in the first place, are willing to make that sacrifice.

On top of that, because of the lack of tangible benefits, (sadly) many staff members in the past have abused their position to sell favors in one form or another. When they get caught they are of course kicked out, leaving the project with even fewer staff members.

So, in light of all of the above, it's a bit ... naive(?) to expect the same level of customer service that Verant offered back when 1k+ customers (per server) were giving them $9.99 a month to pay GMs (and, in a way, to pay for guides, since those guides had to be supervised by paid GMs).

Hope that helps answer your "why?" If P99 could magically hire a full GM/guide team, like Verant had on live, they could probably handle CSR policies that require more time investment (eg. if you want to force people to share a camp, that takes more time/babysitting than just saying "Bob has the camp").

P.S. Plus I'm not entirely certain that camps weren't a thing everywhere. I did read the entire classic GM guidebook (someone linked it here awhile back), but I don't remember it well enough to say for sure whether it was explicit about camps. It might have been one of those gray areas that varied by server (ie. by GM fiat).

[Legidias]

1. The idea of 'camps' didnt even exist back then so of course there was no official support (for or against them)
2. Unlike P99, all the players on live were paying customers, so of course the company isn't going to be as welcoming to ban / suspend accounts since that directly affects their pay
3. People are still encouraged to share spawns. People are just more greedy / know how to solo them more efficiently than back then.
4. No one is "immediately threatened with suspensions" in a camp dispute. I have been part of several, on the accusing and accused sides, and not once have I seen any mention of suspension. You would only get suspended for either major KS (like SF) or repeated camp issues.

Don't know if trolling, but 20 years and a completely different meta changes a lot.

[Supaskillz]

There were definitely camps on live. Most people respected standard camps. If there was a dispute gms/guides would get involved and may often encourage sharing. We don't have guides/gms on 24/7 on here. Respecting first come first serve on a camp seems pretty reasonable to me.

I have played alot on p99 and had almost no camp disputes so I am always a little confused by these posts. I go to zones I might do a CC or go look at what I want to camp. Someone is there, guess I better do something else. No different from my approach on live. I remember waiting on lists for hours to get into Lord and/or Frenzy groups on live. Why would I want a server where people ignore that and after I camp an area for hours come and sit in front of me and start trying to pull the mobs before I do?

[Jauna]

is this a lulz thread?

[Nexii]

Players definitely had camps and called them back on live. People weren't as cutthroat because they typically only had one main and no alts that were high level. Lawyerquesting people into camp sharing was sure to ruin your reputation.

[ELance]

people's brains work differently than in 1999 [snip] interventionism is requisite to maintain the "classic" feel.


Interesting theory, but I disagree.



So, in light of all of the above, it's a bit ... naive(?) to expect the same level of customer service that Verant offered back when 1k+ customers (per server) were giving them $9.99 a month to pay GMs (and, in a way, to pay for guides, since those guides had to be supervised by paid GMs).

Hope that helps answer your "why?" If P99 could magically hire a full GM/guide team, like Verant had on live, they could probably handle CSR policies that require more time investment (eg. if you want to force people to share a camp, that takes more time/babysitting than just saying "Bob has the camp").

P.S. Plus I'm not entirely certain that camps weren't a thing everywhere. I did read the entire classic GM guidebook (someone linked it here awhile back), but I don't remember it well enough to say for sure whether it was explicit about camps. It might have been one of those gray areas that varied by server (ie. by GM fiat).

I don't expect or need customer service. I reckoned I have probably played this game 600 hours and never once petitioned a GM for anything. With an average of 1000 players logged online a day that should be four petitions a day at most. Also no one was "forced" to share camps in 2000 and 2001. Killstealing was forbidden, and if someone was accused of it they would be monitored and given a warning if they did. Apart from that they were encouraged to share. Whether they did or not I think was immaterial; the first person to engage a mob had rights to it. What I mean is that the only official GM action ever in such disputes was to say "share". Warnings were only issued for killstealing.

