Player Agreement: Rule Change at the DS Camp

[magicfest2]

“A well designed list system with proper breaks and shared efforts” is absolutely not “/list” so if you mean a player run list please be careful to differentiate it from /list which is a specific code-implemented feature of the server. I’m going to assume from here on that you DO NOT mean /list when you refer to lists. Hopefully that’s correct.

As far as the current Castle camp, they aren’t monopolizing the supply to drive up prices — they’re literally the ones using the urns in most cases. It isn’t a conspiracy to make prices go up. It’s just a normal reduction of supply, whether it’s Castle doing it or the server as a whole, the difference is just which players get them, at which point it is a question of whether it is effort based or RNG based. I gave an example before which may have seemed abstract but is based directly on months of observation. Essentially the second case happened when my group originally took over and had the camp for a great deal of a three month period. That’s when you saw prices go up to 250k — because the first 20 or so urns we got were almost exclusively not for resale, so the supply for several months almost completely dried up. That is what happens. When more resellers are camping it, the prices go down. I’m sure you are correct that there are different mindsets when it comes to buying or camping — some players likely will camp instead of buy (I’m an example of this, because I literally was dead broke 100% of the time, so helped form a group for this), but a lot of people really would likely still just pay instead of trying to figure it out or put in the rather large time commitment as there are much easier ways to make money over the long term with lower effort. I understand that just like real world economics, there are so many factors that even the best economists are honestly right about as often as wrong. I’m pretty confident from having watched an actual example of this play out though, so we can revisit in a year of you manage to get a change (assuming we’re both still around) and one of us can say “I told you so”. XD

[berbax]

Originally Posted by magicfest2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

“A well designed list system with proper breaks and shared efforts” is absolutely not “/list” so if you mean a player run list please be careful to differentiate it from /list which is a specific code-implemented feature of the server. I’m going to assume from here on that you DO NOT mean /list when you refer to lists. Hopefully that’s correct.

As far as the current Castle camp, they aren’t monopolizing the supply to drive up prices — they’re literally the ones using the urns in most cases. It isn’t a conspiracy to make prices go up. It’s just a normal reduction of supply, whether it’s Castle doing it or the server as a whole, the difference is just which players get them, at which point it is a question of whether it is effort based or RNG based. I gave an example before which may have seemed abstract but is based directly on months of observation. Essentially the second case happened when my group originally took over and had the camp for a great deal of a three month period. That’s when you saw prices go up to 250k — because the first 20 or so urns we got were almost exclusively not for resale, so the supply for several months almost completely dried up. That is what happens. When more resellers are camping it, the prices go down. I’m sure you are correct that there are different mindsets when it comes to buying or camping — some players likely will camp instead of buy (I’m an example of this, because I literally was dead broke 100% of the time, so helped form a group for this), but a lot of people really would likely still just pay instead of trying to figure it out or put in the rather large time commitment as there are much easier ways to make money over the long term with lower effort. I understand that just like real world economics, there are so many factors that even the best economists are honestly right about as often as wrong. I’m pretty confident from having watched an actual example of this play out though, so we can revisit in a year of you manage to get a change (assuming we’re both still around) and one of us can say “I told you so”. XD

Your response essentially proves my point about monopolization: whether the intent is to use or sell, the outcome is the same - restricted access for the broader player base, leading to scarcity and high prices.

The fact that urn prices increased to 250k when your group held the camp for several months, primarily using urns rather than selling them, illustrates the impact of limited access on the market. When fewer urns are available for resale, prices naturally increase due to scarcity, regardless of the intent behind the monopolization. It also shows that it’s not "the server as a whole" creating this scarcity, but rather a minority of individual groups. Therefore, the "normal reduction of supply" is actually not normal; it’s a result of monopolization by specific groups.

Edit: I want to reiterate that the intent of my responses is not to argue about market economics, but to show how it’s not providing a fair and healthy environment for the community, which is why the agreement is being proposed.

[Ruien]

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

Edit: I want to reiterate that the intent of my responses is not to argue about market economics, but to show how it’s not providing a fair and healthy environment for the community, which is why the agreement is being proposed.

I think this is where the disconnect is coming from. You are equating "lower price" with "fairer, more accessible Urn for the general community".

There are definitely people who are able to spend more time than platinum, and (even at a reduced price) would be locked out of an Urn if you require them to pay for it. So, while it increases the availability for some people, it reduces availability for others. There's no free lunch here.

An equity-based system like URN breaks the monopoly without locking out these people.

Finally, there seems to be a running assumption by yourself and others (like 7thGate) that holding the camp is a waste of time, and that everyone would be better off without it. But actually you are removing gameplay - this is EQ, and I think we can all agree that camping items with friends is core gameplay. It's /random that's foreign and unnatural. Maybe people who want /random really just want to be playing a different game, because they don't seem to enjoy p99 as it is currently implemented. Some of us actually enjoy the DS camp and would prefer that you don't attempt to destroy gameplay and replace it with 50-100 alts that log in once per day and /q afterward.

[berbax]

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

I think this is where the disconnect is coming from. You are equating "lower price" with "fairer, more accessible Urn for the general community".

There are definitely people who are able to spend more time than platinum, and (even at a reduced price) would be locked out of an Urn if you require them to pay for it. So, while it increases the availability for some people, it reduces availability for others. There's no free lunch here.

An equity-based system like URN breaks the monopoly without locking out these people.

