The difference between the Play Nice Policy on this server and Everquest in 2000 &...

[ELance]

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

[*]You have shown zero evidence (unless I missed it in that scrawl) that, according to the classic Play Nice Policy, it was acceptable for someone to to take a mob someone else was camping. As I noted, "kill stealing" (ie. "vulching" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]) in some form was explicitly allowed, but the guidebook never actually clarifies what they mean by that. It might simply refer to two players racing for an outdoor mob and one player getting it even though the second player felt they "stole" it. We just don't know.[/LIST]
Given those points, I really don't see your argument that P99's policies are needlessly unclassic; on the contrary they seem, to me at least, to be "as classic as possible" for a volunteer-run server.

To reduce the quotes even further, from 2001:

"The actual rule is the
first player to cast a spell that engages the critter or melee engages
the critter gets it and anyone else is ksing. Camping is not actually
supported in the pnp, but if called a gm will intervene and say "share.""

From 2000:

"" No one wants to address the fundamental point. Why does being there
: first grant you ownership in perpetuity?
It WAS already addressed. NOTHING grants someone ownership in perpetuity. "


These are representative conclusions from long threads on newsgroups about the Play Nice Policy in 2000 and 2001. It is interesting that you find this so incredible, as this is the way the game was then. You seem to think that the GMs from 1999-2001 defined specific camps and enforced lists for them. What if the camp was only a guild, and didn't wish to let non-guild players in? What if the camp was evil alignment, and didn't allow good characters? The GMs didn't let any certain group of players monopolize exclusive control of a group of mobs by reason of being there first. This would have been considered ludicrous by many players. Why it is not now I do not know; that is why I made this thread. Sometimes I do not wish to join a certain group, and I do not understand why I am threatened with suspensions for sharing their mobs with them.

[reznor_]

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

yikes

*peels out and speeds toward the horizon*

loled

[loramin]

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

The only rules for camping are in the play nice policy availble at
www.everquest.com
Yes, gms do kinda enforce them differently. The actual rule is the
first player to cast a spell that engages the critter or melee engages
the critter gets it and anyone else is ksing. Camping is not actually
supported in the pnp, but if called a gm will intervene and say "share."

First off, the play nice policy "availble" at www.everquest.com is 100% not relevant here. This server emulates classic, not live, EverQuest. If you want to compare apples to apples, you have to look at a classic GM guide, which in fact does explicitly support camping:

8.3 Exploitation
Policy:
Exploitation is defined as abusing weaknesses in the game system to the advantage of one or more players
with the intention of profiting from them in some manner.
...
Things that are not Exploitation:
...
• Camping – sitting in one spot to await the spawn of a monster or item.

But again, even if you look at the classic GM rules, it's still not reasonable to expect such policies here when live had an entire team of paid GMs and Project 1999 does not.

Incidentally, the old staff rules did not prohibit kill stealing. On the contrary, "vulching" was explicitly listed (along with "Camping") as not being an exploitation:

Things that are not Exploitation:
...
• Vulching – “stealing” kills from other players

For reference, here's a link to those old rules.

[ELance]

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

First off, the play nice policy "availble" at www.everquest.com is 100% not relevant here. This server emulates classic, not live, EverQuest. If you want to compare apples to apples, you have to look at a classic GM guide, which in fact does explicitly support camping:



But again, even if you look at the classic GM rules, it's still not reasonable to expect such policies here when live had an entire team of paid GMs and Project 1999 does not.

Incidentally, the old staff rules did not prohibit kill stealing. On the contrary, "vulching" was explicitly listed (along with "Camping") as not being an exploitation:



For reference, here's a link to those old rules.

You didn't read my post. You are quoting a quote of mine from a newsgroup in 2001.

EDIT: To be fair, it wasn't in italics. I would edit it now if I could.

[ELance]

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

You didn't read my post. You are quoting a quote of mine from a newsgroup in 2001.

