Iksar said: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:
Joppa mentioned that negative feeling of "not wanting to leave" for unhealthy periods of time but that is literally a byproduct of camp enforcement. When camps aren't enforced you are free to come and go as you please and there isn't this massive sense of urgency to stay until you 'fulfill the order' that you had to wait in line to get. After all these years we're still stuck with a bunch of 'maybe this' and 'probably that' in regards to how competition for resources will actually work.
"We know we're committed to open-world. We know we're committed to shared environments and shared experiences. We know we're committed to competition over resources."
He then explains how important it is to "lightly manage the situation" and that's where FTE is going to be leveraged for raiding. He also explains that's why they have maintained MDD for everything outside of raiding because they really highly value that sense of player lead community/agency.
But then ... this is where I get lost. He mentions having to take their philosophies and places where they are really really really firm (commitment to open-world, shared environments/experiences, competition over resources???) and then find what wiggle room there is within that context.
I don't get it. Why can't we just stick to core philosophies and embrace that we're really really really firm on something? Why do we have to go digging for wiggle room? If VR has to define/enforce camps then they aren't really part of that "player-lead community paradigm" are they?
What exactly is being competed for when camps are defined/enforced? Spots in a waiting line/list? Is that the kind of open-world shared experience that we're committed to? This is one of those areas where I draw a line in the sand. I want a commitment to open-world shared experiences that feature competition over resources and I want it on a PVE server. No waiting lines, concession stands, parking spots, or merchandise in a shopping cart. Is that a reasonable expectation? Will we have at least one or two PVE servers where we wouldn't be governed by camp enforcement?
oneADseven said:Will we have at least one or two PVE servers where we wouldn't be governed by camp enforcement?
At this point it would be worth asking will every server define camps differently on the enforced camping rights servers? They cannot agree on the format for how camps should be defined so will they have multiple variations of camp rights each unique to a single server? How many PNP variant worlds would there need to be to make people happy?
A world where the legal deities only care about physical presence.
A world where the legal deities only care about booking the camp as you would book a room in the library.
A world where the legal deities let you own all respawns within a timelimit if you have killed them.
Worlds where the legal deities allow you to evac in the event of a train and worlds where they do not.
You could actually solve all the PNP problems at the same time and save money on GMs with a single server... a server that uses instances... Just please never let them transfer off the instanced server into an open world.
"If I'm camping AoF for 48 hours and someone comes in and steals it, that isn't a good day. So what do we do about that?"
You avoid the situation entirely by not recognizing camps and setting people up for that kind of failure. The mob can only be "stolen" if someone has "ownership" of it which was never supposed to be a problem in Pantheon anyway. You stick to the commitments you bring up immediately afterward which are open-world, shared environments/experiences, and contested resources. If you're truly committed to those things then you should be able to say, definitively, which side of the spectrum the game will fall on. Anybody and everybody can camp AoF as much as they want since the content isn't owned by individual players. The rate at which people come/go/stay is entirely player-driven rather than something that needs to be regulated by GM overlords. It's really that simple, IMO.
Lol, here we go again. The options are not 100% anarchy or 100% instances and nothing in between. The options are not 100% open world or 100% camps and nothing in between.
I'm glad Iksar dug up that roundtable because it reminds me that Joppa is very much aware of the conflicts that can plague an open world and is doing various things to alleviate them and I'm pretty darn sure he won't dismiss Squigglybops if they would help (and they would, so he won't).
disposalist said:Lol, here we go again. The options are not 100% anarchy or 100% instances and nothing in between. The options are not 100% open world or 100% camps and nothing in between.
I'm glad Iksar dug up that roundtable because it reminds me that Joppa is very much aware of the conflicts that can plague an open world and is doing various things to alleviate them and I'm pretty darn sure he won't dismiss Squigglybops if they would help (and they would, so he won't).
It's funny you say that because the pain point alluded to by Joppa was a byproduct of Squigglybops or whatever else you want to call it. The only way that content can be "stolen" from you is if you feel that you are "entitled" to it. Players wouldn't feel compelled to hold a camp for 24-48 hours straight if they weren't regulated by some ridiculous waiting line policy.
oneADseven said:Joppa mentioned that negative feeling of "not wanting to leave" for unhealthy periods of time but that is literally a byproduct of camp enforcement. When camps aren't enforced you are free to come and go as you please and there isn't this massive sense of urgency to stay until you 'fulfill the order' that you had to wait in line to get.
