there is a private list system going on at AC in OOT?

[Domo]

Ahoy da mates.

So Ive been told that there is like a 100player+ list camp going on at the AC in oot, and people putting their twinks etc. on it but the players on the list arnt even online or something like that.

Is that true?

Also who is in charge of that private list camp?

I am just curious, and wouldnt it be more fair and easyer for everyone if we would ask the GMs nicely if they could make the camp a /list camp like for the legency camps?

[Zeboim]

No.

[Domo]

no what?

there is no private list camp with over 100players on it going on? or no to my suggestion?

[Zeboim]

Nobody wants another /list camp. Just go sign up.

[Domo]

But how can I trust the people who control the list?
I mean what if someone put like 6 twinks at the same time on it?

[BlackBellamy]

But how can I trust the people who control the list?

How can you trust people giving you answers here? Maybe they've created 6 forum alts to misdirect you about who controls the list.

I control the list. Trust me. Also, I see you're not on it. How come?

[Domo]

I though I use the forum here and ask nicely how it works before I might waste my time and put my name on it.

btw, how do you know I am not on it?

[Izmael]

Nobody wants another /list camp. Just go sign up.

Incorrect.

I'd love to see more /list camps, and the OOT AC seems like a perfect candidate.

So there's at least me (and I don't even need more jboots).

[azeth]

OP ask to be added to the list and who currently is on the list. After the current camp holder gets the AC, the player next in line needs to be at the camp for the following spawn.

The individual who is currently camping it has to provide you with all names on the list and if they don't, guess what? You're next

[loramin]

OP ask to be added to the list and who currently is on the list. After the current camp holder gets the AC, the player next in line needs to be at the camp for the following spawn.

The individual who is currently camping it has to provide you with all names on the list and if they don't, guess what? You're next

As far as I can tell that's mostly true: they don't actually have to give you the entire list, but they do have to give you who is next. Here's a quote from Derubael (emphasis added):

Pretty clear-cut, and these exact rules have been around in one form or another for quite some time. I really need to compile a "Project 1999: Errata and other extraneous information" post to put all this stuff. For now, this will have to do:
Camp holder has the right to pass the camp to whoever he would like. However, and this is very important, two things must happen in order for this to be a legitimate hand-off:

1) The player being handed the camp must be present around the time the first placeholder spawns after the last holder of the camp has gotten his or her item in hand. The person handing off the camp must stay at the spawn until the next person in line arrives, if that person is on their way to take the camp. There is a little leeway here, and we refuse to set an exact timer on how long the placeholder can be up before the camp is forfeited, but in general it should never be for more than a couple minutes or so. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the person coming in to take the camp in these situations as CSR staff, so waiting a bit longer will never hurt.

2) The person holding the camp cannot mislead you, or change his mind after telling you who is next. Something that no one ever does (and I will never understand why) is to specifically address the camp holder, asking who is next or if you can be next. The camp holder does need to reveal to you who the next intended camp holder is - if he doesn't, you may ask to be next and your claim will be valid unless he reveals the next person immediately. This person cannot change after the camp holder has "revealed" the next person to take the camp to you. It is an automatic forfeit if this occurs. If you ask to be the next camp holder and are told yes, the camp holder may not later retract or change this agreement and attempt to hand the camp off to someone else - it's yours once he has gotten his item or moved on from the camp.

Something else important to note about handing off camps - in particular, popular ones, but this applies to any camp that becomes contested. If you are solo camping, once you attain the item you were waiting for (an AC ring, for example) you are done camping that mob. The person coming to take the camp had better be prepared at this point in order to come eliminate the very next placeholder spawn in order to "stake his claim" on the mob. You cannot work wacky corpse lines on lore items in order to grab multiple items in the same "camp session" if there are others waiting to take the camp. Please be aware that we reserve the right to apply this same ruling to any camp if we deem it necessary, including camps with multiple players.

As far as I can tell by the server rules, only "next" is enforced, not "who is next after?" If Bob has the camp, and Fred shows up and asks "who's next", Bob can say "Chris", and Fred can ask to be next. But as far as I can tell (by any published rules), Chris is under no obligation to give the camp to Fred; the only obligation is for Bob to give it to Chris.

Now, this still seems like a "slam dunk" case in elf law: if Bob told Fred he could be next after Chris, it would seem like Chris needs to give it to Fred ... but I can find no evidence in over a decade of posts in this forum!

Now let's complicate things further: Fred gets bored while waiting, binds at the island, and gates away. Chris gets his ring, but sees Dave there waiting patiently, and sees Fred is out of zone, so he gives the camp to Dave. As long as Chris never promised the camp to Fred, again, as far as I can tell ... Chris is under no obligation to give it to Fred. If he gives it to Dave, I'd honestly be a little surprised if he got in trouble.

... but of course, as with any of this elf law stuff, unless someone can produce a GM quote I haven't seen, we have no way of knowing what the rules are for certain. Someone would need to re-enact this scenario (preferably with OBS running to capture it all) and petition before we can ever actually know.

And that is just one of the many, many benefits of "automated GMing" (/list): everyone (forum reader or not) knows exactly what the rules are.

[Snortles Chortles]

not guilty

[loramin]

P.S. Here's one more quote I found on the topic, from https://wiki.project1999.com/Rulings (again, emphasis added):

Menden: Unofficially speaking, AC camp, sure. If you are next at the list I would stay near by so the trade off can happen quickly. If the list keeper gets his spawn and leaves and you are not there, you can lose the camp. For SF, I find it dumb to have to stay in the zone for that long. But if you wish to keep your spot it's in your best interest to be there during the spawns.
The thing is, lists are really driven by the players, if you are the list keeper it's in your rights to tell people if they want on the list, they must stay in the zone.

Here's the thing folks, we want people to have fun, but there are lots of players who like to abuse what we say and what few rules we have out there. If we suspect you are lawyerquesting or being a dick, we have no issue suspending you for PNP. If you feel I'm not being fair, go speak to Llandris, Braknar or Sirken. Don't be a jerk to me, I'm really here to help you guys enjoy the game.

If you ever need help understanding how a camp in particular works, don't be afraid of posting in the petitions / exploits forums asking a question, I'm happy to work it out with you. But keep in mind, we don't have solid rules written down for specific camps because every situation is different, but we do state guidelines here and there.

So we do have the idea of a "list keeper" mentioned, which implies that a list is something the staff recognize as existing outside of an agreement between two players ... but we still have no further clarification of how this rules mechanism works, and when player's are/aren't obligated to follow it ... and we even have a GM flat out saying "as list keeper you can void the list for anyone not in zone", implying the list keeper has a fair amount of discretion. But let's say "list keeper #1" sets the rule that you do/don't have to stay in zone: can "list keeper #2" change that?

Of course, it also says "If you ever need help understanding how a camp in particular works, don't be afraid of posting in the petitions / exploits forums asking a question" ... so maybe we all should take Menden at his word, and someone should post a petition/question about what exactly are the rules for lists? ;)

P.S. On an unrelated (and kind of useless) note, while I was looking for that I stumbled across an official definition of how long you have to wait in order to wait a "reasonable time" to claim someone else's camp ... IF that camp happens to be an insanely long one like SF:
If you are camping SF and you are AFK during the time it spawned. Another player grabs FTE prior to the 5ish minutes(so it doesn't path too far away), I would tag it asap. This will show us in our logs that you were active. If we see you didn't tag it till after that 5ish minutes, you will probably be SOL.

Is that especially helpful for any other camp? Not really :) But at least now we know that the maximum upper bounds on "a reasonable time" is five(ish) minutes!

[Snortles Chortles]

yes lets read a few forum novels on how a list works
:rolleyes:

[loramin]

yes lets read a few forum novels on how a list works
:rolleyes:

My entire post was seven sentences IF you include the off-topic P.S. If you read the bolded quotes that's three more sentences, and if you read the unbolded parts that's a few sentences more.

If you truly have a problem reading ten-odd sentences ... don't read it. Others might actually find it interesting.

[Snortles Chortles]

no one is interested in list rules lawyering forum novels
hope this helps
also didn't read thanks!

[Jimjam]

Don't forget to ask the holder of the camp if they have any rings corpsed. If they do they go to the back of the list behind people with no rings. CSR can check if they lie.

[Bigsham]

Well if its from deurbel im sure its legit

LOL

[loramin]

Well if its from deurbel im sure its legit

LOL

A) Derubael did a great job as GM for quite awhile: he was a noble volunteer who provided great free customer service to all of us, and his ability to make rulings or otherwise act as a GM was never the issue. The reason he was "let go" was for a moral failing, which doesn't invalidate the rest of the work he did ... it just makes us all sad :(

B) I have a Menden quote there too :p

[Tilien]

OP ask to be added to the list and who currently is on the list. After the current camp holder gets the AC, the player next in line needs to be at the camp for the following spawn.

The individual who is currently camping it has to provide you with all names on the list and if they don't, guess what? You're next

The rules only really mention maintaining who is "next" and not a whole list. Having a long list seems to be a player nicety and not rules as written.

[Snortles Chortles]

A) Derubael did a great job as GM for quite awhile: he was a noble volunteer

you mean nobly swiftly terminated GM who abused GM powers by unjustly banning accounts, stripping their gear and RMTing them for drugs?

get the fuk outta here with your delusional white knighting

[Bigsham]

luls please edit and delete that, we dont need you getting banned

[Snortles Chortles]

stating facts is a bannable offense?

[Blingy]

stating facts is a bannable offense?

No, but being an ass certainly can be.

By the way, you usually seem to know a lot about playing the game and how things should be. Have you considered signing up to be a guide or gm? You're certainly infallible and know exactly how the world works (or at least how it should).

[Snortles Chortles]

i know that banning players and stripping their gear to RMT is a bannable offense
i wouldn't advocate banning players for wrongthink
perhaps i would make a great GM
thanks

[Bigsham]

id vote for you as a gm because you would be pretty impartial

[Gooch]

The system worked fine for me. Why put more of the playing experience in the hands of volunteers and GM's who don't have the time to baby sit? If you haven't tried the system why are you second guessing it? What nest are we going to mandate GM's regulate prices in EC next?

[Gooch]

I though I use the forum here and ask nicely how it works before I might waste my time and put my name on it.

btw, how do you know I am not on it?


Also, the way it works is on the site with the list and who cares if someone has a twink, loots to sell, loots to MQ... or anything else. If that person waited on the list the kill and item are theirs to do with as they please. This is EQ there are no participation ribbons.

[Snortles Chortles]

there are no participation ribbons.

[kaev]

This is EQ there are no participation ribbons.

false. Every level is a participation ribbon.

[turbosilk]

100+ people listing. Classic experience

[Nuggie]

If you see something from the current set of guides/GM's setting a new precedent then by all means show it, otherwise Deru's word is the precedent from server CSR.

Also, attacking Loramin is pretty dumb. He's pretty well liked around here for being helpful.

[loramin]

If you see something from the current set of guides/GM's setting a new precedent then by all means show it, otherwise Deru's word is the precedent from server CSR.

Also, attacking Loramin is pretty dumb. He's pretty well liked around here for being helpful.

:D

[Snortles Chortles]

he's ok
just misguided opinion on former corrupt banned GMs
going to call out delusional white knighting when i see it
thanks 4 playing

[loramin]

he's ok

That must be the nicest thing you've ever said to me!

As for the white knighting bit, you're missing the point. Derubael could have killed a man, just to watch him bleed ... and it wouldn't change the fact that when it came to his GM work, he was consistent with other GMs. He was not fired for making crazy rulings, he was fired for screwing the pooch in unrelated ways ... so those ways don't invalidate his rulings.

[Nuggie]

Snortles, you ever play Ark Survival Evolved? there was a tribe with the name on your Sig. Just wondering if it's a coincidence. Old Dirty Bastards.

[pivo]

Off Topic


...(and I don't even need more jboots).