Here is a post from newsgroups on 2/26/01 that explains it:

>
> Camping: Would someone please write a new players guide or have the GMs
> and their assistants sit down and get their stories straight? I have
> had a GM
> "say You can't camp a zone." Another one says, " you can't camp a rare
> spawn"
> Still another says " Camping is still enforced, but we refer to it as
> the play nice rule. Take turns (kids) and play nice" If this is such a
> big problem, why not set a flag so that the person getting the first hit
> has responsibility for the critter. Have others ge the message "That
> creaature is under attack" Ok, I know nothing about programming so
> maybe this would be a bite, and there would have to be a way of
> releasing it once you realize you can't handle it. Hey, there ya go,
> this wouild force more people to group up unless they really wanted to
> solo.
The only rules for camping are in the play nice policy availble at
www.everquest.com
Yes, gms do kinda enforce them differently. 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."

Another that addresses the idea of ownership in perpetuity from 10/23/2000:

" 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.
However, the commonly held GENTLEMANLY code of conduct says you don't bust
up someone else's camp. If some spot is in use, go find another spot that
isn't. You are imposing on THEM, not the otherway around."



1. The idea of 'camps' didnt even exist back then so of course there was no official support (for or against them)
2. Unlike P99, all the players on live were paying customers, so of course the company isn't going to be as welcoming to ban / suspend accounts since that directly affects their pay
3. People are still encouraged to share spawns. People are just more greedy / know how to solo them more efficiently than back then.
4. No one is "immediately threatened with suspensions" in a camp dispute. I have been part of several, on the accusing and accused sides, and not once have I seen any mention of suspension. You would only get suspended for either major KS (like SF) or repeated camp issues.

Don't know if trolling, but 20 years and a completely different meta changes a lot.

1) Yes as I said 2000 and 2001, an era it may be supposed this server was trying to emulate.
2) A fair point, but that was the Everquest we all played and liked. If there were disputes then, it means that some players did not agree with the notions of whatever group liked to codify camps. And thus those players would not have a home on a server that bans them, and thus this server will not be the Everquest of 2000 and 2001.
3 & 4) Players are immediately threatened with suspensions for sharing mobs with groups who claim ownership in perpetuity by reason of being there first.

As to the last comment, that is insulting and uncalled for. What is "meta"? And why are we changing things? I thought the intent of this server was to emulate Everquest in 1999-2001.

There were definitely camps on live. Most people respected standard camps. If there was a dispute gms/guides would get involved and may often encourage sharing. We don't have guides/gms on 24/7 on here. Respecting first come first serve on a camp seems pretty reasonable to me.

I have played alot on p99 and had almost no camp disputes so I am always a little confused by these posts. I go to zones I might do a CC or go look at what I want to camp. Someone is there, guess I better do something else. No different from my approach on live. I remember waiting on lists for hours to get into Lord and/or Frenzy groups on live. Why would I want a server where people ignore that and after I camp an area for hours come and sit in front of me and start trying to pull the mobs before I do?

Massively multiplayer online games (as well as that MUDs on which they are based) are well known to thrive when types of players are kept in equilibrium. You may not understand it, but what they are doing on this server is exactly what has ruined MMORPGs, and exactly what writers such as Bartle warned about with heavy-handed intervention through coding and GMs. The idea of the ideal MMORPG is that players will work things out themselves, and there does not need to be control through systems and excessive policies. As you have noted many players respect this idea of camps, and think those that do not are rude, and thus a player that does not will acquire a lesser reputation than those that do, and thus any issue that there may be is resolved by the players without the intervention of GMs (or later systems such as instancing and mob locking). The reputation of a player that does not respect camps will be less in proportion to those that do, *in proportion to the number of players that do hold this idea of ownership in perpetuity on the server*, simulating a virtual world.

[Legidias]

3 & 4) Players are immediately threatened with suspensions for sharing mobs with groups who claim ownership in perpetuity by reason of being there first.

As to the last comment, that is insulting and uncalled for. What is "meta"? And why are we changing things? I thought the intent of this server was to emulate Everquest in 1999-2001.


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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming), 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".

[ELance]

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming), 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".

If you reread my original post, you will see that there is no mention of killstealing.