That's not true and I'd argue players spend more unhealthy periods of time under a FFA "competition" model.
When camps exist and are enforced you only spend time at that camp (more often as a group of players than solo, which is the reverse in an FFA environment) when you manage to claim it before others or get invited to fill an open slot, the rest of the time you know to go do something else/find another item to work toward in the meantime so little to no time is wasted in standstill "gameplay" vs other players.
In the FFA model you are more or less required to spend vast amounts of time trying to claim a named/rare against other players, often spending that time doing little more than hovering over the spawn point(s) for hours/days/weeks. An endless stream of players from day to day stepping on one another to fulfill their own desires, other players be damned. Repeat this for most every item you might desire for progression beyond a certain level. To me this is an extreme amount of unhealthy "gameplay."
Even spending an hour or two camping something and having someone else (or more) show up and swipe everything from you because they out-level/out number/out-gear you sucks. Being pushed out by "might makes right" sucks. Being expected to invest countless hours in standoffs vs other players with nothing to show for it more often than not, sucks.
Also if you want to fast track named/rare mobs for most of the leveling journey being mostly done by players solo and/or high enough to render any challenge pointless, then FFA sure fits that bill. Under camping these things tend to fall into the hands of level appropriate players much more often as they are in the zones already grouping/leveling, ready the moment a camp opens and otherwise constantly filling with level appropriate players.
Iksar said:That's not true and I'd argue players spend more unhealthy periods of time under a FFA "competition" model.
When camps exist and are enforced you only spend time at that camp (more often as a group of players than solo, which is the reverse in an FFA environment) when you manage to claim it before others or get invited to fill an open slot, the rest of the time you know to go do something else/find another item to work toward in the meantime so little to no time is wasted in standstill "gameplay" vs other players.
We seem to disagree on how "unhealthy" should be defined. My point was that when camps are not enforced players can come and go as they please. They can spend an hour here, a couple of hours there, a few hours over here ... at their leisure. If someone wants to take a break for any period of time they can do that without forfeiting anything. This is the total opposite of what Joppa described where players felt compelled to stay up for 24-48 hours straight because they didn't want to lose their camp. That didn't sound fun or healthy so it makes very little sense to me that we would want to recreate those variables.
Iksar said:In the FFA model you are more or less required to spend vast amounts of time trying to claim a named/rare against other players, often spending that time doing little more than hovering over the spawn point(s) for hours/days/weeks. An endless stream of players from day to day stepping on one another to fulfill their own desires, other players be damned. Repeat this for most every item you might desire for progression beyond a certain level. To me this is an extreme amount of unhealthy "gameplay."
You aren't required to do anything. Smart players will learn the lay of the land and be opportunistic with their time. You always have the option to compete if you feel up to it but you could just as easily go somewhere else where the conditions are more favorable. The fact that multiple groups can occupy/contest a single camp actually opens up more opportunities elsewhere since those same players can't be two places at once. Shared Space + Shared Goals + Finite Resources is not synonymous with unhealthy gameplay ... that is a ridiculous take.
oneADseven said:"If I'm camping AoF for 48 hours and someone comes in and steals it, that isn't a good day. So what do we do about that?"
You avoid the situation entirely by not recognizing camps and setting people up for that kind of failure. The mob can only be "stolen" if someone has "ownership" of it which was never supposed to be a problem in Pantheon anyway. You stick to the commitments you bring up immediately afterward which are open-world, shared environments/experiences, and contested resources. If you're truly committed to those things then you should be able to say, definitively, which side of the spectrum the game will fall on. Anybody and everybody can camp AoF as much as they want since the content isn't owned by individual players. The rate at which people come/go/stay is entirely player-driven rather than something that needs to be regulated by GM overlords. It's really that simple, IMO.
Will people not be annoyed at something because it's de-regulated? Or is it still annoying, but the de-regulation means they have no formal basis on which to challenge any behavior they get annoyed by, which is even more annoying?
If we refuse to recognise the concept of camping, will that stop people camping? Or is it as Joppa said; when you want something, you will want to stay there until you've got it.
If someone else comes along after you've been trying for a particular drop for 24 hours and they beat you in MDD and get that drop, does it matter if camps are 'recognised' or not? Does it matter if kill-stealing is recognised or not? Or will it still be incredibly annoying either way?
Joppa went on to talk about various ways to mitigate that issue, but why are we hyper-focusing on 'camping' anyway? That doesn't address the OP or the issue.
