Multiple camp rules, misconceptions, suggestions

[DMN]

This post is intended to help the reader more fully enjoy P99 for the long term. Some caveats: I'm not a guide/GM/etc, just a person. Additionally, Just because the rules allow for something, that doesn't mean you should do it. It's entirely possible that you are within the narrow lines of the rules, while you could still be considered to be a giant asshat by many people for your actions. it's also possible that if a guide or GM gets called into a situation they might rule something not quite what you believed or hoped to be "correct" as per the rules, because the rules are meant to be a general guide not absolute axioms.


it appears that quite a few people still don't understand some camping rules so I've taken the time to explain them, noting some misconceptions about holding a camp and some suggestions on how to best navigate this sometimes sticky mess of camping rules.

Let's say Bob is holding 3 separate camps. Why is he doing that? no one else was holding them and he could keep the PHs cleared in a reasonable time, hence he holds those camps. We will call the camps A, B,C.

Now Mike shows up and does a CC. Bob is too busy with an intense fight//afk/whatever/doesn't care and doesn't answer. This is meaningless. CC is a courtesy and nothing more, it's like saying "thank you" or "please". It entitles you to nothing, but, that said, you should still employ it because it can save you time and sometimes misunderstandings in complicated camping situations; additionally, it's possible that while the camp holder might not respond to the CC someone else might know who is holding a certain camp.

Mike is very interested in getting camp A. But upon arriving he notices that the PHs have been cleared. At this point he should assume the camp is being held by someone and figure just out who that person is before preceding. Mike CANNOT just take the camp because no one is currently there; no one is required to be there at the current time. Bob's only real responsibility is killing the PHs in a reasonable time frame. Bob is not required to have ESP and know that Mike wants the camp or is contesting it.

What Mike should do at this point is do another OOC such as "is anyone clearing camp A, I don't see anyone here currently but the PHs are all dead". While still not required, It's much more likely that Bob is going to respond to this CC either in ooc or in a /tell, but if neither of those occur Mike would now want to wait at the camp until it starts to respawn because if someone is clearing it they need to be back to clear the PHs in a "reasonable" time frame. Now Mike finally sees Bob is at that camp. Mike has a couple of options:

First mike could contest camp A. This has the benefit of ensuring that as long as mike stays at the camp he will eventually get it. But this has a lot of cons to it. For one, you can't leave a camp you are contesting or you lose the right to contest it. So you are stuck there with nothing to kill waiting for the other guy to leave. Additionally, Bob is most likely going to be annoyed at that choice because he is also now stuck there, which Mike may "pay for" at a later date perhaps at a different camp. Further, Bob may have a list going and given the way the list system works, it's possible mike could end up being out-elf-lawyered via the list where they could continually get to chose who is going to be "next" on list with each new camp holder and the new "next person for camp" will never be Mike.


Another possibility is that even though Mike would prefer camp A, he is Ok with taking camp B instead, and if Bob has made it clear he is establishing his camp at camp A, Mike is in his rights to grab camp B. However, mike no longer has any claim whatsoever to camp A. Camp A = bob, Camp b =mike. With neither camp being contested, neither of them are forced to remain at their respective camps.

And while now camp C is technically not being held as a camp by anyone and by rules is a FTE... most people will allow the previous person who was clearing the camp to continue to do so and i'd urge the reader to do so as well.

A much better long term solution is for Mike to ask Bob if he could be next for the camp and/or add his name to the list if there is one. While this is the most gregarious option, you do also run the risk of the list not working out for numerous reasons. The current list holder could for example lose the camp to someone else, then the list and "whoever is next" is void.


It should be noted that, Bob for his part, will always gets to choose what camp he wants to claim of A, B, or C.

A final note, it's generally best to "when in Rome do as the Romans do" even if its not correct by the letter of the P99 rules. Some camps have player established "understandings" and it's generally frowned on to try to rules lawyer these issues. You might eventually prevail in your elf-lawyering, but it's unlikely to earn you many friends. Pixels today generally aren't worth friends tomorrow.

[Fammaden]

Good post.

In before red player moron peanut gallery.

[Tunabros]

I got a question about camp rules (things that happened to me)
-I was on my lowbie druid (about a month ago). I was camping sisters in LFAY. I was there for about 5 min and had cleared the camp about once so far. Good exp good money. Then after a bit, a mage comes in KS everything in the camp. I asked him why did he do that and he said he went to sell and he was in the camp. Problem is his he didn't answer cc. I asked him to stop and leave. He kept going to KS my camp so I just stood there asking why he's doing it again. He eventually he left after a couple of min. Who was right? Was he able to have the camp even after leaving for 5 min?

