camp rule?

[aaezil]

If you are arguing about a gnoll on a 30 yr old emu you’re prob wrong no matter what

[magnetaress]

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

If you are arguing about a gnoll on a 30 yr old emu you’re prob wrong no matter what

The only way to get lvl 6 on green is to stand on a gnoll spawn.

[loramin]

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

I appreciate what you are saying but since a group can only camp what is in their LOS. Can't a soloer come and claim the highest value camp site. Group is forced to lay claim to that site and subsequently surrender the second highest value site. Not give soloer the crappy camp as in your example.

For the record, I am new to p99. Really appreciate and am thankful for the opportunity to play. The LOS rule is very frustrating and handles traditional group camps negatively.

The first, and most important thing to understand is that the staff "does not play by rules". This is very deliberate on their part, and no matter how much frustration it may cause us players (and it causes a lot), it seems to me a more than a fair trade: we don't get to know the (full) rules of the game, but it makes life easier for the people volunteering their free time to let the rest of us play said game.

Given that they do things that way, the best the players can do is to look at the Play Nice Policies (the only rules they do play by), and the Camp Rulings page. I'll be the first to tell you (as the person who made that page) that the staff is not required to abide by it ... but since GMs mostly rule the same way as each other, it gives us players some tiny clue as to how future GMs will rule.

Getting back to your question, yes the Play Nice Policies do technically say:

You cannot hold multiple 'camps' if another group wishes to contest one that you are holding

and also:

Note: A "party" in this case is defined as a party of one or more characters that are united in a common belief or goal and are capable of completing that goal

(which sort of implies that earlier "you" meant any sized group). However ...

A) in practice the first group there always keeps their choice of camp (that's in the PnP, and it prevents your hypothetical soloer from showing up and taking a good mob); since very few groups want to take the "less good" camps this generally discourages fights

B) even if there is a fight and someone gets "rules lawyery", when a staff member shows up there's absolutely no guarantee whatsoever they'll "rule" in favor of the person to trying to take the camp

C) regardless of the rules, very few people are assholes enough to muscle in on somewhere a group is clearly holding down

And C really gets to the heart of things. 99% of the time the staff doesn't get involved, so the rules are simply "don't be a dick" and everyone abides by that. The rules mainly come into play when two soloers both want some valuable rare named mob, and "lawyer up" over it.

Thus my C/E example. By a strict reading of the rules, it would seem a C/E group, faced with a soloer showing up, would be forced to pick either Emp or Heiro, and give the next best camp to the soloer.

That might happen ... but again there's a lot more than just the rules to prevent it from happening, 99% of the time it will never even get to GMs, and even that 1% when someone thinks they understand how to rules lawyer, a GM might well surprise them. For instance, since the PnP never actually says "groups only get one camp", a GM could very easily decide the group gets six camps, and the soloer can take blood/cube or go somewhere else. No one truly knows until it happens and someone posts about it after in the forums.

[magnetaress]

Try red.

[gherron]

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

For instance, since the PnP never actually says "groups only get one camp", a GM could very easily decide the group gets six camps, and the soloer can take blood/cube or go somewhere else. No one truly knows until it happens and someone posts about it after in the forums.

This is probably one of the most concerning things about the server: rules are written but they don't actually have to be enforced by GMs deciding on these conflicts.

[loramin]

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

This is probably one of the most concerning things about the server: rules are written but they don't actually have to be enforced by GMs deciding on these conflicts.

Well again, they do play by the Play Nice Policies ... it's just that those rules are deliberately crafted to leave a lot ambiguous.

But while I can understand (and share) the frustration over that ambiguity ... two things. First, you have to remember that these rules don't even come into play 99% of the time, and even when they do 99% of those cases don't have any ambiguity whatsoever: everyone involved can know exactly what the ruling will be in advance. The ambiguity is mainly a way to handle a whole lot of "1%" cases.

Second, I really think you need to consider the alternative. Clearer rules would make the staff's life harder, which means the server would have a harder time recruiting and keeping GMs (because no one wants to do all the hassle of volunteering to let others play a game while also having to consult an 80-page rulebook ... and having to deal with the whining rules lawyers who will quote 79 irrelevant pages of that book in an attempt to change every ruling).

Now, consider one last fact: Project 1999 has by far the best GM support of any emulated EQ (and arguably any emulated MMOG). When you look at the big picture ... would you really want to lose that just to get clearer rules?