No matter what mechanics VR eventually decide upon for any and all aspects of the game, if Pantheon is the open world we all want then there *will* be contention, large and simple, subtle and complex and variations between in many situations in the game, and that *will* cause conflict sometimes.
The question of the thread was "is community policing a naive wish?"
Surely the point is, do we really think that a mass of individual player interpretations, opinions and social judgements on loads of different game issues will somehow spontaneously emerge and amalgamate into a useful and usable set of idea/policies/rules/values/whatever and will then spread somehow and be accepted and adopted by everyone?
Even if we thought that slow and painful process were possible and didn't itself *cause* some kind of commuity self-destruct, how long would it take and would the game survive in the meantime?
If we really think that developing and sharing some definition of what our community policing should look like is somehow possible, do we really think that would be a better for the game than something that VR could/should come up with in line with their knowledge of, and vision for, how the game plays?
The answer seems obvious to me and grows more obvious with every misunderstanding and argument in these forums: No, it would not be better to put something as important as addressing contention problems and potential toxicity in the game in the hands of 'community policing'.
When camps exist and are enforced you only spend time at that camp (more often as a group of players than solo, which is the reverse in an FFA environment) when you manage to claim it before others or get invited to fill an open slot, the rest of the time you know to go do something else/find another item to work toward in the meantime so little to no time is wasted in standstill "gameplay" vs other players.
This is speculative at best , alot depends on the WHY? Why, is the person is camping a specific spot in the first place , is the content trivial ?
Am I camping for a alt , then im probably solo or boxed if it is trival content.
Is the camp or mob a cash camp or sell loot camp ? Then it becomes a min/max situation where , what can we beat the encounter with and maximize the drop / loot chance per person.
The argument that it even matters is void , because we can continue to do circles.
The entire problem with is in a pnp system , the reality is you will NEVER get a camp if a specific % of a server population wants to shift and maintain a specific camp or encounter.
The FTE system at least allows you a chance to engage the target , this becomes even more so important when we start to discuss aspects of level 1 vs level 50s or even worse monopolization of content in this situation.
I also want to know why , it is being used for raid encounters only and not the entire game ... if the journey is all that jazz and stuff.
Jobeson said: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!
So, you want me to write out a Pnp for you, or my idea is a bad one? Did you see the road to Alpha and Kilsin stating that we shouldn't tell them what exactly to do?
I want a pnp, that protects camps, because I think it's a good idea, and would help retain customers like me. I'm not going to write one out for you, again, VR won't appreciate it. Lawyers are expensive anyways.
I'm not sure what changing their overall vision for Pantheon has to do with simply enforcing camps.
How would the camp rules I mention allow camping multiple rare spawns? I believe I stated that precious resources should be taken into account. To re explain that for you, of course most camps should only include 1 rare spawn just because of a well spaced out world. Any that don't should still have clear lines between rare spawns so that you can pick what you are camping and what you are not, OR difficult enough content that one group certainly can't cover nearly as much space as you think they will be able to. I personally hope it's difficult, but either works.
Also this idea you have that me asking for a camp-pnp is bad because I haven't followed a camp-pnp to the letter before... What do other games have to do with Pantheon's potential camp-pnp? As I said, a camp pnp is a relatively unique thing and I was 9 when I played everquest. As you said, eq2 has no camp pnp, and again as I said, neither does anything else cuz instances. I don't believe ff11 had one. P99 is free, so no, I don't care about their rules, but it seems like i followed them ok, naturally.
oneADseven said:disposalist said:Lol, here we go again. The options are not 100% anarchy or 100% instances and nothing in between. The options are not 100% open world or 100% camps and nothing in between.
I'm glad Iksar dug up that roundtable because it reminds me that Joppa is very much aware of the conflicts that can plague an open world and is doing various things to alleviate them and I'm pretty darn sure he won't dismiss Squigglybops if they would help (and they would, so he won't).
It's funny you say that because the pain point alluded to by Joppa was a byproduct of Squigglybops or whatever else you want to call it. The only way that content can be "stolen" from you is if you feel that you are "entitled" to it. Players wouldn't feel compelled to hold a camp for 24-48 hours straight if they weren't regulated by some ridiculous waiting line policy.
oneADseven said:Iksar said:You aren't required to do anything. Smart players will learn the lay of the land and be opportunistic with their time. You always have the option to compete if you feel up to it but you could just as easily go somewhere else where the conditions are more favorable. The fact that multiple groups can occupy/contest a single camp actually opens up more opportunities elsewhere since those same players can't be two places at once. Shared Space + Shared Goals + Finite Resources is not synonymous with unhealthy gameplay ... that is a ridiculous take.