-Here's another one. I was in Sk killing at gnome spires. I come by to North camp and see someone afk. If i remember correctly it was a ogre or troll. Problem was they had a mage pet who was standing guard. And the user of this mage pet was at mid. Can a person hold 2 camps? They mage at mid had a friend hold the camp by going afk at north making him have two camps. Is he allowed to do this? I confronted them about and after 10 min of not answering me (they were clearly not afk), they finally let me have the camp. Dont know what was up about that >->

[Seducio]

The best solution for this kind of scenario is sunshine in the real world for both parties.

[Skarne]

The best solution for this kind of scenario is sunshine in the real world for both parties.

[cd288]

Good post. I would just add as an FYI for newer players that it doesn't make Mike an asshat if he asks to take one of the camps when Bob is doing all 3. Especially in the pre-Kunark era where content can be a lot more limited, there's nothing wrong with asking to take 1 out of 3 spawns that someone is killing.

[turbosilk]

Nice post. Would be good to add what is play nice if for example a level 50 is holding a newbie camp like TR or wall in CB and a lowbie exp group shows up.

[Healicious]

if you dont sit on a camp you can't claim it is yours.

[BlackBellamy]

I asked him to stop and leave....he left

I confronted them...let me have the camp

Don't worry about the exact rules, just keep doing what you're doing when you sense someone is trying to screw you. Your instincts in both examples were good, keep rolling.

[hewopepweow]

saving this link for the next time I meet someone going on a verbal tirade about how /ooc CC's are legally binding

[jerryR]

So a gentlemen's agreement wherein Bob gets to have his cake and eat it too. Considering he's holding A, B,C and potentially a list on A ? And if Mike disagrees or contests he's going to pay for it later ?

Seems like there is a lot of onus on Mike to sort out a situation that would be fixed by the camp holder being there. Example - if Mike shows up randomly within the 'reasonable amount of time' time frame, where no one is there and part of the camp is up - where does the burden lie here if any on Mike ?

[Tethler]

if you dont sit on a camp you can't claim it is yours.

This is only true if the camp is being contested. If nobody has announced their intention to contest the camp, you do not need to maintain presence to claim it.

[uygi]

I was there for about 5 min and had cleared the camp about once so far ... a mage comes in KS everything ... he said he went to sellWas he able to have the camp even after leaving for 5 min?
It was your camp under the rules. If he left and it had repopped, and you were there alone long enough to kill all of the mobs, he did not clear the camp/PHs in a "reasonable" time. What exactly is "reasonable"? No real answer for that, but if you're ghoing to take a camp or challenge someone for it, you should be prepared to show that what you did was clearly "reasonable", for example: "I showed up and the mobs were down; I waited for it to be full a pop and nobody appeared, so I started clearing. I broke and cleared the camp, but when it respawned again Billy told me to get out of 'his' camp"

I was in Sk killing at gnome spires. I come by to North camp and see someone afk. If i remember correctly it was a ogre or troll. Problem was they had a mage pet who was standing guard. And the user of this mage pet was at mid. Can a person hold 2 camps? They mage at mid had a friend hold the camp by going afk at north making him have two camps. Is he allowed to do this? I confronted them about and after 10 min of not answering me (they were clearly not afk), they finally let me have the camp. Dont know what was up about that >->
The short answer is yes they can, but it might be debatable. The argument for challenging that camp is a little murky... you'd either have to claim the mage was holding two camps (he'll respond that the troll is holding the other and he's just helping) or claim that the troll is AFK camping, in which case the mage can only claim one if you're challenging them. Since the Troll isn't doing anything, and just idling, it isn't really AFK camping. I think if a GM were to rule on it, you'd be likely to win... but a GMs won't really want to intervene and you probably don't want to annoy the GMs with something super petty. This one would only go your way on the totality of the circumstances, not really due to any clear "rule".

[Widan]

if you dont sit on a camp you can't claim it is yours.

Wrong

[Zezima]

As a new player this was some useful information. Very thorough! I'll try to wrap my head around it all lol. Regarding the "lists" while I was watching/ reading about p1999 green before I joined I learned about a list you can be put on to loot a item? Did that ever come to fruition and if so how do you get on it and who keeps up with it?

