[loramin]

Originally Posted by DMN [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not classic.

Actually, the classic Play Nice Policy was far stricter than the one here. If two people disputed a mob and it wasn't clear whose it was, the GM forced them to random and then moved on. If someone got an item they were camping and someone else wanted it, the first person was similarly forced to move on (and not just if it was LORE, the way it is here).

I can all but guarantee, after reading the live server guide handbook, that if a group of people tried to monopolize a camp on live the GMs definitely would have stepped in. It's transparently obvious if you just read the spirit of the thing:

Originally Posted by Kunark Era GM Guide, 8.1.2.1

The goal of EverQuest is to create a world where as many people as possible can come and enjoy an immersive role-playing experience.

Note that it does not say "to create a world where farm crews can earn their rent money" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] But to get literal here's their actual camp dispute policy:

Originally Posted by Kunark Era GM Guide, 8.2.3

When a complaint is received indicating that a spawn or kill is contested, a disruption investigation should first be initiated according to the procedures of section 8.2.2 to determine if harassment or Zone/Area disruption is occurring. After following those procedures and issuing warnings as necessary, instruct the parties involved in the contested spawn situation to work out a compromise. Then leave the scene.

If another complaint is received involving the same spawn site, another disruption investigation should be initiated. After following those procedures and issuing warnings as necessary, if any of the parties involved were involved in the initial situation, establish a compromise for the parties to which the parties are required to abide. The compromise should be as described in section 8.2.3.1. Any party refusing to abide by the compromise established by the CS Representative should be issued a warning for disruption.

On PvP servers, where players can reach a solution to the contested spawn situation, the CS Representative does not need to require the players to share the spawn.

Originally Posted by Kunark Era GM Guide, 8.2.3.

The compromise will require all parties to take turns killing the spawn(s). All parties involved in the contested spawn should be instructed to use /random 0 100 to choose a number. The CS Representative then uses /random 0 100. The individual with the closest number to the CS Representative’s number will be next in the rotation. The CS Representative then bases the rest of the rotation order on how close the other parties’ numbers were to theirs. The compromise established by a CS Representative must be objective and not require the CS Representative to choose one customer over another based on subjective criteria. The CS Representative is the arbiter in any disputes in establishing the compromise.

So, like many of the "play nice policy" rules here this has nothing to do with classic vs. not classic. It has everything to do with the resources and limits of our all volunteer CSR staff vs. live/classic which had paid GMs and "paid with free EQ" guides.

Again, we're smart and creative people: we should be able to come up with a system that prevents lockouts (which is 100% classic), but in a way that works for our less-resourced CSR team.