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

[Lazortag]

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

considering this is Classic server and all - per Official SOE rule- if ANYONE at all walks into your camp - you OBLIGATED to share, otherwise GM will simply kick you out [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This wasn't the rule on all servers. I know that such a rule was rarely if ever enforced on Rodcet Nife where I played.

[Kika Maslyaka]

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

I am sorry Kika, but without changing the game mechanics there would be no way to do this.

How in your scenario would player D even know what was dropped or what was looted if your not in group. If you don't see it drop you will never know that the uber item you wanted was given to player E. How would you decide which loot to give to who? Some camps have more then one item of value, and how would you work that into your scenario? If you are not in group to help with the kill why should you get anything.

Kika, your idea is fraught with micromanagement and server programing changes.

yeah its a bit messy, this is why I offered way #2 which have mob itself go to one side or the other, rather the loot drop

[SirAlvarex]

I'm surprised (maybe more dissapointed..) there needs to be a set, complicated rule for camp disputes. What happened to the play nice policy? If someone comes by the camp and is willing to sit there until you are done, why not let them have the camp?

I agree the person who owns the camp has the right to decide who gets it next. It just puts a black mark on the community to see topics like these spring up. The broadcasts in game asking for fewer camp dispute petitions also don't help.

Can't we all just get along? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Kika Maslyaka]

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

This wasn't the rule on all servers. I know that such a rule was rarely if ever enforced on Rodcet Nife where I played.

it was universal PNP for the game - Play Nice Policy. Whenever certain server gms enforced it or not, is another thing

[Ravhin]

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

it was universal PNP for the game - Play Nice Policy. Whenever certain server gms enforced it or not, is another thing

Indeed this was actually the case cerca 1999-2000, here is the relevant part of the Guide CSR manual:

8.2.3 Contested Spawn Complaints

When a complaint is received indicating that a spawn or kill is contested... instruct the parties involved in the contested spawn situation to work out a compromise. Then leave the scene.

If [a second] complaint is received involving the same spawn site, another disruption investigation should be initiated. After following those procedures and issuing warnings as necessary, if any of the parties involved were involved in the initial situation, establish a compromise for the parties to which the parties are required to abide. The compromise should be as described in section 8.2.3.1. Any party refusing to abide by the compromise established by the CS Representative should be issued a warning for disruption.

On PvP servers, where players can reach a solution to the contested spawn situation, the CS Representative does not need to require the players to share the spawn.

8.2.3.1 The compromise will require all parties to take turns killing the spawn(s). All parties involved in the contested spawn should be instructed to use /random 0 100 to choose a number. The CS Representative then uses /random 0 100. The individual with the closest number to the CS Representative’s number will be next in the rotation. The CS Representative then bases the rest of the rotation order on how close the other parties’ numbers were to theirs. The compromise established by a CS Representative must be objective and not require the CS Representative to choose one customer over another based on subjective criteria. The CS Representative is the arbiter in any disputes in establishing the compromise.

[mwatt]

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

this is the most retarded thing i have ever heard of in my life. Guilds that are able to hold down camps deserves those camps. join a better guild or wait til they leave. try to understand not everything is about you, and that u may have to wait for certain things if u decide you dont want to be in a large guild. the exact reason people join those guilds is to get access to zones/gear, why can't you understand that?

cry less plz

I don't think its an issue of not understanding Vendar. She and I, and quite a few others simply completely disagree with you. The game as originally designed and envisioned was about many kinds of play group, solo, guild. As it progressed, SOE began to cater more and more to the same kind of guild mentality that you are expressing here. We all know what happened eventually.

One aspect of play - the guild aspect - should not be able trump the others in every given situation just because a guild wants it to. I can understand some competition at the guild level for raid bosses, but I can't support the effort of guilds banding together to monopolize content that doesn't need a guild or a raid to kill. Droga is primarly group intended content, though skilled soloists of certain classes may also manage it.

EQ was designed to be a cooperative multiplayer game. In my opinion, this "locking down" goes contrary to that spirit. It's selfish and mean. Not "mean" like "cruel" - "mean" like "small and debased".

Oh and by the way, the fact that someone disagrees with your point of view does not mean they are "crying". I shoudn't have to explain that to a mature individual.

[Vendar]

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

I don't think its an issue of not understanding Vendar. She and I, and quite a few others simply completely disagree with you. The game as originally designed and envisioned was about many kinds of play group, solo, guild. As it progressed, SOE began to cater more and more to the same kind of guild mentality that you are expressing here. We all know what happened eventually.

One aspect of play - the guild aspect - should not be able trump the others in every given situation just because a guild wants it to. I can understand some competition at the guild level for raid bosses, but I can't support the effort of guilds banding together to monopolize content that doesn't need a guild or a raid to kill. Droga is primarly group intended content, though skilled soloists of certain classes may also manage it.

EQ was designed to be a cooperative multiplayer game. In my opinion, this "locking down" goes contrary to that spirit. It's selfish and mean. Not "mean" like "cruel" - "mean" like "small and debased".

Oh and by the way, the fact that someone disagrees with your point of view does not mean they are "crying". I shoudn't have to explain that to a mature individual.

well i'm sorry you feel that way, but again, its not about YOU or your friend. if you want/expect everything to be available to you at the exact moment that you decide you want said item, then you need to go play an offline game where nobody will ever be camping something you want when you want it.

try to really understand this next part, it may be rough; Guilds are not locking down camps to prevent you from getting pixels! Guilds are locking down camps so that their members can get specific items before moving on. Before Kunark was released, multiple guilds made plans to take certain camps, it was not just one or two or three guilds, but MULTIPLE! and it was NOT done to cockblock you from getting pixels that you feel you should have right now.

at this point im convinced your trolling me because you can not be this retarded.

[Kika Maslyaka]

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

at this point im convinced your trolling me because you can not be this retarded.

well let me draw a conclusion too:
You must be trolling, because you can not be this retarded

Not everyone in the world is a greedy elitist like you and your guild

[Pudge]

solution: red99

[Curmudgen]

Well after reading this I sure am bummed. I was figureing to get up to high enough level on my iksar necro to get over to the CoS camp and eventually get one before the nerf.

Seems that if its true that multiple guilds have designs to pass off to each other that the only hope is that the drop rate is quick enough for them all to get satisfied before the nerf time comes. Maybe then I could get in.

But.....then comes the "lets sell it" bunch. Between the guilds equipping their own, and stocking up to sell at the eventual inflated prices I just dont see my pickup group self having much of a chance. Bummer.

I will still go over there when level appropriate and hang around looking to join the group though. Who knows maybe 1 out of 100 times they will let me in.

What is level appropriate for that camp anyway? Group of low 30's? Mid thirties? It was never camped when I started playing as it was allready nerfed.