[jerryR]

This is only true if the camp is being contested. If nobody has announced their intention to contest the camp, you do not need to maintain presence to claim it.

Honestly and I'm not being facetious - why is this the rule of thumb ?

With how busy green has been since I started, this seems backwards to me. The only context I think that this could makes sense in, is an outdoor zone (where 'a mob is a camp' and granted you maintain LOS of the multiple spawn points) - versus a person claiming several cash camps in a dungeon that aren't LOS.

If you're on 3 camps in a dungeon and come back to one with someone there, shouldn't the onus be on you to contest and have to make the decision to leave your other claims - not the campless person who showed up to a camp devoid of a camper ?

Edit - and even outdoors zones I am skeptical of this rule: One time I came up on a mob - looked around and saw no one, so I killed it and then sat down at the spawn. This is no exaggeration, mob was up and no presence anywhere I could see. The next spawn, someone comes up and tells me they had been camping it with a group (out of LOS). I argued and eventually a GM got called and ruled in their defense, stating they could pick the mob of their choice outdoors. So they continued to camp that mob and the others closer to where they were setup shop.

[Vdaria]

i feel that if the rules were too strict and you had to be within x feet of camps, people would lawyer others to no end. Step x+1 feet away? I have it on OBS, camp is mine now. Sow a buddy? camp is mine! Dodge a train? mine.

Also it just seems strange to lose a camp by moving away, especially if no one else is in a zone. Why would you need to save those mobs? For future players that may or may not even zone in by the time it respawns? If you save a mob and it doesn't make a difference, then what was the point? And what do we owe to possible future players, anyway? I don't think we owe them a fully popped zone, at any rate.

[jerryR]

i feel that if the rules were too strict and you had to be within x feet of camps, people would lawyer others to no end. Step x+1 feet away? I have it on OBS, camp is mine now. Sow a buddy? camp is mine! Dodge a train? mine.

Furthermore, if I am holding a camp, it seems strange to hold that it invalidates my claim on that camp to kill other unclaimed monsters in the zone while I am waiting on a respawn. Why would that restriction be necessary? And if it's not necessary, why should it be imposed on people who are camping a rare spawn? By that I mean if no one is in a zone but you, who are you saving the rare mob / its PH for? Future players that may or may not be in the zone when the mob respawns? What do we owe to possible future players anyway? It seems like they don't have a right to expect to zone into a fully popped zone full of rare spawns, at any rate.

Your hyperbole glosses over the existing nuances within the rules and assumes ignorance of context. No one is imposing any restrictions. You're free to do what you want with the empty zone, but be prepared to have to contest against someone that is content with just a single part of it ?

I've never met a more entitled, unwavering arrogance than someone who has held down a couple high value targets for a few hours. I feel like your last paragraph exemplifies that 'screw everyone but me' attitude that causes more lawyer questing than anything else

[Vdaria]

Your hyperbole glosses over the existing nuances within the rules and assumes ignorance of context. No one is imposing any restrictions. You're free to do what you want with the empty zone, but be prepared to have to contest against someone that is content with just a single part of it ?

I've never met a more entitled, unwavering arrogance than someone who has held down a couple high value targets for a few hours. I feel like your last paragraph exemplifies that 'screw everyone but me' attitude that causes more lawyer questing than anything else

really not understanding the problem here. why on earth should I leave PHs up in an otherwise empty zone? who would I be leaving them up for? take the ass/sup camp in lower guk. what reason do you have for not also pulling ritualist if you're at ass/sup? If someone shows up, you can just give them either ass/sup or ritualist. In fact, you've cleared the PH for them.

I mean if you're talking about someone holding multiple camps and telling other would-be farmers or xpers to go soak their heads, then I agree with you. That is bad behavior and should be stopped immediately. But it just doesn't seem like a problem to take what would have otherwise gone to waste.

[jerryR]

I've just seen people take liberties with the 'reasonable' amount of time stuff - and when they get complacent from locking things down for awhile that amount of time seems to stretch out when they miss a PH by a couple mins.

[Vdaria]

I've just seen people take liberties with the 'reasonable' amount of time stuff - and when they get complacent from locking things down for awhile that amount of time seems to stretch out when they miss a PH by a couple mins.

what I have in mind is someone clears camp A, now it's on respawn for 28 minutes. They clear camp B. Camp A in 16 minutes, camp B in 28 minutes. They clear camp C. Camp A in 6 minutes, camp B in 18 minutes, camp C in 28 minutes. Now back to A. then someone shows up and says "hey i want a camp" and they say "well i really want A, how about b or c". that feels like a reasonable resolution to me. But I agree with you that someone who isn't keeping the camps clear and is making claims to them anyway, and is further harassing people who are trying to lay legitimate claim to a camp, is behaving badly.

