In regards to monopolizing a spawn

[Ikon]

Date : 10/03/2000

Topic : Play Nice, Or...

This came of the official EverQuest message boards.
Kill Stealing Policy :

Kill Stealing is now officially defined as Killing an NPC or Mob for any reason, that is already attacking another player. Any player that is caught intentionally kill stealing by a guide or GM may now be warned. These warnings when accumulated, can lead to the player being suspended or banned from EverQuest by a GM.

Play Nice Policy :

Spawns in the game can no longer be claimed or controlled by a single player or group. Whether it is a single or multiple spawn, for an item or for XP, low or high level, all groups wishing to camp a spawn must work out some type of rotation or means to share the spawn.

This information somehow got leaked before we were ready to comment on it, hence it showing up on the boards before we had a chance to talk to you about it.
I'll have a new Producer's Letter up early next week to address the new rules, how they are going to be enforced, and the spirit behind the letter.

- Gordon

Classic.

https://web.archive.org/web/20021130...ompendium.com/

[Computer Man]

Who's up for splitting the AC spawn in OOT... we take alternate turns every 2nd spawn?

This is great.

[Ikon]

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

Who's up for splitting the AC spawn in OOT... we take alternate turns every 2nd spawn?

This is great.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] I think it was more, you get your ring, you can't corpse it and jump straight back onto the mob if someone is waiting. If your sitting in hate or fear perma-camping epic mobs same thing, this should not be happening if we're under classic rules. And it appears you couldnt' simply have an alt take over, or even a guildie, the rules refer to both individuals and groups.

Definitely imo, this is what is missing from this server, there was a reason the camping on this server didn't happen on live and I believe this was it, date is just prior to Kunark.

Question is will the staff ignore this?

Edit: I need to try to find the letter Gordon Wrinn is referring to

[Computer Man]

all groups wishing to camp a spawn must work out some type of rotation or means to share the spawn.

Not sharing bro? I'm typing that petition

[paulgiamatti]

Yeah I don't think anything is gonna change, nor should it - the current server rules are as true to the spirit of this as they can possibly be under a volunteer staff. Those GMs earned a living to enforce rules.

And keep in mind, rules like that didn't exist in a vacuum - P99 is a distant echo of PvE culture on live EQ, distorted to the point of near unrecognizability. People paid money to play EQ back then. Times were simpler; MMOs were new and exciting and players were wide-eyed and humble. The game was a much more serious investment, and as a result people were much more willing to find something else to do in the game instead of breathe down another group's neck like a bunch of pixel-starved dildos. That shit still happened, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't the near-given that it is on P99.

[Ikon]

Found it - Linkage

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

Yeah I don't think anything is gonna change, nor should it - the current server rules are as true to the spirit of this as they can possibly be under a volunteer staff. Those GMs earned a living to enforce rules.

And keep in mind, rules like that didn't exist in a vacuum - P99 is a distant echo of PvE culture on live EQ, distorted to the point of near unrecognizability. People paid money to play EQ back then. Times were simpler; MMOs were new and exciting and players were wide-eyed and humble. The game was a much more serious investment, and as a result people were much more willing to find something else to do in the game instead of breathe down another group's neck like a bunch of pixel-starved dildos. That shit still happened, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't the near-given that it is on P99.

I'm confused at the "nor should it", the aim of the server was to provide a classic everquest experience. Over the last week I've seen a lot of pro-farmer pro-monopolizing spawn posters saying pretty much "its classic, screw you". Now I'm providing irrefutable evidence its not classic.

So the "its classic" should only apply to things that were classic that benefit farmers but not to things that don't benefit them?

This is the reason they changed it, so they didn't end up with a server much like we have at the moment, good people mostly but with a bunch at the top shitting on the rest - From the letter I linked:

Also like any society, we have our underbelly, a relatively small number of people who live to prey upon the honorable. It is frequently the goal of these people to see to their desires, no matter the effect of their actions upon others around them. They are the ones who claim ownership of servers, zones, or spawns, and cause or threaten harm to anyone who does not share their disregard and contempt. They are the ones who live, not to enjoy the game with everyone else, but to enjoy at everyone else’s expense.

For the first few months after EverQuest’s release, we felt that a policy of non-interference in many of these matters was warranted. However, we continued to lose good players. This was not due to any deficiency or dissatisfaction in the game, but due to dissatisfaction with the treatment that they received from their fellow players, and the perceived inability of our Customer Service department to intervene. Late last year, we made a commitment to our players to begin playing an active role in many of these situations.

[Computer Man]

Contested Spawns
There are cases where two or more groups wish to kill the same thing. In these cases, the groups are required to compromise. If an equitable compromise cannot be reached between the players prior to EverQuest Customer Service Staff involvement, the EQCSR will mandate a binding compromise. Refusing to abide by a compromise mandated by an EQCSR will be considered disruption. It is therefore strongly suggested that the groups make every attempt to reach a compromise that they can live with prior to involving an EQCSR, who may mandate a compromise that does not suit you to the extent that a player-devised compromise would.

Kind of goes against what was said earlier regarding sharing, interesting posts

[paulgiamatti]

Nor should it, because the change implies an unreasonable amount of enforcement for a volunteer staff to carry out. I mean, sure, it ought to change simply by players taking the initiative to make it happen, but I'm writing that off for obvious reasons. By "nor should it" I only meant "nor should it be enforced on P99" - what we currently have is a decent compromise, but updating the server mandate to reflect this part and parcel would just burn out our guides and GMs. I'd rather have compromised enforcement than no enforcement at all.

[Ikon]

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

Nor should it, because the change implies an unreasonable amount of enforcement for a volunteer staff to carry out. I mean, sure, it ought to change simply by players taking the initiative to make it happen, but I'm writing that off for obvious reasons. By "nor should it" I only meant "nor should it be enforced on P99" - what we currently have is a decent compromise, but updating the server mandate to reflect this part and parcel would just burnout our guides and GMs. I'd rather have compromised enforcement than no enforcement at all.

I'm not quite sure how it would.

Currently what we have is a bunch of pixel lawyers taking up the GM / Guides time. If this change was implemented as it should be given it was classic and also given the behavior of a few people towards the rest of the server it would likely reduce the load on the GMs/Guides.

Getting hit with a week, month or permaban for repeated violations is superior to rule lawyering. The way it worked on live, if a guild member violated, they were warned and so was the guild leader, if they continued to behave badly the guild could be disbanded.

Only takes one or two events to teach people how to behave. Clearly the way its working here was the way Verant initially did it and they found it didn't work.

If its left the way it is, not-classic, then it would be good idea imo for MQ to be switched off to compensate.

[paulgiamatti]

I can't even imagine not being sure how it would.

You're way oversimplifying. It sounds easy on paper, and it'd be easy to enforce on a server that has an actual guide and GM presence who are working for a company that compensates them. It'd be a complete nightmare to enforce on P99. In an ideal world it would be as you say; reality is a dystopia. If you can't imagine the unending deluge of petitions about camp disputes following an implementation of this rule, then I have no idea what to tell you.