Found my first a-hole on the Blue Server

[Mrobillard]

I log into The Warrens on my druid, no one else in the zone. Waiting for the king to spawn, hoping to get lucky with a sceptre and still collecting exp from him. Shortly before he pops, a high level Wizard appears behind me and as soon as the king spawns he kills him. I was very clearly waiting for him to spawn, this is the first time someone has clearly stole a kill from me. Thanks Townend, you are a class act!

[Jimjam]

Devils advocate: it isn’t your kill if you aren’t yet engaged

Based woke: yeah, he did ks you though really.

[shovelquest]

I am sure we can get collectivism to work if we just scream at each other a little bit more.

[Mrobillard]

Hard to win a quick draw against a wizard with a staff of temperate flux...at least with my non twinked gear.

[atomicpaul]

I am sure we can get collectivism to work if we just scream at each other a little bit more.Try that on a drill sergeant hehe

[Reiwa]

I think some guilds give DKP for camping King for scepter.

[shovelquest]

I think some guilds give DKP for camping King for scepter.

haha well then

https://i.imgur.com/ymHb2FE.png

[Reiwa]

haha well then

https://i.imgur.com/ymHb2FE.png

The evil wizard looks to be suggesting an unofficial player agreement among regular campers.

[WarpathEQ]

presumably the wizard killed the prior king/ph and had the extact repop time and came in to kill them at that time. Technically leaving the zone is forfeiting a camp so even if they killed the PH its no longer their camp if they log/swap.

do a /who showing you're only one in zone, if someone comes in and snipes it petition them, proceed to try and kill the mob yourself to avoid them from stealing the sceptre from you. Most likely the CSR will give them a slap on the wrist and make them delete the sceptre.

If it continues to happen after CSR has issued a warning they will proceed with temp/perm ban

[Ekco]

lol.

[cd288]

Did you /who and there was actually no one in the zone? Or was the Wizard invis or hidden and AFK while tracking the spawn timer? If the latter, that's technically still their camp. If the former, then yes they technically lost the camp under the PnP.

In any case, it seems from the screenshots that the Wizard is trying to give you the camp? It seems like they are telling you they had killed the last spawn, so they killed this one because they assumed it was still their camp, but if you'd like the camp you can have it and they'll leave. In that situation, it seems like you should take the win...but instead you demanded that the Wizard call themselves an asshole for what was potentially a mix up over the specifics of the PnP and the Wizard not understanding that they lose the camp if they log while waiting for the spawn timer.

[loramin]

I think it's easy to be mad about players who are following the rules, when you don't understand the rules. Our rules aren't the same as on Live, because we have volunteer GMs.

Here on P99 you could stand in front of a spawn point all day long: it doesn't matter, and it doesn't grant that mob to you. The mob is only "your's" if you kill it previously, otherwise it goes to whoever engages it first.

[sammoHung]

https://a.pinatafarm.com/1000x623/f84f46f031/first-time.jpg

Disputes like this happened to me maybe once/twice a month back during my heavier playtimes.

I hate hate hate the gaslighting attempt by the wizard. Scum person, probably miserable life outside of EQ.

[loramin]

https://a.pinatafarm.com/1000x623/f84f46f031/first-time.jpg

Disputes like this happened to me maybe once/twice a month back during my heavier playtimes.

I hate hate hate the gaslighting attempt by the wizard. Scum person, probably miserable life outside of EQ.

The Wizard literally offered to give the camp to the guy, when he had no claim to it. How is that gaslighting?

[sammoHung]

I think it's easy to be mad about players who are following the rules, when you don't understand the rules. Our rules aren't the same as on Live, because we have volunteer GMs.

Here on P99 you could stand in front of a spawn point all day long: it doesn't matter, and it doesn't grant that mob to you. The mob is only "your's" if you kill it previously, otherwise it goes to whoever engages it first.

Wrong.

2. Help understanding what constitutes a 'camp'.

The definitions below are not absolute and Project 1999 Staff will not be defining what constitutes every "camp". All examples blow are just that, examples. Instead, Project 1999 Customer Service Staff will arbitrate spawn disputes on a per-case-basis. We greatly encourage players to find their own resolution to spawn disputes, as the solution provided by the staff will at best be a win-lose situation, and possibly a lose-lose situation. No two decisions, even at the same 'camp', are guaranteed to be the same, as we will take into account multiple factors in making a determination on a 'camp'.

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

[sammoHung]

You need to be in the same zone, and even still - if the camp becomes contested - you need to return to the camp and maintain a presence.

[loramin]

Right, neither one of them had killed the mob and stayed in zone for the respawn. Ergo, no one was camping that mob: it was (like any other mob) a "First to Engage" mob ... and the Wizard engaged first.

[shovelquest]

Isn't there something about, "setting up and establishing" the camp...

[loramin]

Isn't there something about, "setting up and establishing" the camp...

Not that I know of.

You kill mob X and you are guaranteed a camp claim on all respawns of X ... until you leave the zone, die, camp, or fail to kill the respawns when they spawn. It's pretty simple (at least for one mob; camping multiple mobs adds a bit of complexity).

[sammoHung]

Right, neither one of them had killed the mob and stayed in zone for the respawn. Ergo, no one was camping that mob: it was (like any other mob) a "First to Engage" mob ... and the Wizard engaged first.

Good lord I'm glad I stopped playing this game. I'm almost done forumquesting, too.