Well, if you insist, i will take them then. Thanks! :p

[Snortles Chortles]

i only play 20 year old games frens

[cd288]

That must be the nicest thing you've ever said to me!

As for the white knighting bit, you're missing the point. Derubael could have killed a man, just to watch him bleed ... and it wouldn't change the fact that when it came to his GM work, he was consistent with other GMs. He was not fired for making crazy rulings, he was fired for screwing the pooch in unrelated ways ... so those ways don't invalidate his rulings.

Imagine arguing this just for the sake of arguing it

[Nuggie]

i only play 20 year old games frens

oh ok. Carry on with your normal activities then.

[Trexller]

i didn't get the pixels immediately when i showed up at the camp

so the rules have to change for my instant gratification-

-this is like 1/4 of all posts

[damus1]

theres over 90 people on the list now. i guarantee quite a few of them have multiple alts on which would be prevented with a /list, but even so its gone pretty smoothly as far as I can tell without too much douchebaggery going on. I've gotten 3 rings there already with minimal effort, just gotta stay bound there and be online when your spot is coming close, since people have 6 minutes to claim their spot it tends to skip large #s of offlines and afks everytime it transitions.

[Tethler]

theres over 90 people on the list now.

Lmao. This is like the elder beads camp on blue when velious launched, except that was a valuable item.

[sedrie.bellamie]

Also, attacking Loramin is pretty dumb. He's pretty well liked around here for being helpful.

too bad anon was such a bitch-ass guild and this loarmin person has only been in like 5 velious zones

[Widan]

SoW pots will definitely be cheaper than waiting for this shit. Time is money friends

[loramin]

too bad anon was such a bitch-ass guild and this loarmin person has only been in like 5 velious zones

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

[Donkey Hotay]

Why does the camp holder get to determine who is next, anyways?

[azeth]

Why does the camp holder get to determine who is next, anyways?

They don't. They need to list people in the order in which they inquire.

[BlackBellamy]

They don't. They need to list people in the order in which they inquire.

You don't have to keep any list. Lol fuck that noise. You get the camp, you ignore any tells and when you're done you leave.

Is that a bannable offense? Not communicating with people? Will they strip my item from me because I didn't write down twenty six names? Because I just left and let whoever is left figure out shit?

[Snortles Chortles]

we finally agree on something

[Kich867]

You don't have to keep any list. Lol fuck that noise. You get the camp, you ignore any tells and when you're done you leave.

Is that a bannable offense? Not communicating with people? Will they strip my item from me because I didn't write down twenty six names? Because I just left and let whoever is left figure out shit?

It is not a bannable offense. Its only an issue if you are actually maintaining a list and mislead people. If you're not maintaining a list, there should be a crowd ready to go as soon as you leave because its up in the air at that point.

In other words, the only problem arises if you tell someone "you're next" and then when you're done you instead give the camp to someone else when the original person is there and waiting.

[loramin]

It is not a bannable offense. Its only an issue if you are actually maintaining a list and mislead people. If you're not maintaining a list, there should be a crowd ready to go as soon as you leave because its up in the air at that point.

In other words, the only problem arises if you tell someone "you're next" and then when you're done you instead give the camp to someone else when the original person is there and waiting.

This is correct ... by the rules as given to us in the forum by our volunteer staff gods ... but it's important to remember that those same gods reserve the right to rule however they want.

They generally rule consistently with past GMs, and this is the server where the staff let TMO monopolize camps for months at a time, so there is a strong precedent for "the current camp holder gets to do whatever the crap they want when they leave (except lie about who is next)" ... but, crucially, there is no Camp Rules quote (http://wiki.project1999.com/Camp%20Rules) saying that.

So as much as I think people waiting out of zone for a camp are lame ... and even though I've personally "forgotten" to tell people who were next in line out of zone in favor of letting the person who's actually there have it (on Blue) ... I'd still recommend caution when "messing with the list". The only true rules here are the Play Nice Policies, and they can be summarized as "don't be a dick".

If you are a dick with your handling of a list, it could absolutely come back to haunt you ... regardless of what the Camp Rules page says.

[Snortles Chortles]

i bet you feel pretty silly right now

[loramin]

i bet you feel pretty silly right now

Nope: as the person who compiled the camp rules, I just want to make sure no one thinks they are "the only rules" ... when the real rules live in the staff's head.

[kjs86z]

consider blue

[Cen]

A guy on my friendslist said he got 3 ac rings in the last week and has been able to get a spot through friends nudging him in after them. I havent been there or tried but i dont trust a long player list. They are never legit

[Zeboim]

Your friend is exaggerating at best, people track that googledoc thoroughly and quite a few people have been deleted for shenanigans.

Although I note that most of the problems/excessive length of the list has occurred after this thread started.

[Kushida]

Who decides who deletes names from the list? Cause i heard people have like 5 alts on there.

[Albane]

Remind me to come charm him and take him far far away from whatever bullshit list you guys made up.

[Taiku]

I don't like that you can remain on list while not in zone. So there's no point to waiting there at the camp for your turn? Unless someone breaks the "community list rules"?

[Toothed]

scum

[charmcitysking]

Remind me to come charm him and take him far far away from whatever bullshit list you guys made up.

look out folks

[Jimjam]

IF YOU'RE NOT ON THE LIST YOU'RE NOT GETTING rINg!

[derpcake2]

It is not a bannable offense. Its only an issue if you are actually maintaining a list and mislead people. If you're not maintaining a list, there should be a crowd ready to go as soon as you leave because its up in the air at that point.

In other words, the only problem arises if you tell someone "you're next" and then when you're done you instead give the camp to someone else when the original person is there and waiting.

You can tell twenty people "you're next" and just log off.

Noone cares.

I'd tell at least 5, before logging on an alt and refreshing R&F.

[Donkey Hotay]

Why does the camp holder get to determine who is next, anyways?

They don't. They need to list people in the order in which they inquire.

That's not what the quoted GM ruling says at all. It says the camp holder may keep his choice secret until directly asked if the inquirer may be next and then has to declare his choice for whom is next in line.

So, I repeat to the forum: why does the camp holder choose who is next?

[loramin]

That's not what the quoted GM ruling says at all. It says the camp holder may keep his choice secret until directly asked if the inquirer may be next and then has to declare his choice for whom is next in line.

So, I repeat to the forum: why does the camp holder choose who is next?

The short answer is, because our free game has volunteer GMs. They try to be as minimal as possible about making new rules, because they have limited capacity, and every new rule they make is one they have to enforce (at the cost of having less time to do all their other GM stuff).

It's not that they're for letting the person at the top of the list decide ... it's that they're against setting up a system they have to maintain (at least until the dev team gives them a /list that doesn't require manual oversight).

[Donkey Hotay]

Okay, that lines up with what my guess was. Cohencidentally, just like the list system, it has a convenient backdoor that allows the (donating?) pixel addicts and RMTers to dominate the list just as they always have.

Strange how that GM bandwidth never runs out on raid night though.

[fastboy21]

The list system (not /list, I mean the rules for player made lists) is easily abused by someone who wants to abuse it.

For all intents and purposes...whoever has a camp can hand it off (as long as they don't fumble the hand off) to whomever they want.

If you want to break the rules, which are essentially impossible to get caught breaking, you can pass the camp to...yourself. Grats. You can lock a camp down forever in EQ.

You are required to tell anyone who asks who is next on the list...but there is no way that a player can verify that the answer is honest. It could be a player offline, it could the camp holders alt, it could be a total fiction made up...you'd never be able to know if someone was pulling something or not.

You are required to pass the camp to whomever your "next" is if the item you are camping drops. Again, no way to know this is being honored at most camps.

For example...lets say necro uberpants is holding down the fbss camp. You want to camp it too...so you ask uberpants who is next on the list. Uberpants replies "i'm here camping the FBSS...next on the list is PoopiePants." [This is all he has to say to you, ever.]

Player PoopiePants doesn't exist by the way...but thats okay as you are standing there a frenzied pops and Uberpants quickly goes to work dropping him easily. You ask Uberpants "hey, did you get your fbss?" --- Uberpants [lyingly] says "Nope...stupid ring again." [No way for you to check this.] Meanwhile, Uberpants good guild friend, Shitbag, comes over to camp to take the FBSS [they are lore] off Uberpants hands so that they can keep farming them.

Congrats Uberpants, Shitbag, and Poopiepants [if he existed] on being a dicks.

/List it all imo...tweak the rules slightly to make it even better...but /list it all.

[loramin]

The list system (not /list, I mean the rules for player made lists) is easily abused by someone who wants to abuse it.

For all intents and purposes...whoever has a camp can hand it off (as long as they don't fumble the hand off) to whomever they want.

If you want to break the rules, which are essentially impossible to get caught breaking, you can pass the camp to...yourself. Grats. You can lock a camp down forever in EQ.

You are required to tell anyone who asks who is next on the list...but there is no way that a player can verify that the answer is honest. It could be a player offline, it could the camp holders alt, it could be a total fiction made up...you'd never be able to know if someone was pulling something or not.

You are required to pass the camp to whomever your "next" is if the item you are camping drops. Again, no way to know this is being honored at most camps.

For example...lets say necro uberpants is holding down the fbss camp. You want to camp it too...so you ask uberpants who is next on the list. Uberpants replies "i'm here camping the FBSS...next on the list is PoopiePants." [This is all he has to say to you, ever.]

Player PoopiePants doesn't exist by the way...but thats okay as you are standing there a frenzied pops and Uberpants quickly goes to work dropping him easily. You ask Uberpants "hey, did you get your fbss?" --- Uberpants [lyingly] says "Nope...stupid ring again." [No way for you to check this.] Meanwhile, Uberpants good guild friend, Shitbag, comes over to camp to take the FBSS [they are lore] off Uberpants hands so that they can keep farming them.

Congrats Uberpants, Shitbag, and Poopiepants [if he existed] on being a dicks.

/List it all imo...tweak the rules slightly to make it even better...but /list it all.

Yup. There's the "letter of the law" (what little we have here), and then there's the practical details of what actually happens in-game, which can have some very different results.

But that goes both ways: while everything you said is true, it's also possible that if you petition Necro Uberpants, and a GM comes out and observes invisibly at the right time, that Uberpants might get in trouble. It's not likely, and of course you'd have to observed Uberpants acting shady for awhile before you'd ever petition ... but it is possible.

P.S. I'm with you on /list: more automated GMing for P99! Fair rules that everyone can easily know, because the game enforces them :)

[Videri]

Hey, how long is the list for 10-Dose Blood of the Wolf?

[fastboy21]

Yup. There's the "letter of the law" (what little we have here), and then there's the practical details of what actually happens in-game, which can have some very different results.

But that goes both ways: while everything you said is true, it's also possible that if you petition Necro Uberpants, and a GM comes out and observes invisibly at the right time, that Uberpants might get in trouble. It's not likely, and of course you'd have to observed Uberpants acting shady for awhile before you'd ever petition ... but it is possible.

P.S. I'm with you on /list: more automated GMing for P99! Fair rules that everyone can easily know, because the game enforces them :)

You're right...and that's why I said its very hard to get caught. Basically, only way you can is if a GM with another information looks into you...or you brag about it and someone turns you in, etc.

But...over the entire time I've been playing on p99 I've never met a single person who says they got caught much less punished for this. I'm not saying that I would know how often it happens...but not one? not a single one I can remember hearing? It means it is very very very rare...and maybe only actually happened a few times ever.

[Trexller]

Hey, how long is the list for 10-Dose Blood of the Wolf?

for those who dont know, SoW is 20% faster than J Boots, and that makes a hell of a difference running from a mob, or in crossing long distances.

Support your local shaman, buy SoW potions!

[fastboy21]

Just to clarify...my suggestion to list it all doesn't mean that all /list camps have to be the rules used for manastone/guise. you could set up a /list mechanic to essential automate the system we currently have in place...ie, maintain a list...who is next...who can loot when it drops...kicking you when you get your item...etc.

