I hate this perma-camping shit

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

FFA Would mean 2-3 guilds literally sitting on the spawn of a mob.

Then what? The mob spawns, probably aggroes someone automatically right away, and then all 3 guilds go into a kill steal fest for the win? And if/when we do get logs of who actually was on aggro first, we take away the loot, suspend the kill stealing guild, and give it to the guild that was lucky to get first aggro?

How does that make any sense.

Because if the suspensions were for a long enough period of time, the KSing would stop. If players knew they were going to get banned for a month, they would be damn careful not to KS a raid mob. The players who were not careful would only bother you at most once every 31 days... barring a potential "3 strikes and you're perma-banned" rule. Surely that is better than the frequency with which you get petitioned to raids these days?

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

Also, thanks to the OP for being concerned about shitting up my discussion thread. I appreciate you starting yours here.

[azeth]

My first thought was, part of the reason (maybe most of) is that we're playing Classic EQ void of expansions with individuals who've been with the server long enough to be geared/well organized enough to camp these spawns heavily. That being said, and I apologize to the dev team if I'm way off base here, but once Kunark for instance opens up do you not agree that Frenzied in Lguk is going to be as heavily contested?

That being said I'm aware that when Kunark opens for example the gear prior to the expansion will not be as heavily contested as it's value will diminish with the addition of newer/better expansion gear. But in reality, you cannot rightfully punish a guild/group for commitment to a spawn and really being organized/conscious enough to hold it down for "2 months" as someone earlier in the thread exaggeratedly (not a real word :P) put it.

[azeth]

So apparently edits are not allowed, and so im just correcting my wording on "but once Kunark for instance opens up do you not agree that Frenzied in Lguk is going to be as heavily contested?"

I meant, once Kunark premiers, contested camps like Frenzied *wont be as heavily contested.

[Taxi]

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

P.S. This is R&F, this whole thread will probably be disregarded anyways.

And yet both Nilbog and Rogean posted in it. It doesnt mean that they will take anything from it, but i dont see why they would differentiate from R&F or server chat if theres something good that comes out of it. Theres irony in that i took refuge in R&F from the drama upstairs to have a thread where people can flame back and forth and dont pollute the constructive threads and we end up having a nice quiet discussion about the problem without name calling and the flaming is up there.

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

The way it is now is fair. If you are at a camp and able to maintain it, you deserve to be able to stay there as long as you please. Yes there are people who abuse this rule, and it sucks. But honestly that's life and you can put them on your shit-list if you want.

You throw words around like "fair" and "deserve" and youre the one saying that life isnt fair, deal with it? That its fair and they deserve is not an argument in itself. Why is it fair, why do they deserve to camp a mob for 14 hours? Why is it fair that if i log on and only have 2 hours to play some guy afk camping hadden has rights to the mob when hadden is up and not me? Because in theory he isnt supposed to afk camp hadden. In practice, nobody is going to stay alert for hours making sure you pop him the moment he spawns, so its afk camping. In practice, thats how players assume it goes. Thats part of whats wrong with this picture. There should be a rule like if the mob has been up for 30 seconds, you dont even have to ask the afk guy if hes camping a mob. You can just take it.

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

The one thing I think we do need to debate about is:

Being able to pass off a camp to a guild member or friend if someone else has been sitting nearby waiting for the camp. The reason is because this creates a camp lock-down and is detrimental to the community imo. This happens all the time on camps like Frenzy with the FBSS and we all know its going to happen with the Fungi camp when Kunark comes out unless we fix this.

Hope some of this made sense. Back to work.

Thats part of why i think the camping rules dont work, because by allowing people to perma-camp camps, they can say whatever they want about whos next in line even if it isnt true making it a headache for GMs who then have to babysit it all.

[Schultes]

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

The way things are, you can just sit at a mob, like the best Lguk mobs, and kill till you get tired of it. Then you pass the torch to someone in your guild.

So basically, in theory, once a guild has got a lockdown on the best mobs in the game, if they dont fuck-up, they can camp it for months, and if you try to stop them from doing that, youll get banned.

Just the fact that people are suggesting calendars for raid mobs is making me chuckle in my head to no end.

Hey guys i am brand spanking new i use to play on The Rathe back in the day. Anyways i was thinking why not limit the amount a camp can be passed off by players? Lets say 3 characters that can be recycled, basically a group of people working shifts instead of a endless line of players? Maybe even 5? Depending on the difficulty of the camp.

I couldn't even tell you what to do for Raids since i just made my guy on here, but why not the same principle but with 3 groups(or whatever the original amount of players that showed up) where you cant keep bringing in new guildies after so many hours camping then it would work kinda like a last man standing mode.

I don't know just wanted to throw it out there

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

a: been told to leave, as it was someone else's.

b: gotten a camp, as it was fully popped and someone came back petitioning i stole it

c: been told that they would not assist in a camp dispute

d: had an fbss taken from another player and given to a group member of mine, as our "camp" was KSed

I had the exact same things said to me on The Rathe! That is pretty damn funny, everyone except letter D. I was even told to leave a zone i was camping for 4 hours!!!! because someone else was camping it!

[MeatShield]

let people KS soon they will give up on the camps then bam it wont be so over crowded

[azeth]

on Rodcet Nife anytime there was a camp dispute whether raid or not the GM's would hear both sides. if it was abundantly clear a group attempting whatever camp/boss/mob was overwhelmed by zerg/ks group they'd clearly ask the aggressor to take off. However if there was no backbone to either argument it just came down to a /random

[Dantes]

They should just replace drops with random cursed items that change the wielder into a female ogre. Problem solved.

[oldtimer]

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

The one thing I think we do need to debate about is:

Being able to pass off a camp to a guild member or friend if someone else has been sitting nearby waiting for the camp. The reason is because this creates a camp lock-down and is detrimental to the community imo. This happens all the time on camps like Frenzy with the FBSS and we all know its going to happen with the Fungi camp when Kunark comes out unless we fix this.

Hope some of this made sense. Back to work.

This is an important point. At least one modification to the existing rules might come out of this discussion:

Being physically present at the spawn point waiting for camp to free up should trump all.

If a player is determined and willing to put in the time and sit at the spawn point waiting for the current campholder to finish, that player should absolutely be next in line for the camp. The existing rules leave it to the discretion of the campholder, and that should probably stay the same EXCEPT if there is someone actually present at the camp waiting for it. To say that a camp can be passed to the next one on a "list" or a friend or guildmate who shows up 5 minutes prior to the changeover as opposed to someone who has been physically present at the spawn point waiting patiently, makes no sense imho.

That seems to me the easiest "improvement" to make to existing rules. It does not address the entire problem, and sure you can still get your guildmate/friend to sit there with you afk, but at least its a start.