Following this logic: If I ran around porting between spawns that I had exact timers on - I could beat all the noobs out of their measley camps by claiming "well no one was camping it so it was FTE"

That type of shit is why people don't stick around. Because sweatlords act shitty and then people defend them by invoking the loopholes in the rules of the server.

[Naethyn]

This is the most important mob on the server you should expect personalities.

[loramin]

Good lord I'm glad I stopped playing this game. I'm almost done forumquesting, too.

Following this logic: If I ran around porting between spawns that I had exact timers on - I could beat all the noobs out of their measley camps by claiming "well no one was camping it so it was FTE"


Yes, exactly, you could do that. But in reality no one does that (except maybe on Red), because there aren't lots of highly desirable camps just sitting around open.

The rules are all about sharing. If you want to go kill King Crush, then port and kill Chief Goonda in West Karana, then gate up to Everfrost to kill Karg IceBear, the game lets you. Why wouldn't it? No one else wants those mobs (if they did, you couldn't do what I just described), so why not let anyone kill them?

But as soon as two people want the same spawn, we have rules to handle that. The Wizard in this scenario followed all those rules, and the OP is calling him an asshole for following those rules.

That type of shit is why people don't stick around. Because sweatlords act shitty and then people defend them by invoking the loopholes in the rules of the server.

First off, the rules are the way they are because we have volunteer-only GMs, not because the staff is malicious.

Second, you're acting like this isn't about two humans playing a shared game, and both wanting some resource in the game ... but that's all it is. The game itself has rules about how to handle such disputes, but the OP doesn't agree with those rules, and thinks he (as a person) deserves this virtual resource more than another human, in spite of those rules. That's all that's going on here.

[shovelquest]

This is the most important mob on the server you should expect personalities.

What's the big deal about this one?

[Duik]

Is there no trivial loot code in the warrens? Must be a luclin thing.

[Reiwa]

What's the big deal about this one?

10 charge clicky post-recharge nerf I think

[loramin]

What's the big deal about this one?

https://wiki.project1999.com/Scepter_of_the_Forlorn

To a low-level player it's just 10 charges of Necro snare ... but the OP got Druid snare at level 1. If he had killed the King, and been lucky enough to get a scepter, he would have been able to save 15 mana 10 times in the future.

To a high-level player, it's a way to gain agro quickly, which can make all the difference between winning and losing a fight involving 50+ players.

One could argue that the Wizard was simply trying to acquire relevant gear his guild could use, and the OP was just trying to cock block him and acquire an item he had no use for (because he got to the empty spawn point a few minutes before the Wizard did).

[loramin]

Is there no trivial loot code in the warrens? Must be a luclin thing.

I think we had it and timelined out of it, but I'd have to check the patch notes page to be sure.

[shovelquest]

I think low level players can sell it.

[loramin]

Yeah, same time we got (I wish) Project M:

November 7, 2001

Trivial Loot code has been removed from the Stonebrunt Mountains and the Warrens.

[loramin]

I think low level players can sell it.

Totally, and OP has a right to farm it just like any other player. But he doesn't get an exclusive claim on the mob because he's lower level, and the Wizard isn't an asshole for farming an item his guild can use.

Again, they're just two humans who want the same thing in the game ... but the OP was unaware of the of the game's rules for settling that situation.

[Kavious]

Here on P99 you could stand in front of a spawn point all day long: it doesn't matter, and it doesn't grant that mob to you. The mob is only "your's" if you kill it previously, otherwise it goes to whoever engages it first.

What about Hadden? You arrive and no one theres and stand around for 4-6 hours and someone that knows the timer can log in and snipe it away from you and its theirs if they tag it first?

Then something like StormFeather. Its after a Quake so you pretty much know the timer and no ones there. You can stand there for 2-3 days and its still not your camp and someone else can FTE it because they know you didnt kill the last one?

Ive always considered camps belong to the person thats already there if they killed the previous spawn or not. If I kill a named/ph and leave zone and come back and someone else is there before respawn I dont try to compete for it, I just consider it their camp now

[Reiwa]

I think low level players can sell it.

It sounds like the wall-starer has rights but was caught unaware that someone with a timer would be logging in for it.

[loramin]

What about Hadden? You arrive and no one theres and stand around for 4-6 hours and someone that knows the timer can log in and snipe it away from you and its theirs if they tag it first?

Then something like StormFeather. Its after a Quake so you pretty much know the timer and no ones there. You can stand there for 2-3 days and its still not your camp and someone else can FTE it because they know you didnt kill the last one?

So, there are a few special cases for specific mobs. The staff refuses to always enforce those cases the same way, and so they don't publish them (eg. on the PnP) ... but in practice they generally do what past GMs have done. Awhile back, I started collecting those https://wiki.project1999.com/Camp_Rulings.

As you can see on that page, GM Menden made a ruling on Stormfeather (https://wiki.project1999.com/Rulings#Holding_a_Camp_While_AFK) back in 2018, while GM Andakos covered Hadden (https://wiki.project1999.com/Rulings#Hadden.2C_Camp_Holding.2C_and_AFKing_While _Camping) in 2019.

However, both basically say the same thing as the general rules: even when a mob has a very long respawn time, whoever killed it last (ie. is camping it) can keep their claim ... even if that means they sit AFK for most of the time. They just have to follow the general rules: don't zone, die, or camp, and engage it when it spawns.

If no one killed it previously (or whoever did left), it's free for anyone to take. The guy who showed up 2 hours before the spawn has no greater claim then someone who showed up two minutes before.

