Dev: Camp Rules on TLP

That would be better than nothing, but if they don't set the zone cap low enough, you'll still have multiple content disputes.

Actually, I really like my similar-to-trivial-loot-code idea....don't banish players from the zone, but instead, once you (and everyone in your group at the time you engaged the mob) loot an item, again, using the FBSS as the poster boy, you receive a 2-3 hour status that biases the game against that item dropping for you again. Or 12 hours, if that's what it takes.

Or, since they have advanced loot, it will still drop, if the RNG says that it will, but you and members of your group cannot loot it (and others can, regardless of DPS victory). I cite advanced loot because SURELY, since they've been messing with the code, they could come up with something?

I mean, to the people who just looted it, they'll see it on the corpse or on their loot window, but it will say "you are not eligible to loot this item for 6:00 hours". This means they can't pick it up to destroy it, either.

Yes, people can use alts to get around it, but is that 6 man boxer guaranteed to have 6 alts ready to fight for it?

Edit: Woops, I didn't see that you had mentioned 75 in another post. I think 75 is high enough that you'll still have content disputes. Maybe 45 would be better (for L guk, not universally).

The only way the server will survive is if the population itself makes it happen. What I mean is that if the playerbase stands against the griefing by griefing the griefers. Top end guilds want to lock everything down and not care? Pull together 2 raids and follow them around to out dps them all night. Same thing goes for the people doing it at camps. If we as the playerbase dont stand for it and let it happen then maybe things would change. DB doesn't need to put in any rules or enforce any rules. We can. Question is will people band together to do it.

Personally, I've been back and forth about even trying the server. But its $15 so not much of a reason not to. I spent that on 2 days of lunch. I'll give it a month and see where it stands then.

75 people is still too much for Lguk imo. Thats like 13 groups ... are their even 13 camps in there? I would go with a number closer to 50

Maybe they could just permanently keep 3 instances of Guk and Sol B (er, well...not sure how to address Naggy being in there, maybe he only spawns in #1), open for all of Classic. Then when Kunark comes out, these are reverted to 1, and in Kunark they keep 3 versions of 2 zones there open, and so on in this fashion until we hit GoD.

I chose 3 because I'm thinking we're likely to have 3-4 times the pop of a Classic server.

Did you actually play on Fippy or Vulak?

That is a terrible idea. If they keep 3 of each zone permanently active, then the major camps would be perma camped in 3 instances instead of 1.

The dynamic aspect is what makes this a good idea. IF/WHEN the zones are completely packed, then and only then a new instance spawns.

Grish - The instances don't despawn until empty, so once they spawn the first time the same thing would happen anyhow, they'd get permacamped the same.

It's a nod to the realities of the server's overcrowding. 48 people, or 8 different groups, all contesting the FBSS, won't even open a new instance.

The idea definitely has potential.

75 players might be a big much for overflow instances of LGuk but I used a number that I thought would be higher rather than have people criticize me for suggesting a low number.

Even if it's dynamic then people will just game it till they get the new zone. It's more work but it would happen

Pretty clear most people in this thread did not, or they would realize whats going to happen.

so your guild is gonna ally with another and follow the top raid guild around to spoil their night? GL making that happen with spys from the top guild in your guild undermining everything you try. they will be in your vent/chat servers, they will be trying to take your top players on a nightly basis, they will have the market locked down, they will have 5x as many accounts in their guild, showing most every zone, which guilds are in that zone, and where guild raid forces are moving. They will always be 2 steps ahead of you and your play nice guild, the sad truth

if the congestion is bad having an extra version of the zone open to spread the population out is not a horrible idea, though it really does little to address a group moving back and forth on a rotation DPS racing and locking down both named or raid spawn points, the end result will be those capable of taking a named spawn point and holding will merely gain at twice the rate, assuming the zone is always up, if its a spawned or created zone after x amount of players enter as an overflow, then players will use that to create fully popped zones clear what they want all exit and allow it to repop and repeat, ie abused.

It really is a no win situation permanent camps are just as detrimental as killstealing, my suggestion would be to embrace the idea of using raids to hold named spawns until the population settles into sharing group camps that can result in experience for everyone long term and a more pleasant play experience overall. How much easier would it be to enter lower guk and ask to join the Lower Guk raid that is camping the whole zone rolling Need/Greed and dropping from the raid if you get your drop than battling 6 vs 6 for every spawn, yes competing raids may arrive but that just frees up other hunting areas. Would you rather have a 1 in 36 chance of getting loot or no chance?

That is some serious doom and gloom stuff. He made a good point about a guild requiring a certain standard of conduct from their members. Maybe at the end of the day you aren't able to beat out a-hole guilds. At least you log off at the end of the day without selling your soul for Internet loot.

You won't need to have spies in my guild. I'll tell you where I am. More often than not, I'll be right next to your leader as he won't miss out raid loot. They won't be in my vent (or mumble in my case) because I boot out unverified people.

If they choose to spend $100 a month to have toons in every zone, more power to them. Only takes 1 person in a zone to notice where they are at the time and with world chat it's just that much easier.

Locking down the market ... cant lock it down if people are dps racing them and beating them consistantly.

Your whole post is doom and gloom. Is it possible, absolutely. Hence the reason I made the post about finding a way to stop it. I am not in any way advocating for pristine game play but having 1-2 guilds lock everyone else out of the game should not be acceptable. We ALL pay to play not just them. The only way your post comes to life is if the server lets them do it and doesn't stand up to them.

Or people could just have some common decency but we all know that won't happen

Of coarse not, nor would I subject myself to anything like what's being described, and I ask, why would anyone else? If it's that bad, go somewhere else. I said I have high hopes, however, I certainly wouldn't bet against you on Ragefires future. If it gets that bad, people will leave, and DBG will have another ghost town.

Lol, correct you are on that, I've gone through most of it in the last few months on a live server.

Hmmm

If you are planning to play on Ragefire, then yes you will be subjecting yourself to that toxic environment. Fippy/Vulak were at least moderated, somewhat, by the infrequent appearances of GM's, that won't happen here. As for why others would subject themselves to it? They played EQ when it launched on what were then considered to be crowded servers, so those people believe they know what they are in for.

I'm still on the fence with Ragefire, if the right guild forms I will give it a try, but I wouldn't stay if it turns into Anarchy, I've simply got 100 other things I could be doing. Like I said, I have high hopes that we have evolved past poo-flinging monkies, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Can at least give it a try, as bad as it's going to for the first month or so it is going to be enjoyable.

One of the biggest problems I have with all this is that if there's a mass exodus after a couple months because of all this crap it will be considered a failure. They won't say "Oh, the specific rules of this server don't work, let's try better rules for the next one." Instead they will say "Well, I guess people don't want another progression server after all, no point in starting another one."