This is not fake news. Camps are defined and enforced by GMs on this server. A suspension will be the penalty for a player that does not comply with a GMs request for a player to desist with sharing the mobs of a group who by reason of being at the camp first claims ownership in perpetuity of it.

This is not "personal", far from it. I expected classic Everquest on this server, and have found that not only is the policy different, but is actually the polar opposite of the Play Nice Policy in 2000 and 2001. As to why I seldom come to these forums or have not followed discussions of camping... I was playing the game, and I have not found other points of the game unsatisfactory. That is really an ancient fallacy that you are repeating there about "the forums are the players".

What's more, if it is an issue that sees frequent discussion on these forums, then it bears repeating again and again, for it *differs markedly from Everquest in 2000 and 2001* and is in fact the polar opposite of it, discouraging sharing and encouraging exclusion.

[America]

Interesting theory, but I disagree.




I don't expect or need customer service. I reckoned I have probably played this game 600 hours and never once petitioned a GM for anything. With an average of 1000 players logged online a day that should be four petitions a day at most. Also no one was "forced" to share camps in 2000 and 2001. Killstealing was forbidden, and if someone was accused of it they would be monitored and given a warning if they did. Apart from that they were encouraged to share. Whether they did or not I think was immaterial; the first person to engage a mob had rights to it. What I mean is that the only official GM action ever in such disputes was to say "share". Warnings were only issued for killstealing.

Here is a post from newsgroups on 2/26/01 that explains it:

>
> Camping: Would someone please write a new players guide or have the GMs
> and their assistants sit down and get their stories straight? I have
> had a GM
> "say You can't camp a zone." Another one says, " you can't camp a rare
> spawn"
> Still another says " Camping is still enforced, but we refer to it as
> the play nice rule. Take turns (kids) and play nice" If this is such a
> big problem, why not set a flag so that the person getting the first hit
> has responsibility for the critter. Have others ge the message "That
> creaature is under attack" Ok, I know nothing about programming so
> maybe this would be a bite, and there would have to be a way of
> releasing it once you realize you can't handle it. Hey, there ya go,
> this wouild force more people to group up unless they really wanted to
> solo.
The only rules for camping are in the play nice policy availble at
www.everquest.com
Yes, gms do kinda enforce them differently. 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."

Another that addresses the idea of ownership in perpetuity from 10/23/2000:

" 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.
However, the commonly held GENTLEMANLY code of conduct says you don't bust
up someone else's camp. If some spot is in use, go find another spot that
isn't. You are imposing on THEM, not the otherway around."





1) Yes as I said 2000 and 2001, an era it may be supposed this server was trying to emulate.
2) A fair point, but that was the Everquest we all played and liked. If there were disputes then, it means that some players did not agree with the notions of whatever group liked to codify camps. And thus those players would not have a home on a server that bans them, and thus this server will not be the Everquest of 2000 and 2001.
3 & 4) Players are immediately threatened with suspensions for sharing mobs with groups who claim ownership in perpetuity by reason of being there first.

As to the last comment, that is insulting and uncalled for. What is "meta"? And why are we changing things? I thought the intent of this server was to emulate Everquest in 1999-2001.



Massively multiplayer online games (as well as that MUDs on which they are based) are well known to thrive when types of players are kept in equilibrium. You may not understand it, but what they are doing on this server is exactly what has ruined MMORPGs, and exactly what writers such as Bartle warned about with heavy-handed intervention through coding and GMs. The idea of the ideal MMORPG is that players will work things out themselves, and there does not need to be control through systems and excessive policies. As you have noted many players respect this idea of camps, and think those that do not are rude, and thus a player that does not will acquire a lesser reputation than those that do, and thus any issue that there may be is resolved by the players without the intervention of GMs (or later systems such as instancing and mob locking). The reputation of a player that does not respect camps will be less in proportion to those that do, *in proportion to the number of players that do hold this idea of ownership in perpetuity on the server*, simulating a virtual world.

yikes

*peels out and speeds toward the horizon*

[loramin]

The only rules for camping are in the play nice policy availble at
www.everquest.com
Yes, gms do kinda enforce them differently. 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."