It could even be that you can stay on the list queue out of game or out of zone for some camps as long as you get to the camp w/i a period of time, etc.

Basically, doing all the stuff players do (when they are honest) at a camp with a list...and preventing others from being dishonest and lying about key points (who is next, did the item drop? etc.)

[kaev]

for those who dont know, SoW is 20% faster than J Boots, and that makes a hell of a difference running from a mob, or in crossing long distances.

Support your local shaman, buy SoW potions!

sow speed is caster level-based (you are the caster when you use a potion charge). iirc jboots are same speed as L9 sow (i.e. same speed as sow from L9 shaman). So if you are L50 a sow pot will give you a lot more zoom than jboots, but potion is not insta-cast and jboots have infinite charges.

[BlackBellamy]

...and preventing others from being dishonest and lying about key points (who is next, did the item drop? etc.)

Lying is classic. So is social interaction. People are so conflict-averse they want to set up a automated pez pixel-dispenser so they don't have to talk or think or receive absolutely any stress whatsoever. I mean there's plenty of single-player games where you can just dial the difficulty down to zero but it's better in a mmo so that way you can brag about the pixel that the automated-pixel dispenser gave to you when it decided it was your turn.

[magnetaress]

How can you trust people giving you answers here? Maybe they've created 6 forum alts to misdirect you about who controls the list.

I control the list. Trust me. Also, I see you're not on it. How come?

not guilty

yes lets read a few forum novels on how a list works
:rolleyes:

no one is interested in list rules lawyering forum novels
hope this helps
also didn't read thanks!

stating facts is a bannable offense?

i know that banning players and stripping their gear to RMT is a bannable offense
i wouldn't advocate banning players for wrongthink
perhaps i would make a great GM
thanks

id vote for you as a gm because you would be pretty impartial

he's ok
just misguided opinion on former corrupt banned GMs
going to call out delusional white knighting when i see it
thanks 4 playing

i only play 20 year old games frens

i bet you feel pretty silly right now

Lying is classic. So is social interaction. People are so conflict-averse they want to set up a automated pez pixel-dispenser so they don't have to talk or think or receive absolutely any stress whatsoever. I mean there's plenty of single-player games where you can just dial the difficulty down to zero but it's better in a mmo so that way you can brag about the pixel that the automated-pixel dispenser gave to you when it decided it was your turn.

Also players use to be alllowed to punish eachother by KSing and training and other things on live for quite some time. Bad apples and habitual griefers would get well... griefed back...

Now if u don't let someone in a guild it's the like the world is ending there's a forum crusade and bad things happen to you IRL.

We aren't even alllowed to grief the people we don't like anymore. So there is no incentive for people to be courteous equinanimous and share.

Peaple were moar polite when they couldn't buy their epics and had to get the entire help of the server for 1

[fastboy21]

Lying is classic. So is social interaction. People are so conflict-averse they want to set up a automated pez pixel-dispenser so they don't have to talk or think or receive absolutely any stress whatsoever. I mean there's plenty of single-player games where you can just dial the difficulty down to zero but it's better in a mmo so that way you can brag about the pixel that the automated-pixel dispenser gave to you when it decided it was your turn.

I used to think this...but this isn't conflict aversion or denial of the chance for legit social interaction in EQ. Lying isn't part of EQ. In fact, the original manual specifically stated that you can't do dishonest things in game and chalk it up to RP. If you do, you will be punished. Same for ninja looting...same for kill stealing. Lying to hold a camp isn't an RP opportunity, its part of the server rules that honest players get screwed on every day.

There are a small number of people who play p99 in a very parasitical way. These people have no soul. They don't care about the community or EQ. They certainly don't care about their server reputations.

On live they did chase these people. There were paid server GMs on the prowl. Without paid staff we shouldn't feel guilty about implementing a mechanic or two to compensate.

[magnetaress]

I used to think this...but this isn't conflict aversion or denial of the chance for legit social interaction in EQ. Lying isn't part of EQ. In fact, the original manual specifically stated that you can't do dishonest things in game and chalk it up to RP. If you do, you will be punished. Same for ninja looting...same for kill stealing. Lying to hold a camp isn't an RP opportunity, its part of the server rules that honest players get screwed on every day.

There are a small number of people who play p99 in a very parasitical way. These people have no soul. They don't care about the community or EQ. They certainly don't care about their server reputations.

On live they did chase these people. There were paid server GMs on the prowl. Without paid staff we shouldn't feel guilty about implementing a mechanic or two to compensate.

https://i.imgur.com/u3Fk724.gif

Shit happened all the time that went unpunished, it wasn't until Daybreak at the time started to selectively purge accounts that shit got really off the chain and u could actually get banned for training someone that was botting.

[fastboy21]

https://i.imgur.com/u3Fk724.gif

Shit happened all the time that went unpunished, it wasn't until Daybreak at the time started to selectively purge accounts that shit got really off the chain and u could actually get banned for training someone that was botting.

I mean, if you are advocating for allowing trains and kill stealing on p99 as part of the classic experience then yes we disagree...

if you don't want those things, then we actually agree in principal and just differ on where to draw the line on players being allowed to play freely but being held to the rules also.

IMO you should no more be able to lie at a camp under our rules then you should be able to kill steal, impersonate a GM, scam multiquest sales, harass players, etc.

[magnetaress]

I mean, if you are advocating for allowing trains and kill stealing on p99 as part of the classic experience then yes we disagree...

if you don't want those things, then we actually agree in principal and just differ on where to draw the line on players being allowed to play freely but being held to the rules also.

IMO you should no more be able to lie at a camp under our rules then you should be able to kill steal, impersonate a GM, scam multiquest sales, harass players, etc.

players should be able to negatively impact the rules laywers and guidos who monopolize content and get all butthurt they can't stay at fbss on a chain of alts for 3 weeks.

[fastboy21]

players should be able to negatively impact the rules laywers and guidos who monopolize content and get all butthurt they can't stay at fbss on a chain of alts for 3 weeks.

Under what I'm suggesting a guild in theory could still monopolize the fbss camp forever (just keep passing it to another guildy when you are done)...they just can't lie about it to circumvent the already established rules.

You aren't entitled to just show up and eventually get loot. Players own their camp. They can pass it how they want. Just hanging out in frenzied room all day doesn't mean you will ever get to the top of the list I'm proposing...you'd still have to socially interact, etc.

[Donkey Hotay]

Here's more of that forum cognitive dissonance, I see.

Why does the camper, when his camp is complete and he has the camped object, get to choose who gets pixels next. What is the value there beyond "well now the GMs won't get called". Also lol @Loramin for immediately suggesting that you should call the GMs when the campers are doing exactly what the current system explicitly (and to my mind, inexplicably) allows them to do.

Queue the next page of posters saying, well it's got electrolytes! or arguing about how live EQ was great because [I could deny other people pixels which is my sole power in this world and the real reason I only play EQ].

[loramin]

Here's more of that forum cognitive dissonance, I see.

Why does the camper, when his camp is complete and he has the camped object, get to choose who gets pixels next. What is the value there beyond "well now the GMs won't get called". Also lol @Loramin for immediately suggesting that you should call the GMs when the campers are doing exactly what the current system explicitly (and to my mind, inexplicably) allows them to do.

Look, here's the thing: there is no "current system" ... or at least, not in the sense of a purposefuly constructed one. There's simply some volunteer staff members making whatever very minimal rulings they can to keep things fun (again, minimal to keep their lives as volunteers sane), and then there's what happens "on the ground" as a consequence.

But the crucial piece you're missing is that at any instant the staff can change things, because NOTHING in the "camp rules" is set in stone! In fact, technically, nothing in the Play Nice Policies is either ... but the staff generally tries to avoid changing that.

And this is not just a hypothetical: we have a mountain of historical cases where the staff became unhappy with "what was happening on the ground", and changed the rules ... and it's called the Camp Rules page :) The "rules" or "system" of the server was one thing one day ... then a player petitioned something they thought was wrong ... a GM showed up ... someone (the GM or the player) reported it in the forum ... and the next day the server had a new system/rules.

So if you assume the staff wants anything bad in the game to stay that way indefinitely, you've misunderstood their limits as volunteers for a willfull desire to preserve the status quo. If you then refuse to petition in a clearly wrong situation (remember: the only true/universal rule here is "don't be a dick") ... because your imagination predicts that they inexplicably want things to stay wrong and terrible here ... the only one who loses out is you.

[magnetaress]

Under what I'm suggesting a guild in theory could still monopolize the fbss camp forever (just keep passing it to another guildy when you are done)...they just can't lie about it to circumvent the already established rules.

You aren't entitled to just show up and eventually get loot. Players own their camp. They can pass it how they want. Just hanging out in frenzied room all day doesn't mean you will ever get to the top of the list I'm proposing...you'd still have to socially interact, etc.

No body owns anything online and there will always be disruptive people, i don't think the gms should get involved everytime something dramatic happens only when it's negatively impacting the server environment as a whole. This whole idea of 'owning' and 'entitlement' and 'controlling' to camps is ridiculous.

Like when one group will not share for a month on end, or when 1 player continually, over the course of several days just disrupts a zone. Not when 1 person trains or KS's or memblurs 1 mob. That stuff should happen from time to time. Sometimes camps should switch hands in less than agreeable ways.

No one engaged in die hard camp monopolization on live, because eventually some crew would log in with a wizard and an enchanter, and put an end to it. There was no petition war at that point. Unless it went on and on repeatedly. Verent, 989, and Sony weren't in the business of doloing out heavy punishments, it took me months of trolling ooc and verbally abusing a GM to get silenced for 2 hrs in /ooc chat. They would suspend someone for like 1 night at most, a 1 week punishment was severe. Most times, BOTH sides just got a warning to not be dumb and get the CSR involved if they want any fun at all. Otherwise they would both have to take turns. Then when the opposing parties abused that agreement is when the big guns came out, when players went against the CSR, not each other.

Most players would then default to sharing a camp, even among multiple groups because they didn't want total nuklear escalation. This doesn't happen with list and it doesn't happen with the limited staffing of p99. There's no way to enforce this kind of environment programatically. I think it would be better for CSR staff on this project to only get involved in player disputes after a month or so of seeing how it plays out, then u can really spot who the bad guys are. And give people a chance to get to really know who each other really is. You will see peoples true colors. Then. It'd take a year for the project to transition, but the new community that would rise out of this would be much better than the petty bickering and pathetic bullshit we see here today.

[Donkey Hotay]

I like you Loramin but screw reading 6 paragraphs saying the policies are great because the server is great because nothing is set in stone even though nothing changes.

[magnetaress]

I like you Loramin but screw reading 6 paragraphs saying the policies are great because the server is great because nothing is set in stone even though nothing changes.

[Snortles Chortles]

elf dissertation on list
the thread

[loramin]

I like you Loramin but screw reading 6 paragraphs saying the policies are great because the server is great because nothing is set in stone even though nothing changes.

Yup, nothing changes. https://wiki.project1999.com/Rulings ... with 25+ historical records of rule changes over the years ... doesn't exist. You're absolutely right :rolleyes:

Look, things are not perfect here. Even if we had paid GMs, it still wouldn't be, and we'd have to live with that fact ... but it's especially true because the only people who will enforce these rules are the incredibly rare individuals who <3 P99 so much they choose NOT TO PLAY EVERQUEST, and instead spend hours every day just helping people. There's just not enough of such people, and so sometimes change is slow here.

And yet even so ... whatever its flaws ... this place is awesome AND it keeps getting better over time! If you can't see that, it's simply because you're refusing to look, but the evidence (eg. the Rulings page, the Raid History page, etc.) is there if you want to try.

[Donkey Hotay]

The same people get the loot every. time. This never changes. The policies never address this nor seem intended to.

