Jobeson said:BeaverBiscuit said:I'd say reasonably sized is how much a group can comfortably handle, 1 mob at a time, once they've broken it in. So X/Y/Z criteria. Of course, you take the nearest valuable resource into consideration. Most people won't care if you take a trash mob out of their camp, accidentally. I know I wouldn't. I'd leave it to VR to determine specifics beyond that.
Of course, you can't have specific sizes for every camp without a ridiculous pnp, so you have people who determine it, case by case. The general rule to follow is "don't kill something that just spawned next to someone else who got there first".
A "good samaritan" section of the PnP is fine.
Your example clearly goes against EQ, EQ2, and P99 PNPs. If you followed those rules you would be reported and be in the wrong using the PNPs we actually have seen. Lets hope the GM doesn't ban you for playing the wrong way.
nwoooo I sowwwyyyy don't ban me!
Still though, I never got any warnings from those games, so if I think differently than they do, and still don't get banned, it's a good sign for their policies not being too cumbersome. We could certainly explore their wisdom if actually building a Pantheon PnP.
It could just be because they didn't properly enforce, though.
Honestly if you are respectful in all you do in a game people probably won't report you even when you break the rules.
When I played Everquest as a dumb 9 y.o. I was far from respectful, though. Who knows what the story is.
BeaverBiscuit said:nwoooo I sowwwyyyy don't ban me!
Still though, I never got any warnings from those games, so if I think differently than they do, and still don't get banned, it's a good sign for their policies not being too cumbersome. We could certainly explore their wisdom if actually building a Pantheon PnP.
It could just be because they didn't properly enforce, though.
Honestly if you are respectful in all you do in a game people probably won't report you even when you break the rules.
When I played Everquest as a dumb 9 y.o. I was far from respectful, though. Who knows what the story is.
Well most people fully ignore the pnp, apparently people like you who thought they understood it as well. This goes back to one of the reoccurring points that the users of the PNP are often the "abusers" in the eyes of most people. I could legally report you and take your camp for violating the PNP. To you I would be an aggressive person trying to steal "your" camp, but the PNP would be on my side.
Jobeson said:BeaverBiscuit said:nwoooo I sowwwyyyy don't ban me!
Still though, I never got any warnings from those games, so if I think differently than they do, and still don't get banned, it's a good sign for their policies not being too cumbersome. We could certainly explore their wisdom if actually building a Pantheon PnP.
It could just be because they didn't properly enforce, though.
Honestly if you are respectful in all you do in a game people probably won't report you even when you break the rules.
When I played Everquest as a dumb 9 y.o. I was far from respectful, though. Who knows what the story is.
Well most people fully ignore the pnp, apparently people like you who thought they understood it as well. This goes back to one of the reoccurring points that the users of the PNP are often the "abusers" in the eyes of most people. I could legally report you and take your camp for violating the PNP. To you I would be an aggressive person trying to steal "your" camp, but the PNP would be on my side.
Well of course, if the established rules support you and I don't know them despite them being made "convenient" to know them, I'm in the wrong.
Even though I consider myself a "spirit of the law" type of person, I give proper respect to "letter of the law" types.
However, taking my camp because I broke a rule seems a little much if I'm only on the warning phase, if the camp is indeed mine.
BeaverBiscuit said:However, taking my camp because I broke a rule seems a little much if I'm only on the warning phase, if the camp is indeed mine.
Players don't give you warnings, they take the camp that is open because you have abandoned it. It is only clearly yours to you, but not by the law of the PNP or to the GM if you try to report the other group.
Jobeson said:BeaverBiscuit said:However, taking my camp because I broke a rule seems a little much if I'm only on the warning phase, if the camp is indeed mine.
Players don't give you warnings, they take the camp that is open because you have abandoned it. It is only clearly yours to you, but not by the law of the PNP or to the GM if you try to report the other group.
That's why I want an enforced pnp, so that my camp is clearly mine to all involved.
BeaverBiscuit said:Autonomy is certainly possible with an enforced camp-pnp and no instances. It's just a method you don't personally find acceptable.
