Green99 pro strats and early game goals

[E-Queue]

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

Everyone says the Qeynos area is the place to level, but I bet it'll be so rammed at launch that individual gnolls will be camped in BB. So I bet you'd make faster xp in a place like AkAnon or Rivervale where there's less crowding.

Blackburrow will definitely be insane. Gnoll teeth are just too good.

Maybe people will actually exp in the Qeynos catacombs... That actually sounds dangerous and fun. Maybe I'll add it to my new server checklist!

[jolanar]

FYI if you level a mage to 8 first, you can summon magic weapons (1h pierce and 2hb), bandages, food, water and 4 slot 100% WR bags for any alt you want. Might be something to consider.

[Jibartik]

I dont understand the PnP debate at all.

It sounds exactly like someone saying "this server isnt classic because I have already camped all these zones in 1999"

It just doesnt seem any different than that to me.

anyway someone once told me this "Shutup, not everyone plays EQ the way you do" and I stopped trying to tell people what was right or wrong.

I feel like if you have a problem with PnP you just have to suck it up, the majority of players dont agree with you.

[Jibartik]

Is this guy still trying to convince everyone what makes EQ classic is how the owners of the server handle petitions?

[loramin]

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

This isn't true in the slightest. It doesn't take any more GM support to have the classic PnP of "people must take turns at camps, in order of who showed up; no single person owns a camp."

And as already mentioned, it takes less GM support to allow competition over content, which is how the game actually operated for an entire year in classic. Any petitions about "kill-stealing" just get auto ignored (unless it's a higher level player specifically following someone everywhere they go and killing everything they try to fight, which is considered harassment, and should be stated as such by the person petitioning - no different than now).

I would point out that if the classic rules were enforced here the staff would do nothing except show up and conduct rolls over who gets what ... but you know, let's not and say we did. This conversation isn't even worth having.

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

Is this guy still trying to convince everyone what makes EQ classic is how the owners of the server handle petitions?

[Zuranthium]

Stop trying to straw-man. The fallacies being spouted off are so mind-numbing.

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

I would point out that if the classic rules were enforced here the staff would do nothing except show up and conduct rolls over who gets what ... but you know, let's not and say we did.

No. That's not the classic rules. People would have to share camps and if they don't, then the GM shows up and forces the rotation or kicks people out of it who were not following the rules.

[loramin]

So A and B both want a Guise: they petition and a GM says the mob is A's because he won the roll (first interaction).

Now on live things probably would have ended there, but here it's entirely possible C shows up, and wants the camp ... after A finishes, but while B's still doing it. C won't know (or believe) B's claim that it's his, and there's no one to back up B's story up, so C petitions (second interaction).

Maybe the staff makes C roll off with B, or maybe they tell C to suck it, he's next in line after B. It doesn't matter.

Either way everything stays good until a bit later when D shows up (third interaction) ...

Like I said before, our server is inherently different in some inescapable ways from live. Given that, I think it's completely unreasonable to expect a bunch of people volunteering their time to settle disputes in a 20-year old elf simulator and getting absolutely nothing in return to have to implement an "identical to classic" PnP.

[Zuranthium]

Why are you talking about rolling? It doesn't work like that. People sharing camps means that people take turns killing a mob. Whoever's turn it is to kill the mob is the person who gets to loot it.

You also make no sense saying "on Live there was only player A and B, but on p99 there is player C too." I mean, many camps are more known on p99, but it wouldn't work any different, and there is nothing about p99 that inherently creates added confusion as a result of "player C" showing up, as compared to that same situation in classic.

If player "C" shows up at a camp where A + B are present, then they can clearly see that they would be 3rd on the rotation list. If player A leaves, then player B is still clearly ahead of them on the list. This is not difficult to understand.

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

Like I said before, our server is inherently different in some inescapable ways from live. Given that, I think it's completely unreasonable to expect a bunch of people volunteering their time to settle disputes in a 20-year old elf simulator and getting absolutely nothing in return to have to implement an "identical to classic" PnP.

Stop trying to push this stupid fallacy. GM's already have to settle disputes on p99. The classic Play Nice Policy does NOT require more work by GM's.

If someone on current p99 is at a camp, and someone else shows up and tries to take the camp from them, then that person has to petition a GM. It isn't any easier for the GM with the current p99 ruleset. The dispute exists regardless.

The significant difference is in how players are expected to conduct themselves, and how the classic PnP creates more player interaction and more opportunity for non-neckbeards. The current policy on p99 rewards the most toxic gameplay of all, with specific no-life players being able to continuously block content from everyone else. "Waiting lists" on current p99 don't actually mean anything, because whoever is at a camp can hand it off to whoever they want. 2 people who play in separate 12-hour shifts can 100% lock down a spawn by handing it off to each other, while everyone else who tries to wait, thinking they might get a chance, actually has no chance and is only unknowingly wasting their time. That's total bullshit.

[Nisrak]

That's an interesting idea about kill rotations for anyone who shows up to a camp. I, personally, never saw this happen on live, possibly because I had no idea what I was doing for the first year of EQ, and I think that's the same for most people. That's really at the heart of how green will be different from live: player knowledge. People know that guises and manastones will stop dropping. So, on live, you didn't have 100 people all desperately trying to get guises by any means necessary, but on green you will.

There may be some merit to the kill rotation versus camp ownership argument, but there are a lot of fine points that need to be worked out and people would fight about. It's not all as simple and clear as you say, Zuranthium. For example, is the rotation based on killing the named? or the PH? Or getting the drop that the person wants? Either way, guise and manastone camps are going to be complete insanity and I don't think there's any good solution. The "simple" solution on live of a GM making people roll for the camp would be impossible on green, unless you had a dedicated GM standing at the guise camp 24/7.

[Jimjam]

Clearly Rogean(/team) 'needs' to program a bot GM that stands at contested spawns. When you arrive you hail the GM. The bot creates a list based on those present that have hailed. Each time the mob is killed and the desired item drops the GM will announce which player wins the item.

Obviously this isn't the perfect system; what about selling loot rights? what about those who don't bring enough force and expect others to make the kill for them? what about people who have banked a whole bunch of stones already vs someone who has none? etc. It's a lot of work, just for the sake of catering to disruptive players. As such I guess it won't ever happen.