Request for a different policy on (game-changing) specific item camps

[mipstien]

problem i see -
in classic we didn't know about these items so they weren't locked down. that also means you didn't know about the items and wouldn't have camped them either. so accept that this is a really buffed classic and everything is just 10x the pain in the ass it use to be.

[randal.flagg]

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

problem i see -
in classic we didn't know about these items so they weren't locked down. that also means you didn't know about the items and wouldn't have camped them either. so accept that this is a really buffed classic and everything is just 10x the pain in the ass it use to be.

ha, great minds think alike... dead on

[mwatt]

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

Nobody is trying to deny anyone anything chief. There are a lot of people in guilds, and it takes a while to get items for every person. Also, if a mob camp yields a sellable resource, and a group of people see it as worthwhile to exploit that, then they are going to try and keep it locked to enjoy the fruits of a continuous resource..

Not everything is about you bro.

Even if they were trying to deny other groups something, who are you to say that that goes against the original theme of everquest? Why is that the end of the story? Just because you say so?

Chutzpah & hubris imho.

RE: There are a lot of people in guilds, and it takes a while to get items for every person. Also, if a mob camp yields a sellable resource, and a group of people see it as worthwhile to exploit that, then they are going to try and keep it locked to enjoy the fruits of a continuous resource..

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. You can't claim the lockout is just to get items for every person and at the same time say that people are locking out to exploit it (which is almost certainly the truth of the matter for some items, like the COS for instance).

RE: Not everything is about you bro.

I can't believe that you have the chutzpah to say this. What is going on with these camps is very much a function of selfishness. I'm not the one keeping people out of these camps. Chutzpah indeed.

RE: ...who are you to say that that goes against the original theme of everquest?

Me? I'm a nobody. Just someone that played the original EQ from the second day of launch for 6 solid years. I know nothing about the way the server was. I've been around for a while, but I know nothing about the nature of the board games and muds that this game was derived from.

RE: Why is that the end of the story? Just because you say so?

It's a manner of expression. Give me a break. If you have to try that hard to find exception to what I said, methink thou doth protest too much.

The more I think about this, the more I think the rule of allowing the current controller of the camp to completely dicate how it gets passed on needs ammendment. It seems as if it would be more reasonable to require the next people in line to be present when handing over a camp.

[soup]

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

RE: There are a lot of people in guilds, and it takes a while to get items for every person. Also, if a mob camp yields a sellable resource, and a group of people see it as worthwhile to exploit that, then they are going to try and keep it locked to enjoy the fruits of a continuous resource..

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. You can't claim the lockout is just to get items for every person and at the same time say that people are locking out to exploit it (which is almost certainly the truth of the matter for some items, like the COS for instance).

RE: Not everything is about you bro.

I can't believe that you have the chutzpah to say this. What is going on with these camps is very much a function of selfishness. I'm not the one keeping people out of these camps. Chutzpah indeed.

RE: ...who are you to say that that goes against the original theme of everquest?

Me? I'm a nobody. Just someone that played the original EQ from the second day of launch for 6 solid years. I know nothing about the way the server was. I've been around for a while, but I know nothing about the nature of the board games and muds that this game was derived from.

RE: Why is that the end of the story? Just because you say so?

It's a manner of expression. Give me a break. If you have to try that hard to find exception to what I said, methink thou doth protest too much.

The more I think about this, the more I think the rule of allowing the current controller of the camp to completely dicate how it gets passed on needs ammendment. It seems as if it would be more reasonable to require the next people in line to be present when handing over a camp.

You guys are completely missing the implications of what you're trying to advocate.

You want some system where people who just show up at a camp must be put in line for it, but what about the idea of group balance? Or does this only apply to easy camps? Who determines what's an easy camp? Do you expect the GMs to sit down and write up some list of what camps being camped by what levels would require people to be allowed in the group just because they showed up? Or do you want to put more strain on GMs and have them constantly having to go to these hot spots and arbitrarily decide if the group is holding easily and if they should force them to let some other guy in?

The bottom line is, if a group is camping an area, at what point does it become "fair" for you to be forced into their group? At what point does it become "fair" to push the group out of their camp? Oh, right, it never becomes fair to do either of those things. Not at the CoS camp, not at the tstaff camp.

[mwatt]

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

You guys are completely missing the implications of what you're trying to advocate.

You want some system where people who just show up at a camp must be put in line for it, but what about the idea of group balance? Or does this only apply to easy camps? Who determines what's an easy camp? Do you expect the GMs to sit down and write up some list of what camps being camped by what levels would require people to be allowed in the group just because they showed up? Or do you want to put more strain on GMs and have them constantly having to go to these hot spots and arbitrarily decide if the group is holding easily and if they should force them to let some other guy in?

The bottom line is, if a group is camping an area, at what point does it become "fair" for you to be forced into their group? At what point does it become "fair" to push the group out of their camp? Oh, right, it never becomes fair to do either of those things. Not at the CoS camp, not at the tstaff camp.

Actually, I am advocating something a bit different from what the OP outlined. I am in favor of requiring a person or persons to be present in order to have the "right" to take the camp - any camp, not just some special camp. This is already what is happening in places like SRo, for the AC camp. If nobody is physically waiting then sure, a camp holder can tell guildies, friends or others that the camp is about to be freed up and they should come and get it.

I'm not talking about making a list or a line. I expect the GMs to do nothing in this reguard. It's ludicrous to think that they should make lists. If multiple persons or groups really want to physically sit there for multiple groups ahead of them to take their turn, then more power to them. I suspect that this won't happen much though.

I am also not talking about the "share" policy that existed on live. I don't think you should have to let anyone join the group that asks to.

The current policy puts the power for saying who goes next into the hands of the current camp holder. This does not guarantee that there will never be disputes that a GM might have to hear. The change I am advocating is very little or no additional burden on the GMs nor is it changing anything about the way a current campholder will play they game.

[soup]

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

Actually, I am advocating something a bit different from what the OP outlined. I am in favor of requiring a person or persons to be present in order to have the "right" to take the camp - any camp, not just some special camp. This is already what is happening in places like SRo, for the AC camp. If nobody is physically waiting then sure, a camp holder can tell guildies, friends or others that the camp is about to be freed up and they should come and get it.

I'm not talking about making a list or a line. I expect the GMs to do nothing in this reguard. It's ludicrous to think that they should make lists. If multiple persons or groups really want to physically sit there for multiple groups ahead of them to take their turn, then more power to them. I suspect that this won't happen much though.

I am also not talking about the "share" policy that existed on live. I don't think you should have to let anyone join the group that asks to.

The current policy puts the power for saying who goes next into the hands of the current camp holder. This does not guarantee that there will never be disputes that a GM might have to hear. The change I am advocating is very little or no additional burden on the GMs nor is it changing anything about the way a current campholder will play they game.

It sounds like your confused as to how it works. It's not like someone leaves the CoS camp and tells a guildie to come over and take it, leaving an open but claimed camp. That's not how it works.

Say I'm camping something. Okay, now I'm done camping, hey buddy in my guild, come join my group over here at xxxxx camp. They say okay, and head on over. Once they get here, I leave the camp and they take it.