there is a private list system going on at AC in OOT?

[loramin]

Originally Posted by fastboy21 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yah, I wasn't considering those situations...which are so limited that I just consider them special exceptions.

Totally. I just think they're worth mentioning because they contrast different systems for handling the "X people want thing that only appears every Y often (and X * Y = yikes!)" problem.

With a list there's a guarantee (assuming /list or no list mischief with players) that you will get your item in X * Y time. Put in the time, get rewarded with the item. "Too many people on the list" isn't a problem, just a market opportunity for people to sell places in line.

With a player agreement there is no such guarantee. Instead there's a guarantee that everyone has an equal random chance ... but you lose your guarantee that after X * Y you get your item. You could win the first roll you attend, or never win your 200th.

I think it'd be interesting if "listing" (preferably via automated GMing) actually looked more like player agreements, because I think that or some hybrid (eg. list has max 3 people on it, after that you random to get on) is closer to classic EQ to me.

[Sabin76]

Originally Posted by fastboy21 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are also allowed to sell your camp itself AFAIK.

Wow... if that's true, then player lists are a very fragile thing, indeed. No need to manipulate the list under scrutiny of petitioners. Just sell your camp to your guildmate when you are about to log off for 1c, or a SoW, or... At the very least it seems that #2 in line has to outbid everyone else if they actually want that place in line to mean anything.

Am I missing something here? What is currently preventing anyone from doing this?

Again, if I'm someone who was going to purchase loot rights from guild member #5 instead of list member #5, it's not really any different to me... but it sure is different for someone who joined the list thinking that was actually going to give them a shot at the item.

[fastboy21]

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

Totally. I just think they're worth mentioning because they contrast different systems for handling the "X people want thing that only appears every Y often (and X * Y = yikes!)" problem.

With a list there's a guarantee (assuming /list or no list mischief with players) that you will get your item in X * Y time. Put in the time, get rewarded with the item. "Too many people on the list" isn't a problem, just a market opportunity for people to sell places in line.

With a player agreement there is no such guarantee. Instead there's a guarantee that everyone has an equal random chance ... but you lose your guarantee that after X * Y you get your item. You could win the first roll you attend, or never win your 200th.

I think it'd be interesting if "listing" (preferably via automated GMing) actually looked more like player agreements, because I think that or some hybrid (eg. list has max 3 people on it, after that you random to get on) is closer to classic EQ to me.

I agree with you.

I think its important to remember that #1 driving factor of the /list system wasn't the fair distribution of loot...it was, imo, to save the GMs from having to live in lguk and play babysitter 24/7. It succeeded much more in this second point.

Going forward it will hopefully tweak how the loot distribution works, as well as saving GMs from going insane.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Sabin76 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wow... if that's true, then player lists are a very fragile thing, indeed. No need to manipulate the list under scrutiny of petitioners. Just sell your camp to your guildmate when you are about to log off for 1c, or a SoW, or...

Am I missing something here? What is currently preventing anyone from doing this?

Again, if I'm someone who was going to purchase loot rights from guild member #5 instead of list member #5, it's not really any different to me... but it sure is different for someone who joined the list thinking that was actually going to give them a shot at the item.

Loot rights != place in line. Once you get to the front, if your guildmate is there with you (or can get there before the corpse poofs) you can sell the right to loot it to him.

Whether you can sell your place in line depends entirely on the "player agreement" behind the list. At established player agreement rolls, you clearly can't. AFAIK Green AC doesn't have one, but IF everyone waiting at the AC all agrees that you can't sell your place in line, and they stick to that for a bit and the GMs consider it "established", the staff will punish people who try and trade their place in line.

Prior to that ... the answer as to whether it's "allowed" lies in that (vast) unknown gray area of elf law: try it, get petitioned, we'll see [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[fastboy21]

Originally Posted by Sabin76 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wow... if that's true, then player lists are a very fragile thing, indeed. No need to manipulate the list under scrutiny of petitioners. Just sell your camp to your guildmate when you are about to log off for 1c, or a SoW, or... At the very least it seems that #2 in line has to outbid everyone else if they actually want that place in line to mean anything.

Am I missing something here? What is currently preventing anyone from doing this?

Again, if I'm someone who was going to purchase loot rights from guild member #5 instead of list member #5, it's not really any different to me... but it sure is different for someone who joined the list thinking that was actually going to give them a shot at the item.

Nothing. You can give your camp (or sell it) to whomever you want as long as you haven't told other people waiting that someone is already next. If you tell someone that they are next on the list you are no longer able to give/sell it to someone else.