Finally, there seems to be a running assumption by yourself and others (like 7thGate) that holding the camp is a waste of time, and that everyone would be better off without it. But actually you are removing gameplay - this is EQ, and I think we can all agree that camping items is core gameplay. It's /random that's foreign and unnatural. Maybe people who want /random really just want to be playing a different game, because they don't seem to enjoy p99 as it is currently implemented. Some of us actually enjoy the DS camp and would prefer that you don't attempt to destroy gameplay and replace it with 50-100 alts that log in once per day and /q afterward.

Ruien, I appreciate your perspective, but there are a points and misconceptions to fix. The goal isn’t just to lower prices but to ensure fair access. Monopolization restricts access and creates unfair conditions where only those with excessive time can benefit. Fairness means everyone, regardless of their available time or money, has a chance.

An equity-based system like URN might break the monopoly, but it still doesn’t address the core issue of restricted access, or high prices (from what I understand). A roll or list system democratizes access, giving more players a fair shot without excluding anyone based on their time or wealth. Again, I'm not an expert on what you guys are advocating, but it appears to be met with mixed reviews. Even the poll image posted in a previous comment highlights that.

This isn’t about removing camping from the game. It’s about making the process healthier and more accessible. Fair systems enhance gameplay by allowing more players to participate meaningfully without promoting unhealthy behavior.

Lastly, random rolls aren’t foreign to EQ. They’ve been used successfully in other camps to ensure fairness and reduce toxic behavior. This discussion is about creating a fair and healthy environment, not just about item prices.

[Ruien]

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

Ruien, I appreciate your perspective, but there are a points and misconceptions to fix. The goal isn’t just to lower prices but to ensure fair access. Monopolization restricts access and creates unfair conditions where only those with excessive time can benefit. Fairness means everyone, regardless of their available time or money, has a chance.

An equity-based system like URN might break the monopoly, but it still doesn’t address the core issue of restricted access, or high prices (from what I understand). A roll or list system democratizes access, giving more players a fair shot without excluding anyone based on their time or wealth. Again, I'm not an expert on what you guys are advocating, but it appears to be met with mixed reviews. Even the poll image posted in a previous comment highlights that.

This isn’t about removing camping from the game. It’s about making the process healthier and more accessible. Fair systems enhance gameplay by allowing more players to participate meaningfully without promoting unhealthy behavior.

Lastly, random rolls aren’t foreign to EQ. They’ve been used successfully in other camps to ensure fairness and reduce toxic behavior. This discussion is about creating a fair and healthy environment, not just about item prices.

Hold on - I just don't get this point. What do you mean that URN doesn't address the core issue of restricted access?

I'm talking about URN network as literally free for anyone to join, who can log hours on their own schedule, and over a few months of camping with friends you will eventually be able to loot an Urn, and that urn can be either used or sold per your preference. How does that prevent participation?

[berbax]

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

Hold on - I just don't get this point. What do you mean that URN doesn't address the core issue of restricted access?

I'm talking about URN network as literally free for anyone to join, who can log hours on their own schedule, and over a few months of camping with friends you will eventually be able to loot an Urn, and that urn can be either used or sold per your preference. How does that prevent participation?

You're right it might be a solution, and I think I've mentioned this before if we are getting support for an URN implementation, then I'm open to changing the player agreement. I don't fully understand (as I mentioned a few times now) the issues with the URN group, and only see the sort of mixed reviews of it.

[Ruien]

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

You're right it might be a solution, and I think I've mentioned this before if we are getting support for an URN implementation, then I'm open to changing the player agreement. I don't fully understand (as I mentioned a few times now) the issues with the URN group, and only see the sort of mixed reviews of it.

I honestly have not heard any well-reasoned criticism of the URN system. The only criticism I have heard comes from people who want an Urn without putting in time, money, and/or effort, and I don't think such arguments are valid or reasonable.

[Otsego]

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

Monopolization restricts access and creates unfair conditions where only those with excessive time can benefit. Fairness means everyone, regardless of their available time or money, has a chance.

Simply not true, we have multiple teammates that only contribute a few minutes or a few hours of their time. There is no demand for excessive time.

Like most other things in life though, the more time you devote to something, the faster progress you will make over someone else, but that doesn't mean it's a requirement.

This is just a scare tactic - manipulation

[berbax]

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

Simply not true, we have multiple teammates that only contribute a few minutes or a few hours of their time. There is no demand for excessive time.

Like most other things in life though, the more time you devote to something, the faster progress you will make over someone else, but that doesn't mean it's a requirement.

This is just a scare tactic - manipulation

Otsego, I think we’re going in circles here. It’s clear we have different perspectives on this issue. My focus is on ensuring broader community access and fairness, while it seems like your group’s experience has been positive within its own framework. I appreciate the discussion, but I think it’s best to leave it here. Thanks for your input.

[Otsego]

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

An equity-based system like URN might break the monopoly, but it still doesn’t address the core issue of restricted access, or high prices (from what I understand).

Who was it that told you everything in EQ is meant to be unrestricted access?

The game is literally increasingly difficult encounters meant to restrict access until you become strong enough or are a part of a team strong enough to clear the content.

Can't do Kurns Tower naturally at level 8? Try leveling up to 11-12 or joining a group if only level 8.. suddenly the "restricted" zone becomes a lot more doable doesn't it?

You're seemingly pushing back against the thing that makes EQ what it is. Why?


As for high prices.. that's not going to change. Fixed supply, increasing demand.

I'd hate to break the bad news to you, but even if your lottery system is implemented.. some of the winners are not going to sell their urns..

Those urns are either going to be used and turned in by the winner, or remain unused in their banks.

The demand for them far outweighs the supply and that's never going to change.

It's a BIS item - it wasn't intended to be had by everyone. That's why it's on a 24 hour spawn and not a 20 minute and 30 second one.