Ive always considered camps belong to the person thats already there if they killed the previous spawn or not. If I kill a named/ph and leave zone and come back and someone else is there before respawn I dont try to compete for it, I just consider it their camp now

That's great for you, but that's not the rules the people who made this place setup.

[loramin]

If I kill a named/ph and leave zone and come back and someone else is there before respawn I dont try to compete for it, I just consider it their camp now

P.S. I should note that this part isn't anything special you do, it's the server rules. When anyone leaves the zone, they lose all camp claims ... so it's not just you "consider[ing] it their camp now" ... it's the GMs also.

[Kavious]

P.S. I should note that this part isn't anything special you do, it's the server rules. When anyone leaves the zone, they lose all camp claims ... so it's not just you "consider[ing] it their camp now" ... it's the GMs also.

Isnt this the opposite of what you've said previously? That its not their camp and whoever gets FTE is who it will belong to since the person who arrived had not killed the previous spawn

[loramin]

Oh sorry, I missed the "before respawn" part. Yeah at that point it's FTE, so you are going beyond the rules by not contesting (when you absolutely could).

[Kavious]

Ok yeah I was just making sure I understood. Im aware of the written camp rules but some of these specific scenarios I've not seen how GMs rule them

It just seems crazy to me that someone can kill the Warrens King, camp and come back 46-47 mins later and as long as they keep getting FTE over anyone else waiting around they are not doing anything wrong

[loramin]

It just seems crazy to me that someone can kill the Warrens King, camp and come back 46-47 mins later and as long as they keep getting FTE over anyone else waiting around they are not doing anything wrong

Correct ... when no one else wants king.

But the moment anyone says "cc king" or "is anyone camping king" or anything similar, the camp holder has to stay near the camp (until it is once again uncontested).

[loramin]

You do not necessarily need to be at the spawn point to call it 'claimed' while it is uncontested, however, if someone else wishes to contest the 'camp' you do need to return to the 'camp' and maintain a presence at or very near the spawn(s) in order to hold it.

[Kavious]

Correct ... when no one else wants king.

But the moment anyone says "cc king" or "is anyone camping king" or anything similar, the camp holder has to stay near the camp (until it is once again uncontested).

This shouldnt matter to the one that wants to camp and come back and compete for FTE every 48 mins. As long as they keep getting FTE, its their kill and no one else waiting around can claim camp if they didnt kill the previous spawn?

[aaezil]

Dang, the rules here are such a clusterfuck even old guys are confused on it. Not surprising at all and no effort to clean any confusion up. Nice game!

[kjs86z2]

Sounds like the Wiz was there, invis, camping it. You had no see invis and didn't do a CC.

Anyway, lvl 60 raiders need this item so get fucked OP.

[Meeper]

Sounds like the Wiz was there, invis, camping it. You had no see invis and didn't do a CC.

Anyway, lvl 60 raiders need this item so get fucked OP.


I log into The Warrens on my druid, no one else in the zone.



Sounds like you didn't read the first line of OP's post.

[red_demonman]

What guild was the wizard a part of OP, please let us know from your logs so we can disparage a larger group of people.

[Mrobillard]

He was anon so I am not sure what guild. To answer some questions, yes, I did a /who and the zone was empty when I logged on.

Seems like there is some confusion around the rules but regardless it was still a dick move. My Druid is 31 at the moment and has been spending time in the Warrens a fair amount lately as I still get exp from several mobs in the zone. Many times when I log in there is someone camping the king or I killed him and needed to leave the zone to sell, come back and someone else is there. I don’t try to take back over the camp. Similarly, countless high level character have zoned in, see me sitting there, wish me luck and log off.

I once logged in and no one there and with a couple of minutes a nice level 60 monk came in and said he went LD but wished me luck. I happily gave the camp back to him.

The point I am trying to make is there a right and honourable way to play the game, whether strictly the rules or not, I think most would agree this was not the “right” thing to do.

[Jimjam]

For future reference, should you target them and type /guildstatus and their guild/rank will be divulged. Even if /anon.

[kjs86z2]

What guild was the wizard a part of OP, please let us know from your logs so we can disparage a larger group of people.

Odds are its <Fuse>

[kjs86z2]

He was anon so I am not sure what guild. To answer some questions, yes, I did a /who and the zone was empty when I logged on.

Seems like there is some confusion around the rules but regardless it was still a dick move. My Druid is 31 at the moment and has been spending time in the Warrens a fair amount lately as I still get exp from several mobs in the zone. Many times when I log in there is someone camping the king or I killed him and needed to leave the zone to sell, come back and someone else is there. I don’t try to take back over the camp. Similarly, countless high level character have zoned in, see me sitting there, wish me luck and log off.

I once logged in and no one there and with a couple of minutes a nice level 60 monk came in and said he went LD but wished me luck. I happily gave the camp back to him.

The point I am trying to make is there a right and honourable way to play the game, whether strictly the rules or not, I think most would agree this was not the “right” thing to do.

Well buddy, I have some fantastic news for you. This is prime time to put that druid to good use. There are crocs in CT that are an amazing charm kill camp. You won't want to return to the Warrens anytime soon.

https://wiki.project1999.com/Cazic_Thule_Alligator_Pit

Start in the pit, get the hang of it, then move into the Alley.

You're welcome.

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

What guild was the wizard a part of OP, please let us know from your logs so we can disparage a larger group of people.

Do you insult eq players?

Yeah, sure, yeah.

How often?

