Green99 pro strats and early game goals

[loramin]

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

You also make no sense saying "on Live there was only player A and B, but on p99 there is player C too."

I think Nisrak really explained the "why Green will be different from live" part best:

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

I, personally, never saw this happen on live, possibly because I had no idea what I was doing for the first year of EQ, and I think that's the same for most people. That's really at the heart of how green will be different from live: player knowledge.

And as for the rest ... actual question: how did you even write your reply to my post?

Did you just:

• A) read part way through the post and get so riled up that you just stopped reading there?

Or did you:

• B) read my post, decide that parts of it directly contradicted your point, and so you'd rather pretend like I hadn't written those parts, and reply to an imaginary version of my post instead?

Because those are the only two scenarios I can imagine where a competent reader of the English language could go from:

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

C shows up, and wants the camp ... after A finishes, but while B's still doing it. C won't know (or believe) B's claim that it's his, and there's no one to back up B's story up, so C petitions (second interaction).

to:

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

If player "C" shows up at a camp where A + B are present, then they can clearly see that they would be 3rd on the rotation list. If player A leaves, then player B is still clearly ahead of them on the list. This is not difficult to understand.

[Zuranthium]

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

There may be some merit to the kill rotation versus camp ownership argument, but there are a lot of fine points that need to be worked out and people would fight about. It's not all as simple and clear as you say, Zuranthium. For example, is the rotation based on killing the named? or the PH? Or getting the drop that the person wants?

It is simple and clear. Rotations are based on having the rights to kill and loot whatever spawns when it's your turn, and that's it. One person/group gets their chance, then the next person/group on the list, etc. This is always what happened in classic EQ during the PnP era. The only extra thing to consider is if something is an instant spawn off the placeholder, in which case it's tied to whoever killed the placeholder.

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

And as for the rest ... actual question: how did you even write your reply to my post?

You should ask that to yourself, as you literally didn't respond to a single point I brought up, only repeated your same nonsense.

Loramin, you have a constant history on these forums of trying to talk about things you don't understand, while acting like you're some kind of paragon of insight. This thread is yet another example.

[Nisrak]

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

It is simple and clear. Rotations are based on having the rights to kill and loot whatever spawns when it's your turn, and that's it. One person/group gets their chance, then the next person/group on the list, etc. This is always what happened in classic EQ during the PnP era. The only extra thing to consider is if something is an instant spawn off the placeholder, in which case it's tied to whoever killed the placeholder.

I never remember seeing this in classic, but like I said, in early classic I was pretty clueless. I always remember camps being taken by 1 group, except for rare cases where there was more than 1 group could handle. I also immediately see several issues with this policy, for example:

- Person A desperately wants this item and proceeds to camp it for 12 hours strait with no luck. At this point, person B pops up and says "oh, I'll take next kill, why not!" Item drops and person B gets it (or charges person A an obscene price for loot rights). Person A then /q's forever.

- Person A makes a killer group and finds an open, difficult camp. They fight their way down and perform the difficult break. Random pickup group says "oh, let's get in on this" and come down and mooch off the spawn.

[Nisrak]

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

The current policy on p99 rewards the most toxic gameplay of all, with specific no-life players being able to continuously block content from everyone else. "Waiting lists" on current p99 don't actually mean anything, because whoever is at a camp can hand it off to whoever they want. 2 people who play in separate 12-hour shifts can 100% lock down a spawn by handing it off to each other, while everyone else who tries to wait, thinking they might get a chance, actually has no chance and is only unknowingly wasting their time. That's total bullshit.

This is actually a very good point and is not classic. I have yet to hear a good solution, but how about something very simple that at least avoids total monopoly: a shared list for the most contested camps that everyone can see. A simple google doc would even suffice, as long as permissions get worked out, etc. There is still the issue of a group of friends locking the camp down for long periods of time, but technically this is unavoidable even with just 1 character if several people take turns playing them. Maybe a time limit on how long a single player can take certain camps?

Ultimately, there are going to be neckbeards under any ruleset and they will be getting contested camps the majority of the time, as they should. We should, however, at least give less hardcore players a chance to participate.

[fortior]

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

This is actually a very good point and is not classic. I have yet to hear a good solution, but how about something very simple that at least avoids total monopoly

LORE

[Videri]

Alright, you kids, am I gonna have to lay down a Post Nice Policy?

[TripleBoc]

From all this discussion, I have decided to try and find spots at each level that provide decent exp but crap loot to avoid as much drama as possible. I'll just be that caster that wears cloth and hopes to be able to afford the important spells, but at least will be advancing.

Path of least resistance at the cost of luxury items to be at peace while playing.

[Pogi]

We handled camps on Jboots/guise like this on Veeshan, and it was a great way to do it. Of course, I doubt it would work here because it would require a consensus by all involved, but I'll mention it anyway.

Group 1 breaks camp and establishes a loot order of the mask. Call it 1-6. Mask drops and 1 loots the mask, he then leaves group. He is replaced by a player that is on the waiting list to join group, and that player becomes number six, while 2-6 move up on the list.

[Titanas]

This is NOT classic but would solve a TON of issues with people fighting over the Big camps (Manastone, DEmask, Jboots, ect) Use Box of Abu-Kar code and just make those items drop off of any mob of that level or greater in the zone at a reduced Rate.

[aaezil]

No to all of the above!

Also none of you will be getting guises/manastones as im unemployed and have no friends and live in my moms basement where she brings me 3 meals a day and i have a toilet built into my gaming chair.