[loramin]

The same people get the loot every. time. This never changes. The policies never address this nor seem intended to.

Are you saying "the people with the most time and energy to devote to the game always get the best pixels?" Because if so, congratulations: you understand how EverQuest works (and has worked since 1999) ;) This is a game that rewards time invested, so the people with the most time to invest get the most out of the game, by design.

If you mean something else, well ... you'll need to add some context.

[Donkey Hotay]

The same people game the same systems every time. The same Blue AC campers farming plat are loading up the list on Green for AC. The system implicitly allows it. The guys who were rotating /list were the guys who were going to chain-camp it if /list didn't exist. The systems just give a cover story for what was going to happen either way.

[loramin]

The same people game the same systems every time. The same Blue AC campers farming plat are loading up the list on Green for AC. The system implicitly allows it. The guys who were rotating /list were the guys who were going to chain-camp it if /list didn't exist. The systems just give a cover story for what was going to happen either way.

This is a game that rewards time invested, so the people with the most time to invest get the most out of the game, by design.

If that's not the kind of game you like, might I suggest a racing game, or street fighting game, or any other non-MMOG game where time invested doesn't directly translate into in-game benefits?

[Sabin76]

If that's not the kind of game you like, might I suggest a racing game, or street fighting game, or any other non-MMOG game where time invested doesn't directly translate into in-game benefits?

While I agree with your premise, it sounds like the person you are responding to is thinking of a slightly different situation: not the same "person", but the same "people". As in you have a rotation of 3+ people that simply log in during their "time slot" and take over the camp from the previous. Under this situation, I could have 3 times the time available as any of those people and still not get anything for that time (being realistic with drop rates... "not getting the opportunity to get anything"), which is the exact opposite of what we expect in a game like this.

I'm not yet at a level where this really affects me, but an item like the RotA is something I'd like to equip on my character, and it's not like I can just farm the plat to buy it except in the case of outright purchasing loot rights, I guess.

I dunno, perhaps I'm mischaracterizing the sides of this argument.

[Donkey Hotay]

I dunno, perhaps I'm mischaracterizing the sides of this argument.

No, you nailed it first try. I'll expand my criticism to say that not only do the existing systems provide a cover story, they protect that class from competition from the other classes (the Red PvP element, the Live multiboxer element, etc.).

[Gooch]

Every time someone petitions a contested spawn the area around the spawn should become a PvP / arena area for one month. The only true and fair method of resolving pixel issues.

I wonder how many people complaining about the current system for AC have actually used it.

[loramin]

While I agree with your premise, it sounds like the person you are responding to is thinking of a slightly different situation: not the same "person", but the same "people". As in you have a rotation of 3+ people that simply log in during their "time slot" and take over the camp from the previous. Under this situation, I could have 3 times the time available as any of those people and still not get anything for that time (being realistic with drop rates... "not getting the opportunity to get anything"), which is the exact opposite of what we expect in a game like this.

I'm not yet at a level where this really affects me, but an item like the RotA is something I'd like to equip on my character, and it's not like I can just farm the plat to buy it except in the case of outright purchasing loot rights, I guess.

I dunno, perhaps I'm mischaracterizing the sides of this argument.

Well so this is why I kept asking Donkey if there was more context :) Now that we have all of the cards on the table ... what Donkey is actually talking about is a conspiracy of players. Having not sat at the AC list on Green myself, I can't confirm or refute that claim.

All I can say is that IF there is a cabal of players abusing the system, all it would take is one concerned player sitting at AC for a few days and recording who is up each time, to establish that that is in fact the case. And then once that's established, all that person has to do is /petition, and I would expect the staff to act in some way.

Until someone actually does that though ... I'm more inclined to believe this is just a player who is mad about the long line ahead of them, and they're baselessly imagining a conspiracy (because of Occam's Razor). And even if a conspiracy did exist (which again, I can't rule out) ... it's a whole other claim on top of that to say that the staff wants it to stay that way ... a claim that can very easily be tested by doing what I described.

[Trexller]

i didn't get the pixels immediately when i showed up at the camp

so the rules have to change for my instant gratification-

-this is like 1/4 of all posts

can we seriously consider making a forum for these types of threads? or moving them all to RnF?

people are always complaining about this camp or that raid boss. EQ by its own design is not "fair" in that the people with the most time to invest in the game, will get further than you, every time.

The speed of technology has made everyone expect their desired results instantly.

This is a game from 1999. Back then we still had payphones, 14.4 modems, 7-10 business days for payroll check deposits. It was a slower pace of life.

So threads complaining that the player can't get this camp, or isnt able to camp a named, or doesnt have the time to sit and poopsock...

All of these threads should be in Rants n Flames.

Including the one i posted a couple months ago about working an essential job and others being able to play all day.

[Donkey Hotay]

Well my refusal to construe the argument as anything but trivial so that I could speak condescendingly to Donkey as if he was FOB from reddit is all Donkey's fault. QED.

[magnetaress]

Lists are gay. Pvp is not. Homosexuality is better.

[cd288]

While I agree with your premise, it sounds like the person you are responding to is thinking of a slightly different situation: not the same "person", but the same "people". As in you have a rotation of 3+ people that simply log in during their "time slot" and take over the camp from the previous. Under this situation, I could have 3 times the time available as any of those people and still not get anything for that time (being realistic with drop rates... "not getting the opportunity to get anything"), which is the exact opposite of what we expect in a game like this.

I'm not yet at a level where this really affects me, but an item like the RotA is something I'd like to equip on my character, and it's not like I can just farm the plat to buy it except in the case of outright purchasing loot rights, I guess.

I dunno, perhaps I'm mischaracterizing the sides of this argument.

The person would be incorrect in this case though. The list for the AC was, as of this afternoon, 120 people long and the order was being strictly enforced (you can log off and/or go AFK all you want but you lose your spot if you are not online when your turn comes). So there’s no rotation going on among a select number of individuals.

[Donkey Hotay]

A guy on my friendslist said he got 3 ac rings in the last week and has been able to get a spot through friends nudging him in after them. I havent been there or tried but i dont trust a long player list. They are never legit

He's wrong.
t. 102nd in line

I dunno about this google doc or legal eagles very carefully scrutinizing it as they go play elsewhere and trust EverQuest players to treat their position in line with respect; both seem like abstract concepts. What I do know is on Blue, there was a guy in DaP who would regularly brag in /gu about how he and his buddies would game AC. They had multiple toons parked there and would simply tell people who wanted it that they were X in line and then alternate from each other's pool of toons until the schmucks in line gave up. This guy had corpses piled up at druid rings with the AC ring on them because the GM's would occasionally check the island corpses on a complaint.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2945053&postcount=116

Or how about this thread (oh hey! Loramin is being a supercilious prig again) where this camper just has rings on demand. Nah, I'm sure Green is totally different because there's a google doc.

[Loadsamoney]

How is a list for one mob that ridiculously long and poopsocked?

[JackFlash]

Drugs.

[Snortles Chortles]

this didn’t happen on the red server

[loramin]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2945053&postcount=116

Or how about this thread (oh hey! Loramin is being a supercilious prig again) where this camper just has rings on demand. Nah, I'm sure Green is totally different because there's a google doc.

Ok, first off, my post was not that long; instead of linking you easily could have quoted it:

Well, you don't know the details though. It's not against the rules to corpse a ring from a Ro (ie. FTE/non-camped) cyclops.

Also if you're doing the OOT one at some ungodly hour of the night/morning and no one else is in line for the camp, you're allowed to corpse as many rings as you want. Or, if you want to get a ring, corpse it, and get back in line, that's legal too.

And having done that ... wow, what a horrible post I made! :rolleyes: I was totally "being a supercilious prig again" ... by correctly stating the rules, and mentioning some relevant exceptions.

[Donkey Hotay]

Except I did know the details and you were once again assuming your audience was a 3rd grader in need of directions to a hall pass--like a supercilious prig.

[magnetaress]

this didn’t happen on the red server

[fastboy21]

this didn’t happen on the red server

Clever. But is the cure for camp problems on blue/green really to let our population get so low that at peak times each player has on average three whole zones to themselves?

That doesn't happen on blue/green.

[Loadsamoney]

Clever. But is the cure for camp problems on blue/green really to let our population get so low that at peak times each player has on average three whole zones to themselves?

That doesn't happen on blue/green.

So the alternative is a week long waiting list just to get camps like OoT Sisters, AC, frenzied ghoul, etc?

[fastboy21]

So the alternative is a week long waiting list just to get camps like OoT Sisters, AC, frenzied ghoul, etc?

Yes, you trade off getting every camp you ever want quickly without trouble in order to play with people on the server. For most of us, this is a good trade off.

I mean, if you want...you can play on any emu server and pretty much get the entire server to yourself. If that's fun

[Loadsamoney]

Yes, you trade off getting every camp you ever want quickly without trouble in order to play with people on the server. For most of us, this is a good trade off.

I mean, if you want...you can play on any emu server and pretty much get the entire server to yourself. If that's fun

I'm not saying there shouldn't be competition, but if some camps are so overwhelmingly waitlisted that only the most elite, diehard of poopsockers will ever be able to get in on them by literally sitting at their keyboard for days on end without ever getting a breath of fresh air, that's a problem, one that Blue doesn't have. Blue is in a perfect balance right now, there's enough people to group and do content with, competition for high-demand camps and mobs, but not so much that you have to forego any sort of outside life to even be able to get in on.

[Sabin76]

Well, that are actually two different things going on here:

The first is the vision for how extremely high-demand items (like RotA) should be "distributed" amongst the playerbase. The two extremes of this continuum being everyone on the server gets a chance to camp and get the item (with at least the caveat that you can actually KILL the mob), and let one person hold the camp and monopolize the item indefinitely. I don't think anyone really ascribes to either extreme, but it also doesn't seem like there is any consensus on where in this continuum the game should actually be.

The second is how to implement a system that achieves the above vision that can't be gamed (or, at least, makes it hard to... and circumventing it has a harsh enough punishment to deter said circumvention). But without a consensus on point one, talking about point two is meaningless.

At the same time, I don't think you can lump XP camps like Sisters in with loot camps like AC. You can literally get XP in a large number of places all over the world. Not all of them are ideal, but the option is certainly there. No drop items are a different animal as there is only one or two mobs in the game that drop them. There is no other option.

[loramin]

So the alternative is a week long waiting list just to get camps like OoT Sisters, AC, frenzied ghoul, etc?

Or Blue.

But also keep in mind that Verant knew AC (in particular) would be popular, and that's why OOT isn't the only AC: there are three other zones you can try and get him in ... it's just they require tracking and/or clearing placeholders and/or showing up at certain times: http://wiki.project1999.com/Ancient%20Cyclops

But ultimately when you have X people that want a thing, and that thing only appears once every Y times, someone is going to have to wait X * Y times to get that thing. That's unavoidable, unless you change the game (which defeats the point of Green).

[fastboy21]

Well, that are actually two different things going on here:

The first is the vision for how extremely high-demand items (like RotA) should be "distributed" amongst the playerbase. The two extremes of this continuum being everyone on the server gets a chance to camp and get the item (with at least the caveat that you can actually KILL the mob), and let one person hold the camp and monopolize the item indefinitely. I don't think anyone really ascribes to either extreme, but it also doesn't seem like there is any consensus on where in this continuum the game should actually be.

The second is how to implement a system that achieves the above vision that can't be gamed (or, at least, makes it hard to... and circumventing it has a harsh enough punishment to deter said circumvention). But without a consensus on point one, talking about point two is meaningless.

At the same time, I don't think you can lump XP camps like Sisters in with loot camps like AC. You can literally get XP in a large number of places all over the world. Not all of them are ideal, but the option is certainly there. No drop items are a different animal as there is only one or two mobs in the game that drop them. There is no other option.