First off, the play nice policy "availble" at www.everquest.com is 100% not relevant here. This server emulates classic, not live, EverQuest. If you want to compare apples to apples, you have to look at a classic GM guide, which in fact does explicitly support camping:

8.3 Exploitation
Policy:
Exploitation is defined as abusing weaknesses in the game system to the advantage of one or more players
with the intention of profiting from them in some manner.
...
Things that are not Exploitation:
...
• Camping – sitting in one spot to await the spawn of a monster or item.

But again, even if you look at the classic GM rules, it's still not reasonable to expect such policies here when live had an entire team of paid GMs and Project 1999 does not.

Incidentally, the old staff rules did not prohibit kill stealing. On the contrary, "vulching" was explicitly listed (along with "Camping") as not being an exploitation:


Things that are not Exploitation:
...
• Vulching – “stealing” kills from other players


For reference, here's a link (https://www.docdroid.net/iFf2lVL/eq-guide.doc) to those old rules.

[bigjeff100]

Aww came here expecting Lulz :(

[ELance]

Lawyerquesting people into camp sharing was sure to ruin your reputation.

I agree (among those who held the idea of ownership in perpetuity by reason of being there first), but do not see how this pertains to GMs defining and enforcing camps and suspending players that do not comply. I have seen no evidence in many hours of reading newsgroups that this ever happened in 2000 and 2001, and indeed everything that I have read suggests that this would have caused intense and angry outcry if it ever did happen, and that the policies of this server on camping are the polar opposite of the policies in 2000 and 2001 as to camping.

[ELance]

First off, the play nice policy "availble" at www.everquest.com is 100% not relevant here. This server emulates classic, not live, EverQuest. If you want to compare apples to apples, you have to look at a classic GM guide, which in fact does explicitly support camping:



But again, even if you look at the classic GM rules, it's still not reasonable to expect such policies here when live had an entire team of paid GMs and Project 1999 does not.

Incidentally, the old staff rules did not prohibit kill stealing. On the contrary, "vulching" was explicitly listed (along with "Camping") as not being an exploitation:



For reference, here's a link (https://www.docdroid.net/iFf2lVL/eq-guide.doc) to those old rules.


You didn't read my post. You are quoting a quote of mine from a newsgroup in 2001.

EDIT: To be fair, it wasn't in italics. I would edit it now if I could.

[Teppler]

This server didn't go wrong with camps.

The camp rules being a sensitive issue has more to do this server being a lot more ridiculously top heavy than live. In live Kunark and Velious was like 1/10th the time span as on our server here. People were leveling. They didn't have as many advanced tactics. People didn't know the camps as well.

That being said, camping was still very much a thing. I specifically remember holding down the Ancient Cyclop camp for my jboots back in the day. I remember drama in HHK about what camps were what.

[ELance]

You didn't read my post. You are quoting a quote of mine from a newsgroup in 2001.

EDIT: To be fair, it wasn't in italics. I would edit it now if I could.

An addendum to this post (can't edit it any more):

But what policies? All I said was the GMs encouraged players to share and gave warnings for killstealing. This could be accomplished by a post on the message board, "share", and occasional monitoring of players for killstealing when petitions were made You seem to be trying awfully hard to argue this one point. Two understandings about this that I have: 1) the only case of this I have seen on Project 1999 the GMs answered the petition in 10 or 15 minutes...not exactly short-staffed, but again it hardly matters, cause 2) my understanding in classic is players had to fend for themselves. A warning would only be issued for killstealing if a GM witnessed it, and in order for them to witness it they would likely have had to have been notified about it after one or more killstealings had already happened. I read a post on newsgroups about the AC camp in SRO...the consensus was that you had to fend for yourself, GMs wouldn't sit there for hours and hours, and you would have to compete with other players for damage. Why do you think it is bad to compete with other players for damage? On a private server I would expect it would be even more free-wheeling, and as I understand it in 1999 it was... first engagement was the law of the land; kill-stealing as later was acknowledged as grounds for a warning, but only if a GM saw it...and they likely wouldn't have seen anything but malicious and intentional killstealing, not the usual close-call and incidental kind.... My question is why you think and wish that the GMs should protect players from other players as it were. You don't like a virtual world, and wish to live in a controlled environment?