Autonomy is not a "method" -- it is a state of being. Camp enforcement compromises the sense of freedom and moral independence that I cherish which by definition would destroy the autonomy that I am looking for in an open-world MMORPG. I believe that competition is an essential aspect of play and have zero desire to be assimilated to someone else's ideals. For what it's worth, I do hope that VR creates special PNP-enabled ruleset servers for those who want that sort of thing. I want Pantheon to be a game that we can both enjoy even if that means we have to play on separate servers.
BeaverBiscuit said:That's why I want an enforced pnp, so that my camp is clearly mine to all involved.
It is being enforced, you are simply causing chaos by trying to play by a different set of rules. You want to have your own idea of PNP, but you wont write out the actual rules for it. Write it all out and try to sell it. All of the other players who are pro PNP will disagree with you as much as you disagree with the versions of PNP that you misremember. Enforcing the camp would be a GM telling you to leave for playing wrong and likely warn you against making false claims on your tickets.
EQ2 PNP doesn't even have camps. You are simply forced to share and compromise the spawns. They don't go into details they just force you to share. If you can't agree you write up a ticket and wait. Anything goes while the GMs go through all their tickets.
P99 PNP says you are not claiming a camp at all. They don't define camps that way for you to protect.
Jobeson said:BeaverBiscuit said:That's why I want an enforced pnp, so that my camp is clearly mine to all involved.
It is being enforced, you are simply causing chaos by trying to play by a different set of rules. You want to have your own idea of PNP, but you wont write out the actual rules for it. Write it all out and try to sell it. All of the other players who are pro PNP will disagree with you as much as you disagree with the versions of PNP that you misremember. Enforcing the camp would be a GM telling you to leave for playing wrong and likely warn you against making false claims on your tickets.
EQ2 PNP doesn't even have camps. You are simply forced to share and compromise the spawns. They don't go into details they just force you to share. If you can't agree you write up a ticket and wait. Anything goes while the GMs go through all their tickets.
P99 PNP says you are not claiming a camp at all. They don't define camps that way for you to protect.
That's what discussion is for, I assume. As well as your right to make sure a game fits you before you sink too much money or time into it. My version of a pnp does not need to be set in stone, so long as it gets the gist of what I want it to accomplish. I can certainly lose some camps because the rules hate me, I just don't want it to happen regularly.
oneADseven said:BeaverBiscuit said:Autonomy is certainly possible with an enforced camp-pnp and no instances. It's just a method you don't personally find acceptable.
Autonomy is not a "method" -- it is a state of being. Camp enforcement compromises the sense of freedom and moral independence that I cherish which by definition would destroy the autonomy that I am looking for in an open-world MMORPG. I believe that competition is an essential aspect of play and have zero desire to be assimilated to someone else's ideals. For what it's worth, I do hope that VR creates special PNP-enabled ruleset servers for those who want that sort of thing. I want Pantheon to be a game that we can both enjoy even if that means we have to play on separate servers.
Why thank you!
I hope you get your server and your game and an awesome guild too!
Of course I still totally disagree with you, everything besides sheer consciousness has some sort of method to it, that makes it work. It has nothing to do with this conversation though.
Also, as I said before, I found your first really big post here pretty inspiring. I do hope VR can accomplish that kind of thing in a pleasant way, I'm just pessimistic, is all.
BeaverBiscuit said:That's what discussion is for, I assume. As well as your right to make sure a game fits you before you sink too much money or time into it. My version of a pnp does not need to be set in stone, so long as it gets the gist of what I want it to accomplish. I can certainly lose some camps because the rules hate me, I just don't want it to happen regularly.
Ambiguity is the problem. Its not a discussion of people who want PNPs, its a discussion of people who want their individual idea of PNP vs players who don't want PNPs. There are people who want PNPs that would rather play with no PNP than what you suggest. Are you going to go read and master the PNP of what you don't think is fair and follow it to the letter? Even players at large don't follow it to the letter.