There are other options though...you can buy pretty much all the items you can't camp (because you CAN farm pp...and the players farming the items are doing it to sell them to you). I've never understood the romance of camping items yourself. If I can make enough pp for an FBSS in EC tunnel faster than I can get the camp/item then I happily thank the farmers and save some time.

If the farmers weren't selling their hauls then you'd have another problem...but they are. Not every char is going to camp their own AC ring...not every char needs to camp their own fbss...or GEBs...the game was designed so that there is a market for this stuff.

The legit camping concerns are items that not sold (either because they are hoarding or the item isn't MQable/Droppable).

If you want to farm an FBSS you need to roll a solo class and go sit until you get the camp...and then when you get it you don't leave...ever. There are other routes (guild farming grps, etc.), but this is normal EQ. This is the EQ way.

You aren't going to get to farm your own FBSS if you can only play a couple hours at a time, aren't a solo class, and don't have friends helping you do it. This is the EQ way.

[Loadsamoney]

Or Blue.

But also keep in mind that Verant knew AC (in particular) would be popular, and that's why OOT isn't the only AC: there are three other zones you can try and get him in ... it's just they require tracking and/or clearing placeholders and/or showing up at certain times: http://wiki.project1999.com/Ancient%20Cyclops

But ultimately when you have X people that want a thing, and that thing only appears once every Y times, someone is going to have to wait X * Y times to get that thing. That's unavoidable, unless you change the game (which defeats the point of Green).

I'm a Blue boy (with a bit of Red alt), through and through. But the title of this thread made me genuinely concerned for the life expectancy of Green. The last thing Green needs is another TMO coming in and monopolizing the entire server by putting a steel padlock on all the high-end Raid and Epic content.

[loramin]

If you want to farm an FBSS you need to roll a solo class and go sit until you get the camp...and then when you get it you don't leave...ever. There are other routes (guild farming grps, etc.), but this is normal EQ. This is the EQ way.

You aren't going to get to farm your own FBSS if you can only play a couple hours at a time, aren't a solo class, and don't have friends helping you do it. This is the EQ way.


https://i.imgur.com/Fk69QjI.gif

I'm a Blue boy (with a bit of Red alt), through and through. But the title of this thread made me genuinely concerned for the life expectancy of Green. The last thing Green needs is another TMO coming in and monopolizing the entire server by putting a steel padlock on all the high-end Raid and Epic content.

This is why I dream of two servers: a "casual" server ("Teal") where raid content is rotated, as if this place was a museum and everyone should have a chance to see the exhibits ... and a "competition" server ("Green"), where people who want the classically competitive "uber guild monopolizes everything" experience can get it :)

But since I doubt I'll ever see those two servers ... another part of EQ is either joining your server's uber guild, or learning to live without the coolest raid toys (even things we think of as not being uberguild content on Blue ... like epics). This is the way.

[Loadsamoney]

You aren't going to get to farm your own FBSS if you can only play a couple hours at a time, aren't a solo class, and don't have friends helping you do it. This is the EQ way.

So you're saying if you can't commit twelve hours a day without interruption to playing EQ, no meal breaks, no getting some fresh air, not even being able to use the restroom like a proper bloke, you'll never have access to the items or content you want? That's not how a game should be. A game should be an escape from the stresses of real life. One should not have to feel shackled to it to be able to enjoy it or progress in it.

[aaezil]

This thread is hilarious and classic p99 forums.

Everyone has their own pet idea about “how the list rules work” but all of you are wrong/half wrong

The gms just rule based on what they are seeing and how they feel that day thats how its always been here.

[Sabin76]

The legit camping concerns are items that not sold (either because they are hoarding or the item isn't MQable/Droppable).

Right, which the RotA is for INT casters. Not everyone wanting to camp AC for the ring wants the boots. On the other hand, there is ONE other option that I mentioned earlier, and that is buying loot rights from the camper... but that feels like list jumping for plat, and might even be considered cheating the system, so I don't know how people feel about that.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I see people talking past each other about solutions because they see different problems (or no problem at all). I just wanted to highlight that.

[loramin]

buying loot rights from the camper... but that feels like list jumping for plat, and might even be considered cheating the system, so I don't know how people feel about that.

Selling loot rights has been clearly established as acceptable here. There was even a time when a GM seemed to say it wasn't, and then corrected himself and clarified it was allowed.

The only time it's not is if a player agreement forbids it: you can't sell your winning roll for Shady Goblin, for instance.

[fastboy21]

This thread is hilarious and classic p99 forums.

Everyone has their own pet idea about “how the list rules work” but all of you are wrong/half wrong

The gms just rule based on what they are seeing and how they feel that day thats how its always been here.

I wouldn't say its that unpredictable in my experience. Its more like having a human referee in a sport...its easy to armchair the rules book and be a rules-lawyer, but somebody has to make an actual decision on the fly with information they have at that moment.

Certainly not perfect...but it seems to work.

[fastboy21]

So you're saying if you can't commit twelve hours a day without interruption to playing EQ, no meal breaks, no getting some fresh air, not even being able to use the restroom like a proper bloke, you'll never have access to the items or content you want? That's not how a game should be. A game should be an escape from the stresses of real life. One should not have to feel shackled to it to be able to enjoy it or progress in it.

I've camped pretty much every significant camp in EQ. You're being hyperbolic about how hard it is. Yes, you need time...but you can eat, watch tv, read, play other games (including EQ on other servers). You set timers and monitor the room for other players/trains, but it isn't nearly as poop socky as you describe it.

Ironically, the worst camp I've ever done in EQ was the guise on p99 green. Yah, I'm guarenteed the item...but the afk checks for literally 48 hours is insane and horribly unhealthy for the people (like me) that did it straight up without someone else logging in my toon. By far the worst experience of my EQ life...by day 2 I was literally getting sick and starting to take cat naps in five minute clips. This is not what most camps are like in EQ without /list.

As for access to the items? Yah, you farm the pp like I said and buy your fbss. For content? You're really over-stating how "fun" these camps are. You aren't missing anything after you've done them for an hour.

[Loadsamoney]

I've camped pretty much every significant camp in EQ. You're being hyperbolic about how hard it is. Yes, you need time...but you can eat, watch tv, read, play other games (including EQ on other servers). You set timers and monitor the room for other players/trains, but it isn't nearly as poop socky as you describe it.

Ironically, the worst camp I've ever done in EQ was the guise on p99 green. Yah, I'm guarenteed the item...but the afk checks for literally 48 hours is insane and horribly unhealthy for the people (like me) that did it straight up without someone else logging in my toon. By far the worst experience of my EQ life...by day 2 I was literally getting sick and starting to take cat naps in five minute clips. This is not what most camps are like in EQ without /list.

As for access to the items? Yah, you farm the pp like I said and buy your fbss. For content? You're really over-stating how "fun" these camps are. You aren't missing anything after you've done them for an hour.

And what about named mobs that are on a one-week spawn timer and have necessary drops for Epics that are immediately batphoned two minutes after spawning? How do the non-elite guildies who can't commit 80 hours a week get them without having 500k to MQ it?

[fastboy21]

And what about named mobs that are on a one-week spawn timer and have necessary drops for Epics? How do the non-elite guildies who can't commit 80 hours a week get them without having 500k to MQ it?

I hear you...but now you're talking about changing the game. I don't know why EQ was made this way...and I don't know why so many people seem to love it.

If you need a rare item in EQ it has never just been handed to you. If you can't solo it you need friends...that means joining a guild...helping others, etc...they help you in return. I'm not sure what is so oppressive about that. It can literally take months or years to camp rare items in EQ between when you start chasing them and success...its always been part of the game.

Just an FYI, my necro on blue has her epic...I bought the loot rights to finish it. It took me over a year to earn the plat at the time and to find a seller that lined up with my play times. It was hard as hell to buy those pieces for me...and I have no regrets. For me, not being in an uber guild on blue at the time, this was the only way for my necro.

[magnetaress]

Clever. But is the cure for camp problems on blue/green really to let our population get so low that at peak times each player has on average three whole zones to themselves?

That doesn't happen on blue/green.

If they shut blue and green down red pop would go up a lot :D :cool:

People are inherently lazy then complain about having to share or being told to share. Or wait because they are ineffectual at gaming whatever the current system is.

This is what is defective about *working together peacefully **ism*. I'm not saying there aren't elements to either that don't work but the slippery slope to /lists is real.

[Sabin76]

Selling loot rights has been clearly established as acceptable here.

Huh... that's quite interesting. I mean, on the one hand you are essentially buying off the current camp holder to take their place in line, jumping everyone else in the process. On the other hand, it's their camp currently, so it's not exactly like they are handing it off to the highest bidder... presumably the camp holder is still the camp holder after the transaction.

[fastboy21]

AFAIK, you are allowed to sell/buy loot rights to any item in the game.

You are also allowed to sell your camp itself AFAIK.

[Loadsamoney]

AFAIK, you are allowed to sell/buy loot rights to any item in the game.

You are also allowed to sell your camp itself AFAIK.

Inb4 someone tries to sell Trakanon Guts to a Bard on green for 300kpp.

[fastboy21]

Inb4 someone tries to sell Trakanon Guts to a Bard on green for 300kpp.

Yes, this is perfectly okay...as long as they aren't breaking any other rules to do it.

Yes, it is weird...but it is a legit part of the game. The game takes care of this for the most part as the market price of such items would be so astronomically high that the odds of finding a guild selling them and buyer buying them would be a very small part of the overall population while we are in era.

On Blue this happens all the time...because the items have been dropping for years by now.

And, on blue...I had to buy my bard's white scale for epic. Was totally normal thing to do...and I was happy that I could do it as farming the scale itself was impossible for me at the time.

[loramin]

AFAIK, you are allowed to sell/buy loot rights to any item in the game.

You are also allowed to sell your camp itself AFAIK.

Well except player agreements ... which are about "turn-in rights" and so arguably aren't "camps" (and so maybe I'm just agreeing with you) ... do "trump" that I think. Emphasis added:

THE RULES ARE AS FOLLOW FOR ROLLING Scout Charisa:

YOU MUST HAVE THE Scout Tools. You win the roll, you turn in tools, you loot the disc. If you do not follow this rule you will be petitioned.

[fastboy21]

Well except player agreements ... which are about "turn-in rights" and so arguably aren't "camps" (and so maybe I'm just agreeing with you) ... do "trump" that I think. Emphasis added:

Yah, I wasn't considering those situations...which are so limited that I just consider them special exceptions.

[loramin]

Yah, I wasn't considering those situations...which are so limited that I just consider them special exceptions.

Totally. I just think they're worth mentioning because they contrast different systems for handling the "X people want thing that only appears every Y often (and X * Y = yikes!)" problem.

With a list there's a guarantee (assuming /list or no list mischief with players) that you will get your item in X * Y time. Put in the time, get rewarded with the item. "Too many people on the list" isn't a problem, just a market opportunity for people to sell places in line.

With a player agreement there is no such guarantee. Instead there's a guarantee that everyone has an equal random chance ... but you lose your guarantee that after X * Y you get your item. You could win the first roll you attend, or never win your 200th.

I think it'd be interesting if "listing" (preferably via automated GMing) actually looked more like player agreements, because I think that or some hybrid (eg. list has max 3 people on it, after that you random to get on) is closer to classic EQ to me.

[Sabin76]

You are also allowed to sell your camp itself AFAIK.

Wow... if that's true, then player lists are a very fragile thing, indeed. No need to manipulate the list under scrutiny of petitioners. Just sell your camp to your guildmate when you are about to log off for 1c, or a SoW, or... At the very least it seems that #2 in line has to outbid everyone else if they actually want that place in line to mean anything.

Am I missing something here? What is currently preventing anyone from doing this?

Again, if I'm someone who was going to purchase loot rights from guild member #5 instead of list member #5, it's not really any different to me... but it sure is different for someone who joined the list thinking that was actually going to give them a shot at the item.

