Player Agreement: Rule Change at the DS Camp

[Otsego]

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

Ruien, your assumption is incorrect. I was at the DS camp every day for two weeks trying to get an opportunity for my DS attempt (please refer to my original post).

"I went to a camp each day wanting to solo it and it was already camped."

Welcome to Everquest

Instancing is the solution you want, but it isn't a classic feature. Project Quarm and other servers do have instancing though. Without that, you have to wait for the camp to be unclamped so that you can claim it.

You'd still be camping a 24 hour spawn though.. as a solo player..

Really, the answer here is you need a team to help you.

You instead choose to both not join a team and then claim a 24 hour spawn is unhealthy..

[Otsego]

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

There's a lot of conflicting requests in OP. The content is trivial, yet when you had the camp and were 'pressured' into clearing the room (which, on blue, is the rule to maintain camp) and you had to cap. You want to solo content, but play an mmo. You're a 'solo artist' but refuse to suffer for your art.

This is what I don't understand. There seems to be an unsaid motive with this proposal. If I had to guess I would say it would be to spite the Good Guys teams (which OP has talked negatively about quite a lot, while not saying the same things toward the Castle team, even though they seem to be doing the 24 hour camp thing OP doesn't like).

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

What do you think is going to happen if the rule gets turned into rolls? "Hey guys I just want to solo her, you can log off" sorry that happened recently on blue, and that guild got SUCH a stern warning.

What's sad is OP is entirely blinded to the fact that this proposal would prevent anyone going forward from being able to complete a Solo Artist challenge for Drusella Sathir. Since there would always be people wanting to roll and kill her the moment she spawns every day going forward.

That, actually, may be the saddest realization I've now had while reading this thread.

OP cares a lot about Solo Artist, but is dooming anyone that comes after OP.

[Otsego]

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

I will say "trivial" meaning, anyone with 1-2 friends can do this, a solo artist has it on a hard difficulty for a reason.

Wait, so you self admit you have it on hard difficulty for a reason, but you also simultaneously want the rules changed to suit you? So you don't want hard difficulty.. ? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[berbax]

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

This is what I don't understand. There seems to be an unsaid motive with this proposal. If I had to guess I would say it would be to spite the Good Guys teams (which OP has talked negatively about quite a lot, while not saying the same things toward the Castle team, even though they seem to be doing the 24 hour camp thing OP doesn't like).

What's sad is OP is entirely blinded to the fact that this proposal would prevent anyone going forward from being able to complete a Solo Artist challenge for Drusella Sathir. Since there would always be people wanting to roll and kill her the moment she spawns every day going forward.

That, actually, may be the saddest realization I've now had while reading this thread.

OP cares a lot about Solo Artist, but is dooming anyone that comes after OP.

Otsego, I think you’ve missed a crucial point. My investigation into the Blue URN system has shown that it actually promotes the ideal conditions for a Solo Artist attempt on DS. With less pressure from outside groups and a more organized approach, the camp can fully spawn, allowing for a genuine solo challenge, something that’s far from doomed.

In fact, this system might be better suited for Solo Artists than a random roll, and that’s part of why I’ve been looking into it, as I’ve mentioned in my previous posts. My goal has always been to find a solution that benefits everyone, and the Blue URN system could be just that.

It’s also worth pointing out the overwhelming hypocrisy in your accusations of "doom," "manipulation," and "scare tactics," while your own arguments (and phrasing) have been heavy on generating fear about changes that could benefit the broader community.

If you need more clarification or have questions, feel free to message me directly. Otherwise, I’d suggest moving on from cherry-picking sentences out of the last 19 pages and focusing on the broader issue at hand.

[Otsego]

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

Fortior, the intention wasn’t to get into a debate about the breakdown of the votes, but rather to ensure we’re considering all perspectives, especially when clear biases could influence the outcome. Recognizing these biases helps us focus on what’s fair for the broader community.

Yes, let us recognize these biases.

You called out the no votes, but did no breakdown of yes votes - why?

It's because you're sending tells to everyone and anyone who will listen to you asking them to come here and support you by voting yes.

Your message in tells started off good, but you cannot in good faith say that how you close it off is not to cause bias and manipulation of the results.

Shame

[berbax]

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

Yes, let us recognize these biases.

You called out the no votes, but did no breakdown of yes votes - why?

It's because you're sending tells to everyone and anyone who will listen to you asking them to come here and support you by voting yes.

Your message in tells started off good, but you cannot in good faith say that how you close it off is not to cause bias and manipulation of the results.

Shame

Otsego, it’s disappointing to see you twist the situation like this. Yes, I reached out to people who were already aware of the ongoing discussion and who had expressed interest in the topic (like yourself). That’s hardly manipulation, it’s part of building a case and ensuring that all voices are heard, especially when the current system clearly benefits a small group at the expense of the broader community.

You’ve been consistently selective in your arguments, focusing on whatever fits your narrative while ignoring the broader issues of fairness and access that have been at the core of this discussion from the start. If you want to talk about biases, let’s recognize the ones that allow a few groups to monopolize content at the expense of everyone else.

If you’re genuinely interested in a constructive discussion, I’m open to it. But if this is just going to be about throwing accusations, then I think we’ve reached the end of a productive conversation.

[Otsego]

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

Otsego, I think you’ve missed a crucial point. My investigation into the Blue URN system has shown that it actually promotes the ideal conditions for a Solo Artist attempt on Drusella Sathir. With less pressure from outside groups and a more organized approach, the camp can fully spawn, allowing for a genuine solo challenge, something that’s far from doomed.

I would agree that a structured merit-based system would be the ideal condition for a solo artist challenge. As that's what we are currently seeing within our own group.

My reply is based on your proposal in this post, where you want a /random system like Angry

Sounds like you need to create a new proposal. Or just join into the existing URN structure - which has an existing thread.

[berbax]

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

I would agree that a structured merit-based system would be the ideal condition for a solo artist challenge. As that's what we are currently seeing within our own group.

My reply is based on your proposal in this post, where you want a /random system like Angry

Sounds like you need to create a new proposal. Or just join into the existing URN structure - which has an existing thread.

Correct, and that is something I've now mentioned a few times. Once I have more information I'll ask to get the thread locked or closed if that system seems to be the better alternative.

[fortior]

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

Yes, let us recognize these biases.

You called out the no votes, but did no breakdown of yes votes - why?

It's because you're sending tells to everyone and anyone who will listen to you asking them to come here and support you by voting yes.

Your message in tells started off good, but you cannot in good faith say that how you close it off is not to cause bias and manipulation of the results.

Shame

LOL

I already thought this was the case since there were some old accounts with 0 posts who suddenly had their first few posts years after account creation in this thread, but thank you for the proof. This is gold, lol.

[berbax]

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

LOL

I already thought this was the case since there were some old accounts with 0 posts who suddenly had their first few posts years after account creation in this thread, but thank you for the proof. This is gold, lol.

Welcome back Fortior! I knew this thread wouldn’t be complete without your return. That screenshot is proof of what exactly? That I asked people to read the forum post and make their own decision? Not exactly the conspiracy you’re hinting at.

Interestingly enough, Otsego - who conveniently voted "No" - created their account the same day they cast their vote. So, if we’re questioning voter activity, maybe we shouldn’t have such a narrow focus.

Anyway, it’s great to see you back and rocking that tinfoil hat! It suits you perfectly [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]