Worst case of no PNP means you a player takes what is "yours" and you choose to do nothing in response.
Worst case of PNP means a GM bans you for harassment, lying on tickets, and slandering players who took a camp legally.
Which of those games would you quit first?
Jobeson said:BeaverBiscuit said:That's what discussion is for, I assume. As well as your right to make sure a game fits you before you sink too much money or time into it. My version of a pnp does not need to be set in stone, so long as it gets the gist of what I want it to accomplish. I can certainly lose some camps because the rules hate me, I just don't want it to happen regularly.
Ambiguity is the problem. Its not a discussion of people who want PNPs, its a discussion of people who want their individual idea of PNP vs players who don't want PNPs. There are people who want PNPs that would rather play with no PNP than what you suggest. Are you going to go read and master the PNP of what you don't think is fair and follow it to the letter? Even players at large don't follow it to the letter.
Worst case of no PNP means you a player takes what is "yours" and you choose to do nothing in response.
Worst case of PNP means a GM bans you for harassment, lying on tickets, and slandering players who took a camp legally.
Which of those games would you quit first?
Then VR will simply have to ensure that their camp-pnp is easy to understand, if they make one. In addition, give warnings and suspensions before bannings. If I made a bad ticket, I wouldn't do it again after a warning. Harassment would only happen if I blew up upon my camp being stolen, which hopefully won't be a problem.
BeaverBiscuit said:Then VR will simply have to ensure that their camp-pnp is easy to understand, if they make one. In addition, give warnings and suspensions before bannings. If I made a bad ticket, I wouldn't do it again after a warning. Harassment would only happen if I blew up upon my camp being stolen, which hopefully won't be a problem.
You are pro PNP but didn't follow any of those PNPs that I am aware of. All current MMOs stopped using PNPs for a clear reason. Which PNP do you want VR to emulate other than your own idea of what a PNP should be? You think they are a good idea but none of them have done what you suggest a PNP should be.
Jobeson said:BeaverBiscuit said:Then VR will simply have to ensure that their camp-pnp is easy to understand, if they make one. In addition, give warnings and suspensions before bannings. If I made a bad ticket, I wouldn't do it again after a warning. Harassment would only happen if I blew up upon my camp being stolen, which hopefully won't be a problem.
You are pro PNP but didn't follow any of those PNPs that I am aware of. All current MMOs stopped using PNPs for a clear reason. Which PNP do you want VR to emulate other than your own idea of what a PNP should be? You think they are a good idea but none of them have done what you suggest a PNP should be.
A camp-PnP of their own, that is enforced by a person who has that job, that defines what camps are and defend's people's rights to them. No need to emulate others. Yes, they shoud look at other pnps for the language used and ideas, but Pantheon is a different game that is dead set on doing new stuff anyways.
No other game I know of besides EQ1 has even bothered with camps much. Instances became a fad pretty quick. Back then there weren't as many fun tools for customer service reps.
Other pnps typically just cover stuff like racism, so there's not much to emulate there for a camp-specific pnp.
I'm not sure if anything starting with "all current MMOs" is a very good argument relating to Pantheon. VR are pretty hipster.
BeaverBiscuit said:A camp-PnP of their own, that is enforced by a person who has that job, that defines what camps are and defend's people's rights to them. No need to emulate others. Yes, they shoud look at other pnps for the language used and ideas, but Pantheon is a different game that is dead set on doing new stuff anyways.
No other game I know of besides EQ1 has even bothered with camps much. Instances became a fad pretty quick. Back then there weren't as many fun tools for customer service reps.
You want one but you don't want to talk about any of the rules a camp should have? You think its a great idea without actually working things out and showing an example, without ever following a PNP from what it looks like. Your earlier example would let a single group camp multiple named spawns. Is that what the majority want on your PNP server? That goes against my definition of a camp and every PNP's example of camps.
VR has no plan on doing what you want, but they need to change their vision for you. Rather than coming up with an alternative to have them use you just say you want a system that has never existed, but you don't have examples or ideas to give them and have the people rally behind. You want VR to try to build and enforce the ideal system for you.
