Extraction from the EQ Newsgroup, abt camping. They have pretty
interesting points from both sides of the views. If u visit the newgrps
alt.games.everyquest, take a look at this tread ;)
Sine wrote:
>
> So, what your comparing is someone with a career and is working all
> day vs. someone without a career and doesn't work. While I agree that
> there may be issues about the wisdom of how one spends their time
> (real life OR game time), if you don't respect others then you'll be
> viewed by the majority as a Jerk(tm). You can't bring your real life
> "I've got a great career" high-and-mighty attitude into the game and
> say, "You're camping? Obviously your time is worthless. I'll be
> moving to the front of the line now." without having a lot of people
> make a rude gesture at you. How do you survive waiting in traffic?
I survive waiting in traffic because traffic runs in an orderly
progression that's set up by the laws of our country. For the most part,
it is a very effective means of transportation and in addition to that,
I don't really have any other choice. Camping is a player-decided
method, that is not enforced or endorsed by Verant. You mentioned
"moving to the front of the line." Who is their to say that their's a
line? A group of players atht decide there is a line. What if I don't
choose to see a line? Camping for jboots is not a good analogy with
traffic, because it's not effective to the majority. Camping and the
lines are effective for people that have the time and devotion to spend
17 hours straight looking for the item. But what about people that
don't have that time? I guess they are completely exluded from ever
having the chance to own a pair, because they don't choose to follow a
set of guidelines that players create to take advantage of a problem
with gameplay. In my perfect EQ world, there would be no camping, which
is why I despise it in some forms so much. Before I really knew all
these unwritten rules, I went to the derv camps in ro once. There was a
group of 6 there. I sat by and waited and watched as they killed 6 or 7
dervs. I figured they were camping so I let them do it. After their 6
derv, I saw one spawn near me (it was pretty far away from them), and
attacked it. Next thing I know the group runs up and starts to lay a
beating on it. I get the exp, and then proceeded to get cussed out by
the group for attacking the derv. I had no idea what I had done wrong.
I hadn't thought I had KSed since I attacked it first and it wasn't
anywhere near them, and I figured I wasn't being a hog since I let 6
dervs spawn for them before I attacked it. It turns out I was in the
wrong because I hadn't asked for their permission to attack it.
According to EQ logic, since they were there first and had a group, they
"owned" the camp and all it's spawns, and I was being an asshole for
taking one of their spawns and not asking for permission to have it.
It's sad whenever i'm in a group and a soloer comes up and says "can I
have next?" What would they do if we said no? I don't necessarily know
a solution, but the fact that people think that because verant designed
it poorly, they have a right to it makes me sick. I solo a lot, and it
is almost impossible to do that at most camps. So I just go to a camp,
wait until the other groups have had a sufficent and reasonable number
of spawns, and then attack one and drag it away out of group range. I
usually leave after that kill because EQ culture has produced this
environment where players feel guilty about taking another player's
spawn. I follow this culture for the most part. I NEVER atatck
something that another player has already engaged, regardless of whether
I'm "camping" it or not, and if there appears to be a line for
something, I usually blend in with it. But don't ever try to tell me
that you "own" a kill because you have created a line. You don't own
anything in the game until it's in your inventory. And although I may
follow the same general practices of everyone else, I won't buy into the
concept that players have more right to an item than others.
> You're taking a liberal approach (indivual oriented) vs a conservative
> approach (group oriented). You're only concerned about yourself, and
> to hell with everyone else.
An individual approach is conservative, while a group approach is
liberal.