[BlackBellamy]

Honestly and I'm not being facetious - why is this the rule of thumb ?

With how busy green has been since I started, this seems backwards to me..

I feel like your last paragraph exemplifies that 'screw everyone but me' attitude that causes more lawyer questing than anything else

For example you're camping Frenzy and Sentinel. You're there all day bouncing between the two. Then the zone fills up and someone comes to your area. You are currently clearing the Sentinel. Frenzy pops. You run over to Frenzy and your new guy is getting ready to clear it. You explain to him that Frenzy and Sentinel are both yours and that you're willing to give him Sentinel. He says you weren't there at the moment Frenzy popped and he was. You tell him you have some time to engage before the camp is FTE and he says well you have to be in LOS of the camp and he didn't see you. So who is right?

The rule of thumb is if you get to a camp and it's fully popped and someone gets there like 10 seconds later and says it's their camp, then it's their camp, even if they weren't in sight. This is to prevent lawyer-questing and measuring pixels and wasting lots of time. Adhere to general principles rather than specific points of law and in enough time the reason will be clear.

It's always a good idea to announce a claim over /ooc and wait for replies.

[aaezil]

Umm this manifesto has lots of wrong info rofl

[DMN]

Umm this manifesto has lots of wrong info rofl

and it's all listed right after this dumb ass comment.

[Tunabros]

Don't worry about the exact rules, just keep doing what you're doing when you sense someone is trying to screw you. Your instincts in both examples were good, keep rolling.

sounds good I was thinking I did something wrong but looks like some people don't know camp rules

[M.J.]

Another possibility is that even though Mike would prefer camp A, he is Ok with taking camp B instead, and if Bob has made it clear he is establishing his camp at camp A, Mike is in his rights to grab camp B. However, mike no longer has any claim whatsoever to camp A. Camp A = bob, Camp b =mike. With neither camp being contested, neither of them are forced to remain at their respective camps.

And while now camp C is technically not being held as a camp by anyone and by rules is a FTE... most people will allow the previous person who was clearing the camp to continue to do so and i'd urge the reader to do so as well.
.

I'm sitting here trying to think what zone these scenarios apply to for farmers and all I can come up with is SolA, Permafrost, and Lower Guk.

Easy solution, answer CCs with every camp you're holding and force people PNPing you to choose a camp and keep the rest. Do this until whatever internal autism metric you judge value by insists persisting at a single camp is no longer worth it and log out in a huff because you can't maximize your time in a 20 year old Elf-sim.

Alternatively mutely stare with hatred at incoming tells and all other proof of humans existing and force every interaction you have with other players to be mediated by GMs.

Most likely outcome by scummers who both hate other players and refuse to recognize any social aspect of a game with PNP rules: train / KS whoever pisses you off and forces you out of your antisocial grinding. Don't expect staff help with the worst aspects of this server, and expect them to tell you to play nicely with known malcontents and likely Biden voters.

[cd288]

what I have in mind is someone clears camp A, now it's on respawn for 28 minutes. They clear camp B. Camp A in 16 minutes, camp B in 28 minutes. They clear camp C. Camp A in 6 minutes, camp B in 18 minutes, camp C in 28 minutes. Now back to A. then someone shows up and says "hey i want a camp" and they say "well i really want A, how about b or c". that feels like a reasonable resolution to me. But I agree with you that someone who isn't keeping the camps clear and is making claims to them anyway, and is further harassing people who are trying to lay legitimate claim to a camp, is behaving badly.

Usually what I'll do if I show up at a camp and someone is there but not killing anything and they are unresponsive to tells is wait several minutes and then just start killing. If they come back within a reasonable period of time after I start killing, I give them their camp back (for example, if it's a 6:40 spawn and they come back after 2 cycles then I give it back...but if they were AFK for like 4-5 cycles then yeah sorry you lost the camp).

[Asteria]

The best solution for this kind of scenario is sunshine in the real world for both parties.

[aaezil]

Do you even play on p99? Half this shit is dead wrong compared to gm rulings lmao

[DMN]

Do you even play on p99? Half this shit is dead wrong compared to gm rulings lmao

You keep saying this stupid shit but present nothing substantive of your claims.