Honestly I am having horrible flashbacks of software development. We just want this simple idea that has never existed and we can't describe!
Most people are discussing in a quite 'theoretical' way because Pantheon is new (not even got to the 'being new' stage yet, in fact) and will be different. How can we know exactly what PNP would/should look like for Pantheon?
People have spoken about 'camps' including myself because it's a well-know problem point that, right or wrong as a concept, has related PNP to help players get along.
Some are suggesting PNP, as a general concept, could be beneficial, in addition to not-too-restrictive mechanics and more solid rules *whatever* those are. That community policing would not be enough and to *not* consider PNP to help with whatever Pantheon ends up looking like, would be just... silly. PNP are guidelines to help players to get along, no matter what the related mechanics or policies are.
To suggest that PNP are bad, in general, because previous games' implementations haven't been perfect or they didn't like them is.. I dunno... not really very helpful.
It's why I started calling them Squigglybops: Because Pantheon PNP would be different and as soon as you say "PNP" some people react because of the PNP of previous games.
Wanting something that doesn't exist and can't be exactly detailed yet seems pretty reasonable placed up against claiming you know something that doesn't exist and hasn't been detailed yet will definitely not work.
With that in mind, I'm going to mention camps again...
According to VR's recent comments, there will not be the concept of camps in Pantheon. Fine.
This is a *great* reason why Pantheon needs Squigglybops.
The concept of 'camps' was developed to help players *avoid* contention and conflict on other games.
A *lot* of players will come to Pantheon having the notion of camps imbedded in them as 'a good thing' or 'a bad thing' but definitely 'a thing' from previous games that Pantheon is said to be inspired by.
Without knowing that Pantheon was designed with that concept definitely *not* in mind, they will possibly (probably) end up getting annoyed with other players who are happily smashing through others' old concept of 'camps' and MDDing away (not kill-stealing, for there also is no such thing) monsters they have engaged. Maybe they will quickly 'get' that there is no such thing as camps, but maybe that will put them off Pantheon, because they don't realise Pantheon doesn't *need* camps. Who knows. Which is the point.
Without Squigglybops to refer to (some might even read them *before* playing!) people will be left to moan and argue and feel hard-done-by with no idea - and even 'wrong' old ideas - of what is 'right' or 'acceptible' apart from the old "the game lets you do it, so it must be fine" might-is-right concept which we know very well easily ends in the kind of conflict that Squigglybops help avoid.
Players have many concepts like 'camps' from many other games before, and from the etiquette they apply in thier life even, that they will apply to the social situations of an open world like Pantheon.
Here's the point: I do not know what is going to end up being points of contention in Pantheon, but I am very sure there will be some, therefore I am very sure that if VR do not let people know what they are and what might be good practice in those situations they are effectively saying, "we know there will be trouble, we know better than anyone, because of our years of experience and because only we know the details of how Pantheon works, where/when/how that trouble is likely to occur, but we don't care to help avoid that trouble by telling players what we know".
I don't know if there might be issues with excessive camping, kill-stealing, content blocking or whatever *have* been problems in the past, but I am sure there *will* be potential issues like that and to ignore something, like Squigglybops, that might help and just rely on 'community policing' would be naive and negligent at best.
VR don't *need* to tell people how the UI works. They could just let people work it out for themselves and get frustrated and annoyed and maybe stop playing because they assume the rest of the game will be just as frustrating and annoting. VR would be foolish to not put some effort into guiding people through UI use, no?
I'm suggesting the same (or similar) applies to the game-related social situations that VR know very well can occur and may be frustrating and annoying without guidance. They would be foolish to not put some effort into guiding people through.
People may still be frustrated and annoyed with the way some of Pantheon plays. At least they will be informed on how it is intended and won't bother /reporting or being toxic or, if they do, will know very well, as will everyone else, that they are 'in the wrong', because the Squigglybops say so.
disposalist said:People may still be frustrated and annoyed with the way some of Pantheon plays. At least they will be informed on how it is intended and won't bother /reporting or being toxic or, if they do, will know very well, as will everyone else, that they are 'in the wrong', because the Squigglybops say so.