[loramin]

You didn't read my post. You are quoting a quote of mine from a newsgroup in 2001.

EDIT: To be fair, it wasn't in italics. I would edit it now if I could.

To be even fairer your post was extremely long, and a bit rambling/not well focused ;) This is very much the kettle calling the pot black (as I'm sure other posters will agree, my posts tend to be long-winded). But when you write a massive not-super-organized scrawl of text like that, it's very natural for people to lose sight of what you were trying to communicate, or to have a reaction like:

yikes

*peels out and speeds toward the horizon*

But still the core points I said remain:


Project 1999 does not have the customer support resources that live EQ had, and as such their policies are necessarily going to be different
In as much as they do try to adhere to policies, they adhere to classic policies, not current live ones
Those classic policies are not very explicit (I linked them; you can see for yourself)
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" :confused:) 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.


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.

[Wonkie]

you can play live if you want dps races

move to resolved

[ELance]

This server didn't go wrong with camps.

The camp rules being a sensitive issue has more to do this server being a lot more ridiculously top heavy than live. In live Kunark and Velious was like 1/10th the time span as on our server here. People were leveling. They didn't have as many advanced tactics. People didn't know the camps as well.

That being said, camping was still very much a thing. I specifically remember holding down the Ancient Cyclop camp for my jboots back in the day. I remember drama in HHK about what camps were what.

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.

[Nexii]

you can play live if you want dps races

move to resolved

[loramin]

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]

https://i.imgur.com/0hQyd5L.gif

[ELance]

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" :confused:) 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]

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming), 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]

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]

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]

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.

[ELance]

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

Good grief... I see this thread was moved to rants and flames. Well it is a private server, and like private property I will not commit the fallacy of thinking that I have a right to do or say anything there. I loved this game, it was my dream game, and this thread was not malicious at all. I was curious why the dream fizzled apart, and in such a stark divergence from classic. I have been told elsewhere (by a senior guide) that Project 1999 has its own rules and intentionally diverges from classic in some ways. That was my answer. I don't agree with it, and it also makes it impossible for me to play here, because I would suffer suspension after suspension, as I believe in a player's right to share mobs with other players, and I think Verant had the right idea about this.

[Supaskillz]

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.

“Sharing” LOL. Okay, I get it. Your an asshole and want to turn down a group invite to ks them and don’t want to be banned for it.

If stealing camps was your live experience it is vastly different from my own. If we had a bunch of you running around stealing camps this server would suck. Good riddance. Go play pvp eq, you will find a home there.

[Nexii]

Players on live that forced themselves into camps as mentioned would have been blacklisted. It was rare anyone did what was said. Here it's enforced harder.

It's much easier on P99 to just get a port to another camp. So that's kind of the expectation. We're not in classic with 100+ players packed into MM, LGuk, SolB, etc. So I can see the argument for not being forced to split pond camp

[ELance]

We're not in classic with 100+ players packed into MM, LGuk, SolB, etc. So I can see the argument for not being forced to split pond camp That's an interesting point, and something that the newsgroups don't reveal (the number of players in the zones then). By the time I was playing in '01 there was a pretty easy path from Oasis -> LoIO -> Overthere - Frontier Mountains/Dreadlands, and I was too young then (16-17) to appreciate the nuances of dungeons or even know how to reach them without maps or spoiler sites, so I never dealt with this back then. In any case the unit of a "group" does not and should not have to represent an all-inclusive and "democratic" (if you will) thing. This is how you can just know instinctively this wasn't classic. MMORPGs have always been all inclusive games. It's true that one of my characters might have been "blacklisted", but I would rather have had this interesting experience than the more mundane one of a GM suspending me. And it would have been nostalgic, as my SK back in 2001 or 2002 came near this (although "blacklisted" seems to be somewhat of an exaggeration in all cases that I can imagine), which is why I eventually quit. Can't say I ever dealt with or spoke to a GM in all my 54-59 levels (can't remember the exact level I was) though, and I was a terror at that age. The dynamics of the players dealt with this very well, which is another reason I am a proponent of the old style and the free approach to MMORPGs and the virtual world rather than the more controlled ones. I dealt with this before EQ in all the MUDs I played too (where I was banned, for killing without roleplaying reasons on role-playing servers) Well... that's the difference between a private game and a public one. Whether you can successfully graft the structure of a private game onto one that was intended to be all inclusive and public is what Project 1999 is attempting.