[fastboy21]

Totally. I just think they're worth mentioning because they contrast different systems for handling the "X people want thing that only appears every Y often (and X * Y = yikes!)" problem.

With a list there's a guarantee (assuming /list or no list mischief with players) that you will get your item in X * Y time. Put in the time, get rewarded with the item. "Too many people on the list" isn't a problem, just a market opportunity for people to sell places in line.

With a player agreement there is no such guarantee. Instead there's a guarantee that everyone has an equal random chance ... but you lose your guarantee that after X * Y you get your item. You could win the first roll you attend, or never win your 200th.

I think it'd be interesting if "listing" (preferably via automated GMing) actually looked more like player agreements, because I think that or some hybrid (eg. list has max 3 people on it, after that you random to get on) is closer to classic EQ to me.

I agree with you.

I think its important to remember that #1 driving factor of the /list system wasn't the fair distribution of loot...it was, imo, to save the GMs from having to live in lguk and play babysitter 24/7. It succeeded much more in this second point.

Going forward it will hopefully tweak how the loot distribution works, as well as saving GMs from going insane.

[loramin]

Wow... if that's true, then player lists are a very fragile thing, indeed. No need to manipulate the list under scrutiny of petitioners. Just sell your camp to your guildmate when you are about to log off for 1c, or a SoW, or...

Am I missing something here? What is currently preventing anyone from doing this?

Again, if I'm someone who was going to purchase loot rights from guild member #5 instead of list member #5, it's not really any different to me... but it sure is different for someone who joined the list thinking that was actually going to give them a shot at the item.

Loot rights != place in line. Once you get to the front, if your guildmate is there with you (or can get there before the corpse poofs) you can sell the right to loot it to him.

Whether you can sell your place in line depends entirely on the "player agreement" behind the list. At established player agreement rolls, you clearly can't. AFAIK Green AC doesn't have one, but IF everyone waiting at the AC all agrees that you can't sell your place in line, and they stick to that for a bit and the GMs consider it "established", the staff will punish people who try and trade their place in line.

Prior to that ... the answer as to whether it's "allowed" lies in that (vast) unknown gray area of elf law: try it, get petitioned, we'll see :)

[fastboy21]

Wow... if that's true, then player lists are a very fragile thing, indeed. No need to manipulate the list under scrutiny of petitioners. Just sell your camp to your guildmate when you are about to log off for 1c, or a SoW, or... At the very least it seems that #2 in line has to outbid everyone else if they actually want that place in line to mean anything.

Am I missing something here? What is currently preventing anyone from doing this?

Again, if I'm someone who was going to purchase loot rights from guild member #5 instead of list member #5, it's not really any different to me... but it sure is different for someone who joined the list thinking that was actually going to give them a shot at the item.

Nothing. You can give your camp (or sell it) to whomever you want as long as you haven't told other people waiting that someone is already next. If you tell someone that they are next on the list you are no longer able to give/sell it to someone else.

See my original post in this thread showing the problem of honesty in making this system actually work properly.

As with all camp rules, the "rules" are only as true as the next GM who rules on a situation. P99 intentionally gives staff the authority to do this on a case by case basis.

[Sabin76]

Whether you can sell your place in line depends entirely on the "player agreement" behind the list.

...as long as you haven't told other people waiting that someone is already next. If you tell someone that they are next on the list you are no longer able to give/sell it to someone else.

This appears to be the information I was missing/forgetting.

Question: does having a google doc with people's names on it not count as "telling someone who's next" in terms of the afore mentioned "player agreement" and being able to sell your place in line? It seems to me that it might be, but Ioramin's comment about Green AC not having such an agreement makes that connection murky. Or is there actually no such list and whoever mentioned it earlier was mistaken?

[loramin]

This appears to be the information I was missing/forgetting.

Question: does having a google doc with people's names on it not count as "telling someone who's next" in terms of the afore mentioned "player agreement" and being able to sell your place in line? It seems to me that it might be, but Ioramin's comment about Green AC not having such an agreement makes that connection murky. Or is there actually no such list and whoever mentioned it earlier was mistaken?

The explicit/specific/"a GM once said it (https://wiki.project1999.com/Rulings)" rule is that the person with the camp (ie. the top of the list) must be honest about who they are giving the camp to next:

Camp holder has the right to pass the camp to whoever he would like. However, and this is very important, two things must happen in order for this to be a legitimate hand-off:

1) The player being handed the camp must be present around the time the first placeholder spawns after the last holder of the camp has gotten his or her item in hand. The person handing off the camp must stay at the spawn until the next person in line arrives, if that person is on their way to take the camp. There is a little leeway here, and we refuse to set an exact timer on how long the placeholder can be up before the camp is forfeited, but in general it should never be for more than a couple minutes or so. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the person coming in to take the camp in these situations as CSR staff, so waiting a bit longer will never hurt.

2) The person holding the camp cannot mislead you, or change his mind after telling you who is next. Something that no one ever does (and I will never understand why) is to specifically address the camp holder, asking who is next or if you can be next. The camp holder does need to reveal to you who the next intended camp holder is - if he doesn't, you may ask to be next and your claim will be valid unless he reveals the next person immediately. This person cannot change after the camp holder has "revealed" the next person to take the camp to you. It is an automatic forfeit if this occurs. If you ask to be the next camp holder and are told yes, the camp holder may not later retract or change this agreement and attempt to hand the camp off to someone else - it's yours once he has gotten his item or moved on from the camp.

Something else important to note about handing off camps - in particular, popular ones, but this applies to any camp that becomes contested. If you are solo camping, once you attain the item you were waiting for (an AC ring, for example) you are done camping that mob. The person coming to take the camp had better be prepared at this point in order to come eliminate the very next placeholder spawn in order to "stake his claim" on the mob. You cannot work wacky corpse lines on lore items in order to grab multiple items in the same "camp session" if there are others waiting to take the camp. Please be aware that we reserve the right to apply this same ruling to any camp if we deem it necessary, including camps with multiple players.


There is no such explicit ruling for anyone else on the list, and in fact there are no explicit rules about lists at all except for that (that I know of) ... aside from the global "don't be a dick".

But that last one is important. There is for instance this explicit chunk of the Play Nice Policies:

11. You may not defraud other players.

Fraud is defined as falsely representing one's intentions to make a gain at another's expense. Examples of this activity include, but are not limited to, using deception to deprive another player of items, slandering another player or impersonating them with the intention of causing harm to that player's reputation, or falsely representing one's identity in order to gain access to another player's account or account information.

Fraud in all transactions between players may result in disciplinary action when confirmed by a P99CSR.

So when I say things are unclear, it's not because this place has no rules, but just that no GM has explicitly addressed a particular case. If someone pulls list shenanigans, would the staff consider that fraud? Maybe, maybe not, we have to wait until it happens to see.

[cd288]

The explicit/specific/"a GM once said it (https://wiki.project1999.com/Rulings)" rule is that the person with the camp (ie. the top of the list) must be honest about who they are giving the camp to next:



There is no such explicit ruling for anyone else on the list, and in fact there are no explicit rules about lists at all except for that (that I know of) ... aside from the global "don't be a dick".

But that last one is important. There is for instance this explicit chunk of the Play Nice Policies:



So when I say things are unclear, it's not because this place has no rules, but just that no GM has explicitly addressed a particular case. If someone pulls list shenanigans, would the staff consider that fraud? Maybe, maybe not, we have to wait until it happens to see.

I’ve had multiple guides and GMs over the years enforce an order if someone told you that your turn was next for the camp and then tried to slot someone else in ahead of you. Come to think of it, Ive actually never had an instance where a staff member did not enforce that if the person ahead of me told me I was next or refused to tell me who was in front of me.

General rule of thumb is that if you’re a dick like that the staff is not going to look kindly upon you and will rule against you.

[Sabin76]

Ok, I think I'm getting a clearer picture both of what the "official rules" are and how those morphed into what we now (supposedly) see at these uberpopular camps. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

1. Alice is camping Mob. Bob, Candice, and Dylan all come to the camp in that order asking if there is a list/to be put on it. Since Bob asked first, and no one else had asked before, Alice says he is next. Both Candice and Dylan are told that Bob is next as well, with no other information given.

2. Once Alice is done, she informs Bob that it's his camp now. At this point, both Candice and Dylan have to ask Bob who is "next" and whoever asks Bob first gets it. While they could have asked Bob before it was his turn (thus entering into an agreement in which a violation would be considered fraud, I assume), Bob was under no obligation to make such an agreement since he wasn't the camp holder at the time. Perhaps Bob wanted to hand it off to his friend, or a guildie, or someone who offered him 5kp to be "next" after him. Who knows. Well, Candice and Dylan will know once it becomes Bob's camp because he has to divulge that information... anyway.

3. While Bob is camping Candice goes off and does some XPing in a neighboring zone (might ruffle some feathers, but I don't see anything prohibiting it as long as she can make it to the camp before the PH pops), Dylan sits there, and Excelsior, Frogo, and Garelt come to ask who's next. Assuming Bob has offered to hand it off to Candice, Bob tells them all that it's Candice. Garelt was the last to show up, but he offers 5kp to be next after her. As before, Candice doesn't have to make a decision now and can wait until she has the camp... or she can make a decision now and it's locked in stone as a "player agreement". Let's say she accepts.

4. However, sometime during Bob's camp, Candice gets tired and logs off. Once Bob's done he tries to inform Candice that she's up, but finds her gone. At this point...??? FTE? Bob decides, arbitrarily, on someone else? Assuming a transaction between Garelt and Candice didn't actually take place yet (it was just an agreement; one that can no longer be completed) Garelt has no more claim to the camp than anyone else.

Essentially, there are three classes of players at a camp: the current camp holder, whoever is next, and a pool of people that are also waiting for the camp who all vie for the "next" spot once there is a hand-off.

However (and this is an assumption I'm making based off of what you guys have provided), maintaining an actual list means that your place in line is an implied "player agreement". In other words, if you were Candice in the beginning and Alice told you Bob was next... as soon as you ask Bob if you can be after him - and he agrees - there is a list and the line can no longer be jumped. Perhaps this was created because people didn't like being in a "pool" of "not next" players for a camp that they then needed to compete for to be next at a hand-off, but once it's created anyone on it should be able to safely assume their place is set. The only caveat being that whoever is last in line can decide not to put the next person on the list and make it a free-for-all when their turn comes up.

Having no obligation to put someone on a list means that the last person is able to sell their spot, if they like. So my LowLevelButAnonymousCharacterThatTotallyCan'tKillA C could get put on the list, sit on my spot for however long it takes to get to position 3 or 4, then sell it (if there are buyers).

On the other hand, as soon as someone on the list cannot actually take over their camp (logging, not being able to get there in time, can't actually hold the camp) things get dicey. Does it become a FFA again? Does it simply go to the next-next person even though there was no agreement between those two players?

Sorry for the wall-of-stream-of-consciousness. I just want to know what to expect when I actually get into a position to perhaps want to take part in a popular camp.

TLDR: it seems to me that actually having a list is a form of "player agreement" that someone can be held fraudulent for if they sell their spot, unless they are the last in line and choose not to uphold the list after themselves.

[magnetaress]

OH MY FUCKING GOD.

Too many words.

Option 1. Be patient and wait for someone to move out the way.
Option 2. Train them then kill the mob loot ur thing and move out the way.
Option 3. KS them.
Option 4. Talk to them and hope they aren't massive #$@%^gets
Option 5. Roll on red 99 and kill them.
Option 6. Rules laywer and post about it on the forums.

Guess what option all you *@#$@#$sexuals on blue and green are opting for.

6

#6

The devils number.

He hates you and you deserve this.

[fastboy21]

OH MY FUCKING GOD.

Too many words.

