Request for a different policy on (game-changing) specific item camps

[soup]

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

make it a rule, that the ONLY people who can be put on the list are those who physically present at the camp spot AT ALL TIME - if they not here or they left the dungeon - they NOT at the list [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So if our bard leaves, we can't find another bard because a mage is waiting at the camp?

Or does it only apply if one of the same class is sitting there, even though 3 people in the group have had terrible experiences with that bard waiting there who doesn't know how to play?

Or is it only on camps arbitrarily labeled as easy? I'm sure GMs want even more hassle on their plate because you feel entitled to be let into someone else's group.

[mwatt]

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

make it a rule, that the ONLY people who can be put on the list are those who physically present at the camp spot AT ALL TIME - if they not here or they left the dungeon - they NOT on the list [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Any one who arrives after you - is placed behind you in the wait line

Exactly what I am saying as well.

[soup]

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

Actually, I am advocating something a bit different from what the OP outlined. I am in favor of requiring a person or persons to be present in order to have the "right" to take the camp - any camp, not just some special camp. This is already what is happening in places like SRo, for the AC camp. If nobody is physically waiting then sure, a camp holder can tell guildies, friends or others that the camp is about to be freed up and they should come and get it.

I'm not talking about making a list or a line. I expect the GMs to do nothing in this reguard. It's ludicrous to think that they should make lists. If multiple persons or groups really want to physically sit there for multiple groups ahead of them to take their turn, then more power to them. I suspect that this won't happen much though.

I am also not talking about the "share" policy that existed on live. I don't think you should have to let anyone join the group that asks to.

The current policy puts the power for saying who goes next into the hands of the current camp holder. This does not guarantee that there will never be disputes that a GM might have to hear. The change I am advocating is very little or no additional burden on the GMs nor is it changing anything about the way a current campholder will play they game.

It sounds like your confused as to how it works. It's not like someone leaves the CoS camp and tells a guildie to come over and take it, leaving an open but claimed camp. That's not how it works.

Say I'm camping something. Okay, now I'm done camping, hey buddy in my guild, come join my group over here at xxxxx camp. They say okay, and head on over. Once they get here, I leave the camp and they take it.

[mwatt]

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

So if our bard leaves, we can't find another bard because a mage is waiting at the camp?

Or does it only apply if one of the same class is sitting there, even though 3 people in the group have had terrible experiences with that bard waiting there who doesn't know how to play?

Or is it only on camps arbitrarily labeled as easy? I'm sure GMs want even more hassle on their plate because you feel entitled to be let into someone else's group.

No Soup (for djou!),

I think the idea is that if the first group needed to replace someone, let them do it. That group as an entity, is still the group holding the camp. They don't need to have pull from people waiting around. They own the camp, they can do what they want with it while they are playing there. They just can't "will it" to somebody else.

[soup]

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

Exactly what I am saying as well.

Right, your advocating for groups to not have total discretion in who joins the group. I can't invite the pro bard in my guild to help me out because a scrubby bard is standing in front of me, or something.

Like I said before, I don't think you guys have thoroughly thought about what it is you're advocating.

[soup]

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

No Soup (for djou!),

I think the idea is that if the first group needed to replace someone, let them do it. That group as an entity, is still the group holding the camp. They don't need to have pull from people waiting around. They own the camp, they can do what they want with it while they are playing there. They just can't "will it" to somebody else.

So you want an arbitrary cluster fuck?

So I'm doing CoS camp with 3 guildmates. Someone runs up, but since we're our own group we don't need to let them in, okay. We decide we want a bard, so we invite a pro bard from a guild, he comes in, cool. I decide I'm leaving, so I leave. The remainder of people holding the camp do that for a round or two, then invite another person from the guild, then someone who was there already leaves, etc. until a few hours later none of the original members are in the group anymore. At what point does your proposed rule of "only people waiting can be in line" get invoked? Is it if we cycle members in under a certain time frame? If we cycle too many at once?

[mwatt]

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

So you want an arbitrary cluster fuck?

So I'm doing CoS camp with 3 guildmates. Someone runs up, but since we're our own group we don't need to let them in, okay. We decide we want a bard, so we invite a pro bard from a guild, he comes in, cool. I decide I'm leaving, so I leave. The remainder of people holding the camp do that for a round or two, then invite another person from the guild, then someone who was there already leaves, etc. until a few hours later none of the original members are in the group anymore. At what point does your proposed rule of "only people waiting can be in line" get invoked? Is it if we cycle members in under a certain time frame? If we cycle too many at once?