This is exactly why I want nothing to do with a PNP that defines camping. I want to see real social contracts emerge from the player base rather than having everybody be painted as right or wrong according to Squigglybops. Let players make up their own minds instead of trying to impose a single false truth on everyone.
oneADseven said:If someone wants to sell Breastplate X for 1,000g and someone else decides they want to sell it for 990g, one could call that "forced competition."
Market PvP is, I think, is far more fun than 'real' PvP. Constantly undercutting everyone to drive down market prices so far that you get to a point where you buy up all their stock and stupidly low prices then immediately put it back up at a much higher price? And the best thing is nobody can do anything about it! I made hundreds of thousands of platinum in EQ1 doing exactly that and, I suspect, will be able to do that in Pantheon as well.
oneADseven said:disposalist said:People may still be frustrated and annoyed with the way some of Pantheon plays. At least they will be informed on how it is intended and won't bother /reporting or being toxic or, if they do, will know very well, as will everyone else, that they are 'in the wrong', because the Squigglybops say so.
This is exactly why I want nothing to do with a PNP that defines camping. I want to see real social contracts emerge from the player base rather than having everybody be painted as right or wrong according to Squigglybops. Let players make up their own minds instead of trying to impose a single false truth on everyone.
It's players that came up with the concept of camps that so many here appear to dislike, isn't it? They were just formalised in PNP later, no? I accept I may have that wrong, but either way, a lot of players think camps are a great idea and will for Pantheon. I'm not saying they *are*, but if VR think camps are not good for Pantheon shouldn't they tell their players that?
Also, why should they imagine that camps are bad, but other concepts players come up with would be fine for Pantheon? Why do *we* think that players, as a whole, know what is best for the game, or if they think they do, have a hope of agreeing on anything? If Pantheon's backers here can't agree, what hope do general players have?
The idea that players, as a whole, will have the ability and will to somehow decide as a group what is best to reduce conflict and toxicity in the game, then action that themselves somehow, I find that laughable. Personally I can see that going horribly wrong or in a direction that only a vocal or powerful minority prefer or some other mutant weirdness that evolves. In fact we've seen that go wrong. It's why PNP evolved.
Or are you suggesting it should always be up to the individuals to decide and agree the details of each and every social interaction, fingers-crossed style? I think we've seen how badly that goes.
I'd rather get VR, with intimate knowledge of the underlying mechanics, and a vision of how the game should play, to guide players at least in that general direction. They've developed every tiny detail of the game - we trust them to know what is best for everything fundamental. They've decided there will be no camps or kill-stealing, but it's best if players decide the intracacies of how to deal with problems in the absence of those concepts?
This is where I'm a little disappointed with VR re. this issue. They appear to have said what is *not* going to be a 'thing' in Pantheon - easy to do - but not what *will* be a thing to address the issues that things like camps and kill-stealing rules addressed. Those concepts didn't appear for no reason and whilst I'm not saying that they were the best solutions, I *am* saying that to ignore the issues and have nothing is a terrible idea.
Anyway, as I've said before, Squigglybops VR come up with don't have to be prescriptive or controlling. They can merely *identify* the potential issues and make folks aware. Actually VR *don't* have to decide what they want players to do, but they could at least give players the benefit of their knowledge about MMORPGs in generaland, of course, knowing Pantheon in particular, and give a variety of examples and suggestions of what issues can occur and how things might be resolved.
Players *can* then decide for themselves what they want to do, case-by-case, encounter-by-encounter, or even guild-by-guild and server-by-server if they can somehow get a good concunsus, but at least they have some reasonable ideas set out by VR to set them in a reasonable direction from an informed position.
Contested content was discussed during a previous Developer's Round Table here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccJw9KwzVy4&t=812s
The end of the answer is probably the most telling of all: "With something like Blackrose Keep, I think we see a better example of an area where you have multiple pathways to get to some of the same places ... but even then, you're not going to (in this kind of game) eliminate the contested content."