I don't know, maybe 3, 4 players a week.

Those are rookie numbers. You need to pump those up.

Done!

All these camps, you got to keep the energy flowing [starts beating chest and humming]

[WarpathEQ]

He was anon so I am not sure what guild. To answer some questions, yes, I did a /who and the zone was empty when I logged on.

Seems like there is some confusion around the rules but regardless it was still a dick move. My Druid is 31 at the moment and has been spending time in the Warrens a fair amount lately as I still get exp from several mobs in the zone. Many times when I log in there is someone camping the king or I killed him and needed to leave the zone to sell, come back and someone else is there. I don’t try to take back over the camp. Similarly, countless high level character have zoned in, see me sitting there, wish me luck and log off.

I once logged in and no one there and with a couple of minutes a nice level 60 monk came in and said he went LD but wished me luck. I happily gave the camp back to him.

The point I am trying to make is there a right and honourable way to play the game, whether strictly the rules or not, I think most would agree this was not the “right” thing to do.

Welcome to life. There are rules, people follow them in different ways, people that don't follow them are penalized. Some people engage in business honorably others deceptively. As long as its done legally that's the only thing that counts in the eyes of the law. The rest is up for you to reconcile internally against your own belief system.

[loramin]

Seems like there is some confusion around the rules but regardless it was still a dick move.

...

The point I am trying to make is there a right and honourable way to play the game, whether strictly the rules or not, I think most would agree this was not the “right” thing to do.

I just want to be clear here. If two players both want a mob, but neither of them have killed it previously, so neither has any claim to it according to the rules ... and player A shows up to wait for that mob before player B ... you think player B is a dishonorable dick for playing the game and trying to get that mob?

There are crocs in CT that are an amazing charm kill camp. You won't want to return to the Warrens anytime soon.

https://wiki.project1999.com/Cazic_Thule_Alligator_Pit

Start in the pit, get the hang of it, then move into the Alley.

You're welcome.

As the author of both that page and the Alley page, I strongly endorse this message :D

[shovelquest]

I just want to be clear here. If two players both want a mob, but neither of them have killed it previously, so neither has any claim to it according to the rules ... and player A shows up to wait for that mob before player B ... you think player B is a dishonorable dick for playing the game and trying to get that mob?

yes in the same way you would if it had to do with operating in real life.

[Reiwa]

yes in the same way you would if it had to do with operating in real life.

Player A does a CC and player B does not respond.

[loramin]

If someone cuts in front of me in line at the grocery store, they've violated the clear (if unspoken) rule about how lines work in public. That is rude.

If someone bids before me in a DKP auction for an item, they haven't violated any rules of how my guild runs DKP auctions. It's absolutely NOT rude to for them to do so, because it's part of how the "game" of bidding on an item is played.

Here in P99 we have very clearly defined rules, and although they can be unclear at times, they are not super-complex or hard to follow. And those rules say there is no "line" in front of any mob. If you want Hadden, and I want Hadden, and Fred wants Hadden, it doesn't matter if you or me or Fred gets there first: we all have an equal shot at killing Hadden.

You can make up rules in your own head about how, since you got to Hadden one minute before Fred, Fred is a jerk for trying to get Hadden ... but those are your own made-up head rules.

[shovelquest]

You just completely changed the fucking scenario to suit your argument.

Now do if someone cuts in front of you in a video game, and explain why you think that is OK behavior in a SOCIAL video game, but it's not IRL.

You may not think the video game matters, but I don't think your position in the dunkin donuts line matters either.

Why is only one of us wrong?

[Wakanda]

I think it's easy to be mad about players who are following the rules, when you don't understand the rules. Our rules aren't the same as on Live, because we have volunteer GMs.
Live has paid GMs and they still won't get involved with camp disputes. :D

[Naethyn]

Play with integrity knowing that at eventually in the end you will get to decide who doesn't pass.

[shovelquest]

Play with integrity knowing that at eventually in the end you will get to decide who doesn't pass.

I've seen this 1000s of times in EQ:

Demand equality until you've reached BIS then demand get good.

[Jimjam]

I just want to be clear here. If two players both want a mob, but neither of them have killed it previously, so neither has any claim to it according to the rules ... and player A shows up to wait for that mob before player B ... you think player B is a dishonorable dick for playing the game and trying to get that mob?



I mean in England we form queues. It is cool and normal to respect those there before you, but I appreciate in your part of the world (wherever that is) it may be different. Even at a bar we mentally queue and defer to someone who has been waiting longer if engaged by the bartender out of order.

[shovelquest]

Back on live in 1999 the Jboot camp literally had a line of players that went out the door and down the hall. It was awesome.

[cd288]

Not that I know of.

You kill mob X and you are guaranteed a camp claim on all respawns of X ... until you leave the zone, die, camp, or fail to kill the respawns when they spawn. It's pretty simple (at least for one mob; camping multiple mobs adds a bit of complexity).

I'm surprised that Loramin of all people seems to not understand the rule.

In this scenario, the Wizard seems to have killed the prior spawn and logged off. OP arrived and waited for the next spawn. That is OP's camp. If the spawn occurs and OP sits there for 10 minutes jot engaging it, THEN someone can engage it. But it is OP's camp until then.

[kjs86z2]

I mean in England we form queues. It is cool and normal to respect those there before you, but I appreciate in your part of the world (wherever that is) it may be different. Even at a bar we mentally queue and defer to someone who has been waiting longer if engaged by the bartender out of order.

