Poll: Reopen Teal (Digital Social Distancing)

[cd288]

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

Adding teal won’t fix this... there are enough players like Mannastone now that will keep everything perma camped on both servers. Especially if they allow you to box both servers. Most of these hardcore players have multiple characters on separate accounts so they can own camps on both servers.

Yeah and we already saw it happen when Teal existed. Idk how people seem to think that splitting the server will somehow mean all these popular and valuable camps somehow just miraculously open up all the time for them lol. You have people like OP who want the second server so they can farm on both simultaneously (remember peeps, OP was the one who camped multiple manastones and used forum posts to attempt to artificially drive up prices on manastones so he could price gouge people. He has level 50 characters. He isn’t asking you to vote yes on his poll so he can XP lol...he wants a second server so that he can monopolize the camps you want so bad on both servers).

[turbosilk]

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

Adding teal won’t fix this... there are enough players like Mannastone now that will keep everything perma camped on both servers. Especially if they allow you to box both servers. Most of these hardcore players have multiple characters on separate accounts so they can own camps on both servers.

Changing camping policy to require sharing. Whoever has the camp has to invite others wanting in the camp until the group is full. This will establish the classic experience.

[jerryR]

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

Changing camping policy to require sharing. Whoever has the camp has to invite others wanting in the camp until the group is full. This will establish the classic experience.

That would be a nightmare of undesirable people griefing you using an actual policy. Imagine getting in a dispute with someone and having them follow you camp to camp forcing you to group with them. Or even just someone who isnt class appropriate for your composition as a group. The policy exceptions would have to be so nuanced that it would render the entire thing untenable

[turbosilk]

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

That would be a nightmare of undesirable people griefing you using an actual policy. Imagine getting in a dispute with someone and having them follow you camp to camp forcing you to group with them. Or even just someone who isnt class appropriate for your composition as a group. The policy exceptions would have to be so nuanced that it would render the entire thing untenable

I'm not sure. If someone can solo it then it doesn't matter who else joins. This could be implemented in select zones on a trial basis.

[jerryR]

How does loot work? It would still have to be based on the first person who established the camp? And if that person is 50 and mobs dont give xp whats the difference? I can't imagine how many more fights and petitions there would be with the added complexity of non consentual grouping

[billwilliams]

Simple solution is to make any indoor magic/rare item require you to be there and grouped with 4+ people level appropriate for the zone. This would get rid of all the 46+-50s holding camps in places like Unrest,Befallen/HHK etc and actually move them to dungeons and group for items once the level 50s there can no longer hold camps solo.

This is how every single server indoor camp in live 1999-2001 worked WITHOUT gm intervention or any stated policy ALA common sense, no one sat at camps SOLO until they collected 5 cowls and 10 cords with a 20 person queue of more soloers behind them.

[billwilliams]

Loot would work the way it always has, the group agrees beforehand to free roll OR need before greed, everyone randoms, winner takes it per group consensus. If there is bullshit or dispute THIS is where the GM/Guide can step in and the only part they should ever enter into these player drama-fests.

[jerryR]

And when the server splits like you want and some dungeons or mobs you cant get a group for because of low population - then how do you get your item? Revert it back?

Every problem you're try to fix you're creating 3 more

[turbosilk]

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

How does loot work? It would still have to be based on the first person who established the camp? And if that person is 50 and mobs dont give xp whats the difference? I can't imagine how many more fights and petitions there would be with the added complexity of non consentual grouping

Forcing people to group for content is a key factor in classic EQs success. There are several ways loot could be handled. Could be like AC. That rule is there so the same person can't farm the ring over and over. Precedence for these types of camp rules are already in the game.

[billwilliams]

That is not a situation that is going to happen, it wasn't an issue on Blue launch and that server only had 400 peak in its first 6+ months.