Option 1. Be patient and wait for someone to move out the way.
Option 2. Train them then kill the mob loot ur thing and move out the way.
Option 3. KS them.
Option 4. Talk to them and hope they aren't massive #$@%^gets
Option 5. Roll on red 99 and kill them.
Option 6. Rules laywer and post about it on the forums.

Guess what option all you *@#$@#$sexuals on blue and green are opting for.

6

#6

The devils number.

He hates you and you deserve this.

Not really.

[magnetaress]

Not really.

We can agree to disagree m8, but I want you to know I have very strong beliefs.

[loramin]

Ok, I think I'm getting a clearer picture both of what the "official rules" are and how those morphed into what we now (supposedly) see at these uberpopular camps. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

1. Alice is camping Mob. Bob, Candice, and Dylan all come to the camp in that order asking if there is a list/to be put on it. Since Bob asked first, and no one else had asked before, Alice says he is next. Both Candice and Dylan are told that Bob is next as well, with no other information given.

2. Once Alice is done, she informs Bob that it's his camp now. At this point, both Candice and Dylan have to ask Bob who is "next" and whoever asks Bob first gets it. While they could have asked Bob before it was his turn (thus entering into an agreement in which a violation would be considered fraud, I assume), Bob was under no obligation to make such an agreement since he wasn't the camp holder at the time. Perhaps Bob wanted to hand it off to his friend, or a guildie, or someone who offered him 5kp to be "next" after him. Who knows. Well, Candice and Dylan will know once it becomes Bob's camp because he has to divulge that information... anyway.

3. While Bob is camping Candice goes off and does some XPing in a neighboring zone (might ruffle some feathers, but I don't see anything prohibiting it as long as she can make it to the camp before the PH pops), Dylan sits there, and Excelsior, Frogo, and Garelt come to ask who's next. Assuming Bob has offered to hand it off to Candice, Bob tells them all that it's Candice. Garelt was the last to show up, but he offers 5kp to be next after her. As before, Candice doesn't have to make a decision now and can wait until she has the camp... or she can make a decision now and it's locked in stone as a "player agreement". Let's say she accepts.

This is all a reasonable interpretation ... but no one knows for sure until these scenarios happen. There's nothing explicitly saying it all works like that.

Also just to clarify, the term "player agreement" is usually not used for "Bob and I made an agreement" (even though such agreements are generally protected by fraud rules, unless multi-quests are involved). Instead. that specific term usually refers to places in the game that amount to "clickfests". Since everyone hates clickfests, they all agreed to play by certain rules (the wiki has the details for each relevant camp).

But to make such rules something the staff will enforce and a "player agreement" (vs. just "what someone felt like writing in the wiki") is the fact that all of the players "competing" agreed as a group to play by them ... and kept agreeing for awhile (the staff has never defined an exact time).

4. However, sometime during Bob's camp, Candice gets tired and logs off. Once Bob's done he tries to inform Candice that she's up, but finds her gone. At this point...??? FTE? Bob decides, arbitrarily, on someone else? Assuming a transaction between Garelt and Candice didn't actually take place yet (it was just an agreement; one that can no longer be completed) Garelt has no more claim to the camp than anyone else.

It seems to me if Bob can't pass the camp to Candice, it's entirely up to Bob to decide who is next. If he doesn't it's FTE ... but again, until a GM says as much, we don't know for sure.

Essentially, there are three classes of players at a camp: the current camp holder, whoever is next, and a pool of people that are also waiting for the camp who all vie for the "next" spot once there is a hand-off.

However (and this is an assumption I'm making based off of what you guys have provided), maintaining an actual list means that your place in line is an implied "player agreement". In other words, if you were Candice in the beginning and Alice told you Bob was next... as soon as you ask Bob if you can be after him - and he agrees - there is a list and the line can no longer be jumped. Perhaps this was created because people didn't like being in a "pool" of "not next" players for a camp that they then needed to compete for to be next at a hand-off, but once it's created anyone on it should be able to safely assume their place is set. The only caveat being that whoever is last in line can decide not to put the next person on the list and make it a free-for-all when their turn comes up.

Having no obligation to put someone on a list means that the last person is able to sell their spot, if they like. So my LowLevelButAnonymousCharacterThatTotallyCan'tKillA C could get put on the list, sit on my spot for however long it takes to get to position 3 or 4, then sell it (if there are buyers).

On the other hand, as soon as someone on the list cannot actually take over their camp (logging, not being able to get there in time, can't actually hold the camp) things get dicey. Does it become a FFA again? Does it simply go to the next-next person even though there was no agreement between those two players?

Sorry for the wall-of-stream-of-consciousness. I just want to know what to expect when I actually get into a position to perhaps want to take part in a popular camp.

You are trying to make order out of chaos where there is none :) We just don't know is the only honest answer.

TLDR: it seems to me that actually having a list is a form of "player agreement" that someone can be held fraudulent for if they sell their spot, unless they are the last in line and choose not to uphold the list after themselves.

Hopefully my earlier explanation of player agreements clarifies this, but look, the big, gigantic, most important rule of all here is DON'T BE A DICK. You can pretty much always find a clause in the Play Nice Policies (ie. the only true rules) that says as much.

So there's no need for special "player agreement" rules or any "fancy elf lawyering": if someone is clearly and deliberately deceiving someone and you can prove it then the staff will almost certainly help you out (except with MQs). But if it's not 100% clear cut "someone is being a dick" ... we just don't know until it happens. The vast majority of the time, everyone just passes as they should and a GM is never involved.

[magnetaress]

So many words.

[fastboy21]

We can agree to disagree m8, but I want you to know I have very strong beliefs.

You do.

Does that mean you can turn a thread that others don't find too wordy into an RNF thread?

If you've lost interest in the "too many words" you are reading...nobody is forcing you to participate in a thread on a server you don't even play on.

[magnetaress]

You do.

Does that mean you can turn a thread that others don't find too wordy into an RNF thread?

If you've lost interest in the "too many words" you are reading...nobody is forcing you to participate in a thread on a server you don't even play on.

I've only ever attempted to be punctual and to the point. I'm sorry you feel upset by my posts. I will stop replying to this thread.

Now. /unsubscribed, and god bless in your /listing journies.

[fastboy21]

I've only ever attempted to be punctual and to the point.

OH MY FUCKING GOD.

Too many words.

Option 6. Rules laywer and post about it on the forums.

Guess what option all you *@#$@#$sexuals on blue and green are opting for.

6

#6

The devils number.

He hates you and you deserve this.

If you say so.

[Sabin76]

You are trying to make order out of chaos where there is none :) We just don't know is the only honest answer.

I'd posit that making and maintaining a list is trying to make order out of chaos ;), but your explanation of "player agreement" did clear it up.

[bluntfang]

*@#$@#$sexuals

why are you so obsessed with saying shit like this? There's really no need to make fun of trans people or people with disabilities. You're a smart person, learn smart insults.

[Coridan]

Just disable the ability to MQ. It's stupid anyway.

[cd288]

Just disable the ability to MQ. It's stupid anyway.

I don’t think the 120 people on the list at the moment are there to MQ lol

[damus1]

the vast majority are, if not in the open market at least for their alts or their friends

[Malikail]

Just disable the ability to MQ. It's stupid anyway.

Yes lets all make way for people too selfish and too lazy to go through the system, one that works by the way. Completed it myself about 2 weeks ago, shorter list then, got on at 54, took 4 days. Then i decided I wanted to get one to MQ to my hunting partner, so when i got back on the list i was 125. Haven't worked all the way through it yet but I'm sure I'll get a shot. If I miss it cause i'm asleep guess what i'll do? Get back on the list, last thing I would do is whine on the forums for the dynamics of the game to be changed to favor me. That's hard to empathize with or respect imo.

[damus1]

I wouldn't call a bloated easy-to-exploit mega list to be a 'game dynamic' its a player made solution and one that is far from perfect, in many ways worse than /list ever was, and should be open for discussion and/or well deserved criticism.

it rewards lazy and selfish people far more than /list ever did, and allows the same person to stack all 10 of their alts.

it was a good idea at first, that spiraled out of control, wonder how long til we can break 200

[Malikail]

I wouldn't call a bloated easy-to-exploit mega list to be a 'game dynamic' its a player made solution and one that is far from perfect, in many ways worse than /list ever was, and should be open for discussion and/or well deserved criticism.

it rewards lazy and selfish people far more than /list ever did, and allows the same person to stack all 10 of their alts.

it was a good idea at first, that spiraled out of control, wonder how long til we can break 200

The game dynamic was his suggestion to disable MQ, never played under those conditions on any server, have no idea what that would be like.

The rest of what you said i can agree with, it's far from perfect but it works. If were changed to a /list system that would be ok with me, but made so it can't be MQ'd? Nah that's not a good idea at all.

[Coridan]

I'm not saying change the game to benefit me. I got my boots from Najena after an 18 hour camp. I'd bet half the people on thst list or more are for the MQ.

I won't say MQing wasn't around in classic, it may have been, but I don't remember anyone doing it or it ever being advertised, it certainly wasn't as common as it is now. I find it kind of against the spirit of the game and the point of no drop and lore mechanics, especially with people corpsing rings. I feel certain if it had been like it is now, Verant would have put in a patch to block it. Most likely making NPCs only accept full turn ons.

[cd288]

the vast majority are, if not in the open market at least for their alts or their friends

I think you have this backwards. If they wanted to MQ to get JBoots they wouldn’t wait on the AC list. They’d farm the plat and go buy the MQ from someone.

And if you were, on the other hand, trying to camp the AC to SELL an MQ to someone, a 120 person long list would absolutely be a deterrent because you could farm just as much plat (if not more) in the time it would take you to go from number 120 to 1 on the list as you would receive from selling the MQ lol.

[loramin]

I think you have this backwards. If they wanted to MQ to get JBoots they wouldn’t wait on the AC list. They’d farm the plat and go buy the MQ from someone.

And if you were, on the other hand, trying to camp the AC to SELL an MQ to someone, a 120 person long list would absolutely be a deterrent because you could farm just as much plat (if not more) in the time it would take you to go from number 120 to 1 on the list as you would receive from selling the MQ lol.

I mostly agree with your posts, but I have to nitpick at this one. List size doesn't directly connect to whether it's worth "farming" a JBoots, because of economics. On the one hand, whether there are 500 people who want one or 50, the supply remains fixed: one ring enters the server per AC spawn.

Now, there is some elasticity in demand (ie. there are people who will buy a JBoots MQ at X price but won't at X + 1), but that elasticity only goes so far: some people will pay almost any price as long as they don't have to sit in line. So when list size goes up, yes it takes more time to "farm" a JBoots ... but you can also charge more for a JBoots MQ, because people will be willing to pay even more not to sit in that extra long line.

Ultimately the market will account for this, and this is one of the great things about letting market forces "stabilize" the ability for people to acquire popular items. I don't think we can say people farming JBoots MQs are inherently a bad thing!

But ... if we're comparing two systems for solving the "X * Y problem" side by side (ie. X people want an item that takes Y time to enter the server, and X * Y is really big), I think that is when the "endless list and allow MQs" system shows it's weakness. By reducing the "cost" to win something cool in EQ from the normal "price" (you have to be patient and lucky), that price instead becomes "you have to be really, really, really patient" ... and that change makes a huge difference in how many people farm JBoots.

Now, what if we had a very similar system, but without the endless list? We still have the same X * Y problem, and it's still somewhat mitigated by "market stabilization" effects. Now though, you wouldn't pay people to sit in line for a guaranteed reward for days at a time ... SOMETHING NO ONE REMEMBERS ANYONE EVER DOING IN 1999 (your Internet connection probably couldn't even keep going for 48 hours back then, even IF you were super lucky and didn't have to worry about your Mom picking up the phone in that time ;)). Instead, you'd pay them for their patience and luck.