U FOKIN WOT M8?

[loramin]

I mean in England we form queues. It is cool and normal to respect those there before you, but I appreciate in your part of the world (wherever that is) it may be different. Even at a bar we mentally queue and defer to someone who has been waiting longer if engaged by the bartender out of order.

In America, as in England, we form lines when it's appropriate. And we can even be a bit too passionate about them (https://dayton247now.com/news/nation-world/buffet-line-assault-attack-cut-cutting-father-daughter-attorney-lawyer-food-eat-eating-fight-fought-fighting-attacked-attacking-assaulted-assaulting-arrest-police-country-club-plate-dinner-dining). But let's talk about bars.

At any busy American bar, no one worries about anyone else; they simply try to flag down a bartender. The bartenders decide how the "queue" works: randomly, based on wait time, serve the hotter customers first, etc.

P99 has founders, not bartenders. They could have made spawn claims work any number of different ways, or made every mob FTE, or simply allowed DPS races. It's their game and their rules ... but the rules they chose don't say "if Bob decides a minute prior to Fred that he wants to sit on a spawn point, it's now Bob's spawn".

If you go to a busy bar, and sit quietly, expecting the bartender to pick you when it's your turn, you could sit there all night without a drink. You'd think he's an asshole for not serving you, and he wouldn't even be thinking of you at all, because he was too busy dealing with customers who flagged him down (ie. followed the rules of the line).

[loramin]

I'm surprised that Loramin of all people seems to not understand the rule.

In this scenario, the Wizard seems to have killed the prior spawn and logged off. OP arrived and waited for the next spawn. That is OP's camp. If the spawn occurs and OP sits there for 10 minutes jot engaging it, THEN someone can engage it. But it is OP's camp until then.

In the PnP (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325349), please show how me where it says that sitting down in front of a spawn point (that you didn't kill) grants you exclusive ownership of the next spawn at that point.

[shovelquest]

Big difference between lines irl and lines in everquest is that you can get your ass kicked for cutting in line irl.

I got those jboots from that line on rallos zek.

[Reiwa]

In the PnP (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325349), please show how me where it says that sitting down in front of a spawn point (that you didn't kill) grants you exclusive ownership of the next spawn at that point.

What if you had video of your character doing a CC call on the camp in an empty zone?

Some of this is rules.

[Wakanda]

The PNP pretty clearly says you can't log off or leave the zone. Also if you go through the Wiki (it's much more fleshed out than the link loramin posted), it's pretty obvious that camp checks aren't actually binding. You aren't required to respond to them (imagine if you had a player on ignore, at this point he could just type cc and take your camp at will). But also players are allowed to go AFK etc.

Trust me there's been plenty of times where I do a CC, get excited that a camp is open, and then get there to discover that it's actually camped (people legit go afk for like 25 minutes while camping stuff in lower guk).

But yeah. If the guy was just afk and not logged off or in another zone, would be a different story.

My advice to the OP is either always record your gameplay or start to stream on twitch or youtube that way you always have a VOD of what actually transpired in game. Really shuts people down when they come at you with some whackness.

I think in this case its the principle more than anything.

[loramin]

What if you had video of your character doing a CC call on the camp in an empty zone?

There is no rule saying that if you do a cc in an empty zone that you get a claim on all mobs in the zone. On P99 the only way to claim a camp is to kill a mob, and until you do that, every unclaimed mob is FTE.

[shovelquest]

There is no rule saying that if you do a cc in an empty zone that you get a claim on all mobs in the zone. On P99 the only way to claim a camp is to kill a mob, and until you do that, every unclaimed mob is FTE.

Exactly like the line at the movie theater, except for one thing: maybe get yo ass beat.

[Reiwa]

CC call on the camp in an empty zone

you get a claim on all mobs in the zone.

I recognize and acknowledge the finesse.

[loramin]

Exactly like the line at the movie theater, except for one thing: maybe get yo ass beat.

Again, the line at a movie theater is defined to work a certain way; if you don't follow the rules, you get in trouble (eg. an ass beating). Same with the "line" at a busy bar: if you don't follow the rule (of trying to get the bartender's attention), the consequence is you don't get a drink. Or if you try to steal someone else's drink, maybe you get thrown out.

P99 is no different: if someone else kills a mob that you were "in line for" (ie. you killed it last, and you didn't leave) you will face a punishment (eg. the staff will give you a warning or suspension).

But if you make up your own rules for any line (eg. "I'm going to wait for my turn at a busy bar" or "I'm going to assume that a mob is mine because I sat in front of its spawn point in an empty zone") you will potentially be disappointed when others don't follow them.

[shovelquest]

Again, the line at a movie theater is defined to work a certain way; if you don't follow the rules, you get in trouble (eg. an ass beating). Same with the "line" at a busy bar: if you don't follow the rule (of trying to get the bartender's attention), the consequence is you don't get a drink. Or if you try to steal someone else's drink, maybe you get thrown out.

P99 is no different: if someone else kills a mob that you were "in line for" (ie. you killed it last, and you didn't leave) you will face a punishment (eg. the staff will give you a warning or suspension).

But if you make up your own rules for any line (eg. "I'm going to wait for my turn at a busy bar" or "I'm going to assume that a mob is mine because I sat in front of its spawn point in an empty zone") you will potentially be disappointed when others don't follow them.

What about the line outside the movie theater you dumpster fire.

[kjs86z2]

The only dumb rule in this whole thing is the "los" shit.

