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

[Mblake81]

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

1. The idea of 'camps' didnt even exist back then so of course there was no official support (for or against them)

3. People are still encouraged to share spawns. People are just more greedy / know how to solo them more efficiently than back then.

I couldn't disagree more with this, at least on Bristlebane in 2000-2001. Camps were already defined by the time I joined and people (I remember a necro forum) had figured out the best ways to level. My live necro followed a 1-50 guide were it took you to the best mobs per level, the best spell combs to use and how to use them. It was already min/maxed.

I dinged 51 the first day of Kunark, by the time my friends and me made it to old Seb the camps were already set, 4 Door (crypt) in particular.

I don't remember a GM/guide ever getting involved about sharing camps.

[Supaskillz]

There were definitely camps on live. Most people respected standard camps. If there was a dispute gms/guides would get involved and may often encourage sharing. We don't have guides/gms on 24/7 on here. Respecting first come first serve on a camp seems pretty reasonable to me.

I have played alot on p99 and had almost no camp disputes so I am always a little confused by these posts. I go to zones I might do a CC or go look at what I want to camp. Someone is there, guess I better do something else. No different from my approach on live. I remember waiting on lists for hours to get into Lord and/or Frenzy groups on live. Why would I want a server where people ignore that and after I camp an area for hours come and sit in front of me and start trying to pull the mobs before I do?

[Jauna]

is this a lulz thread?

[Nexii]

Players definitely had camps and called them back on live. People weren't as cutthroat because they typically only had one main and no alts that were high level. Lawyerquesting people into camp sharing was sure to ruin your reputation.

[ELance]

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

Lawyerquesting people into camp sharing was sure to ruin your reputation.

I agree (among those who held the idea of ownership in perpetuity by reason of being there first), but do not see how this pertains to GMs defining and enforcing camps and suspending players that do not comply. I have seen no evidence in many hours of reading newsgroups that this ever happened in 2000 and 2001, and indeed everything that I have read suggests that this would have caused intense and angry outcry if it ever did happen, and that the policies of this server on camping are the polar opposite of the policies in 2000 and 2001 as to camping.

[bigjeff100]

Aww came here expecting Lulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Teppler]

This server didn't go wrong with camps.

The camp rules being a sensitive issue has more to do this server being a lot more ridiculously top heavy than live. In live Kunark and Velious was like 1/10th the time span as on our server here. People were leveling. They didn't have as many advanced tactics. People didn't know the camps as well.

That being said, camping was still very much a thing. I specifically remember holding down the Ancient Cyclop camp for my jboots back in the day. I remember drama in HHK about what camps were what.

[ELance]

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

This server didn't go wrong with camps.

The camp rules being a sensitive issue has more to do this server being a lot more ridiculously top heavy than live. In live Kunark and Velious was like 1/10th the time span as on our server here. People were leveling. They didn't have as many advanced tactics. People didn't know the camps as well.

That being said, camping was still very much a thing. I specifically remember holding down the Ancient Cyclop camp for my jboots back in the day. I remember drama in HHK about what camps were what.

Alas some people don't seem to understand what has happened here. This is not some natural or understandable outgrowth of a different game or the natural outcome of a private server. These policies are 1) the polar opposite of Everquest in 1999-2001, 2) highly exclusive and controlled in a way that Everquest was not then (Everquest was not only guildies, campers, raiders, and powergamers in 1999-2001. Not all players logged on to sit in a zone doing nothing while waiting on a list. There were roleplayers, many various and not rigidly defined camps, evil players that would not group with good players and soloers) There would have been a tremendous outcry back then if a policy like this had ever been enforced... players told that their only ambition in a zone was to join a list for a group whose only claim to it was that they were there first. What if that group had a Shadow Knight in it and it was a paladin in the zone? The GMs would not have told the paladin to do nothing or be suspended, they would have told the group to share with him. These policies are the antithesis of an MMORPG as it was then and of Everquest in 1999-2001. They are documented as detrimental to the diversity of a playerbase in an MMORPG and thus to a virtual world. It's shameful to excuse them, and any attemps to do so (as far as I have seen) can be seen as pleas for the GMs to make the game a controlled environment rather than a virtual world.

[loramin]

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

Alas some people don't seem to understand what has happened here. This is not some natural or understandable outgrowth of a different game or the natural outcome of a private server. These policies are 1) the polar opposite of Everquest in 1999-2001, 2) highly exclusive and controlled in a way that Everquest was not then (Everquest was not only guildies, campers, raiders, and powergamers in 1999-2001. Not all players logged on to sit in a zone doing nothing while waiting on a list. There were roleplayers, many various and not rigidly defined camps, evil players that would not group with good players and soloers) There would have been a tremendous outcry back then if a policy like this had ever been enforced... players told that their only ambition in a zone was to join a list for a group whose only claim to it was that they were there first. What if that group had a Shadow Knight in it and it was a paladin in the zone? The GMs would not have told the paladin to do nothing or be suspended, they would have told the group to share with him. These policies are the antithesis of an MMORPG as it was then and of Everquest in 1999-2001. They are documented as detrimental to the diversity of a playerbase in an MMORPG and thus to a virtual world. It's shameful to excuse them, and any attemps to do so (as far as I have seen) can be seen as pleas for the GMs to make the game a controlled environment rather than a virtual world.

Ok, first off, Jesus man, press ENTER occasionally! Paragraphs are your friend.

Second, let's start with:

These policies are 1) the polar opposite of Everquest in 1999-2001

What is your evidence that that is the case. I gave you a link to the guide book from back then: quote something that clearly demonstrates what you're talking about.

[Wonkie]

you can play live if you want dps races

move to resolved