Would EQ be better off without GMs?

[Corrodith]

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

I don't see how this would work in a setting where there are no direct consequences to actions. It would work on a red server, not on a blue.

What I'm saying is it HAS worked here. Read my above post about VP.

[azeth]

An non-GM policed confrontation would basically go as follows:

Group A arrives at Camp X, claiming it.

Group B dislikes this and trains them.

Group A dislikes this and trains them back.

Groups A and B agree to cease training on terms Y & Z.

[JenJen]

whats to stop "individual C" griefing without a care in the world

[azeth]

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

whats to stop "individual C" griefing without a care in the world

Diablo 3

[Frieza_Prexus]

What I'm saying is it HAS worked here. Read my above post about VP.

Until memory blur became an issue.

The freemarket principle is being misapplied I believe. In a proper situation you have a recourse. The detriment to yourself for trolling or griefing is greater than the gain.

Here, on a blue server, a very small minority can break the game in ways that gives little to no recourse to the larger groups. In effect, you give veto power to a small group of individuals. The unique mechanics of EQ make this an uphill battle.

Keep in mind that on live people paid real money for their accounts. Given that the game was so new and special, people developed a much stronger attachment to their reputations. People wanted to see high end content.

Here, people are far less attached and some would rather grief than play. As it stands, a lawless environment would empower them far more than it restrained them.

[Ele]

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

Here, people are far less attached and some would rather grief than play. As it stands, a lawless environment would empower them far more than it restrained them.

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

[Hitchens]

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

What I'm saying is it HAS worked here. Read my above post about VP.

I read your post about VP and I reject your premise.

[Hitchens]

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

The freemarket principle is being misapplied I believe.

It most certainly is.

[Joroz]

The problem isn't really with the gm's, its with the rules. If there is a stated no train rule 95% will follow it trying to be a good player within the rules, the 5% that break it is what the gm's have to come enforce. Rules will be different on here than any of the live servers since they need to shape the population to their goals. Live you had 40 different options to go to if you didn't like the server you were on so they could get their revenue anyways. On here its 1 shot, people leave, population dwindles and it becomes a private playground. If that's what they wanted they would make or remove rules to enforce to make that happen.

[Corrodith]

Do you really foresee people training each other out of camps etc if there were no GM intervention? I could see maybe at low-mid level where people don't have as much invested in their character, but at high level where reputation matters so much? doubt it. I think for the most part the average player at high level who has been around a while is fairly respectful and decent of another person's claim to a camp (at least when it's just a "camp" and not a highly coveted raid mob).