[Cecily]

That's an interesting point, and something that the newsgroups don't reveal (the number of players in the zones then). By the time I was playing in '01 there was a pretty easy path from Oasis -> LoIO -> Overthere - Frontier Mountains/Dreadlands, and I was too young then (16-17) to appreciate the nuances of dungeons or even know how to reach them without maps or spoiler sites, so I never dealt with this back then. In any case the unit of a "group" does not and should not have to represent an all-inclusive and "democratic" (if you will) thing. This is how you can just know instinctively this wasn't classic. MMORPGs have always been all inclusive games. It's true that one of my characters might have been "blacklisted", but I would rather have had this interesting experience than the more mundane one of a GM suspending me. And it would have been nostalgic, as my SK back in 2001 or 2002 came near this (although "blacklisted" seems to be somewhat of an exaggeration in all cases that I can imagine), which is why I eventually quit. Can't say I ever dealt with or spoke to a GM in all my 54-59 levels (can't remember the exact level I was) though, and I was a terror at that age. The dynamics of the players dealt with this very well, which is another reason I am a proponent of the old style and the free approach to MMORPGs and the virtual world rather than the more controlled ones. I dealt with this before EQ in all the MUDs I played too (where I was banned, for killing without roleplaying reasons on role-playing servers) Well... that's the difference between a private game and a public one. Whether you can successfully graft the structure of a private game onto one that was intended to be all inclusive and public is what Project 1999 is attempting.

[America]

That's an interesting point, and something that the newsgroups don't reveal (the number of players in the zones then). By the time I was playing in '01 there was a pretty easy path from Oasis -> LoIO -> Overthere - Frontier Mountains/Dreadlands, and I was too young then (16-17) to appreciate the nuances of dungeons or even know how to reach them without maps or spoiler sites, so I never dealt with this back then. In any case the unit of a "group" does not and should not have to represent an all-inclusive and "democratic" (if you will) thing. This is how you can just know instinctively this wasn't classic. MMORPGs have always been all inclusive games. It's true that one of my characters might have been "blacklisted", but I would rather have had this interesting experience than the more mundane one of a GM suspending me. And it would have been nostalgic, as my SK back in 2001 or 2002 came near this (although "blacklisted" seems to be somewhat of an exaggeration in all cases that I can imagine), which is why I eventually quit. Can't say I ever dealt with or spoke to a GM in all my 54-59 levels (can't remember the exact level I was) though, and I was a terror at that age. The dynamics of the players dealt with this very well, which is another reason I am a proponent of the old style and the free approach to MMORPGs and the virtual world rather than the more controlled ones. I dealt with this before EQ in all the MUDs I played too (where I was banned, for killing without roleplaying reasons on role-playing servers) Well... that's the difference between a private game and a public one. Whether you can successfully graft the structure of a private game onto one that was intended to be all inclusive and public is what Project 1999 is attempting.

same dude, i can really feel that

[Wonkie]

That's an interesting point, and something that the newsgroups don't reveal (the number of players in the zones then). By the time I was playing in '01 there was a pretty easy path from Oasis -> LoIO -> Overthere - Frontier Mountains/Dreadlands, and I was too young then (16-17) to appreciate the nuances of dungeons or even know how to reach them without maps or spoiler sites, so I never dealt with this back then. In any case the unit of a "group" does not and should not have to represent an all-inclusive and "democratic" (if you will) thing. This is how you can just know instinctively this wasn't classic. MMORPGs have always been all inclusive games. It's true that one of my characters might have been "blacklisted", but I would rather have had this interesting experience than the more mundane one of a GM suspending me. And it would have been nostalgic, as my SK back in 2001 or 2002 came near this (although "blacklisted" seems to be somewhat of an exaggeration in all cases that I can imagine), which is why I eventually quit. Can't say I ever dealt with or spoke to a GM in all my 54-59 levels (can't remember the exact level I was) though, and I was a terror at that age. The dynamics of the players dealt with this very well, which is another reason I am a proponent of the old style and the free approach to MMORPGs and the virtual world rather than the more controlled ones. I dealt with this before EQ in all the MUDs I played too (where I was banned, for killing without roleplaying reasons on role-playing servers) Well... that's the difference between a private game and a public one. Whether you can successfully graft the structure of a private game onto one that was intended to be all inclusive and public is what Project 1999 is attempting.

