camp rule?

[margiela]

i didn't do a CC and i camped after making sure no one was there
but someone 'i went to sell 2min'
can he claim ownership?

SK gnoll camp

[Kavious]

You can sell while staying in the same zone. Was he back before respawns?

If he left the zone to sell, he cannot maintain camp. If spawns are up X amount of time (dont really know whats considered reasonable) then its possible to lose camp that way as well

[Swish]

Saw this in Lake Rathe yesterday. Gnome necro full of attitude claims he can take a camp because there wasn't anyone there despite it being clear and the guy clearing it walking away to sell quickly.

Anyone who disagreed was told to "read the rules" lol

[Videri]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=614444&postcount=2

[magnetaress]

I would contest the camp. It's your right in this place. Take a spawn and sit on it.

[loramin]

https://wiki.project1999.com/Camp%20Rules

[ldgo86]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=614444&postcount=2

I think this is the specific paragraph that’s applicable

That being said, you can absolutely "camp" mobs, and you cannot steal another players 'camp'. In general, if the placeholder or placeholders for a spawn are being killed, that 'camp' can be considered held by the player doing the killing so long as they are keeping the placeholders (or the room if there are no placeholders) cleared, within the same zone, do not die or log off. You do not necessarily need to be at the spawn point to call it 'claimed' while it is uncontested, however, if someone else wishes to contest the 'camp' you do need to return to the 'camp' and maintain a presence at or very near the spawn(s) in order to hold it. You cannot hold multiple 'camps' if another group wishes to contest one that you are holding. The player holding multiple 'camps' retains the right to choose which 'camp' to give up.

Please do your best to use courtesy and common sense when interacting with other players in spawn disputes.

[Sweetbaby Jesus]

Seems like this situation, while I don't agree with it, would fall under this portion of the camp rule though.

Open Outdoor Zones can be anything from Western Wastes, Karanas or West Commons. There are no staff recognized camps for this zone type outside of single spawn points. Examples of single spawn types might be Ocean of Tears Ancient Cyclops, Iceclad Ocean Stormfeather, or Qeynos Hills Hadden. Though, any single spawn point can be claimed, that is the only spawn you can hunt (if being contested). If you are to claim this point you must get aggro/First to Encounter (FTE) within a reasonable amount of time.

There are cases where two or more parties wish to hunt in the same area. In these cases, the parties are required to compromise. Do not attack a mob after another player, this is kill stealing.

[loramin]

My inner elf lawyer agrees with Sweetbaby: as an outdoor zone technically each player can only camp a single gnoll. Most players would let another player have the whole camp anyway, but if we're talking elf lawyering then normal/polite play doesn't apply.

Everyone only getting one gnoll probably makes the whole thing moot, but if not (eg. if there's a named gnoll there you both want) ... this gets into the gray area of the rules, specifically this line of a quote from GM Menden:

If you're camping these mobs you need to get FTE within a reasonable amount of time.

The staff has never defined, and may never define, exactly how long "a reasonable amount of time" is. Personally, I think it would result in less confusion overall if the staff specified "you have one minute from the moment the mob respawns to get back and re-claim it, or its lost". That way everyone showing up and seeing an "empty" camp wouldn't have to CC or worry: they'd just have to wait one minute and then they could confidently take camp.

But until that happens, even if you see an "empty" camp, someone could be coming back to it, and you have to wait a "reasonable" amount of time before taking the camp. And while it's not mandatory, CCing in that situation is always a good idea.

[Cen]

How does oasis spectres or feerrott ones work can I claim 1 specifically?

[loramin]

How does oasis spectres or feerrott ones work can I claim 1 specifically?

Technically (as I understand it) yes: each interested party can claim one spawn point, the remainder are FTE.

Of course, in such situations I'm sure the GMs would encourage you to instead split the mobs up peacefully in some way, and personally I've seen people split specs up multiple different ways (informally just grabbing them, when neither can take all seven in Oasis, one person takes tower one takes outside, etc.).