There you have it, folks. Shared Space + Shared Goals + Finite Resources = Contested Content
Whether you enjoy contested content or not, it is part of the game and it isn't going anywhere.
A few months after that DRT, the topic of competition and kill credit came up again during part 2 of that DRT: https://youtu.be/U0uPswhN4to?t=1791
The distinction is that kill credit will be settled by FTE for raid content and MDD for everything else.
The rationale behind FTE was clarified again here: https://youtu.be/U0uPswhN4to?t=3029
The big head-scratcher for me is wondering why FTE is being used for the limited amount of raiding but not the vast majority of group-centric content? We know that raiding will only be a small percentage of the overall game and if it is being acknowledged that FTE solves a lot of issues (for both the developers and the players) then why wouldn't we want to see a more generous application of it? I would like to hear an explanation that covers which problems FTE solves. Are these problems exclusive to raid content only?
Vandraad said:Oh, and if working out a PnP policy were actually possible, you all would have done it already. Yet here we are, 11 pages into this and nobody has actually managed to agree upon anything.
No, we wouldn't, because it's not our place to do so any more than we are designing the game itself.
I've got some ideas and I've given them, but I'm more than willing to accept that they are personal and others won't agree.
It's VR's sometimes unenviable task to decide how they want the game to work. Avoiding issues that might make players conflict is part of making the game 'work'. To ignore those issues would be hugely naive.
They have apparently decided they don't wants camps or kill stealing as concepts to effect the game. I'd like to know if they have any ideas they *do* want to use to address potential conflict.
Even if they truly have decided that they want to just let players have a Wild West might-is-right experience, then they could *still* produce guidance to help players negotiate the issues they know *can* be problematic in such an experience.
To bring it back to the OP - to rely on Community Policing is to do nothing when VR could and should do *something* with their decades of experience and unique knowledge of the game itself (ie. Squigglybops) rather than just cross their fingers and hope it doesn't get toxic and lose players.
oneADseven said:...
The big head-scratcher for me is wondering why FTE is being used for the limited amount of raiding but not the vast majority of group-centric content? We know that raiding will only be a small percentage of the overall game and if it is being acknowledged that FTE solves a lot of issues (for both the developers and the players) then why wouldn't we want to see a more generous application of it? I would like to hear an explanation that covers which problems FTE solves. Are these problems exclusive to raid content only?
Well, yes. Similarly with kill stealing, VR identified it as an issue, but not one bad enough to want to do anything about unless it is done in some kind of way that constitutes harassment...
As you say, if there is an issue requiring FTE as a solution, why doesn't that apply everywhere?
This further explains my feelings toward Squigglybops (guidance of some kind). If VR are acknowledging problems that need solving and admitting they aren't solving them at all severities or in all situations, surely they need to explain to players why and when if they hope to not get a ton of /reports when players follow MDD behaviours in one encounter and then FTE in another then get confused in another etc etc.
*shrug* Whatever mechanics and hard rules are in place there will be edge cases and strangenesses where simple guidance could help.
As long as we are pulling VR/Joppa quotes, I think the most relevant to this discussion is here where Joppa goes in depth for 15+ minutes and mentions not wanting people really taking mobs from others or engaging in heavy player conflicts/FFA on PvE servers and being in favor of having some sort of defined camps or otherwise:
https://youtu.be/DT6PVU95H48?t=1925
Jobeson said:P99 PNP says you are not claiming a camp at all. They don't define camps that way for you to protect.
They give pretty strong guidelines.
The definitions below are not absolute and Project 1999 Staff will not be defining what constitutes every "camp". All examples blow are just that, examples. Instead, Project 1999 Customer Service Staff will arbitrate spawn disputes on a per-case-basis. We greatly encourage players to find their own resolution to spawn disputes, as the solution provided by the staff will at best be a win-lose situation, and possibly a lose-lose situation. No two decisions, even at the same 'camp', are guaranteed to be the same, as we will take into account multiple factors in making a determination on a 'camp'.