[Bardp1999]

to be a staff member you have to love Project 1999 so much that you are willing to never play on it (as a player) ever again.

90% of the forums trolls don't play on the server anymore.

[Wonkie]

90% of the forums trolls don't play on the server anymore.

cool avatar. looks familiar.

[loramin]

cool avatar. looks familiar.

Same thing about America; every time I see her avatar I think of Khannable (or at least I think that's who used to have that avatar, but I'm terrible with names so I could be wrong).

[thraxxia]

sorry you didnt get ks

[shuklak]

We played on dial up and were more concerned with getting kicked off the computer by our families than being kicked out of a virtual camp.

[Mead]

op sounds manipulative and doesn't know how to play nice

unfortunately, not the first of your kind around here

can close this one up

[Jauna]

I really need help but didnt think it was worth a new thread. I got a new chair and it traps farts like a fucking sponge and it wouldnt be that bad but it marinates whenever I am not home and when I get back I smell that 2 or 3 day old cheese smell every time I move or sit or get up to pee and come back to this wave of egg wrapped in cheese sitting in a jar of sulfur on a hot and muggy summers day and I tried farting the chair with my hands and fabreeze but now it just smells like a springtime post-rain aged milk halitosis burp

[Mead]

my gaming chair has fart resistant material

is not able to soak and marinate in the material

[Jauna]

my gaming chair has fart resistant material

is not able to soak and marinate in the material

I googled "fart resistant chair" and got this from Amazon

http://a.co/d/8Ck3uLk

So, thank you, Mead.

[thraxxia]

A fun, yet serious solution to the embarrassing problem of malodorous gas.

[Jimjam]

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.

So your saying OP was trying to trigger the 'share' clause when in truth they were just wanting to monopolise gargoyles under the pond group's nose?

[Jimjam]

And did this after having turned down an invite to share these mobs in group?

What was OP's character name again?

[America]

my gaming chair has fart resistant material

is not able to soak and marinate in the material

lol, i feel real guilty for being tickled by this mr. mead

[Legidias]

It's always satisfying to call out the crazy on page 1

[Gilder]

my gaming chair has fart resistant material

is not able to soak and marinate in the material

SMH. Why WOULDN'T you marinate the material? You have a computer chair for 4-5 years, there's some solid farts aging in there. Like a fine cheese.

[kjs86z]

https://www.reddit.com/r/justneckbeardthings/

[Mblake81]

1. The idea of 'camps' didnt even exist back then so of course there was no official support (for or against them)

3. People are still encouraged to share spawns. People are just more greedy / know how to solo them more efficiently than back then.


I couldn't disagree more with this, at least on Bristlebane in 2000-2001. Camps were already defined by the time I joined and people (I remember a necro forum) had figured out the best ways to level. My live necro followed a 1-50 guide were it took you to the best mobs per level, the best spell combs to use and how to use them. It was already min/maxed.

I dinged 51 the first day of Kunark, by the time my friends and me made it to old Seb the camps were already set, 4 Door (crypt) in particular.

I don't remember a GM/guide ever getting involved about sharing camps.

[Legidias]

You are one person. Like 90% of the population here is well informed of the best ways to level / make plat now compared to probably 10% of live population back then.

[Legidias]

And the #3 was referencing current state not previous. Every time Ive been part of a camp dispute with GM involvement, the first thing they ask if its possible for the parties involved to share said camp.

[Andakos]

I see the problem here. The OP just got confused about the servers.
Let me help you out.

https://i.imgur.com/FmMTs6G.jpg

[Daallee]

I see the problem here. The OP just got confused about the servers.
Let me help you out.

https://imgur.com/a/7LvEJY6

Just curious OP. Would you rather have your version of "Classic camp rules" upheld, give up your character's name, and be solo-griefed out of a camp? I hear they don't have this type of problem over on Red or RoZ

[Haynar]

Classic camp rules would have just trained the shit out of the OP until he left or died or both.