That one key change would instantly eliminate a huge swath of OOT's population! No longer could you turn your AFK computer into a plat farming machine: instead you have to sit and actively play the game to earn a reward. Far fewer people will want to sit and roll for chances to kill the AC (vs. sitting endlessly in line), and with less "people waiting in line time" to pay for, the overall price should go down (although of course not too much, because the fundamental supply and demand won't radically change).

But forget about price reductions, what I really want everyone to imagine is this: a system where you play EQ (or at least make periodic random rolls to try and play EQ) to get your loot, instead of sitting AFK for a guarantee of loot being handed to you!

[Sabin76]

And if you were, on the other hand, trying to camp the AC to SELL an MQ to someone, a 120 person long list would absolutely be a deterrent because you could farm just as much plat (if not more) in the time it would take you to go from number 120 to 1 on the list as you would receive from selling the MQ lol.

But this isn't /list, right? As in, you are allowed to put yourself on the list, THEN go farm plat for however long it takes, THEN head to OOT when it's almost your turn and kill the AC for even more plat. Or even put yourself on the list, the log off and do something productive with your life, before logging back on and finding your place in line dramatically improved for no effort on your part.

[damus1]

the thing with the mega list is, its not a time sink at all, you're allowed to be offline / out of zone and stay on it. you only have to be online when your turn is up. thats what allows it to have become so bloated and out of control. Over half the people that get their ring immediately re-enter the list at the bottom.

I stand by my statement, the VAST majority of these are getting MQ'd

[damus1]

also this allows people to list up on every char they have, and any of their friends chars they have access to as well. a kind of abuse that wasn't possible with /list

[loramin]

a kind of abuse that wasn't possible with /list

(And also isn't possible with any sort of randomized system ... whether it's pure random or "random to get on a short/fixed-length list".)

[cd288]

also this allows people to list up on every char they have, and any of their friends chars they have access to as well. a kind of abuse that wasn't possible with /list

Ah I see now. You're one of those people who doesn't like it when lots of other people get pixels and you don't like how you have to wait in a long line to get your own.

[Widan]

Ah I see now. You're one of those people who doesn't like it when lots of other people get pixels and you don't like how you have to wait in a long line to get your own.

You completely missed the point. It's not 'lots of people' when the same 5 people have a dozen chars each on the list. If every real life person was limited to one char on the list it would be 10% as long.

[Canelek]

Jesus-tits you fine folks speculate and hand-wring like a gaggle of old ladies at a bingo hall.

[Eldini]

its gonna be a grats bladefrenzy on this

[Bristlebaner]

May I suggest a TLP. I think you can just buy a potion instead.

[DMN]

We've democratically decided dromo doesn't deserve any boots.

Ain't that a bitch.

[fastboy21]

To be honest, the whole "player agreement" business has always seemed odd to me on p99.

I don't understand, in principle, how other players (allegedly) were able to agree to a binding rule for anyone other than themselves. Some of these agreements are from years ago on a different server. How can players make an agreement on blue five years ago that is binding on green? It just sounds suspect.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the role that these "player agreements" perform (and I mostly agree with them and appreciate that it helps the game run smoothly), I just don't exactly understand how they came to be, why they persist, or how to even potentially change them.

"Player agreements" in practice have always seemed more like "GM approved ideas" than some kind of democratically arrived at system to me. Its the most difficult thing to explain to someone imo when they ask about rules on these servers.

[loramin]

To be honest, the whole "player agreement" business has always seemed odd to me on p99.

I don't understand, in principle, how other players (allegedly) were able to agree to a binding rule for anyone other than themselves. Some of these agreements are from years ago on a different server. How can players make an agreement on blue five years ago that is binding on green? It just sounds suspect.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the role that these "player agreements" perform (and I mostly agree with them and appreciate that it helps the game run smoothly), I just don't exactly understand how they came to be, why they persist, or how to even potentially change them.

"Player agreements" in practice have always seemed more like "GM approved ideas" than some kind of democratically arrived at system to me. Its the most difficult thing to explain to someone imo when they ask about rules on these servers.

First off, I don't know of any player agreements that have made it to Green, because every agreement I know of is in Kunark/Velious. This whole idea that any "player agreement" rules apply to (say) the OOT AC list is still speculative elf law ;)

But I really don't think they're hard to explain, or at least not any harder than explaining anything else weird about a 20-year old game whose rules are enforced by volunteers.


In the original ('99-'01) there were several mobs that required "turn-ins"
Back then, there was very little competition for these mobs, both because players lacked knowledge about them, and because of other options (eg. virtually no one cared about shady/angry goblin on live, because they had Luclin loot a few months later)
Also, for Scout specifically, people used to have to bring a raid force, and this obviously cut down the number of turn-ins

Here, everyone knows not just how they work but exactly when these mobs will spawn, resulting in a "clickfest"
Everyone agrees clickfests suck, except autofire cheaters and people with insanely lucky internet connections
The staff (being overworked volunteers) doesn't have time to show up every time these mobs spawn and enforce any system
What they can do is let the players come up with a system and enforce that (and only show up in the far rarer cases of one player bucking the system everyone else agreed to)


Blue player agreements explained.

[Phaezed-Reality]

continued welfare pixels.

[fastboy21]

First off, I don't know of any player agreements that have made it to Green, because every agreement I know of is in Kunark/Velious. This whole idea that any "player agreement" rules apply to (say) the OOT AC list is still speculative elf law ;)

But I really don't think they're hard to explain, or at least not any harder than explaining anything else weird about a 20-year old game whose rules are enforced by volunteers.


In the original ('99-'01) there were several mobs that required "turn-ins"
Back then, there was very little competition for these mobs, both because players lacked knowledge about them, and because of other options (eg. virtually no one cared about shady/angry goblin on live, because they had Luclin loot a few months later)
Also, for Scout specifically, people used to have to bring a raid force, and this obviously cut down the number of turn-ins

Here, everyone knows not just how they work but exactly when these mobs will spawn, resulting in a "clickfest"
Everyone agrees clickfests suck, except autofire cheaters and people with insanely lucky internet connections
The staff (being overworked volunteers) doesn't have time to show up every time these mobs spawn and enforce any system
What they can do is let the players come up with a system and enforce that (and only show up in the far rarer cases of one player bucking the system everyone else agreed to)


Blue player agreements explained.

I know what they are. I also understand why they are. How they have come to be/and can change has seemed fishy to me.

[loramin]

I know what they are. I also understand why they are. How they have come to be/and can change has seemed fishy to me.

As someone who helped create the Shady Goblin one I can answer that :)

"How" is that I showed up to the Shady Goblin spawn point before his spawn, and started talking with the other people there while we waited. Over time I (and others) helped convince everyone showing up that "yes, we'll click for now, but as soon as we can get everyone to agree to roll we'll do that instead".

Now for days if not weeks after that, we still clicked. There were several people who either thought it was some sort of trick, or just thought that by doing the opposite of what everyone else did they could benefit themselves, and those people kept the clickfest going. One person, who I feel should live in infamy forever for doing the most to set things back the longest, was a guy named Siryado.

But eventually we finally got everyone (including Siryado) to agree, and from that point on instead of a clickfest we had a glorious roll! But even then it wasn't guaranteed: even for awhile afterward everyone worried that some asshole would show up, ignore the roll, and turn-in ... but the beauty of social pressure (no one wanted to be the asshole that pissed off 20+ other people with their selfishness) prevented it from happening, and the roll became standard practice.

Then at some unknown point after that, the staff said "we see you players have a good thing going, with 20-odd people all playing nice together: if one loser interrupts this we'll ban that loser". Only they didn't say it that way because they're staff :) And thus, staff-enforced player agreements are born.

[fastboy21]

That's actually an interesting story to add to the history books.

As someone who helped create the Shady Goblin one I can answer that :)

"Then at some unknown point after that, the staff said "we see you players have a good thing going, with 20-odd people all playing nice together: if one loser interrupts this we'll ban that loser". Only they didn't say it that way because they're staff :) And thus, staff-enforced player agreements are born.

This is the part that I don't understand really. "At some point". It makes sense...but how did the staff decide when a critical mass for a critical time agreeing to something meant it should be enforced by staff? Its good...but it seems super arbitrary.

Also, how can it change? Are future players on blue forever bound to an agreement forged months/years ago?

Are there any examples of staff unbinding a player agreement based on players deciding to abandon it?

Is there any example of a player agreement that staff didn't like, but accepted/enforced because players had agreed?

[fastboy21]

I'll also add that I definitely look at these agreements (even when I like them and think they do good things) with the suspicious bias I have towards all things binding on me that I didn't agree to... (can you guess I'm a Libertarian IRL?)

More curious than anything else...I like the benefit of player agreements.

[loramin]

"At some point". It makes sense...but how did the staff decide when a critical mass for a critical time agreeing to something meant it should be enforced by staff? Its good...but it seems super arbitrary.

You're right: it is arbitrary! And ultimately the reason for that arbitrariness is the same one I gave Donkey Hotay on page 9 (which I'm sure you know well):

Look, here's the thing: there is no "current system" ... or at least, not in the sense of a purposefuly constructed one. There's simply some volunteer staff members making whatever very minimal rulings they can to keep things fun (again, minimal to keep their lives as volunteers sane), and then there's what happens "on the ground" as a consequence.

This is the heart of it. The staff won't tell us details on, for instance, how long a player agreement must be self-enforced before they start enforcing it. If they did, then people would start rules lawyering every detail of what they say, and they'd create a ton of work for themselves.

From their perspective ... and I can't keep repeating this enough to anyone reading: as volunteers who spend their free time NOT PLAYING THE GAME so the rest of us get to play with rules ... it's simpler to just do it when they feel like it, and leave the rest of us wondering on the details.

[Snortles Chortles]

ACKCHYUALLY

[dcortez]

30 day lock out on each account that loots? Just tossing it out there.

[loramin]

30 day lock out on each account that loots? Just tossing it out there.

The short answer to this is that there are MANY great ways we could improve things with custom programming ... but just as we have few volunteer GMs, we also have few volunteer developers, and they're busy fixing corpse-poofing bugs and trying to make things classic and all that.

Thus, any solution that requires custom coding is always going to be problematic. The cases where the devs give us such a solution (eg. FTE messages on raid mobs or /list on legacy mobs) are extremely rare, and I think the staff does them not for us players, but instead to make things easier for their (again, volunteer/limited) GM team.

This desn't mean we players can't ask for them (I advocate for "automated GMing" all the time) ... but we shouldn't realistically expect them.

[Muggens]

Its summer, 18 pages of camp arguments using words like continuum and legislature, 100 people of the list...in a 400 year old barbarian simulator. Its summer

[Loadsamoney]

Its summer, 18 pages of camp arguments using words like continuum and legislature, 100 people of the list...in a 400 year old barbarian simulator. Its summer

Yeah, it's Summer, peak time for indoor internet gaming.

[fastboy21]

Its summer, 18 pages of camp arguments using words like continuum and legislature, 100 people of the list...in a 400 year old barbarian simulator. Its summer

As though a forum post using big words takes up a significant amount of mental energy for someone of average intelligence. Its summer...no words...no big spell hard words...like continuuum...omg 4 syllables...summer is two syllables...too many syllables for summer.

[Elijah850]

RMT owns AC camp. *mic drop*

[Loadsamoney]

RMT owns AC camp. *mic drop*

MY BRAIN!

https://mlblogsphilliesphollowers.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/head-explosion1.jpg

[Elijah850]

You completely missed the point. It's not 'lots of people' when the same 5 people have a dozen chars each on the list. If every real life person was limited to one char on the list it would be 10% as long.

He is on to the truth. I'm with you :cool:

[Izmael]

Just make it a /list camp already.

[Exard3k]

what's so special about that camp? what is dropping there?

[Sabin76]

Ring of the Ancients for Casters and/or JBoots MQ.

[Exard3k]

Ring of the Ancients for Casters and/or JBoots MQ.

So nothing I need. Got sow potions.