[Ivory]

Gnome necro full of attitude

Is it just me...or is it always necromancers that end up in camp disputes?

[Sweetbaby Jesus]

At some point in the past I could have sworn i had seen something saying if the camp holder hadn't engaged within 5 minutes of the spawn then it could be taken over. However I cannot find that now.

[Castle2.0]

Someone create a decision tree for this.


Indoor or outdoor?

Have you announced in OOC you wish to contest/claim the camp?

Are the mobs dead?

Decision tree something like this. Someone with the skillz to do so.

Who is our hero?

Bonus points for links to relevant rules/posts/wiki for each decision/node.

Can I offer plat for this or is that RMT?

<3

[Bigsham]

on red when this happens we just kill eachother

[Cen]

Is it just me...or is it always necromancers that end up in camp disputes?

I always feel like gnome mages are more evil than gnome necros in my experience.

on red when this happens we just kill eachother

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h2-l68CTmY

[Poetic]

This is exhausting because there is high probability that you saw the guy leave for a few minutes and greedily devoured the first opportunity to take what wasn’t yours and spin a beautiful tale instead of being respectful and just asking via tell. There is no way to know.

[Albane]

This servers camp rules are bullshit and force players to solo single camps instead of grouping to take multiple camps. It makes the game much less fun and puts a lot of classes out of luck for finding groups.

A group of 6 should be allowed to claim 3 camps in a dungeon as long as they keep the spawns cleared.

[loramin]

This servers camp rules are bullshit and force players to solo single camps instead of grouping to take multiple camps. It makes the game much less fun and puts a lot of classes out of luck for finding groups.

A group of 6 should be allowed to claim 3 camps in a dungeon as long as they keep the spawns cleared.

They are.

Look it's easy to take this stuff out of context in the forums, but let's look at a practical example: CE (Crypt/Emperor) in Sebilis. Not a "top" camp anymore with Velious, but still it can provide JBBs, Heiro Cloaks, a ton of lesser items, and even potentially a copy of Torpor. In other words, it's still a very popular camp, and it has caused plenty of "camp fights" over the years.

Because of the server rules about line of sight, there are essentially 7 camps at CE: four rooms in Crypt plus the cube outside, plus Emperor and Blood in the room in front of him.

Technically, if a soloer goes in at 4AM when no one is there, they can claim (and prevent groups from doing) one camp, eg. Heiro Cloak. Is it annoying to groups wanting to do CE? Yes. Is it easy to do, and hold? No, because you have to get the camp when no group is there, and if you screw up even once not only does the group get to take your camp ... you now have to try and talk that group into rezzing you ;)

And if the group gets there first, they can absolutely keep all seven camps. In a practical sense, yes maybe someone could show up and say "I want a camp, you can't have all seven", and the group could give them the worst camp (eg. cube or blood). Pretty soon they'll get bored of soloing a crappy camp and go away.

So ... it seems to me that, even in that case ... which seems like kind of an extreme example (seven separate camps, with soloers actively trying to take them) groups have no problem with soloers.

[Belandrus]

And if the group gets there first, they can absolutely keep all seven camps. In a practical sense, yes maybe someone could show up and say "I want a camp, you can't have all seven", and the group could give them the worst camp (eg. cube or blood). Pretty soon they'll get bored of soloing a crappy camp and go away.

I appreciate what you are saying but since a group can only camp what is in their LOS. Can't a soloer come and claim the highest value camp site. Group is forced to lay claim to that site and subsequently surrender the second highest value site. Not give soloer the crappy camp as in your example.

For the record, I am new to p99. Really appreciate and am thankful for the opportunity to play. The LOS rule is very frustrating and handles traditional group camps negatively.

[aaezil]

If you are arguing about a gnoll on a 30 yr old emu you’re prob wrong no matter what

[magnetaress]

If you are arguing about a gnoll on a 30 yr old emu you’re prob wrong no matter what

The only way to get lvl 6 on green is to stand on a gnoll spawn.

