I basically agree with Mik, with one clarification which I think
addresses the intent of the policy. I think the intent is to address
"abusive" use of camping by high level players, for example one 50th person
sitting in and zapping the spawner immediately upon arrival over and over
again.
So if Mik and his shaman friend want to camp Mistmoore for an item and
I'm in line, I think they're welcome to do it for as many times as they have
members in their party. After that I'd like them to yield to the next
person. If they want to get as many as they have members in their guild, I'd
ask them to step aside at some point.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mikaela <mikaela1@...>
To: <EQ-Clerics@onelist.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 1999 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [EQ-Clerics] Yield Policy
> From: "Mikaela" <mikaela1@...>
>
> I'll tell you what my whole opinion is on this camping/yield issue. I
think
> the
> first group there stays there, regardless of their level. And noone is
able
> to throw
> another group out if that group was there first.
>
> I have wanted a nightshade wreath and gem sceptre for ages. So today,
> myself and 5 other level 50s went to camp MM castle. Everything there was
> green to us, but myself and a level 50 shaman friend wanted wreaths and
> sceptres, which we didn't have. Under Brad's rule, if a group of
> level 35+ comes, and they can get exp for that area, then we have to yield
> and give up a spot we have been at for hours. Tell me where the fairness
in
> THAT
> rule is.
>
> Since there are very few places I can get exp anymore and have maxxed
> out level 50, I am going around and getting items I don't have because I
was
> focusing on exp and helping others level as well. I plan to do the Paw of
> Opallo quest next. Mitty is green to me, as is Gynok Moltar. Should I
have
> to leave camping them just because lower levels come to camp for the same
> items I
> want? I think that is totally unfair. Just because I am level 50 doesn't
> mean I"m not
> entitled to get items I don't have just because the mobs don't give me exp
> anymore.
>
> Again, my opinion is....first there stays there. Then when they leave,
the
> next group in line gets the camp spot. I don't think levels should have
> anything to do with who gets the camp spot. I don't think high levels
> should force lower levels away from a camp spot, and I don't think lower
> levels should be able to force higher levels away if they were there
first.
> To do it any other way discriminates against one group over another
(higher
> vs. lower).
>
> And I'll tell you this....if a GM tells me to leave a camp spot I have
been
> at
> for hours for an item I don't have that I want just because some lower
> levels arrived and want my spot, then I won't be playing EQ for very
> much longer.
>
> The only fair way IMO is first there stays there, regardless of level,
then
> whomever was next gets it next, and so on and so on. Get in line and take
a
> number. No one group of players should be favored over another.
>
> To do it Brad's way, would mean that any player that didn't get an item
> while he/she was
> able to get exp from that particular mob could basically never get that
item
> cause they could be
> thrown out of the camp spot everytime lower levels came along. This is
> totally not fair.
>
> Mik (who abhors discrimination or favoritism in any way, shape or form)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Erik Maynus <jmaynus@...>
> To: EQ-Clerics@onelist.com <EQ-Clerics@onelist.com>
> Date: Saturday, September 11, 1999 11:41 PM
> Subject: [EQ-Clerics] Yield Policy
>
>
> >From: "John Erik Maynus" <jmaynus@...>
> >
> >What does everyone think of this Yield Policy? In case you never heard
of
> >it, it Brads new way of getting rid of high lvl characters camping lower
> lvl
> >spawn points.
> >This is what he said but it
> >
> >"If a higher level player who would get no exp for the kill is camping a
> >spawn, and a group of players that would get exp (meaning they should be
> >there) wants to fight there, the higher level player must yield. The
lower
> >level group has the right of way.
> >
> >As for the other disciplinary information in that post, it sounds like
the
> >same policy that's always been in place: if you are warned several times
> and
> >continue to break the rules, you will be banned."
> >
> >Do you all think this will work or just tick off a lot of players? I'm
not
> >sure if I'm for it or not, but also remember if your a camper doing this
> and
> >you're warned a few times you'll be banned from the game. I don't really
> >camp, I do in a few spots but not a lot but only in places that give me
> exp.
> >He said it wouldn't be actively enforced till it was officially
announced.
> >Some ppl are wanting us to be able to vote yes or no on it but as of now
> >Brad isn't letting us vote
> >
> >**************************
> >Azor
> >Lvl 18 Human Cleric of the Rathe
> >**************************
> >
> >
> >
> >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
> >
> >Announcing the ONElist Hawaiian Sweepstakes!
> >Enter to win a trip for two to Hawaii! Click here:
> ><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/hawaii3 ">Click Here</a>
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Show your ONElist SPIRIT!
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/tshirt2 ">Click Here</a>
> With a new ONElist SHIRT available through our website.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>