Hmm, no I don't want an "arbitrary cluster fuck". The scenario you describe would be one way for the unscrupulous to work around the problem. I do see your point though and I must admit I did not think it completely through.

I suppose one would also have to introduce the idea that once all original members of a group are gone, it is no longer the same group. This complicates the matter and may indeed mean additional work for a GM. I suppose a screen shot of the members in the original group could be a requirement if one wanted to press such a point, but then you'd have guilds leaving players in a group just afk to circumvent that. Then a GM would have to do more work to arbitrate that issue.

My suggested solution is not the easy fix I thought it was. It might still be better than what we have, but that is debatable.

[soup]

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

Hmm, no I don't want an "arbitrary cluster fuck". The scenario you describe would be one way for the unscrupulous to work around the problem. I do see your point though and I must admit I did not think it completely through.

I suppose one would also have to introduce the idea that once all original members of a group are gone, it is no longer the same group. This complicates the matter and may indeed mean additional work for a GM. I suppose a screen shot of the members in the original group could be a requirement if one wanted to press such a point, but then you'd have guilds leaving players in a group just afk to circumvent that. Then a GM would have to do more work to arbitrate that issue.

My suggested solution is not the easy fix I thought it was. It might still be better than what we have, but that is debatable.

Word.

I mean, I don't really like the idea of monopolies on camps either, but the most fair thing and least burdening to the GMs, IMO, is pretty much the current system. Every idea I've heard for a fix is always either something that would lead to even more of a cluster fuck, or require micromanaging from GMs, or be something akin to fixing a broken thumb by chopping off your arm.

Also, just to throw it out there, I have been involved in high end Kunark camps for all of like 2 or 3 hours (just the CoS) since Kunark release, so I'm not saying this as someone who profits from camp monopolies. Just wanna make sure I don't come across the wrong way [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[mwatt]

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

Word.

I mean, I don't really like the idea of monopolies on camps either, but the most fair thing and least burdening to the GMs, IMO, is pretty much the current system. Every idea I've heard for a fix is always either something that would lead to even more of a cluster fuck, or require micromanaging from GMs, or be something akin to fixing a broken thumb by chopping off your arm.

Also, just to throw it out there, I have been involved in high end Kunark camps for all of like 2 or 3 hours (just the CoS) since Kunark release, so I'm not saying this as someone who profits from camp monopolies. Just wanna make sure I don't come across the wrong way [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Understood.

I suppose in the end, there is always the community reputaion thing. If certain guilds are clearly monopolizing for intent other than equipping their guilds, then that gets around. In fact it already IS around. For insteand, I have heard more then one person say negative things about TMO because of this.

Probably they will rebut yet again and claim that they are only equipping their guild. However, even if that were to be the truth, I personally would still not like being locked out of somewhere I wanted to be for a chance at such important items. I know I am not alone in this.

[soup]

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

Understood.

I suppose in the end, there is always the community reputaion thing. If certain guilds are clearly monopolizing for intent other than equipping their guilds, then that gets around. In fact it already IS around. For insteand, I have heard more then one person say negative things about TMO because of this.

Probably they will rebut yet again and claim that they are only equipping their guild. However, even if that were to be the truth, I personally would still not like being locked out of somewhere I wanted to be for a chance at such important items. I know I am not alone in this.

I wouldn't mind seeing them get rid of the "x amount of time after server crash to reclaim a camp" as a way to break up camp monopolies, but I know that would be a nightmare for GMs to deal with. Every time the server goes down you'd have 20 different people representing different groups all trying to claim they killed mob x, y, and z after repop and the other guy saying he killed a, b, and c and someone else saying they killed this and that, etc. per camp, times who knows how many camps, a long with any potential "omg I died to server crash, plz can ras rez?" petitions, I'm sure it would become a massive nightmare for them that they shouldn't have to deal with. Plus the server can stay up for quite long, and if it does go down there's no guarantee that anyone else would be ready to nab the camp, so it still wouldn't do a whole hell of a lot to break up camp monopolies.

Not really any scenario is just full of win [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]