EDIT: To be fair, it wasn't in italics. I would edit it now if I could.

An addendum to this post (can't edit it any more):

But what policies? All I said was the GMs encouraged players to share and gave warnings for killstealing. This could be accomplished by a post on the message board, "share", and occasional monitoring of players for killstealing when petitions were made You seem to be trying awfully hard to argue this one point. Two understandings about this that I have: 1) the only case of this I have seen on Project 1999 the GMs answered the petition in 10 or 15 minutes...not exactly short-staffed, but again it hardly matters, cause 2) my understanding in classic is players had to fend for themselves. A warning would only be issued for killstealing if a GM witnessed it, and in order for them to witness it they would likely have had to have been notified about it after one or more killstealings had already happened. I read a post on newsgroups about the AC camp in SRO...the consensus was that you had to fend for yourself, GMs wouldn't sit there for hours and hours, and you would have to compete with other players for damage. Why do you think it is bad to compete with other players for damage? On a private server I would expect it would be even more free-wheeling, and as I understand it in 1999 it was... first engagement was the law of the land; kill-stealing as later was acknowledged as grounds for a warning, but only if a GM saw it...and they likely wouldn't have seen anything but malicious and intentional killstealing, not the usual close-call and incidental kind.... My question is why you think and wish that the GMs should protect players from other players as it were. You don't like a virtual world, and wish to live in a controlled environment?

[loramin]

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

Does anyone know where this server went wrong (supposing it was trying to emulate classic Everquest) and why? I have tried to seek answers from the staff, but can come by nothing from them.

"Went wrong" might be a bit too strong for a 100% free all-volunteer run server.

The staff are human, and there are precious few of them. This isn't surprising: to be a staff member you have to love Project 1999 so much that you are willing to never play on it (as a player) ever again. Very few people, who love P99 enough to want to become staff in the first place, are willing to make that sacrifice.

On top of that, because of the lack of tangible benefits, (sadly) many staff members in the past have abused their position to sell favors in one form or another. When they get caught they are of course kicked out, leaving the project with even fewer staff members.

So, in light of all of the above, it's a bit ... naive(?) to expect the same level of customer service that Verant offered back when 1k+ customers (per server) were giving them $9.99 a month to pay GMs (and, in a way, to pay for guides, since those guides had to be supervised by paid GMs).

Hope that helps answer your "why?" If P99 could magically hire a full GM/guide team, like Verant had on live, they could probably handle CSR policies that require more time investment (eg. if you want to force people to share a camp, that takes more time/babysitting than just saying "Bob has the camp").

P.S. Plus I'm not entirely certain that camps weren't a thing everywhere. I did read the entire classic GM guidebook (someone linked it here awhile back), but I don't remember it well enough to say for sure whether it was explicit about camps. It might have been one of those gray areas that varied by server (ie. by GM fiat).

[Bardp1999]

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

to be a staff member you have to love Project 1999 so much that you are willing to never play on it (as a player) ever again.

90% of the forums trolls don't play on the server anymore.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by Bardp1999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

90% of the forums trolls don't play on the server anymore.

cool avatar. looks familiar.

[loramin]

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

cool avatar. looks familiar.

Same thing about America; every time I see her avatar I think of Khannable (or at least I think that's who used to have that avatar, but I'm terrible with names so I could be wrong).

[Legidias]

1. The idea of 'camps' didnt even exist back then so of course there was no official support (for or against them)
2. Unlike P99, all the players on live were paying customers, so of course the company isn't going to be as welcoming to ban / suspend accounts since that directly affects their pay
3. People are still encouraged to share spawns. People are just more greedy / know how to solo them more efficiently than back then.
4. No one is "immediately threatened with suspensions" in a camp dispute. I have been part of several, on the accusing and accused sides, and not once have I seen any mention of suspension. You would only get suspended for either major KS (like SF) or repeated camp issues.

Don't know if trolling, but 20 years and a completely different meta changes a lot.