Take C/E in Seb. Years ago this was known / understood that it was a single camp, and often pinned down by groups of 4-6 players.

Now idiots are claiming each one of the 4 rooms is a camp and emperor is a camp.

This would have been tossed as nonsense years ago.

[Wakanda]

Now idiots are claiming each one of the 4 rooms is a camp and emperor is a camp.


This is my main gripe with PNP. Anytime I mention this people try to twist my words like I just want them to nuke the PNP so I can go around KS'ing people (which is something I would never do even if there was zero rules). A lot of my nostalgia for EverQuest was going to Lower Guk to level / exp. I remember feeling really deflated when I went to Lower Guk on P99 the first time and found that the PNP had actually transformed it into a high level AFK camp zone and that you basically could no longer go to this zone to grind EXP.

In that regard, TLP is actually dramatically more classic than P99 is because on TLP it's still the norm for the group that sits at BR to pull the gargoyles and Ghoul Ritualist mobs. On TLP it's still the norm for the group that sits at ASS/SUP to pull from the cav/exe/sage area. Or to pull minotaurs if cav/exe/sage is already camped. On TLP it's still the norm for the group that sits at Ghoul AM to clear towards the Ghoul Lord, and to also kill the Hand. On TLP it's till the norm for the group that sits at Frenzied Ghoul to also pull the Ghoul Sentinel and all the mobs in that area. It's also the norm for each of these groups to try to steal mobs from each other for extra EXP, and this incentivizes you to invite more players to your group because more dps = more mobs your group can kill before the other group snags them.

To me this is how the game was played in 1999 and how these zones were designed to be played. The crypt in Sebilis again, was always a camp for a whole group of players; not some place where a high level player AFK camps a single mob. The crypt on TLPs is still an EXP camp. It's one of the main perks of being a Rogue on a TLP, you get crypt groups easy af since they need lockpicking to get inside and the exp is good. Group constantly moves together from Emp Chottal all the way back to the four corners clearing the content as they go.

I'm sure the PNP is great in many cases, and well intended, but it has removed a lot of the true classic experience of leveling in dungeons into something that no longer exists.

Also this is one of my biggest pet peeves too. There are a lot of camps in Lower Guk that a player cannot clear on their own, but if someone else clears it for them, they can easily hold said camp. There was so many vultures hiding in the shadows in L GUK when P99 green first launched, waiting for my group at Ghoul AM to clear Ghoul Lord so they could pop out of the shadows and now demand that I give them one of the two camps that they couldn't have cleared on their own. I almost feel like they should add some rule that before you hand over the camp to the person who is demanding it that you should be allowed to let the mobs at said camp all completely respawn to see if they can take said camp on their own. Because 99% of the time they cannot. It's actually toxic af.

[kjs86z2]

If I took a 4+ man group down into CE and it was empty / all up, and we start holding down all of CE and some dubber pops on and claims heiro I would instruct my group to just DPS kill steal.

[Jimjam]

If I took a 4+ man group down into CE and it was empty / all up, and we start holding down all of CE and some dubber pops on and claims heiro I would instruct my group to just DPS kill steal.

If there are four of you each could hold a camp and you just agree to help eachother out on kills and share xp?

[shovelquest]

AITA for refusing to honor “cold rules” and not letting empty chairs hold spots in line?

My boyfriend and I showed up at 8:00am to GameStop for the Pokémon card drop. We sat in our car until 8:30, and during that whole 30 minutes nothing about the line changed.

When we finally got out, I saw 3 actual people standing in line, then 6 empty chairs, and then 2 people sitting in chairs after the empty ones. Those 6 chairs had been empty the entire time we were watching.

I walked up to the two people at the end and asked if they were in line. They said yes, and that the back of the line was behind them. I said, “Okay, cool scoot up and we can get behind you.” They refused and said the 6 empty chairs were “saving spots” for people who were waiting in their cars. They told me it was the “cold rules” and I had to respect them.

I told them I wasn’t doing that. If you’re not physically in line, a chair doesn’t hold your place. So again I offered for them to get in front of us, they said no so my boyfriend and I got behind the 3 actual people in line and waited for about an hour. Twenty minutes before opening, all the people who had been sitting in their cars suddenly got out, ran to claim their empty-chair spots, and immediately started complaining that we “cut” them.

When the GameStop employee came out, people were yelling at us. I explained that when we arrived there were 3 people, then empty space, then these two people at the end. I even tried to get the two at the end to move up in front of us, but they refused because of their “cold rules.” The employee confirmed that chairs do not save your spot… but also said that we still “technically cut” because there were 2 people in line we got in front of.

I’m genuinely confused how that counts as cutting when I literally asked them to move up so we could get behind them, and they refused. People were screaming enough that we just left and went to Best Buy instead, where we got cards with no drama.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/1owz261/aita_for_refusing_to_honor_cold_rules_and_not/

[druidbob]

I think it's easy to be mad about players who are following the rules, when you don't understand the rules. Our rules aren't the same as on Live, because we have volunteer GMs.

Here on P99 you could stand in front of a spawn point all day long: it doesn't matter, and it doesn't grant that mob to you. The mob is only "your's" if you kill it previously, otherwise it goes to whoever engages it first.

I'm sorry but this is simply not true, or at least it is not how it is enforced by GMs. And I know this because I personally ate a suspension for doing exactly what you you are claiming in this thread to be allowed ( claiming fte on a named mob when another group was established at the camp). So either you are wrong, or I want those five days back.