[loramin]

I appreciate what you are saying but since a group can only camp what is in their LOS. Can't a soloer come and claim the highest value camp site. Group is forced to lay claim to that site and subsequently surrender the second highest value site. Not give soloer the crappy camp as in your example.

For the record, I am new to p99. Really appreciate and am thankful for the opportunity to play. The LOS rule is very frustrating and handles traditional group camps negatively.

The first, and most important thing to understand is that the staff "does not play by rules". This is very deliberate on their part, and no matter how much frustration it may cause us players (and it causes a lot), it seems to me a more than a fair trade: we don't get to know the (full) rules of the game, but it makes life easier for the people volunteering their free time to let the rest of us play said game.

Given that they do things that way, the best the players can do is to look at the Play Nice Policies (the only rules they do play by), and the Camp Rulings page. I'll be the first to tell you (as the person who made that page) that the staff is not required to abide by it ... but since GMs mostly rule the same way as each other, it gives us players some tiny clue as to how future GMs will rule.

Getting back to your question, yes the Play Nice Policies do technically say:

You cannot hold multiple 'camps' if another group wishes to contest one that you are holding

and also:

Note: A "party" in this case is defined as a party of one or more characters that are united in a common belief or goal and are capable of completing that goal

(which sort of implies that earlier "you" meant any sized group). However ...

A) in practice the first group there always keeps their choice of camp (that's in the PnP, and it prevents your hypothetical soloer from showing up and taking a good mob); since very few groups want to take the "less good" camps this generally discourages fights

B) even if there is a fight and someone gets "rules lawyery", when a staff member shows up there's absolutely no guarantee whatsoever they'll "rule" in favor of the person to trying to take the camp

C) regardless of the rules, very few people are assholes enough to muscle in on somewhere a group is clearly holding down

And C really gets to the heart of things. 99% of the time the staff doesn't get involved, so the rules are simply "don't be a dick" and everyone abides by that. The rules mainly come into play when two soloers both want some valuable rare named mob, and "lawyer up" over it.

Thus my C/E example. By a strict reading of the rules, it would seem a C/E group, faced with a soloer showing up, would be forced to pick either Emp or Heiro, and give the next best camp to the soloer.

That might happen ... but again there's a lot more than just the rules to prevent it from happening, 99% of the time it will never even get to GMs, and even that 1% when someone thinks they understand how to rules lawyer, a GM might well surprise them. For instance, since the PnP never actually says "groups only get one camp", a GM could very easily decide the group gets six camps, and the soloer can take blood/cube or go somewhere else. No one truly knows until it happens and someone posts about it after in the forums.

[magnetaress]

Try red.

[gherron]

For instance, since the PnP never actually says "groups only get one camp", a GM could very easily decide the group gets six camps, and the soloer can take blood/cube or go somewhere else. No one truly knows until it happens and someone posts about it after in the forums.

This is probably one of the most concerning things about the server: rules are written but they don't actually have to be enforced by GMs deciding on these conflicts.

[loramin]

This is probably one of the most concerning things about the server: rules are written but they don't actually have to be enforced by GMs deciding on these conflicts.

Well again, they do play by the Play Nice Policies ... it's just that those rules are deliberately crafted to leave a lot ambiguous.

But while I can understand (and share) the frustration over that ambiguity ... two things. First, you have to remember that these rules don't even come into play 99% of the time, and even when they do 99% of those cases don't have any ambiguity whatsoever: everyone involved can know exactly what the ruling will be in advance. The ambiguity is mainly a way to handle a whole lot of "1%" cases.

Second, I really think you need to consider the alternative. Clearer rules would make the staff's life harder, which means the server would have a harder time recruiting and keeping GMs (because no one wants to do all the hassle of volunteering to let others play a game while also having to consult an 80-page rulebook ... and having to deal with the whining rules lawyers who will quote 79 irrelevant pages of that book in an attempt to change every ruling).

Now, consider one last fact: Project 1999 has by far the best GM support of any emulated EQ (and arguably any emulated MMOG). When you look at the big picture ... would you really want to lose that just to get clearer rules?