That being said, you can absolutely "camp" mobs, and you cannot steal another players 'camp'. In general, if the placeholder or placeholders for a spawn are being killed, that 'camp' can be considered held by the player doing the killing so long as they are keeping the placeholders (or the room if there are no placeholders) cleared, within the same zone, do not die or log off. You do not necessarily need to be at the spawn point to call it 'claimed' while it is uncontested, however, if someone else wishes to contest the 'camp' you do need to return to the 'camp' and maintain a presence at or very near the spawn(s) in order to hold it. You cannot hold multiple 'camps' if another group wishes to contest one that you are holding. The player holding multiple 'camps' retains the right to choose which 'camp' to give up.
Please do your best to use courtesy and common sense when interacting with other players in spawn disputes.
To be honest, I think long term camping of the most problematic type should be mechanically limited.
e.g. Same spawn (placeholder or not) killed by same players X times in a real day = reduced loot/xp and eventually no loot/xp.
Make it a reasonable amount - say 2-3 hours worth of killing spawns - Encourages group rotation and discourages camping for excess periods.
If anyone is capped out and killing spawns with no loot in order to deny others then this is a PNP breach
Other PNP should basically be to stop *#!$hats without impacting core mechanics
- /Reported for training repeatedly = watched and if caught warned
- /Reported for breaking CC etc. on mobs not owned = watched and if caught warned
- /Reported for trade scam = logs reviewed and warning given
- /Reported for abusive language = logs reviewed and warning
- /Reported for gold trading = logs reviewed and warning
Iksar said:Jobeson said:P99 PNP says you are not claiming a camp at all. They don't define camps that way for you to protect.
They give pretty strong guidelines.
The definitions below are not absolute and Project 1999 Staff will not be defining what constitutes every "camp". All examples blow are just that, examples. Instead, Project 1999 Customer Service Staff will arbitrate spawn disputes on a per-case-basis. We greatly encourage players to find their own resolution to spawn disputes, as the solution provided by the staff will at best be a win-lose situation, and possibly a lose-lose situation. No two decisions, even at the same 'camp', are guaranteed to be the same, as we will take into account multiple factors in making a determination on a 'camp'.
That being said, you can absolutely "camp" mobs, and you cannot steal another players 'camp'. In general, if the placeholder or placeholders for a spawn are being killed, that 'camp' can be considered held by the player doing the killing so long as they are keeping the placeholders (or the room if there are no placeholders) cleared, within the same zone, do not die or log off. You do not necessarily need to be at the spawn point to call it 'claimed' while it is uncontested, however, if someone else wishes to contest the 'camp' you do need to return to the 'camp' and maintain a presence at or very near the spawn(s) in order to hold it. You cannot hold multiple 'camps' if another group wishes to contest one that you are holding. The player holding multiple 'camps' retains the right to choose which 'camp' to give up.
Please do your best to use courtesy and common sense when interacting with other players in spawn disputes.
Beaver's example of a camp was to have camp rights to as many spawn points as you can hold. This clearly goes against the camp you just quoted. If someone tries to claim ownership over 20 spawn points in P99 their claim would be voided as P99 boils down to you only holding a single spawn point, usually where the boss pops out.
Beaver's design for a camp would mean he owns any trash spawns his group can kill and if his group can kill two named spawns then he owns them both.
This is why I keep pushing for you all to agree on a system you want to see. Build out a system you can all agree on and tell VR you think it is superior and should be polished by them.
Galden said:Other PNP should basically be to stop *#!$hats without impacting core mechanics
- /Reported for training repeatedly = watched and if caught warned
- /Reported for breaking CC etc. on mobs not owned = watched and if caught warned
- /Reported for trade scam = logs reviewed and warning given
- /Reported for abusive language = logs reviewed and warning
- /Reported for gold trading = logs reviewed and warning
These are not unique to PNP and I think everyone expects them to be in the game to some degree. I would bet you could get a large number of people to push back further and agree to banning people for intentional trains or RMT for gold.