See my original post in this thread showing the problem of honesty in making this system actually work properly.

As with all camp rules, the "rules" are only as true as the next GM who rules on a situation. P99 intentionally gives staff the authority to do this on a case by case basis.

[Sabin76]

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

Whether you can sell your place in line depends entirely on the "player agreement" behind the list.

Originally Posted by fastboy21 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

...as long as you haven't told other people waiting that someone is already next. If you tell someone that they are next on the list you are no longer able to give/sell it to someone else.

This appears to be the information I was missing/forgetting.

Question: does having a google doc with people's names on it not count as "telling someone who's next" in terms of the afore mentioned "player agreement" and being able to sell your place in line? It seems to me that it might be, but Ioramin's comment about Green AC not having such an agreement makes that connection murky. Or is there actually no such list and whoever mentioned it earlier was mistaken?

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Sabin76 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This appears to be the information I was missing/forgetting.

Question: does having a google doc with people's names on it not count as "telling someone who's next" in terms of the afore mentioned "player agreement" and being able to sell your place in line? It seems to me that it might be, but Ioramin's comment about Green AC not having such an agreement makes that connection murky. Or is there actually no such list and whoever mentioned it earlier was mistaken?

The explicit/specific/"a GM once said it" rule is that the person with the camp (ie. the top of the list) must be honest about who they are giving the camp to next:

Camp holder has the right to pass the camp to whoever he would like. However, and this is very important, two things must happen in order for this to be a legitimate hand-off:

1) The player being handed the camp must be present around the time the first placeholder spawns after the last holder of the camp has gotten his or her item in hand. The person handing off the camp must stay at the spawn until the next person in line arrives, if that person is on their way to take the camp. There is a little leeway here, and we refuse to set an exact timer on how long the placeholder can be up before the camp is forfeited, but in general it should never be for more than a couple minutes or so. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the person coming in to take the camp in these situations as CSR staff, so waiting a bit longer will never hurt.

2) The person holding the camp cannot mislead you, or change his mind after telling you who is next. Something that no one ever does (and I will never understand why) is to specifically address the camp holder, asking who is next or if you can be next. The camp holder does need to reveal to you who the next intended camp holder is - if he doesn't, you may ask to be next and your claim will be valid unless he reveals the next person immediately. This person cannot change after the camp holder has "revealed" the next person to take the camp to you. It is an automatic forfeit if this occurs. If you ask to be the next camp holder and are told yes, the camp holder may not later retract or change this agreement and attempt to hand the camp off to someone else - it's yours once he has gotten his item or moved on from the camp.

Something else important to note about handing off camps - in particular, popular ones, but this applies to any camp that becomes contested. If you are solo camping, once you attain the item you were waiting for (an AC ring, for example) you are done camping that mob. The person coming to take the camp had better be prepared at this point in order to come eliminate the very next placeholder spawn in order to "stake his claim" on the mob. You cannot work wacky corpse lines on lore items in order to grab multiple items in the same "camp session" if there are others waiting to take the camp. Please be aware that we reserve the right to apply this same ruling to any camp if we deem it necessary, including camps with multiple players.

There is no such explicit ruling for anyone else on the list, and in fact there are no explicit rules about lists at all except for that (that I know of) ... aside from the global "don't be a dick".

But that last one is important. There is for instance this explicit chunk of the Play Nice Policies:

11. You may not defraud other players.

Fraud is defined as falsely representing one's intentions to make a gain at another's expense. Examples of this activity include, but are not limited to, using deception to deprive another player of items, slandering another player or impersonating them with the intention of causing harm to that player's reputation, or falsely representing one's identity in order to gain access to another player's account or account information.

Fraud in all transactions between players may result in disciplinary action when confirmed by a P99CSR.

So when I say things are unclear, it's not because this place has no rules, but just that no GM has explicitly addressed a particular case. If someone pulls list shenanigans, would the staff consider that fraud? Maybe, maybe not, we have to wait until it happens to see.

[cd288]

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

The explicit/specific/"a GM once said it" rule is that the person with the camp (ie. the top of the list) must be honest about who they are giving the camp to next:



There is no such explicit ruling for anyone else on the list, and in fact there are no explicit rules about lists at all except for that (that I know of) ... aside from the global "don't be a dick".

But that last one is important. There is for instance this explicit chunk of the Play Nice Policies:



So when I say things are unclear, it's not because this place has no rules, but just that no GM has explicitly addressed a particular case. If someone pulls list shenanigans, would the staff consider that fraud? Maybe, maybe not, we have to wait until it happens to see.