Two places at once:
People will always feel the need to stay on all day every day for camps, with or without camp pnp, UNLESS that pnp also includes rules enforcing the amount of time you can spend at a camp. At least then they would have to move to different camps. Naturally, rotating members of a guild in and out of a camp would still be a problem here unless the pnp addressed them as well.
The pnp ends when competitive players/groups of players can no longer perma camp anything special on the server, for personal gain and/or denying others that gain.
Galden said: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.
- Player/group is warned of this by a debuff on the mob that lists the name of the player with highest increment.
- The reduction is for the entire group based on the player whom has killed it the most.
- Any kill is incremented for everyone in group/raid even if they recieve no loot.
- Based on group that does 51% of damage.
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
This is not a bad idea at all. It would certainly reduce the number of camp-related reports, without needing instances. Thank you!
BeaverBiscuit said:So, you want me to write out a Pnp for you, or my idea is a bad one? Did you see the road to Alpha and Kilsin stating that we shouldn't tell them what exactly to do?
I want a pnp, that protects camps, because I think it's a good idea, and would help retain customers like me. I'm not going to write one out for you, again, VR won't appreciate it. Lawyers are expensive anyways.
I'm not sure what changing their overall vision for Pantheon has to do with simply enforcing camps.
How would the camp rules I mention allow camping multiple rare spawns? I believe I stated that precious resources should be taken into account. To re explain that for you, of course most camps should only include 1 rare spawn just because of a well spaced out world. Any that don't should still have clear lines between rare spawns so that you can pick what you are camping and what you are not, OR difficult enough content that one group certainly can't cover nearly as much space as you think they will be able to. I personally hope it's difficult, but either works.
Also this idea you have that me asking for a camp-pnp is bad because I haven't followed a camp-pnp to the letter before... What do other games have to do with Pantheon's potential camp-pnp? As I said, a camp pnp is a relatively unique thing and I was 9 when I played everquest. As you said, eq2 has no camp pnp, and again as I said, neither does anything else cuz instances. I don't believe ff11 had one. P99 is free, so no, I don't care about their rules, but it seems like i followed them ok, naturally.
You clearly have never used a PNP before which is why I am asking you to write one that you think everyone / most people approve of. You did not "follow them ok, naturally" you broke them repeatedly without knowing it. I broke them daily while knowing it back in EQ. Do you know how I broke them every day? In EQ I would tell people to leave my camp. Thats it... I broke the PNP. Do you think players should be able to tell others to leave "their camp?"
It was illegal. 99% of my server did it along side me. We all broke the Devs law. We punished players who broke OUR law. And worst yet we corrupted a minor, the poor 9 year old BeaverBiscuit thought they were following the law by using camps our way. You thought you were righteous when in fact you were a criminal breaking the PNP to be cool and fit in on a lawless server.
So write up your own set of rules. The rules Pantheon should enforce. Workshop them with all the players to agree on A SINGLE SYSTEM for camp ownership and camp rights. A system everyone can largely agree on. I will continue fighting for the server communities to make and enforce their own rules.
Jobeson said:BeaverBiscuit said:So, you want me to write out a Pnp for you, or my idea is a bad one? Did you see the road to Alpha and Kilsin stating that we shouldn't tell them what exactly to do?
I want a pnp, that protects camps, because I think it's a good idea, and would help retain customers like me. I'm not going to write one out for you, again, VR won't appreciate it. Lawyers are expensive anyways.
I'm not sure what changing their overall vision for Pantheon has to do with simply enforcing camps.
How would the camp rules I mention allow camping multiple rare spawns? I believe I stated that precious resources should be taken into account. To re explain that for you, of course most camps should only include 1 rare spawn just because of a well spaced out world. Any that don't should still have clear lines between rare spawns so that you can pick what you are camping and what you are not, OR difficult enough content that one group certainly can't cover nearly as much space as you think they will be able to. I personally hope it's difficult, but either works.
Also this idea you have that me asking for a camp-pnp is bad because I haven't followed a camp-pnp to the letter before... What do other games have to do with Pantheon's potential camp-pnp? As I said, a camp pnp is a relatively unique thing and I was 9 when I played everquest. As you said, eq2 has no camp pnp, and again as I said, neither does anything else cuz instances. I don't believe ff11 had one. P99 is free, so no, I don't care about their rules, but it seems like i followed them ok, naturally.
