Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuranthium
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
- In the first example if person A is camping something and nobody else is there, then the next spawn belongs to them. Person B would not get their chance until after the spawn that person A kills (unless person A went AFK for too long, same as now). It's always possible that someone gets lucky and the item drops on their first try; that's simply the game.
|
This could make for some very angry people, especially the more hardcore players. I think "that's simply the game" isn't a very good answer, because it can be used to justify anything, including things like 2 people monopolizing a camp for a month strait in the current situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuranthium
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
- In the second example, that's an example of community policing coming into play. If the group who broke the camp thinks the other group is being scummy, then they are free to tell everyone else about it, and the people in that other group may take a reputation hit. This naturally lowers the chance that a whole other group will do such a thing, instead of finding their own camp. The other thing to consider is how people want to do something that's worth their time. It's unlikely that a camp like this would suddenly be open and "worth" camping by 2 separate groups. The reality is that all of the highest value camps in the game are going to be perma-camped.
|
One thing I've learned from Blue is that there are tons of people who care a hell of a lot more about pixels than they do their reputation. Also, my point isn't that all of sudden 2 groups want the camp. It's that the 2nd group is a bunch of scrubs who could never have broken the camp, but can come in, mooch off the hard work of group A, and get half the xp and loot from the camp, screwing over group A. Think, for example, about how this policy would play out for fungi camp in seb...