[Ekco]

"online experiences may vary" in eula applies to CSR rulings also.

everyone focusing on the rule lawyering, the tells is what rubs me the wrong way with the passive aggressiveness "you can have the camp if you really want it" my brother in christ you're in the warrens together what the fuck do you think he's sitting there for.

[aaezil]

I'm sorry but this is simply not true, or at least it is not how it is enforced by GMs. And I know this because I personally ate a suspension for doing exactly what you you are claiming in this thread to be allowed ( claiming fte on a named mob when another group was established at the camp). So either you are wrong, or I want those five days back.

Sometimes the guide is ignorant of how the rules actually work though, had that come up a few times over the years. Don’t blame them as the rules are awful to read and even more hellish to try and find.

[Duik]

The trouble is a highly sought after item deops from a trivial (to a lvl 55- 60) who get DKP for farming it.

Trivial loot code reimplimented in those zones with items like this while beong "NOT CLASSIC" would stop this rubbish.

Also stop being dicks to each other.

[Naethyn]

Trivial loot code would not stop it from being the most important mob on the server.

[Duik]

But it would stop 60s popping in to fte it.

Play an alt of a level to hunt it.

Like people have vox/naggy alts frozen at 52

[Duik]

As an aside if i was a dev id just change it. (accidentally) Not make an entry in the patch notes and remove any in-game messages about it being trivial and no loot drops from the mob.

Classic players absolutely love discovering new things...

[loramin]

I'm sorry but this is simply not true, or at least it is not how it is enforced by GMs. And I know this because I personally ate a suspension for doing exactly what you you are claiming in this thread to be allowed ( claiming fte on a named mob when another group was established at the camp). So either you are wrong, or I want those five days back.

Had the other group killed any of the mobs at that camp?

[druidbob]

Had the other group killed any of the mobs at that camp?

The mob in question was vilefang, the other group was down at the water killing rats and snakes, our puller ran down and sniped VF on spawn because we were under the impression that it was an fte mob, they petition and the GM rules that it was a camp and because they had "an established presence" at the water that it was their camp. Our chipped fang gets deleted and we eat a 5 day. And no they did not kill the previous VF.

[loramin]

So that's a different scenario: in dungeon zones you can claim multiple mobs in very close proximity as a camp. In this case, it sounds like the group did have the claim to the camp, because they had killed a (different) mob previously.

However, I (greatly) sympathize with your point that it's impossible to know what counts as a camp sometime, and the staff does change their opinions from case to case. I also sympathize with the staff: having to consult a rules bible every time they interact with players would make their (volunteer) lives much harder.

My "solution" has been to put a lot of time and effort into https://wiki.project1999.com/Camp_Rulings. It doesn't yet have a ruling for Vilefang, but if you can post whatever the GM told you (and when) I can add it, and it will at least help educate future players.

[druidbob]

So that's a different scenario: in dungeon zones you can claim multiple mobs in very close proximity as a camp. In this case, it sounds like the group did have the claim to the camp, because they had killed a (different) mob previously.

However, I (greatly) sympathize with your point that it's impossible to know what counts as a camp sometime, and the staff does change their opinions from case to case. I also sympathize with the staff: having to consult a rules bible every time they interact with players would make their (volunteer) lives much harder.

My "solution" has been to put a lot of time and effort into https://wiki.project1999.com/Camp_Rulings. It doesn't yet have a ruling for Vilefang, but if you can post whatever the GM told you (and when) I can add it, and it will at least help educate future players.aa

But then wouldn't that be the same case here? The Warrens is a dungeon, assuming OP was killing kobolds in the surrounding area would he not have the same claim to the king as that group had to VF?

[shovelquest]

Some of you guys still think we can make all this work "in real life"?

lol

[loramin]

aa

But then wouldn't that be the same case here? The Warrens is a dungeon, assuming OP was killing kobolds in the surrounding area would he not have the same claim to the king as that group had to VF?

OP would have to be killing mobs from that "camp". If they were, then yes, but just killing any nearby kobolds wouldn't qualify (and AFAIK there's been no official GM ruling of what the "king" camp is, so I would imagine it's only mobs immediately next to him, as they have to be in agro range).

[cd288]

In the PnP (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325349), please show how me where it says that sitting down in front of a spawn point (that you didn't kill) grants you exclusive ownership of the next spawn at that point.

Buddy, if you kill the spawn and then log off (i.e., you leave the zone and the camp) I can now come claim that camp and kill the next spawn.

There's never been a scenario where a GM has responded to a petition and given the camp back to the person who left the zone. It now becomes the new camper's camp. It doesn't matter if the spawns are down when the next person arrives at the camp. If no one is there it's now their camp...as long as they clear the spawns within a reasonable amount of time on respawn. It's really odd that someone who has apparently been on this sever a long time is being obtuse about how the staff views camps.

[cd288]

"online experiences may vary" in eula applies to CSR rulings also.

everyone focusing on the rule lawyering, the tells is what rubs me the wrong way with the passive aggressiveness "you can have the camp if you really want it" my brother in christ you're in the warrens together what the fuck do you think he's sitting there for.

The PnP is also old. Staff have consistently ruled this as the new arrival at the camp gets the camp if the other person left the zone.

Take sisters camp in LFay for example. Someone who can't vendor in zone runs back to Steamfont to sell at the Druid rings. Someone logs in for a session, sees there's no one at the camp, spawns are down so does a /who in the zone and finds it empty but for them, they can now claim that camp. I have watched staff rule this way countless times for 7 years on this camp and basically every other.