You clearly have never used a PNP before which is why I am asking you to write one that you think everyone / most people approve of. You did not "follow them ok, naturally" you broke them repeatedly without knowing it. I broke them daily while knowing it back in EQ. Do you know how I broke them every day? In EQ I would tell people to leave my camp. Thats it... I broke the PNP. Do you think players should be able to tell others to leave "their camp?"
It was illegal. 99% of my server did it along side me. We all broke the Devs law. We punished players who broke OUR law. And worst yet we corrupted a minor, the poor 9 year old BeaverBiscuit thought they were following the law by using camps our way. You thought you were righteous when in fact you were a criminal breaking the PNP to be cool and fit in on a lawless server.
So write up your own set of rules. The rules Pantheon should enforce. Workshop them with all the players to agree on A SINGLE SYSTEM for camp ownership and camp rights. A system everyone can largely agree on. I will continue fighting for the server communities to make and enforce their own rules.
Again, Kilsin has specifically asked that we do not involve ourselves that directly. Asking me to write up a pnp for you is simply ridiculous. You are raving.
I don't care if I broke EQ's rules. If they didn't warn, suspend, nor ban me that's their problem. That's why I hope Pantheon has a pnp that is properly enforced.
That being said, workshopping a pnp is a swell idea, if VR decides to ask us to do so with them. Though I suspect they will play it smart/legal and hire someone instead. If they decide to do a pnp which they are pretty unlikely to do, that is.
Workshopping PNP is fine, but they have to, in the end, be produced and published by VR, else they cannot enforce them and they will need to, ultimately, enforce them.
Yes, *with* PNP, or whatever you want to call them, the community could, to a certain extent 'police' itself. It is what I have said all along. *If* there is a PNP, the community will have some idea of how the game is intended to be played and what situations can arise and how they might resolve them. They can try and use persuasion or shame or whatever other social effort to 'enforce' those PNP and most people will simply *want* to be good citizens and follow them.
When players *don't* however, as we know some won't, you know when you can /report and GM/CS can, ultimately, do the enforcing.
Jobeson said: The point of asking you or anyone to write a mockup is because no one will agree on the definition of camps, mandated sharing, duration, handoffs, guild lockdown, solo lockdown, two guilds handing it off etc. The fact you have gone against PNPs in the past in favor of a "community policing" shows exactly what PNPs will end up doing in Pantheon. If the PNP is not what you want you will ignore it as you have done in the past. If the PNP is somehow what you want others will ignore it because your system is unfair in their eyes. Camps worked best when they were enforced by the community that created them.
People find it hard to ignore warning messages from actual gms. Other games didn't have much in the way of actual enforcement. The situation is potentially quite different. Of course I don't wan't a pnp that fails because it never gets enforced. That's why i said all that drivel about hiring customer service reps for $20 an hour.
It is VR that would write the pnp if they made one, and us who would either agree with it, tolerate it, or not play the game. I trust they would not make one that is too disagreeable. Depending on their planned playerbase, VR might even have servers with slightly different pnps. Who knows what they do, exactly, I only make the suggestions, and do my best to make it feel like it can be done.
I always figured games mmos could have differently priced servers, even if it's not over camp pnps specifically. You should be able to pay for closer customer service, and not have to pay as much if you aren't picky.
Around and around it goes. No progress, just arguing the merits of each point of view.
If VR say there are no camps, then anyone claiming a camp does not have a right to that camp. Officially it is first attack, first ownership. If camps emerge from the community, then it is just down to people agreeing that camps exist and abiding by a consensus. But if someone does not agree to the consensus, then there cannot be a right of reply or recourse.
If VR say there are camps, then anyone claiming a camp does have a right. This right must be backed up by VR. If a camp is broken, then there has to be a mechanism to stop players from doing so or to provide recourse when a player breaks the camp rules.
My favoured course is either not have camps at all or provide a mechanism in game that officially creates a camp area. What if you actually put down a campfire to claim a camp:
An area around that campfire then becomes a no-hunt area for anyone outside of the owning player/group. I.e. only the owning player/group can attack mobs inside of that camp zone. If any mob is trained into a camp area, it will not attack anyone in the group that "owns" the camp (unless that mobs is attacked by one of the owning players).
Each player participating in a camp should not be allowed to camp in that zone again for a day (RT) to discourage exploitation and encourage exploration.
A camp should have a time limit on it, say an hour of active play or a period of 5 minutes of inactive play or disconnection, or some such period to discourage exploitation and encourage exploration.