I’ve had multiple guides and GMs over the years enforce an order if someone told you that your turn was next for the camp and then tried to slot someone else in ahead of you. Come to think of it, Ive actually never had an instance where a staff member did not enforce that if the person ahead of me told me I was next or refused to tell me who was in front of me.

General rule of thumb is that if you’re a dick like that the staff is not going to look kindly upon you and will rule against you.

[Sabin76]

Ok, I think I'm getting a clearer picture both of what the "official rules" are and how those morphed into what we now (supposedly) see at these uberpopular camps. Please correct me if I'm wrong:

1. Alice is camping Mob. Bob, Candice, and Dylan all come to the camp in that order asking if there is a list/to be put on it. Since Bob asked first, and no one else had asked before, Alice says he is next. Both Candice and Dylan are told that Bob is next as well, with no other information given.

2. Once Alice is done, she informs Bob that it's his camp now. At this point, both Candice and Dylan have to ask Bob who is "next" and whoever asks Bob first gets it. While they could have asked Bob before it was his turn (thus entering into an agreement in which a violation would be considered fraud, I assume), Bob was under no obligation to make such an agreement since he wasn't the camp holder at the time. Perhaps Bob wanted to hand it off to his friend, or a guildie, or someone who offered him 5kp to be "next" after him. Who knows. Well, Candice and Dylan will know once it becomes Bob's camp because he has to divulge that information... anyway.

3. While Bob is camping Candice goes off and does some XPing in a neighboring zone (might ruffle some feathers, but I don't see anything prohibiting it as long as she can make it to the camp before the PH pops), Dylan sits there, and Excelsior, Frogo, and Garelt come to ask who's next. Assuming Bob has offered to hand it off to Candice, Bob tells them all that it's Candice. Garelt was the last to show up, but he offers 5kp to be next after her. As before, Candice doesn't have to make a decision now and can wait until she has the camp... or she can make a decision now and it's locked in stone as a "player agreement". Let's say she accepts.

4. However, sometime during Bob's camp, Candice gets tired and logs off. Once Bob's done he tries to inform Candice that she's up, but finds her gone. At this point...??? FTE? Bob decides, arbitrarily, on someone else? Assuming a transaction between Garelt and Candice didn't actually take place yet (it was just an agreement; one that can no longer be completed) Garelt has no more claim to the camp than anyone else.

Essentially, there are three classes of players at a camp: the current camp holder, whoever is next, and a pool of people that are also waiting for the camp who all vie for the "next" spot once there is a hand-off.

However (and this is an assumption I'm making based off of what you guys have provided), maintaining an actual list means that your place in line is an implied "player agreement". In other words, if you were Candice in the beginning and Alice told you Bob was next... as soon as you ask Bob if you can be after him - and he agrees - there is a list and the line can no longer be jumped. Perhaps this was created because people didn't like being in a "pool" of "not next" players for a camp that they then needed to compete for to be next at a hand-off, but once it's created anyone on it should be able to safely assume their place is set. The only caveat being that whoever is last in line can decide not to put the next person on the list and make it a free-for-all when their turn comes up.

Having no obligation to put someone on a list means that the last person is able to sell their spot, if they like. So my LowLevelButAnonymousCharacterThatTotallyCan'tKillA C could get put on the list, sit on my spot for however long it takes to get to position 3 or 4, then sell it (if there are buyers).

On the other hand, as soon as someone on the list cannot actually take over their camp (logging, not being able to get there in time, can't actually hold the camp) things get dicey. Does it become a FFA again? Does it simply go to the next-next person even though there was no agreement between those two players?

Sorry for the wall-of-stream-of-consciousness. I just want to know what to expect when I actually get into a position to perhaps want to take part in a popular camp.

TLDR: it seems to me that actually having a list is a form of "player agreement" that someone can be held fraudulent for if they sell their spot, unless they are the last in line and choose not to uphold the list after themselves.

[magnetaress]

OH MY FUCKING GOD.

Too many words.

Option 1. Be patient and wait for someone to move out the way.
Option 2. Train them then kill the mob loot ur thing and move out the way.
Option 3. KS them.
Option 4. Talk to them and hope they aren't massive #$@%^gets
Option 5. Roll on red 99 and kill them.
Option 6. Rules laywer and post about it on the forums.

Guess what option all you *@#$@#$sexuals on blue and green are opting for.

6

#6

The devils number.

He hates you and you deserve this.