[loramin]

The PnP are the server rules, not whatever you imagine them to be. And again ...

In the PnP (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325349), please show how me where it says that sitting down in front of a spawn point (that you didn't kill) grants you exclusive ownership of the next spawn at that point.

[sammoHung]

The PnP are the server rules, not whatever you imagine them to be. And again ...

After some digging - Loramin is indeed correct. The first player lost their camp after leaving the zone, making in unclaimed.

From: https://wiki.project1999.com/Play_Nice_Policy_Enhanced#Player_Addition:_How_you _Gain.2FShare.2FLose_Camps
Losing Camps
Players lose camps when any of the following occurs:
...
The player leaves the zone, dies, or similarly "reloads"


But, that doesn't mean just sitting at the spawn gives the second player the camp:

From: https://wiki.project1999.com/Play_Nice_Policy_Enhanced#Gaining_an_Unclaimed_Cam p
You can claim an unclaimed camp by being the first to engage a mob at that camp.

[sammoHung]

All of that being said: Fuckin communicate, people.

If I was at the spawn point and nobody was there - but then someone showed up:

Me: Hey, were you camping this?
Them: Yes
Me: Ok, have a great day - good luck!

It's that damn simple. The fuckin pixels aren't going anywhere. King respawns every 48 minutes until the server shuts down.

[shovelquest]

Theres 1 post ITT per player on this server

[cd288]

The PnP are the server rules, not whatever you imagine them to be. And again ...

Of course they're not what I imagine them to be. They're what the staff has repeatedly ruled they are in live situations. At that point, it doesn't matter what the PnP says if the staff consistently rules in a somewhat different manner.

Your argument is like saying "well this law uses these words, and the Supreme Court has ruled this is what words mean, but that doesn't matter and we should just ignore that."

The argument that you should be making is that the PnP be updated to be in line with how the staff treats the situations in real time. This has been an issue plaguing P99 in the past. The staff begins ruling something a certain way consistently, but it's technically in conflict with the plain language of the PnP. This is one of those situations where a player would be wise to not abide strictly by the language of the PnP and assume they can just come in and FTE the camp...the staff have suspended people for that in the past.

[loramin]

Of course they're not what I imagine them to be. They're what the staff has repeatedly ruled they are in live situations. At that point, it doesn't matter what the PnP says if the staff consistently rules in a somewhat different manner.

Your argument is like saying "well this law uses these words, and the Supreme Court has ruled this is what words mean, but that doesn't matter and we should just ignore that."

The argument that you should be making is that the PnP be updated to be in line with how the staff treats the situations in real time. This has been an issue plaguing P99 in the past. The staff begins ruling something a certain way consistently, but it's technically in conflict with the plain language of the PnP. This is one of those situations where a player would be wise to not abide strictly by the language of the PnP and assume they can just come in and FTE the camp...the staff have suspended people for that in the past.

My argument is that the people enforcing the rules generally adhere to the posted rules (ie. the PnP).

When a single poster reports "but my friend's mother's uncle's cousin got a different ruling one time at band camp", it doesn't change my opinion.

[cd288]

My argument is that the people enforcing the rules generally adhere to the posted rules (ie. the PnP).

When a single poster reports "but my friend's mother's uncle's cousin got a different ruling one time at band camp", it doesn't change my opinion.

They don't on this issue though? Anyone who has played on this server for years knows that, which is why I'm so surprised you're debating this...or maybe you haven't played in a long time and are just reading the forums.

At any rate, if that's your opinion you're welcome to have it. But anyone reading this thread would be wise to ignore it and expect the staff to rule that whoever is sitting at the camp has claimed the camp if the prior person has left the zone or hasn't left the zone but returned to the camp and cleared spawns within a reasonable period of time of them spawning. Which is the way staff have ruled for years regardless of what the PnP on the Wiki says.

[loramin]

Yup, anyone reading this can decide which ruleset to follow: CD288's beliefs, or the rules spelled out by the server's creators.

[cd288]

Yup, anyone reading this can decide which ruleset to follow: CD288's beliefs, or the rules spelled out by the server's creators.

Nice snarky reply. Again, not my beliefs. What the server staff have ruled consistently...and again this is something that is not uncommon on P99: PnP says one thing but over time the staff begin ruling a different way.

Really we just need a PnP update and all would be clear.

[druidbob]

Gonna have to agree with cd288 here, the pnp document is only the "official rules" if that is how the GMs resolve disputes, as at the end of the day they are the final arbiters on what the rules are. If the pnp says one thing, and the GMs say different, then guess which way the desicion goes?

[loramin]

Gonna have to agree with cd288 here, the pnp document is only the "official rules" if that is how the GMs resolve disputes, as at the end of the day they are the final arbiters on what the rules are. If the pnp says one thing, and the GMs say different, then guess which way the desicion goes?

And if you think that the staff doesn't base their rulings on the PnP, I have a bridge to sell you.

[Superfox76]

based wizard

OP needs to learn to get good

[cd288]

And if you think that the staff doesn't base their rulings on the PnP, I have a bridge to sell you.

They do in some cases. Here and there they don't.

I mean shit there's sometimes even variability between staff. How many times have we seen Guides tell a petitioner that CoM is an outdoor zone not a dungeon and vice versa?

[Jimjam]

I don’t think the rules laid out are a prescriptive constitution, but a guideline framework from which the staff can work under their own initiative.