If two camps overlap, the first camp has ownership of the contested area.
If a game mechanic such as the above is used (and I am not saying it is perfect), then it becomes part of the game and there is no argument as to what a camp is or whether it is valid or enforceable.
If VR do not provide a mechanic or official recourse for camp enfringement, then camps cannot exist in any enforceable way. I know this doesnt adress issues of mob spawn rates over an hour long, but I think it is a starting point to find a solution that works for everyone and not just for some.
chenzeme said:Around and around it goes. No progress, just arguing the merits of each point of view.
If VR say there are no camps, then anyone claiming a camp does not have a right to that camp. Officially it is first attack, first ownership. If camps emerge from the community, then it is just down to people agreeing that camps exist and abiding by a consensus. But if someone does not agree to the consensus, then there cannot be a right of reply or recourse.
The recourse is up to the players as it was in EQ. When a group blatantly breaks server etiquette the server can respond with ease. You want to strong arm a group? Try strong arming two groups of people who show up to deny the aggressors group the loot. ooc calls for support worked wonders. When people actually want camps they can enforce them on their own. If its just you in a zone and another group shows up to take "your camp" you may lose it, but anywhere with tons of people will find support. Anywhere highly contested easily has community policing.
MMO communities are a beautiful thing. Not everyone will show up for every person's belief in a violation. This made people upset but it also goes to show you what the server believes a camp really is. I never showed up for solo campers in general. I never showed up for people in guilds who approve of "taking camps" Members of those guilds gave up their rights to protection by being a part of the problem. I would go out of my way when an appropriately leveled group got strong armed out of their camp or worse when a high level tries to take a camp from appropriate leveled players.
They already said they don't care if someone comes and kills your mob that you've been camping for hours. Idk why this has gone on for so long.
Everyone wants an open world competitive game until they realize they are on the wrong side of how the community is going to act.
There have been plenty of suggestions of how to create healthy competition. FTE puts everyone at the same level, doesn't matter if you're level 1 or level 50, you hit the mob first its yours. Creating variable spawns for named mobs when it comes to location and respawn timer will create an even playing field for anyone involved.
Having a robust endgame will allow for people to make the decision to do what's best with their time. If you have 9 different things you can be doing when you hit 50, you might care less if someone strolls into your camp where "random armor #6" drops.
Instead of going back and forth for 12 pages. Start to change your mindset. Stop thinking that just because you killed a random ph, or a group of mobs that you own them. Stop thinking that everyone who walks into your camp is just going to steal all your exp and loot, start preparing for the excitement of competition and maybe win a contested named. Stop labeling all competition as toxic just because it doesn't fit your ideal video game.
Everyone in this community has an idea for what would make the best game and its all different. We are all here because of the promise of an old school game that is somewhat difficult and gets away from the 1-50 solo adventure. And that's what we're getting. Stop having expectations from previous games and start having an open mind towards this new game, even if you don't get 100% what you want.
Jobeson: The recourse is up to the players as it was in EQ...
I played EQ1 when no one shouted out camps and it worked. I played EQ1 when camps started to be called. And that worked (mostly). I have played eq2 and most other mmo rpgs too. In all of that time, I have never once seen the community at large take action over an individual. Not once! Words were often said and threats made and GMs got involved and calmed things down. Thats it. But any action was always meted out by the GM (if ever).
You use EQ1 as an example, but mmos have moved on radically from it, as has player expectations. The old ways are not always the best way.
When people actually want camps they can enforce them on their own.
How? Those taking any action against anyone (transgressor or not) will be breaking codes of conduct too! Players do not have the ability to stop any player from acting in any way they see fit. They can harass, yes, but just as bad as any camp breaking. You then go on to say:
If its just you in a zone and another group shows up to take "your camp" you may lose it
So you then admit that you cannot enforce camps!
MMO communities are a beautiful thing.
Indeed they are, but they should not be used for enforcement. Mob rule is not an answer (and is seldom beautiful) and is usually based on hearsay or worse. Who has the right to judge a situation without all of the facts at hand. Without FULL game logs, you cannot be sure you are being fair to either party.
There is nothing here that has persuaded me that the community can successfully stop willful breaking of codes of conduct, or indeed should. Hanging someone for something they didnt do is just as bad as any true transgression.
I hold by my above view: You either do not have camps and anyone claiming such has no leg to stand on (because the community cannot enforce anything without breaking codes of conduct themselves) or you officially have camps and it must be enforceable by VR or controlled in game.