H

[Mblake1981]

Classic camp rules would have just trained the shit out of the OP until he left or died or both.

H

"EQ is cutthroat" -Ughy Uugh, leader of <Reckless Fury>

[Nisse]

Enjoy your vacation

[Moerne]

Guides absolutely enforced camps. From the great and infamous Tweety rant "Try Being a Guide, You Nutless Ass-Muncher"

>Play nice policies. My personal feelings aside (lay off the wacky weed, Verant), I get to enforce it. Do you know how much I hate you at the end of a long shift? What kind of asshole thinks the king room in Lower Guk can be shared by TWO GROUPS OF 12? Conversely, what kind of screaming cocksucker thinks it’s okay to camp the king room for 36 hours? I think you both suck. The only people lamer than you are the ones that PNP over derv camps in North Ro and then act surprised when I send one group to the DESERTED derv camp a 30 second walk away.

https://eatingbees.wordpress.com/the-wayback-machine/try-being-a-guide-you/

[Gozuk]

Probably the worst thread of all time

[Daallee]

What's PNP?

[ScaringChildren]

What's PNP?

Pee into a penis

[Daallee]

Pee into a penis

Why are you so weird? Do you like this online personality you're maintaining? Keep
up the good memes but you're not too good at the absurd humor

[ScaringChildren]

Why are you so weird? Do you like this online personality you're maintaining? Keep
up the good memes but you're not too good at the absurd humor

Don't ask me such a personal question.

[Menden]

What's PNP?

Play Nice Policy (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211699)

[America]

What's PNP?

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01639625.2014.897116?src=recsys&journalCode=udbh20

[Mead]

op is now a born again elf and loves jesus, thanks to rnf

[Tethler]

It's true that one of my characters might have been "blacklisted"

Can't say I ever dealt with or spoke to a GM in all my 54-59 levels (can't remember the exact level I was) though, and I was a terror at that age.

So, you've been as asshat for 20 years. It's not a recent development.

The dynamics of the players dealt with this very well

Getting youself blacklisted is your ideal solution?


Look, this isn't hard.

If. Someone. Is. Killing. Mobs. Go. Kill. Different. Mobs.

There are so many empty zones/camps with mobs nobody is killing. Go find one. That's what everyone else does. You whine about the server staff having to enforce camps here, but they have to enforce camps because of people like YOU.

[Jauna]

This anti-fart pad is fucking amazing.

[Daallee]

If. Someone. Is. Killing. Mobs. Go. Kill. Different. Mobs.



Imagining Uma Thermin smacking OP’s ass with a katana on each word. Now get ScaringChildren to meme it

[Jimjam]

If. Someone. Is. Killing. Mobs. Go. Kill. Different. Mobs.



But they had their turn. They should share. Not by letting me join them though. By letting me monopolise them on my own.

[Daallee]

https://imgur.com/a/Xa6itzb

If. Someone. Is. Killing. Mobs. Go. Kill. Different. Mobs.

[Dolalin]

I was a guide on Mithaniel Marr back in 2000/2001.

I have many fond memories of forcing two groups of players to share orc and derv camps in WC via spawn rotation. This was the policy in case of disputes. Everyone gets a shot, it must be rotated if disputed.

[shuklak]

I was a guide on Mithaniel Marr back in 2000/2001.

I have many fond memories of forcing two groups of players to share orc and derv camps in WC via spawn rotation. This was the policy in case of disputes. Everyone gets a shot, it must be rotated if disputed.
Vote with your tears and wallets!

[Legidias]

Server rotations D=

[Dolalin]

Classic, whether you like it or not.

[shuklak]

Theres only so much pie in norrath.

[Muggens]

can come by nothing

Hands free

[reznor_]

yikes

*peels out and speeds toward the horizon*

loled

[coki]

GMs didn't let any certain group of players monopolize exclusive control of a group of mobs by reason of being there first


whaaat? lol